Treachery Act

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Basic data
Title: Law against insidious attacks on the state and the party and for the protection of party uniforms
Short title: Treachery law (not official)
Type: Imperial Law
Scope: German Empire
Legal matter: Criminal law
Issued on: December 20, 1934
( RGBl. I p. 1269)
Entry into force on: December 29, 1934
Expiry: September 20, 1945 ( Control Council Act No. 1 Art. I No. 1 lit. h)
Weblink: Text of the law
Please note the note on the applicable legal version.

The law against insidious attacks on the state and the party and for the protection of party uniforms of December 20, 1934, known as the Dirty Act , made the improper use of badges and party uniforms a criminal offense. In addition, it restricted the right to freedom of expression and criminalized all critical statements that allegedly harmed the welfare of the Reich, the reputation of the Reich government or the NSDAP .

The law fell back on almost identical provisions contained in the " Ordinance of the Reich President to ward off insidious attacks against the government of the national insurrection" of March 21, 1933, but expanded the scope of punishment. The criminal liability of value judgments (§ 2), which is decisive for the significance of the Heimtückegesetz, is not yet to be found in the regulation of 1933, which was only directed against untrue or grossly distorted assertions of a factual nature.

Ordinance of 1933

After fierce accusations, State Secretary Franz Schlegelberger promised in March 1933 that the judiciary would "most energetically support the current government of the national insurrection [...]". He presented the draft of an “Ordinance to Avoid Insidious Discrediting of the National Government”, which was adopted by the cabinet on March 21, 1933, the day of Potsdam , with a different title , and was also signed by President Paul von Hindenburg . On the same day, with another ordinance, special courts were set up that were supposed to be responsible for sentencing.

"On the basis of Article 48, Paragraph 2 of the Imperial Constitution, the following is decreed:

§ 1

(1) Anyone who has a uniform of an association that is behind the government of the national insurrection in possession, without being a member of the association or otherwise authorized, is punished with imprisonment for up to two years. (2) Anyone who wears the uniform or a membership badge of an association of the type specified in Paragraph 1 without being a member of the association is punished with imprisonment for not less than one month.

§ 2

(1) Anyone who commits or threatens a criminal offense against persons or property and in doing so, without being a member of the association, wears or carries the uniform or a membership badge of an association of the type specified in Section 1 (1) punished with prison, in extenuating circumstances with imprisonment not less than six months. (2) If the offense is committed with the intention of causing a riot or to arouse fear or horror in the population or to cause foreign policy difficulties for the German Reich, the punishment is not less than three years in prison or life in prison. In particularly serious cases, the death penalty can be recognized. (3) According to these regulations, a German can also be prosecuted if he has committed the act abroad.

§ 3

(1) Anyone who deliberately makes or disseminates an untrue or grossly distorted assertion of a factual nature that is capable of seriously damaging the welfare of the Reich or a country or the reputation of the Reich government or a state government or the parties or associations behind these governments Unless a heavy sentence is threatened in other regulations, punished with imprisonment for up to two years and, if he publicly makes or disseminates the allegation, with imprisonment for not less than three months. (2) If the act caused severe damage to the Reich or a country, imprisonment can be recognized. (3) Anyone who commits the act with gross negligence will be punished with imprisonment for up to three months or with a fine.

§ 4

Anyone who has obtained membership of an association is deemed to be a non-member for the purposes of this regulation.

§ 5

This ordinance comes into force on the day following the announcement.

Berlin, March 21, 1933. "

Law of 1934

On December 20, 1934, the ordinance was transformed into the "Law against insidious attacks on state and party and for the protection of party uniforms".

content

First, the order of the provisions was changed, with the paragraphs directed against the misuse of party uniforms and badges being pushed back. The number of proceedings initiated because of this remained insignificant at just under five percent. In the renewed § 3, however, the stricter threat of penitentiary penalties or even the death penalty was retained if the perpetrator disguised as a National Socialist had the intention of “causing an uproar or fear or terror in the population, or causing foreign policy difficulties for the German Reich ".

The provision of Section 3 of the Ordinance was adopted almost word for word as Section 1 of the Act. According to this, anyone who “deliberately makes or disseminates an untrue or grossly distorted statement of a factual nature ...” was punished . Grossly negligent acts were also punishable. A sentence of up to two years in prison was set as the sentence.

A new section was added, with which, in addition to allegations of fact , expressed value judgments could be punished: “Anyone who publicly hateful, inflammatory or low-minded statements about leading personalities of the state or the NSDAP, about their orders or the institutions they created makes ... " is punished with imprisonment for an indefinite period. Statements were also considered "public" if the perpetrator "must expect that the statement will reach the public."

For criminal prosecution, the consent of the deputy of the " Führer " - in fact his department staff of the deputy of the Führer - or the Reich Ministry of Justice was required . This made political control possible.

Background and legal assessment

The official justification for the addition of Section 2 was that, if it was restricted to factual assertions, "inflammatory statements about leading personalities ... about their orders and the institutions they created remained unpunished" or could only be punished for insulting . In addition, however, an undesirable discussion about the veracity of an assertion could now also be avoided.

The indefinite legal terms made it possible to punish almost any critical expression. The jurisdiction of special courts reduced the defendant's protective rights: A preliminary judicial investigation and detention check was not carried out, the summons was only three days and a judgment became legally binding immediately.

By constructing a “substitute public”, criticism could only be expressed within intact families, because “in the event of a broken marriage, the perpetrator [...] must expect that his wife will not keep the statement for herself.”

impact

Even if only a certain part of the population participated through denunciation , the desired deterrent effect and safeguarding of the system of rule was achieved. According to overall statistics obtained for 1937, within twelve months 17,168 people were reported because of their statements, over 7,000 were indicted and around 3,500 were convicted.

Excessive harshness was not required to silence the critics. The majority of those reported were therefore spared formal criminal proceedings. They got away with warnings or “ bans on speaking and staying”, which in some cases were only issued by the Gestapo after up to 21 days of protective custody . Even suspects who had been denounced for a hefty political joke were usually spared formal prison sentences as first-time offenders.

In the pre-war period, people often resorted to Section 360 of the Criminal Code and only sanctioned statements as “grossly improper behavior” with fines or a small sentence. Later some proceedings were put down on orders from the Ministry of Justice or the party chancellery because statements about euthanasia , the persecution of the Jews or Stalingrad were not to be discussed. At the beginning of the war , individual judges described the imposition of prison sentences under the Malicious Act as an unsuitable means: A prison sentence could "possibly be an 'incentive' to evade military service by grumbling."

Judgments with the death penalty, which were possible in accordance with Section 3 (2) of the Dodge Act, are not contained in the incomplete records of the special courts. Special courts in occupied Poland imposed some death sentences by linking them to the People's Pest Ordinance . From 1943 onwards, many critical expressions of opinion were no longer prosecuted according to the Malicious Act, but more often interpreted by the People's Court as undermining military strength and punished with the death penalty.

reviews

Not only opponents of the Nazi regime, but also National Socialists and followers were induced to be cautious about critical statements. Fear of the Gestapo, pre-trial and criminal detention and loss of existence were omnipresent.

According to the contemporary historian Bernward Dörner , the treachery law was “a necessary, indispensable part of the National Socialist dictatorship.” The legal journalist Hans Wüllenweber describes the law, which can be stretched and bent at will, as “ conviction terror ”.

After the war

The "Treachery Act" was repealed by Act No. 1 of the Allied Control Council of September 20, 1945.

In the early years after the war, informers and Gestapo officials who had interrogated and initiated criminal prosecutions were often brought to justice. Most of the judges and prosecutors remained unpunished. The victims of the Treachery Act were mostly denied compensation because they could not prove that their statement revealed a "really well-founded, clear political attitude" and conviction.

literature

  • Bernward Dörner : "Heimtücke" - The law as a weapon. Paderborn 1998, ISBN 3-506-77509-X .
  • Gunther Schmitz: Against the "bad guys", "complainers" and "criticism". In: Hamburg Justice Authority (ed.): "For leaders, people and fatherland ..." . Hamburg 1992, ISBN 3-87916-016-3 .
  • Gerhard Werle : Judicial criminal law and police fight against crime in the Third Reich. 1989 (habilitation), a. a. Pp. 137-141.

Web links

Wikisource: Heimtückegesetz  - Sources and full texts

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ RGBl. 1934 I, p. 1269 f.
  2. ^ Ordinance of the Reich President to ward off insidious attacks against the government of the national insurrection of March 21, 1933, RGBl. I, p. 135. documentarchiv.de, accessed on October 10, 2019.
  3. ↑ Bernward Dörner: "Heimtücke:" The law as a weapon. Paderborn 1998, ISBN 3-506-77509-X , p. 18.
  4. ^ Ordinance of the Reich President on the defense against insidious attacks against the government of the national insurrection of March 21, 1933
  5. ↑ Bernward Dörner: "Heimtücke", p. 67.
  6. ↑ Bernward Dörner: "Heimtücke", p. 21.
  7. ↑ Bernward Dörner: "Heimtücke", p. 31.
  8. ↑ Thomas Mang: "Gestapo-Leitstelle Wien, my name is Huber" , Lit Verlag, Berlin / Hamburg / Münster 2004, ISBN 3-825-87258-0 , p. 49 .
  9. ↑ Bernward Dörner: "Heimtücke", p. 9/10, further information p. 324.
  10. ^ Bernward Dörner: "Heimtücke", p. 275.
  11. ↑ Meike Wöhlert: The political joke in the Nazi era using the example of selected SD reports and Gestapo files. Frankfurt a. M. 1997, ISBN 3-631-30779-9 , p. 96.
  12. ↑ Gunther Schmitz: Against the "bad guys", "complainers" and "criticism" . In: Hamburg Justice Authority (ed.): "For leaders, people and fatherland ..." , Hamburg 1992, p. 294.
  13. ↑ Bernward Dörner: "Heimtücke", p. 151 u. a.
  14. ↑ Reports from the Reich ed. by Heinz Boberach, Vol. 2, Herrsching 1984, ISBN 3-88199-158-1 , p. 912/913 (March 15, 1940).
  15. ↑ An example from Dietrich Güstrow: Deadly everyday life. dtv 10308, Munich 1984, ISBN 3-423-10303-5 , p. 116.
  16. ↑ Bernward Dörner: "Heimtücke", p. 313.
  17. ↑ Hans Wüllenweber: Special Courts in the Third Reich. Frankfurt a. M. 1990, ISBN 3-630-61909-6 , p. 34.
  18. ↑ Bernward Dörner: "Heimtücke", p. 327.
  19. ^ Quote from a judgment from 1950 / Bernward Dörner: Heimtücke , 343.