The Mixed Marriage - A Guarantee of Survival or a Reflection of German Society? (Part B)
Source: Beate Meyer , International conference: German Society's Responses to Nazi Anti-Jewish Policy 1933-1941, Yad Vashem, 10-13 February 1995.
In Hamburg and elsewhere 38 , however, the Gestapo adopted a less dramatic approach that could be adapted to each individual case. The men were sometimes required to report to the Gestapo, while others were picked up less conspicuously. The action stretched over a period of some days and primarily affected men who had formerly been self-employed and who were fairly well known but not linked with influential groups. According to reports made by the wives and children, the women in Hamburg tried everything to get their husbands released, but their attempts were unsuccessful. There were not enough of them, they were not united and they let themselves be intimidated. Your husband is being sent to Auschwitz, just pretend that you haven't got a husband any more,' was the reply that one wife was given by the man responsible when she asked for help. He advised another woman not to bother any more because her husband was not going to come back - nobody ever returned from Auschwitz. He had already made the note "Auschwitz" on his file cards 39 . The people arrested were taken to Hamburg's police prison in late March 1943, and around the end of April or beginning of May 1943 40 were sent to Auschwitz where they were murdered 41 . For the Gestapo the action was a double success: those people who until then had been protected were seized for the first time, and it intimidated those mixed-marriage families that had not been affected by the arrests.
If Jewish husbands had been interned, extra pressure was put on the wives to obtain a divorce. In certain cases the Gestapo fixed a deportation date irrespective of the divorce plans 42 . The ΓÇ£legal positionΓÇ¥ was that deportation had precedence over a prison sentence or custody, with the result that the prisoners were transferred to Auschwitz 43 . This increased the pressure on the wives to file petitions for divorce. In many cases they were also persuaded by relatives who were anxious about their own careers, privileges or political ambitions.
The housing policy of the Nazis constituted an additional form of pressure on mixed marriages. By mid-April 1942, not only Jewish married couples but also couples living in "non-privileged" mixed marriages had been assigned to Judenhaeuser . This also applied to ΓÇ£AryanΓÇ¥ wives who now found themselves in cramped quarters in blocks marked with the Star of David 44 . The housing situation deteriorated even further following the air raids on Hamburg in the summer of 1943, when the Gestapo demanded that more houses be vacated. The RVJD , which was responsible for carrying out these orders, sent notices to those homes that had been rented by Jewish husbands. As regards those mixed-marriage families whose houses had been bombed, the RVJD found them accommodation with other mixed-marriage families 45 , where families were segregated according to the sex of the Jewish partner. This meant that the rooms in which those families with Jewish husbands lived became overcrowded - and what was more, they could be given notice to vacate their accommodation by the Amt fuer Raumbewirtschaft (administration of living space), or on the Gestapo's orders at any time. This was much more difficult if the rooms in which the mixed-marriage family lived were rented by or belonged to a "German-blooded" man. The situation did not deteriorate further until October 1944 when the "German-blooded" husbands also had to do forced labour.
Every new measure against the Jewish population - and even more so, every arrest - confronted the "German-blooded" wife once more with the question whether or not she should accept the ΓÇ£offerΓÇ¥ of a divorce with all its privileges of a ΓÇ£member of the German peopleΓÇ¥ with full rights or continue to bear the growing repression. Taking one Hamburg family as an example, Ursula Buettner describes vividly the difficult conditions under which most of these marriages were kept intact 46 .
My article sets out to examine the minority of mixed marriages that broke up because of external pressure and internal disintegration. To this end, 130 decisions on divorces made by the Hamburg District Court from 1937 to 1945 were analysed 47 . Most researchers have estimated the divorce rate among mixed marriages to be at a level of 7-10 percent, 48 these divorces were not categorised according to sex 49 . However, this estimate takes into account only those divorce proceedings that began in late 1941 and were completed in 1942. More than one-third of the court decisions made in Hamburg are dated between 1942 and 1945. In my opinion, the estimated number of divorces involving mixed marriages should be revised upwards to over 20 percent 50 .
From a National Socialist viewpoint, a married couples' first duty was to serve the ΓÇ£national communityΓÇ¥ and secure its continued existence with respect to "purity of blood" and race 51 . This was contained in the new Marriage Law of 6 July 1938, although some concessions were made to those conservatives who still believed in the indissoluble bond of matrimony and privacy of married life. National Socialist judges had already created a new situation de facto by reinterpreting existing laws in the years between 1933 and 1938. They had defined the belonging to the Jewish race as a personal characteristic the effect or significance of which would be explained to Germans when the National Socialists seized power 52 . Those who had been ΓÇ£enlightenedΓÇ¥ in this way should be entitled to demand an annulment within a certain period. This interpretation of the law produced a new legal reality that was incorporated in the Marriage Law of 6 July 1938. At the same time as this radicalisation de facto was taking place, the members of the Academy for German Law, were working on fundamental changes in the German legal system. The main issue was the introduction of the principle of irretrievable breakdown, which was to replace the question of culpability. The hard-line racists defined marriage as a long-term relationship between two persons who are of healthy blood, of the same race and of opposite sex, for the purpose of preserving and promoting the common good ... and for the purpose of procreating racially equal children of healthy blood and for the purpose of rearing them to be diligent Volksgenossen .' 53 In the case of a childless marriage, the couple should obtain a divorce in order to enter into another marriage for the purpose of having children. In reality though, after protracted discussions the final law was a middle-of-the-road compromise in accordance with Hitler's own wishes. The new Marriage Law combined the principle of irretrievable breakdown with the question of culpability. That is, in cases of adultery, refusal to procreate, and other serious marital offences, the question of culpability still applied. One of the new provisions was the "dissolution of the household" on the grounds of an irretrievable breakdown, which was possible after three years of separation. These rules applied to all couples seeking divorce. In addition, the government created another possibility for couples in mixed marriages to annul the mixed marriage - and by doing so, the judges continued their application of the principle that the non-Jewish spouse was not enlightened on the effects of the ΓÇ£racial difference.ΓÇ¥ Those "German-blooded" partners who wanted a divorce (primarily non-Jewish wives), could now have their marriages annulled on "racial grounds" without having to prove the pa's neglect of marital duties or a breakdown of the marriage. The period within which they could file for annulment was one year; in other words, it would have expired in 1939. The judges, however, always found new reasons in the subsequent years for extending the period. They accepted that the non-Jewish partner had not understood the consequences of the ΓÇ£difference in racesΓÇ¥ until the arrests of Kristallnacht , the compulsory wearing of the yellow badge, or the commencementof deportations - even if they did not apply to mixed marriages. Finally, even the United StatesΓÇ¥ entry into the war was supposed to have made the effects clear to the "German-blooded" partner.
The judges standardised the ruling on marriage annulments at a steering committee meeting in 1942. They decided, contrary to the wording of the law, that the petition for annulment of a marriage could be filed after each drastic measure taken against the Jewish population. Moreover, they ruled that a divorced Jewish woman had no right to alimony 54 . Of the 130 judgements passed, 29 were marriage annulments. The highest annual figure was reached in 1943 with 17 petitions for annulment. Most of the petitions were against Jewish men who had been interned for breaking one (or several), of the anti-Jewish regulations. The grounds for having a marriage annulled were generally insubstantial; for example, the "German-blooded" wife had only just become aware of the "difference in races," or, it had been impossible to predict the state's current attitude towards Jews. It is hardly possible to find any differences in the 1943 petitions between the sexes. It was more urgent for the petitioners and the judges that the divorce be granted as quickly as possible. After 1943, the decisions made were fairly arbitrary. While some judges tried to maintain the level of radicalness that had been reached, others saw that the war was being lost and they returned to former procedures. This lack of uniformity is illustrated by the following two examples of annulment proceedings initiated by "German-blooded" husbands:
A sergeant 55 stationed in Cholm-Lublin wished to have his marriage to his Jewish wife annulled on the grounds that: He had already been obliged to resign his position as a political leader [of the NSDAP, B.M.] because of his wife's race. Now, in the war, he had witnessed how his comrades had been brutally murdered by Jews while he himself had only been lightly wounded. These experiences had made it clear to him that he could not continue his marriage with her.' 56 It was certainly not true that Jews murdered German soldiers in the area around Lublin. It is however true that precisely in this area, which was originally planned as an enormous ghetto for Jews, the SS and the Wehrmacht had over the years massacred thousands of Jewish inhabitants and slave labourers who had been transported there. Mass shootings, gassings in wagons, and finally mass deportation to Sobibor and Treblinka were features of everyday life there during this war of extermination 57 . The soldier was a confirmed National Socialist and the reason for his divorce could have been that since he knew about the murder of the Jews he could no longer bear being married to a member of this group. The sight of this person would remind him every day of his terrible guilt. After his annulment, he refused to pay his wife any alimony whatsoever. She became chronically ill and had to be put in a nursing home. What followed was a bitter dispute between the social welfare office and the RVJD about who should pay for her care since nobody felt responsible for her 58 . Another "German-blooded" husband, perhaps encouraged by the court rulings, filed a petition for annulment or divorce on the grounds of an irretrievable breakdown. He had already been dismissed by the postal service in 1937 and discharged by the Wehrmacht in 1943 on account of his marriage. He wanted to sue for divorce on the grounds of "racial difference,ΓÇ¥ but lost his suit! The judge was of the opinion that the time limit for contesting the validity of his marriage had expired; moreover, he had long since experienced the disadvantages of having a Jewish wife. He had not produced evidence that his wife had committed a matrimonial offence; on the contrary, it was likely that he wanted to marry another woman.
The majority of mixed marriages were, however, not annulled as the hard-line racists would have liked; rather, divorces were obtained on the grounds of serious matrimonial offences. That applied to both "privileged" and "non-privileged" marriages 59 . There were also ΓÇ£normalΓÇ¥ divorces; some were obviously conjoint, while other couples continued their marital quarrels in the court. In these cases (as with other divorces), the judges based their decisions in the first place on whether and which gender-specific, marital duties had been violated. Couples in which both partners wanted a divorce often used the argument that the "German-blooded" partner had refused to have sexual intercourse because of rassischer Abneigung (racial aversion) 60 . Such behaviour was evidence of the ΓÇ£racial awarenessΓÇ¥ desired by those in power, and the judges could therefore regard this as a violation of marital duties.
Another example of the violation of marital duty was given by a Jewish husband, who stated that his wife's "completely uneconomic behaviour" and her personal insults such as "dirty old Jew" had wrecked the marriage 61 . The court regarded this behaviour as a clear violation of the duties of a wife and found the woman guilty. In the pre-war period, the judges still had a definitive picture of exactly what constituted matrimonial offence and required proof of such offences. Nevertheless, the kind of offences showed that the discrimination against the Jews had long become a part of the marriage partnership. By the time war broke out, Jewish partners had also started filing petitions for divorce if they could no longer endure everyday married life. They did not at that time have to weigh the strain of being married against the fear of being deported.
These court decisions were still influenced by efforts to give the impression of gender-specific criteria and persecution measures. From 1939 more and more anti-Jewish measures were imposed, and the Jews themselves were blamed for being hit by such measures and for their marriage coming to an end. Examples of this are given below:
Among the men with previous convictions arrested in the Juni-Aktion in 1938 62 there were also Jews who lived in mixed marriages. Some of their wives filed petitions for divorce. The arrests were adjudged to be due to destruction of the marriage by the arrested husbands. 63 If a Jewish husband lost his job, he was blamed for the divorce for failing to fulfil his duty of supporting his wife. 64 If Jewish husbands were arrested and interned for breaking anti-Jewish regulations, the civil court ruled that: The defendant made himself guilty of dishonourable conduct by an act against the State which he has already confessed to. His conduct has irreparably destroyed his marriage.' 65 In another case the court went even further and surmised that, owing to the husband's "bad conduct," he would most likely be taken directly from the police prison to a concentration camp and that would mean the end of his marriage anyway. 66 Gender-specific grounds disappeared gradually from the court rulings. The administering of justice shifted from a chaotic juxtaposition of the most varied criteria to a divorce procedure that as a matter of principle assumed that the Jewish partner was to blame. This process virtually ended in 1942. Thereafter, there were at best ΓÇ£non-politicalΓÇ¥ decisions if the couple had been separated for at least three years or if there were elements of an offence, for example if adultery could be proved.
Adultery remained grounds for divorce in both the old and the new marriage law. The facts were obvious since the injured party filed a petition for divorce. Whereas "harmless" adultery resulted in criminal proceedings, it was essential that Rassenschande had not been committed, because the Nuremberg Lawshad made extramarital sexual intercourse between Jews and Deutschbluetige an offence requiring public prosecution. This accounts for the judgements following Rassenschande -proceedings among decisions relating to divorce case 67 . However, in other cases, wives denounced their Jewish husbands so that it would be easier for them to obtain a divorce 68 . While the district court still regarded such legal proceedings as a breach of marital fidelity, the higher regional court prthe Volksgenossin for having acted (albeit unintentionally), in the interests of the public 69 .
In addition, the Marriage Law of 6 July 1938, as already mentioned, made it possible for a couple to obtain a divorce without any question of culpability after being separated for three years. Some couples obviously saw this as an opportunity to obtain a divorce on the grounds of mutual consent. In the pre-war period, mixed-marriage couples who had been living apart for several years also availed themselves of this law. Nevertheless, the separation was often the result of persecution. For example, the wife of a Jewish man had refused him access to their home after he had been released from a concentration camp in 1938. In 1942 he received his deportation orders as a person from a "non-privileged" mixed marriage who had separated from his wife. His wife seized this opportunity to file her petition for divorce. Apparently he asked his wife to delay her petition in order to defer his deportation. When his wife turned down his request he refused to consent to a divorce. But the court dismissed his interventions since the respondent is a Volljude and therefore a member of a race that belongs to the sworn enemies of the new Germany and now fights on the side of our foes.' 70 After her husband had been released from the concentration camp, the woman could not have been expected to live like husband and wife again just because the respondent is Jewish.' 71 The court made short work of it (so as not to delay the impending deportation), and granted the divorce on the grounds of a separation lasting several years.
References:
38.Ibid ., p. 317. Gruner refers to arrests at work and following a summons from the Gestapo in Berlin, Breslau and Dresden. Dipper refers to simultaneous arrests in Darmstadt, which did not lead to a public protest either (see Dipper, ΓÇ£Schwierigkeiten, ΓÇ£ p. 411). The authorities carried out the arrests of 12 Jewish husbands in "privileged" mixed marriages during the period March to May 1943. The person responsible was supposed to have received the information from his superiors that, according to a new directive against Jewish partners in mixed marriages, unlimited internment could be applied for. He was sentenced after the war, just like the person responsible in Hamburg. See Urteil 2a Ks 1/49, appearing in Irene Sage-Grande et al., eds, Justiz und NS-Verbrechen. Sammlung deutscher Strafurteile wegen nationalsozialistischer Toetungsverbrechen 1945-1966 , Amsterdam, 1981, vol. 22, pp. 658-682.
39.Fst, Sign. 12 S, Urteil des Landgerichts Hamburg (50), 35/50 14 Ks 56/50, pp. 8-11.
40.Fst, Sign. 35363, Zu- u. Abgangslisten des KL Fuhlsbuettel, 31. December 1942 to 8 May 1943.
41.Only one prisoner was able to escape since he was working outside.
42.For example, the court decisions 5 U 82/1942, 3 b R 234/1941, p. 5f can be found in the archives of the Hamburg District Court (ALH).
43.Jews who were to be "evacuated" (deported), were to have the execution of their sentence suspended, and if they were in custody they were not to be charged, except if the death penalty was expected. BA, Reichsjustizministerium 1238, Letter of the Minister of Justice to the Attorney General, a.o., 16 April 1942.
44.StaHH, Juedische Gemeinden, Rutschbahn 25, UA 27-45.
45.StaHH, Juedische Gemeinden, Abl. 1993, Ordner 26, Max Plaut, report of the discussion, 4 October 1943.
46.Buettner, Not .
47.The 130 decisions analysed here were random samples and were found with the help of index entries in the archives of the Hamburg District Court (ALH),; they are however not identical to the unknown number of mixed marriages in Hamburg that ended either in divorce or annulment.
48.Buettner refers to 7.2% (97), mixed marriages that were divorced in Baden-Wuerttemberg and 9.9% (123), in Hamburg. See Buettner, Not , p. 298.
49.The general divorce rate in Germany in 1939 was 38.3 (per 10,000 marriages), which dropped to 30 per 10,000 marriages in 1940. See Dirk Blasius, Ehescheidung in Deutschland , Goettingen, 1987, p. 211. The divorce rate for mixed marriages was at a similar level per 1,000 marriages (see Table 1).
50.Unfortunately, since figures from Berlin, Breslau or Frankfurt do not exist, we cannot compare the divorce rate.
51.Gabriele Czarnowski, "Der Wert der Ehe fuer die Volksgemeinschaft. Frauen und Maenner in der nationalsozialistischen Ehepolitik,ΓÇ¥ in Zwischen Karriere und Verfolgung. Handlungsraeume von Frauen im nationalsozialistischen Deutschland , Kirsten Heinsohn et al., eds., Frankfurt am Main, 1997, pp. 78-95.
52.Hans Wrobel, ΓÇ£Die Anfechtung der Rassenmischehe, Kritische Justiz, 16 (1983), pp. 354ff. Ingo Mueller also provides a general overview, Furchtbare Juristen , Munich, 1987, pp. 97-105. Marius Hetzel, Die Rolle der Ziviljustiz bei der Umsetzung der Rassenmischehe',ΓÇ¥ Tuebingen, 1997.
53.Friedrich Moessmer, chairman of the committee, quoted according to Blasius, Ehescheidung , p. 195.
54.Minutes from a meeting of the judges' steering committee of the Hamburg District Court on 20 May 1942 appearing in: Helge Grabitz, ΓÇ£In vorauseilendem Gehorsam ... Die Hamburger Justiz im Fuehrer-Staat',ΓÇ¥ in: "Fuer Fuehrer Volk und Vaterland... .ΓÇ¥ Hamburger Justiz im Nationalsozialismus , Justizbehoerde Hamburg, ed., p. 57f. Hamburg's district court judges also reached similar conclusions on 16 June 1942, see Reginald A. Puerschel, ΓÇ£Truegerische Normalitaet. Die Rechtsprechung in Ehe- und Familiensachen der Landgerichte Hamburg und Altona,ΓÇ¥ ibid ., p. 413.
55.The petitioner had in the meantime reached the rank of Feldwebel , which was the highest army rank open to " juedisch Versippte " (someone related to a Jew by marriage). See order of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW), from 20 January 1940, in Die Sondereinheiten in der frueheren deutschen Wehrmacht , bearbeitet im Personenstandsarchiv II des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (22c), Kornelimuenster from 14 October 1952, p. 49.
56.ALH, 8 R 54/44.
57.Dieter Pohl, Von der ΓÇ£JudenpolitikΓÇ£ zum Judenmord: der Distrikt Lublin des Generalgouvernements 1939-1944 , Frankfurt am Main, 1993.
58.StaHH, Juedische Gemeinden, Abl. 1993, Ordner 12, correspondence between the lawyer Dr. Haas and RVJD (Heinemann), 12 June 1944, 14 and 24 July 1944.
59.Fifty nine marriages with offspring and 56 childless marriages were annulled or ended in divorce; in 15 other divorces it was not discernible whether or not children were involved. Since as a rule marriages with offspring were "privileged," the divorce rate for the two categories should be nearly the same.
60.ALH, 4 R 260/37.
61.ALH, 6 R 185/37.
62.Wolfgang Ayass, "Ein Gebot der nationalen Arbeitsdisziplin.ΓÇ¥ Die Aktion "Arbeitsscheu Reich" 1938, Beitraege zur nationalsozialistischen Gesundheits- und Sozialpolitik no. 6, Feinderklaerung und Praevention , Berlin, 1988, p. 59.
63.ALH, 7 R 40/39, 5b R 41/40, 7 R 40/39, 3 R 94/39, 5b R 41/40.
64.ALH, 4 R 28/42.
65.ALH, 8 R 462/42.
66.ALH, 2 R 382/42.
67.Hans Robinsohn, Justiz als politische Verfolgung. Die Rechtsprechung in "Rasseschandefaellen" beim Landgericht Hamburg 1936-1943 , Stuttgart, 1977. Robinsohn calculated that Hamburg (in comparison with Frankfurt and Cologne), had the highest persecution coefficients and concluded that "Hamburg had by far the most severe practice of persecution" (p. 21).
