Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T16:13:43.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Position of the NSDAP in the German Constitutional Order

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Alfred V. Boerner
Alfred V. Boerner
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Perhaps no country has ever constructed so elaborate and complicated a mechanism for correlating the political and economic requirements of its rulers as has Germany under Hitler. Under no other political system has the organization of all classes been pushed so close to its ultimate limit. Every conceivable aspect of life in the Third Reich has been closely scrutinized for its value to National Socialism and subjected to some form of official control. Because of the continual state of crisis in which the régime finds itself, both at home and abroad, this control has been expanded to an extent undreamed of in pre-Hitler Germany. To make it effective, there has been constructed a labyrinth of bureaus, agencies, and supervisory offices that is confusing and often incomprehensible to the foreign observer.

The task of rationalizing this complex system and justifying the tremendous exercise of authority it requires has been indeed a trying one for the German speculative genius. Seeming contradictions arising from the practical political necessities faced by National Socialism have not made it any easier. For example, the propaganda value of portraying the Third Reich as a bulwark against soviet tyranny has made necessary a complicated explanation of the difference between Russian “regimentation” and German “organization.”

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 32 , Issue 6 , December 1938 , pp. 1059 - 1081
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1938

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A fairly objective description of the events of the first ten months of the Third Reich may be found in Poetzsch-Heffter, Fritz, “Vom Deutschen Staatsleben, vom 30. Januar 1933 bis 31. Dezember 1933,” Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts, Vol. 22 (1935), pp. 2–272Google Scholar. A similar, but less objective, survey carrying developments to September, 1937, is made by Arnold Köttgen in the same journal, Vol. 24 (1937), pp. 1–165.

2 The Ministry of Propaganda was created by decree of March 17, 1933. Reichsgesetzblatt (hereinafter cited RGBl), I, p. 104Google Scholar.

3 Poetzsch-Heffter, op. cit., p. 100. Cf. also Neesse, Gottfried, “Das Verhältnis von Partei und Staat nach fünf Jahren nationalsozialistischer Reichsführung,” Verwaltungsarchiv, Vol. 40 (1938, no. 1), p. 45Google Scholar.

4 Decree of March 22, 1933, RGBl., I, p. 723Google Scholar.

5 Ordinance of March 12, 1933, RGBl., I, p. 133Google Scholar.

6 Hess was appointed Deputy Führer for the party on April 20. The cabinet voted to admit him to its sittings on June 29, 1933. Cf. Völkischer Beobachter, April 21 and June 30, 1933.

7 The “Enabling Act” of March 24, 1933, RGBl., I, p. 141Google Scholar, permitted the cabinet to depart from constitutional forms in enacting legislation. But many of the measures taken by and for the party did not fall under any of the legislation issued.

8 RGBl., I, p. 479Google Scholar.

9 Cf. the decision of the Reichsgericht of Jan. 29, 1937, Deutsche Justiz, Vol. 99 (1937), p. 465Google Scholar.

10 Decision of the Reichsgericht, Jan. 23, 1934, Entscheidungen des Reichsgerichts in Strafsachen (hereinafter cited RG Straf.), Vol. 68 (1934), p. 17Google Scholar.

11 Cf. the decisions of the Reichsgericht of Oct. 18, 1934, Jan. 18, 1935, March 31, 1936, and Jan. 29, 1937, cited in Deutsche Justiz, Vol. 99 (1937), p. 465Google Scholar.

12 Reichsgericht, Oct. 29, 1934, Höchstrichterliche Rechtsprechung, Vol. 11 (1935)Google Scholar, no. 566.

13 On April 24, 1934, Section 87 of the Penal Code was changed to read: “Unternehmen im Sinne des Strafgesetzbuches ist die Vollendung und auch der Versuch.” BGBl., I, p. 341Google Scholar. Section 2 of the “single-party law” begins: “Wer es unternimmt. …”

14 RGBl., I, p. 1061Google Scholar.

15 The concept “corporation of public law” is not altogether free from dispute in the German legal literature. Cf. Jess, Edmund, Die Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts im heutigen Staat (Göttingen, 1935), pp. 3–5Google Scholar;.Jellinek, Walter, Verwaltungsnecht (Berlin, 1928), pp. 161–167Google Scholar, and Rosin, Heinrich, Das Recht der öffentlichen Genossenschaften (Freiburg, 1886)Google Scholar, passim.

16 See, for example, the discussion by Reuss, Hermann in “Partei und Staat,” Beamten-Jahrbuch, Vol. 23 (1936), p. 350Google Scholar.

17 This speech is reprinted in full in Neesse, Gottfried, Die Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (Stuttgart, 1935), pp. 194–197Google Scholar.

18 Cf. du Prel, Freiherr Max, in “Partei und Staat,” Deutsches Recht, Vol. 4 (1934), pp. 429–431Google Scholar, and “Vom Parteienstaat zum Staat der Partei,” Juristische Wochenschrift, Vol. 63 (1934), pp. 2291–2294Google Scholar.

19 Hitler's speech at the 1935 party congress is illuminating in any discussion of the respective competencies of party and state. This is published in the Völkischer Beobachter, Sept. 17, 1935.

20 Ibid.

21 See Neesse, Gottfried, “Die Rechtsnatur der NSDAP,” Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, Vol. 95 (1934–1935), pp. 712–716Google Scholar.

22 Secs. 2 and 3.

23 Cf. the law of July 3, 1934, RGBl., I, p. 529Google Scholar, and the ordinance of July 20, 1934. Verordnungsblatt der Reichsleitung der NSDAP, 1934. Series 77, p. 179Google Scholar.

24 Quoted in Neesse, , “Die Rechtsnatur …,” p. 716Google Scholar.

25 Ibid.

26 Decision of the Reichsarbeitsgericht, July 26, 1934. Juristische Wochenschrift, Vol. 61 (1934), p. 2423Google Scholar.

27 RGBl., I, p. 1269Google Scholar. Cf. also Neesse, op. cit., p. 717.

28 Decree of March 29, 1935. RGBl., I, p. 502Google Scholar.

29 Ibid., Sec. 4.

30 Ibid., Sec. 2.

31 Ibid., Sec. 3.

32 Ordinance of Dec. 5, 1935. RGBl., I, p. 1523Google Scholar.

33 Ibid. Cf. also the ordinance of Jan. 12, 1938. RGBl., I, p. 36Google Scholar. By a decree of April 17, 1937, RGBl., I, p. 529Google Scholar, the German Airsport Club was given some of the privileges of a party division, but was not incorporated into the party.

34 The Reichsleiter are listed in the Nationalsozialistisches Jahrbuch, 1937, p. 148Google Scholar. Cf. also Ley, Robert, Das Organisationsbuch der NSDAP (München, 1938)Google Scholar, passim, for full descriptions of the party organization and of the individual offices.

35 See the ordinance of the Party Treasurer of April 29, 1935, RGBl., I, p. 583Google Scholar, which regulates the financial relations of the party. This was slightly modified by an ordinance of Aug. 31, 1937. RGBl., I, p. 442Google Scholar.

36 All but two are now registered associations. On their legal status, see Haidn, und Fischer, , Das Recht der NSDAP (München, 1937), pp. 75–79Google Scholar, and passim.

37 Cf. NS Jahrbuch, 1937, pp. 165–166Google Scholar, and Organisationsbuch, pp. 185–283.

38 The final settlement of the flag issue was made in the law of Sept. 15, 1935. RGBl., I, p. 1145Google Scholar. The decrees issued under this law are given in Hoche, Werner, Die Gesetzgebung des Kabinetts Hitler, Vol. 15 (1935), pp. 59–63Google Scholar.

39 Sec. 8.

40 RGBl., I, p. 253Google Scholar. Cf. Sec. 7.

41 RGBl., I, p. 1086Google Scholar.

42 Sec. 8 of the ordinance of Nov. 11, 1935. RGBl., I, p. 907Google Scholar.

43 RGBl., I, pp. 39–70Google Scholar. A translation of this act is to be found in Pollock, James K. and Boerner, Alfred V., The German Civil Service Act (Chicago, 1938)Google Scholar.

44 A list of the privileges enjoyed by the party would take up several pages. The most important of them are to be found in the Land and Building Tax Act of April 15, 1935, RGBl., I, p. 508Google Scholar, the decree altering the Court Fees Act of March 27, 1936, RGBl., I, p. 319Google Scholar, and in the various decrees and ordinances reprinted in Haidn und Fischer, pp. 375–496.

45 RGBl., I, p. 1269Google Scholar.

46 Cf. the decision of the Reichsgericht of Jan. 16, 1934, Deutsche Justiz, Vol. 95 (1934), p. 710Google Scholar, in which the term “circulation” as used in the act superseded by the definitive law was construed to apply to a confidential communication.

47 Cf. the law changing the penal code, enacted June 28, 1935. RGBl., I, p. 839Google Scholar.

48 RGBl., I, p. 723Google Scholar.

49 Law of Dec. 20, 1934, Sec. 5, par. 1–3. Cf. also the decisions of the Reichsgericht of April 24, 1934. RG Straf., Vol. 67 (1934), p. 158Google Scholar; of the Oberlandesgericht Dresden, Dec. 20, 1933, Deutsche Justiz, Vol. 96 (1934), p. 358Google Scholar; and of the Bayerisches Oberlandesgericht, cited in Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung, Vol. 39 (1934), p. 1094Google Scholar, no. 186. For a list of the objects and persons covered by the law, see the ordinances published in the RGBl., I, 1935, at pages 70, 204, 276, and 387Google Scholar.

50 Sec. 4 of the law of Dec. 20, 1934.

51 Law of April 7, 1937. RGBl., I, p. 442Google Scholar.

52 Law of Dec. 1, 1936. RGBl., I, p. 994Google Scholar. For the type of information considered confidential, and the party officers empowered to grant permission, see the ordinances of the Deputy Ftihrer of Dec. 2, 1936, RGBl., I, p. 997Google Scholar, and Dec. 1, 1936. Deutsche Justiz, Vol. 98 (1936), p. 1834Google Scholar.

53 Law of Sept. 30, 1936. RGBl., I, p. 853Google Scholar. The rules for the administration of the oath are contained in an ordinance of the Chief Party Judge, published in Der Parteirichter, issue of November 10, 1938. Cf. also the decision of the Reichsgericht of March 14, 1938, RG Straf., Vol. 72 (1938), p. 129Google Scholar.

54 Cf. Neesse, Das Verhältnis von Partei und Staat… p. 45Google Scholar.

55 All but two of the national governors, and all but three of the Oberpräsidenten, are district leaders. Many of the district leaders in Bavaria and Austria (now the Ostmark) have corresponding offices.

56 Neesse, op. cit., p. 45.

57 “Unity law,” Sec. 2.

58 Cf. the article by Walter Sommer (director of the Legal Bureau in the Deputy Führer's Staff), “Partei und Staat,” Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung, Vol. 42 (1936), pp. 593–597Google Scholar.

59 See Hitler's ordinance of April 25, 1934, Völkischer Beobachter, April 28, 1934, and that of April 6, 1935, cited in Haidn und Fischer, p. 59.

60 A list of these can be found in Köttgen, Arnold, “Vom Deutschen Staatsleben …,” Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts, Vol. 24 (1937), p. 61Google Scholar.

61 Ordinances of Jan. 30, 1935, RGBl., I, p. 49Google Scholar; and July 10, 1937, RGBl., I, p. 769Google Scholar.

62 Cf. Muth, Heinrich, “Die rechtliche Stellung des Stellvertreters des Führers,” Deutsches Recht, Vol. 5 (1935), pp. 300–304Google Scholar.

63 Organisationsbuch, p. 152. See also Haidn und Fischer, p. 60.

64 Secs. 6, 33, 41, 50, 51, 54, 117, and 118 of the German Municipal Code of January 30, 1935. RGBl., I, p. 49Google Scholar.

65 See the ordinances of the Deputy Führer concerning the appointment and functions of the Party Representative, consolidated in Nationalsozialistische Gemeinde, No. 20, 1936, p. 642Google Scholar.

66 This position was created by executive order on June 17,1936. RGBl., I, p. 487Google Scholar.

67 For his department he exercises ministerial functions. See the ordinance of the Minister of the Interior of May 29, 1937. Deutsche Justiz, Vol. 99 (1937), p. 836Google Scholar.

68 Cf. the ordinance of Jan. 30, 1937. RGBl., I, p. 187Google Scholar.

69 RGBl., I, p. 993Google Scholar. On the Hitler Youth in general, see Neesse, Gottfried, Die Reichsjugendführung. Die Verwaltungsakademie, Vol. 1, no. 8a (Berlin, 1937)Google Scholar, passim.

70 Cf. Köttgen, , Vom Deutschen Staatsleben …, p. 58Google Scholar.

71 RGBl., I, p. 747Google Scholar. In his final speech at the 1935 party congress, Hitler indicated that this law will continue to apply to any new head of the party. He said: “After the proclamation of the Führer, he is master of the party, head of the Reich, and commander-in-chief of the army.”

72 Decision of June 27, 1936. Reichsverwaltungsblatt, Vol. 57 (1936), p. 862Google Scholar.

73 Arbeitsgericht Bielefeld, reported in the Völkischer Beobachter, Jan. 15, 1936.

74 Decision of the 5th Civil Chamber of the Landgericht München, of Dec. 16, 1935, cited in Haidn und Fischer, p. 70.

75 Arbeitsgericht Gelsenkirchen, Jan. 27, 1937. Deutsche Justiz, Vol. 99 (1937), p. 1471Google Scholar. Kammergericht decision of March 22, 1935, ibid., Vol. 97 (1935), p. 686.

76 Cf. the decisions of the Landgericht Hagen, Oct. 9, 1935, Juristische Wochenschrift, Vol. 64 (1935), p. 3210Google Scholar, and of the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, July 10. 1935, Deutsche Juristen-Zeilung, Vol. 40 (1935), p. 1123Google Scholar.

77 Sondergericht Hannover, Jan. 25, 1934, and Sondergericht Halle, Feb. 20, 1934, reported in Deutsche Justiz, Vol. 96 (1934), p. 452Google Scholar.

78 RG Straf., Vol. 69 (1936), p. 231Google Scholar. In this case, the court held that a party officer could not be held punishable for misuse of a public office. The decision evoked a storm of protest. Cf., for example, Reuss, , “Partei und Staat,” Juristische Wochenschrift, Vol. 64 (1935), pp. 2314–2320Google Scholar.

79 RGBl., I, p. 839Google Scholar. See also Lingg, Anton, “Die rechtliche Stellung der NSDAP,” Deutsches Recht, Vol. 6 (1936), pp. 28–34Google Scholar.

80 Deutsche Justiz, Vol. 99 (1936) p. 356Google Scholar.

81 Deutsches Strafrecht, 1937, p. 106Google Scholar. Cf. also the statement of the Oberlandesgericht Dresden, Oct. 17, 1935: “The NSDAP does not get its powers from the state. The powers, activity, and organization of the NSDAP are of no less a public nature than the powers, activities, and organization of the state departments.” Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung, Vol. 40 (1935), p. 1311Google Scholar.

82 Reichsgericht, decision of June 14, 1937, RG Straf., Vol. 71 (1938), p. 265Google Scholar. But see the decision of the Reichsgericht of Sept. 29, 1936, published in the Juristische Wochenschrift, Vol. 65 (1936), p. 3473Google Scholar, and that of Dec. 8, 1936, RG Straf., Vol. 71 (1938), p. 34Google Scholar.

83 Reichsgericht, decisions of May 28, 1937, and July 16, 1937, RG Straf., Vol. 71 (1938), pp. 223, 288Google Scholar. See also the decision of the Oberlandesgericht Breslau, March 7, 1936, Deutsche Justiz, Vol. 98 (1936), p. 1269Google Scholar.

84 Reichsgericht, May 7, 1936, RG Straf., Vol. 70 (1937), p. 210Google Scholar.

85 Reichsgericht, Oct. 17, 1935, RG Straf., Vol. 69 (1936), p. 357Google Scholar.

86 Reichsgericht, decisions of Dec. 1, 1936, Höchstrichterliche Rechtsprechung, Vol. 13 (1937)Google Scholar, no. 421, Dec. 9, 1936, and March 9, 1937. Deutsche Justiz, 1937, pp. 356, 666Google Scholar.

87 Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe, Oct. 9, 1935, Juristische Wochenschrift, Vol. 64 (1935), p. 3400Google Scholar.

88 Decision of March 25, 1936. Ibid., Vol. 66 (1937), p. 241.

89 See discussion of the party's responsibility in civil law in Haidn und Fischer, pp. 83–91.

90 Der Neubau des Dritten Reiches (Berlin, 1935), p. 13Google Scholar.

91 See, for example, his speech at the 1936 Juristentag, published in Deutscher Juristentag, 1936, pp. 262–282Google Scholar.

92 Decree of October 18, 1936. RGBl., I, p. 887Google Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.