Test Bank for Adolescence 17th Edition By Santrock

Test Bank for Adolescence 17th Edition By Santrock

Download full chapter at: https://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-adolescence-17th-

edition-by-santrock/

Chapter 01 Introduction
Student: ___________________________________________________________________________

1.
According to Plato, reasoning first appears during

A.
early childhood.

B.
middle childhood.

C.
adolescence.

D.
young adulthood.

2.
Plato thought children should study

A.
science.

B.
music.

C.
art.

D.
mathematics.

Visit TestBankBell.com to get complete for all chapters

3.
Plato thought that adolescents should study

A.
science.

B.
language.

C.
music.

D.
history.

4.
Which ability did Aristotle argue is the most important aspect of adolescence?

A.
the ability to reason

B.
the ability to think critically

C.
the ability to debate

D.
the ability to choose
5.
What did Aristotle see as the hallmark of maturity?

A.
self-determination

B.
empathy

C.
self-efficacy

D.
critical thinking

6.
Rousseau believed that curiosity should be especially encouraged in the education of

A.
6- to 8-year-old children.

B.
8- to 11-year-old children.

C.
12- to 15-year-old children.

D.
17- to 19-year-old children.
 Another random document
un-related content on Scribd:
6 and 7 of the draft, the ordinance can be dispensed with. As regards article
7 of the draft, Under Secretary Klopfer took my point of view that the
possibility must be considered of directing the heritage of deceased Jews
either in part or in its totality to their non-Jewish relatives.
The Reich Minister, to whom I reported on 6 April, is of the opinion that
we should decline as far as possible from a settlement of the matter by an
ordinance.
In order to help on the affair I came to an agreement with Under
Secretary Klopfer and suggested to Under Secretary Stuckart that the
question of the further consideration of the draft should be raised at a
discussion in which, in addition to myself and him, Under Secretary
Klopfer and Under Secretary Rothenberger and the Chief of the Security
Police Kaltenbrunner should take part. Under Secretary Stuckart agreed to
this and suggested that the conference should take place on Wednesday, 14
April, 11 o’clock.
2. RKabR. Dr. Ficker with the request for his consideration.
3. Resubmit 14 April (in Berlin).
[Initial] F [Ficker]
8 April
[Initial] K [Kritzinger]
344549

12. Note of the Reich Chancellery, 21 April 1943

Reich Chancellery 4611 E

for files Rk. 4748 E
[Handwritten] 1508/12
Berlin, 21 April 1943
1. N —The Under Secretary conference, suggested by us, about the
draft on a decree concerning the limitation of the legal right of Jews, which
was at that time completed in the Reich Ministry of the Interior took place
today at the office of Under Secretary Stuckart. Under Secretary
Rothenberger, Under Secretary Klopfer, SS Gruppenfuehrer Kaltenbrunner,
and I were present as well as Under Secretary Stuckart.
The discussion showed that only articles 6 and 7 of the provisions of the
draft of the order are considered necessary in which connection article 7 is
to be supplemented by a regulation which makes possible, in the case of a
confiscation of property, a settlement in favor of non-Jewish heirs and legal
dependents.
It was furthermore considered suitable to have the regulation issued as a
supplementary ordinance to the Reich citizens’ law.
The regulation accordingly would approximately take the form as shown
in appendix II.
[Enclosure] Appendix II.
2. To the Reich Minister with request for consideration.
[Initial] L [Lammers] 28 April
3. RK ab R. Dr. Ficker, respectfully.
[Initial] K [Kritzinger]
Justice 1
s.Rk 5761
344550

13. Draft of a decree concerning the Reich Citizenship Law, enclosed with the note of the Reich
Chancellery of 21 April 1943

[Handwritten] Supplement to the Reich Citizenship Law and Appendix II

Decree Concerning the Limitation of the Legal Rights of the Jews

[Handwritten] 1508/13 dated................1943

(Abbreviated Form)

Article 1
1. Punishable offenses of Jews will be punished by the police.
 2. The decree concerning the administration of penal justice against
Poles and Jews of 4 December 1941 (Reich Legal Gazette I, p. 759) no
longer applies to Jews.

Article 2
On the death of a Jew, his property is forfeited to the Reich.
[Handwritten] Hardship clause in favor of non-Jewish heirs and legal
dependents.

Article 4
The Reich Minister of the Interior, in agreement with the top Reich
authorities concerned, issues the legal and administrative regulations which
are necessary for the execution and supplementing of this ordinance. In this
case he determines how far this order applies to Jews of foreign nationality.

Article 5
This ordinance will come into force on the seventh day after its
promulgation. It will also apply to the Incorporated Eastern Territories. In
the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia it will apply to the sphere of
German administration and German jurisdiction.
Article 2 also applies to Jews who are subjects of the Protectorate.

Berlin,............1943 344551
The President of the Ministerial Council
for the Defense of the Reich
The Plenipotentiary General for the
Reich Administration
The Reich Minister and Chief of
the Reich Chancellery

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-1656

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 535
 DRAFT OF PROPOSED MEMORANDUM TO HITLER FROM MINISTRY
OF JUSTICE, APRIL 1943, INITIALED BY DEFENDANT ROTHENBERGER
AND MINISTERIAL DIRECTOR VOLLMER, CONCERNING IMMINENT
PROSECUTION OF A JEWESS FOR SELLING HER MOTHER MILK TO A
GERMAN PEDIATRICIAN

The Reich Minister of Justice

Information for the Fuehrer
(1943 No.)
After the birth of her child, a full-blooded Jewess sold her mother milk
[Muttermilch] to a pediatrician and concealed that she was a Jewess. With
this milk babies of German blood were fed in a nursing home for children.
The accused will be charged with deception [Betrug]. The buyers of the
milk have suffered damage, for mother’s milk from a Jewess cannot be
regarded as food for German children. The impudent behavior of the
accused is an insult as well. Relevant charges, however, have not been
applied for, so that the parents, who are unaware of the true facts, need not
subsequently be worried.
I shall discuss with the Reich health leader the racial hygienic aspect of
the case.
Berlin,..............April 1943
(Referent: Ministerialrat Dr. Malzan)
To the Under Secretary
[Initial] R [Rothenberger]
[Initial] V [Vollmer] 19 April

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-351

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 132

SECRET JUDGMENT OF FIRST SENATE OF PEOPLE’S COURT

CONCERNING TWO POLES, 21 MAY 1943, AND DIRECTIVE OF
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE TO DEFENDANT LAUTZ CONCERNING THE
MANNER OF CARRYING OUT THE EXECUTION OF ONE OF THE
DEFENDANTS

9 J 190/420 Copy
1 H 110/43
 SECRET!
In the Name of the German People
In the case against—
1. the porter Paul Stefanowicz, from Berlin, born 5 January 1922 in
Olyka (District of Rovno),
2. the laborer Franz Lenczewski, from Berlin, born 1 August 1924 in
Sandec (Government General), Poland, at present in custody pending trial
for treasonable intent, et cetera, the People’s Court, First Senate, on the
basis of the session of 21 May 1943, in which the following participated as
judges:
People’s Court Senior Judge Laemmle, President
District Court President Dr. Schlemann,
SA Gruppenfuehrer Haas,
SA Brigadefuehrer Hohm,
SA Gruppenfuehrer Koeglmaier,

as representative of the Chief Reich Prosecutor [the defendant Lautz]:

Local Court Judge Dr. Pilz,
found:
As Poles, the defendants harmed the interests of the Reich by leaving
their places of work in Berlin in August 1942 and going to the Reich
border, with the intention of remaining in Switzerland until the end of the
war.
The defendant Stefanowicz is therefore condemned to death.
The defendant Lenczewski, since he acted under the influence of
Stefanowicz, who is mentally greatly superior to him, will receive a
sentence of 8 years in a penal camp, and the period of custody for
investigation will be included in this term.
Findings
Both defendants are ethnic Poles, were formerly Polish citizens, and on 1
September 1939 resided in the former Republic of Poland.
 Both defendants reported for work and were assigned to work in Berlin;
Lenczewski in April 1941 in a chocolate factory, Stefanowicz in January
1942 at the Neukoelln hospital.
Of the two defendants, Stefanowicz makes a much more intelligent and
bold impression. He belongs to the Polish intelligentsia, which is the
stronghold of the Polish spirit of resistance. Consequently in March 1942
shortly after he began his work, he left his place of work and attempted to
flee to Denmark. He was arrested in Flensburg, however, and after 2 months
in a labor reformatory camp he was returned to his place of work in Berlin.
There he was noted for his anti-German attitude. According to his own
statement, the nurses threatened that his attitude would bring him into the
concentration camp one of these days. It was Stefanowicz who persuaded
the codefendant Lenczewski, who is nearly 2 years younger and was at the
time the deed was committed barely 18 years old, to leave his place of work
and escape with him to Switzerland in order to live a more comfortable life
there. They agreed to escape on 2 August 1942.
On that day they left Berlin and went via Augsburg and Innsbruck to
Landeck/Tyrol. From there they went on foot toward the Swiss border, with
the intention of crossing the border secretly. In the mountains, however,
they suffered from bad weather, and on 6 August 1942 they were arrested
by a customs patrol in See (Tyrol), very close to the Reich border.
The prosecution assumes that the defendants had the intention of joining
the Polish Legion. Both defendants, however, have denied this from the
beginning and maintain that they merely wanted to get better working
conditions in Switzerland. The assumption of the prosecution is doubtless
supported by the fact that members of the former Polish State who wanted
to join the legion have frequently been arrested at the border under similar
circumstances. On the other hand, no evidence has been presented that the
defendants were in contact with such circles. As for their personality,
neither of them gives an impression of a fighter but rather an effeminate
one, and the fact that they merely wanted to go to Switzerland in order to
live a better life there, could not be disproved.
Nevertheless, as Poles, both of them have harmed the interests of the
German Reich by their conduct. For they were assigned to work in the
Reich, and in total warfare any loss in this regard harms the interests of the
Reich. They were aware of this fact, especially since they intended to
remain in Switzerland permanently and thus to deprive the Reich of their
work for the entire duration of the war (crime under art. 1, par. 3 of the
Regulation on Administration of the Penal Law against Poles and Jews in
the Incorporated Eastern Territories of 4 December 1941 (Reichsgesetzblatt
1, p. 759)).
The law provides the death penalty for this offense, as a rule. Only in
less severe cases can a prison sentence be imposed. The case of the
defendant Stefanowicz is not a less severe case. As already emphasized, he
belongs to the Polish intelligentsia, which is the stronghold of the spirit of
resistance. From the very beginning he failed to adapt himself to the order
prevailing in the Reich and once before made an unsuccessful attempt to
escape to Denmark. He is also responsible for the fate of his codefendant
Lenczewski, to whom he is mentally far superior. He was therefore given
the death sentence. On the other hand, in the case of the defendant
Lenczewski, who did not make a very independent impression during the
trial, who was very young at the time the deed was committed, and who
succumbed to the influence of his mentally superior friend, a sentence of 8
years in a penal camp was considered sufficient. The period of custody for
investigation was included in this term.
Under the law, the defendants have to bear the costs of the trial, since
they have been convicted.

[Signed] L [Signed] D . S
25 May 1943
Carbon copy

The Reich Minister of Justice Berlin, 7 August 1943

IV g 10a 4910 c/43 g
Urgent—Secret
The Chief Reich Prosecutor with the People’s Court,
Berlin
personally or to his deputy in office

Reference GJ 190/42g 30 July 1943

Enclosures:
1 volume
1 folder
1 decree of 5 August 1943 (fair copy)
1 certified copy of the decree

Referring to the proceedings against Paul Stefanowicz who was

sentenced to death on 21 May 1943 by the People’s Court, I send you a fair
copy and certified copy of the decree of 5 August 1943[375] with the request
to take the necessary steps with the greatest possible speed. The executioner
Reichhart is to be entrusted with the carrying out of the execution. As to the
delivery of the body to an institute according to article 39 of the Reich
Ordinance of 19 February 1939, the Anatomical Institute of Munich
University is to be taken into consideration.
Please refrain from publicity, either through the press or through posters.
B
[Typed] D . V [376]

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-457

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 201

OPINION AND SENTENCE OF THE NUERNBERG SPECIAL COURT,

WITH DEFENDANT OESCHEY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, 29 OCTOBER
1943, BY WHICH TWO FOREIGN WORKERS WERE CONDEMNED TO
DEATH[377]

Beg. f. H.V. Sg No. 256/1943

[Stamp]
The sentence is effective and must be executed.
Nuernberg, 3 November 1943
The Chief Registrar
of the Office of the District Court
Criminal Division
[Signed] R
Chief Court Clerk
Sentence
 In the Name of the German People
The Special Court
for the area of the Nuernberg District Court of Appeal at the Nuernberg-
Fuerth District Court in the criminal case against Kaminska, Sofie, farm
laborer in Uffenheim and 1 other person charged with a crime under part I,
section 4 No. 1 of the Penal Ordinance for Poles and Jews, at a public
session on 29 October 1943 attended by—
Presiding judge—District Court President Oeschey;
Associate judges—Local Court Judge Dr. Pfaff and
District Court Judge Dr. Gros;
Public Prosecutor for the Special Court;
Public Prosecutor Markl, and as registrar of the office.
Court Clerk Kastner rules as follows:
Kaminska, Sofie; nee Uba, born on 1 September 1907 at Czenstocice,
widow, Polish farm laborer,
Wdowen Wasyl, born on 20 February 1923 at Zatwanica, single,
Ukrainian farm laborer,
both last residing in Uffenheim, both under arrest pending trial are guilty:
Kaminska slapped a German soldier, threatened him with a hoe, and threw a
stone after him; furthermore offered resistance to a policeman when she
was being arrested. Wdowen tried by force to prevent Kaminska’s arrest.
They are therefore sentenced to death; Kaminska under articles II, III,
and XIV of the Penal Ordinance for Poles; Wdowen is sentenced as a public
enemy.

Findings
The defendant Kaminska, who belongs to the Polish ethnic group and
who on 1 September 1939 was residing in the territory of the former Polish
State, attended elementary school and after having finished school worked
as a laborer on several farms in Poland. She was married in 1929 and since
then had three children. Her husband was killed in action during the Polish
campaign in October 1939. At the middle of December 1939 she came to
Germany being committed to work there. She was first employed for over a
year by a farmer in Weidenheim, then for a year by the farmer Landshuter
at Unternzenn, and since 15 March 1942 she has been employed by the
farmer Gundel at Uffenheim. Leo Gundel is 60 years old and fragile; his
daughter manages the farm. At Weidenheim the defendant Kaminska met
the codefendant Wdowen who belongs to the Ukrainian ethnic group.
Wdowen never attended school, he can neither read nor write, nor had he
learned a trade. Until he came to Germany in March 1940 for labor
commitment he worked as a farm laborer for his parents and for other
farmers in the territory of the former Polish state. In Germany he was first
employed by a farmer in Weidenheim, and in March 1942 he was
transferred to Gundel together with Kaminska. Wdowen started a love affair
with the defendant Kaminska in Weidenheim. The child born in June 1942
is a result of that relationship. The defendant took the child to her mother in
Wussiowa in March 1943.
On 1 July 1942 the two defendants entered Gundel’s home and
demanded money from the daughter, Marie, for the journey which the
defendant Kaminska had made to Poland to take her child to her mother.
When the daughter refused the request, they turned to old Gundel who was
also present in the room. When he, too, refused to pay any money to
Kaminska both defendants became more and more insistent; the defendant
Wdowen even gave the farmer a push. In his distress, Gundel called for the
help of the army private Anton Wanner, who used to work on the farm as a
laborer and who happened to be spending his leave there. Wanner was in
uniform. He came into the living room and told the defendants to leave
immediately. The defendant Kaminska at once attacked the soldier, slapping
his face once. Thereupon, Wanner slapped her face. Now a fight resulted
during which his infantry assault badge fell to the ground. Wanner, feeling
himself threatened, drew his bayonet and yelled at Wdowen, “Get out, you
bully.” The defendant Kaminska by this time ran out of the room and took a
hoe which was leaning near the staircase. She did not get a chance of
attacking him as the soldier quickly closed the door.
Shortly afterward Wanner was riding on his bicycle along the road to
Uffenheim to go to the police station. When he was passing the two
defendants who were walking in the same direction, the defendant
Kaminska threw a stone weighing half a pound after the soldier without,
however, hitting him.
 The next day police sergeant Dirmann went to Gundel’s farm, but the
defendant Kaminska was working in the fields. There, the police official
told her to follow him. The defendant Kaminska followed him unwillingly
and hesitatingly. The codefendant Wdowen ran after the police official,
although the latter had forbidden him to follow them. On the way Dirmann
twice slapped Wdowen’s face to force him to turn back. Despite this he
followed the two to the prison cell. When Dirmann wanted to put Kaminska
in the cell she began screaming. Wdowen rushed up to them and embraced
Kaminska with both hands so that the police official was prevented from
arresting Kaminska. Only after several other people who were called in by
the police official came to his aid, he succeeded in overpowering the two
defendants and putting Kaminska in the cell.
The defendant Kaminska states that she learned before 1 July 1942 at the
employment office that the farmer Gundel had to pay her travel expenses
both ways. On 1 July 1942, she made only these demands. Besides, she
only slapped the soldier after he had slapped her face. She had not
purposely torn off his infantry assault medal. It was true she had fetched the
hoe but she had not raised it to assault the soldier but only to intimidate
him.
The defendant further admits having picked up a stone on the way to
Uffenheim and having thrown it after the soldier; she merely mentioned as
an excuse that she had been so angry that she had picked up a stone and
thrown it at Wanner.
Regarding her arrest by police sergeant Dirmann, the defendant says she
had offered resistance because she had been afraid that the police official
would throw her into a cellar; she had not known before what the official
really wanted from her.
The defendant Wdowen denies having struck or attacked the old man
Gundel and the soldier in the living room. He had only received a blow on
the nose from Wanner when Wanner had said something to him and to
Kaminska which he could not understand. He had not seized or held him.
Concerning the arrest of Kaminska, Wdowen states that he had “already
thought” that Kaminska was to be arrested by the police official; he had
also kept “running after them,” although he had been forbidden to do so,
and he did not let himself be intimidated by the slappings. Outside the cell
he had intended to tear Kaminska away from the police official because he
had felt sorry for her. The excuses which the defendants have put forward
are irrelevant; for the rest, the afore-mentioned facts have been confirmed
by the witnesses Gundel and Wurm. The soldier Wanner has been reported
missing since the fighting in Tunisia. The witness, police sergeant Wurm
testified, however, that Wanner had made definite and clear statements. The
court is therefore convinced that the defendant Kaminska hit the soldier
first; she was not authorized to do so in any way. When the witness Miss
Gundel had told her that she would first make inquiries at the employment
office as to whether the demands for payment of travel expenses were
justified, the defendant Kaminska should have been satisfied. If despite that
she continued to insist on her imagined demand and together with Wdowen
behaved insolently towards Miss Gundel and her father, it was absolutely
understandable that old Gundel called the soldier Wanner for help. The
defendant Kaminska should have complied immediately with Wanner’s
demand to leave the room. She cannot claim that she did not understand his
demand. If instead of immediately leaving the farmer’s living room, she
slapped the soldier’s face then this constituted a bodily maltreatment and
thereby an assault and battery.
As the codefendant Wdowen, too, according to the credible statements
which the soldier Wanner had made to the police sergeant Wurm, either
gripped the soldier or at any rate took sides with Kaminska, so that Wanner
had to fear a joint attack, it was understandable that he drew his bayonet in
his defense. If the defendant Kaminska had to run out of the house to get a
hoe and with it had walked towards the front door where the soldier was
standing, Wanner had to fear the possibility of an attack on his life,
although it was not established at the trial whether the defendant had
already lifted the hoe to hit him. This behavior must be regarded as a threat
within the meaning of article 241 of the Criminal (Penal) Code.
The defendant admits that after the incident in Gundel’s room, “some
time later” on the way to Uffenheim she, in her anger, picked up a stone
weighing a half pound and threw it after the soldier Wanner who was sitting
on a bicycle, however, without hitting him.
The facts thus established prove that the defendant has committed a
crime within the meaning of article 1, paragraph 1 of the Law against
Violent Criminals of 5 December 1939. For this the death sentence is
imposed on a person who, among other things, when committing a serious
act of violence uses cutting or thrusting weapons or with such a weapon
threatens the body or life of another person.
An act of violence within the meaning of that provision is constituted by
a violent attack on a person which, according to design or execution or in
view of the consequences for the person who is being attacked, endangers
the security afforded by law to a high degree, and which therefore is
particularly rejected and detested by the national community which is
engaged in a fight for its right of existence, according to the verdict of the
Reich Supreme Court of 26 January 1942, Second Criminal Senate, January
1942.
In the present case, the basic punishable deed is a threat within the
meaning of article 241 of the Criminal (Penal) Code.
The defendant by throwing, in her anger, such a heavy stone after the
soldier did not merely make a purposeless gesture. The court is convinced
that it is evident from the over-all attitude of the defendant Kaminska,
which she had previously displayed toward the soldier, that she meant to hit
Wanner. A stone weighing half a pound when being thrown by someone in
a condition which the defendant herself described as anger may kill a
human being. Thus, a stone of that weight must be considered equal to a
cutting or thrusting weapon; it must be considered as an object equal to a
weapon within the meaning of the law against violent criminals. The
defendant dared attack a German soldier, she took up an offensive position
which would have caused grave injury if the soldier had not evaded the
stone which was thrown at him. The defendant was about to endanger
gravely the life and health of a German national. The German nation which
is engaged in a grim defensive struggle rightly expects the most severe
methods to be taken against such alien elements. The crime of the
defendant, by design, and execution, as well as a considerable violation of
the security afforded by law, constitutes a serious crime of violence within
the meaning of the law against violent criminals. The fact that the criminal
is a Pole is of particular significance.
From the name of the law it is concluded that it can only be applied
against persons who are to be regarded as violent criminals. The defendant
had not been provoked to the violent action. After she had failed to hit him
with the hoe, she tried to hit the soldier on the road. The over-all behavior
of the Polish woman, also toward the farmer, proves that the crime is not
alien to her nature. She thereby characterizes herself as a Polish violent
criminal. The defendant cannot dispute that she resisted with all her
strength when a police official wanted to put her in a cell. Her excuse that
she had not known what the official wanted from her cannot be believed.
She knew in what manner she had acted toward the Germans on the
previous day. She therefore had to expect the police official who moreover
was in uniform to try and arrest her. The court has no doubt that she, as well
as Wdowen who admitted having assumed that Kaminska was to be “picked
up” because of her behavior on the day before, knew that she would now be
arrested. By her violent resistance outside the cell, she therefore violated
article 113 of the Criminal (Penal) Code.
According to the opinion of the medical expert, which the Court shares,
the defendant shows no symptoms which could justify doubts as to her
responsibility for the crime.
As the defendant on 1 September 1939 was a resident in the territory of
the former Polish State, she had to be found guilty in application of articles
II, III, and XIV of the Penal Ordinance for Poles, of a crime of assault and
battery in conjunction with a crime of threat, a crime under article 1,
paragraph 1 of the Law against Violent Criminals, and of a crime of
offering resistance to the police.
The defendant was further charged with intentionally having torn off the
infantry assault badge of the soldier Wanner. That could not be proved
during the trial. The witness, Miss Gundel, testifies that after the defendant
Kaminska had slapped the soldier’s face, a fight ensued and that afterward
the soldier’s infantry assault medal was missing. In view of this evidence
there is, at any rate, a possibility that the badge might have loosened in the
course of the fight. A particular acquittal was not necessary, however, as the
attitude of the defendants must be regarded as one action.
Although the old feeble farmer Gundel was not physically injured by the
thrust of the defendant Wdowen, he did rightly feel the action of the
Ukrainian to be an offense to his honor as a German. The defendant
Wdowen, by holding Kaminska with both hands when the Polish woman
was about to be put into a cell so that the police official was unable to do so
for the moment, and by allowing himself to be removed only after the
intervention of other persons, offered forceful resistance to an official who
was lawfully doing his duty.
By his action, he also tried to free the codefendant Kaminska from the
hold of the official in whose custody she was.
His act, therefore, constitutes an attempt to free a prisoner in conjunction
with resistance to the police under articles 120, 43, 113, 73 of the Penal
Code.
That, however, does not exhaust the entire unlawful character of his
deed.
The defendant Wdowen knows very well that the German economy, on
account of wartime conditions, is dependent on foreign labor, in particular
on labor from the eastern territories. He speculated that his offenses would
be overlooked in order not to lose him as a worker. The defendant also
knew that because of the drafts into the armed forces the security organs in
the Reich have been reduced and that Germany is deprived of the
population fit for military service so that the rural population is largely
helpless against the insolent and obstinate behavior and against attacks,
which occur more and more on the part of such elements from the East. The
defendant Wdowen, therefore, committed the offense taking advantage of
the extraordinary wartime conditions. His action is therefore particularly
despicable and demands that the ordinary limit of punishment be exceeded.
The defendant therefore had to be sentenced for a crime under article 4
of the Decree against Public Enemies in conjunction with resistance toward
the police and an attempt to free a prisoner.
Under article III, paragraph 2 of the Penal Ordinance for Poles, the death
sentence must be passed if the law provides for it. The defendant Kaminska,
therefore, under the law against violent criminals is deserving of the death
penalty.
The death penalty has to be pronounced as the only just atonement
because the security afforded by law within the German living space must
be protected against Polish criminality with the utmost severity. The
defendant Wdowen, if only by his behavior toward the feeble old farmer
Gundel proved that he is an insolent aggressive fellow inasmuch as he kept
following the police official, although he had been chastized twice. It is to
be concluded that he was waiting for a favorable moment to free the
codefendant Kaminska by force, and finally by attempting to prevent by
force the police official from the execution of his official duties and the
latter having to call for assistance, he topped his provocative, dangerous
behavior. Every security organ enjoys the special protection of the Reich.
He who impedes in such a provocative manner the security organs, which
are stationed at home, and which on account of their numerical minority are
particularly overburdened during the war, must expect the Reich to react
with utmost severity. That applies, in particular, to the foreign workers from
the East who work in the Reich. In view of that, the court has assumed a
particularly grave case within the meaning of paragraph 4 of the Decree
against Public Enemies, and has not attached any decisive importance to the
circumstances alone that the defendant Wdowen has had no previous
convictions and has hitherto not attracted any unfavorable attention during
his stay in Germany. Therefore, the defendant Wdowen had to be sentenced
to death under the penal law of article 4 of the Decree against Public
Enemies.
Costs: Paragraph 465, Code of Criminal Procedure.
[Signed] O [378]

D .G [379]

P [380]

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 664-PS

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 348

CIRCULAR LETTER OF HIMMLER TO THE SUPREME REICH

AUTHORITIES, 10 MARCH 1944, NOTING THAT “THE ACCOMPLISHED
EVACUATION AND ISOLATION” OF JEWS AND GYPSIES HAD MADE
MEANINGLESS THE PREVIOUS MANNER OF PUBLISHING SPECIAL
DIRECTIVES CONCERNING THEM

Berlin, 10 March 1944

The Reich Leader SS
Minister of Interior Affairs
S. Pol. IV D 2 c—927/44 g-24
[Initial] T [Thierack]
 [Stamp] Reich Ministry of Justice
17 March 1944
Dept. VII
SECRET
To the Supreme Reich Authorities
Subject: Posted prohibitions concerning Poles, Jews, and gypsies
The separately published decrees and rules governing the livelihood of
Poles, Jews, and gypsies within the jurisdiction of the Reich, have
frequently led to a summary equalization of these groups in the public eye
as far as sale-and-utilization prohibitions, public announcements in the
press, etc., are concerned. This attitude does not correspond with the
differentiated political position to be granted to these groups now, and in the
future.
As far as Jews and gypsies are concerned the accomplished evacuation
and isolation of these groups by the Chief of the Security Police and the SD
has made the publication of special directives (concerning the all inclusive
prohibition of participation in many livelihoods) in the previous manner
meaningless. Therefore, corresponding public directives may be eliminated.
The decrees and regulations which have been decided upon to govern the
livelihood of the Poles will remain as before. For political practical reasons
it is hereby recommended to maintain a certain amount of restraint in the
public directives of these regulations, be it in posters, signboards, on press
releases, etc.
I wish that the subordinate officers be informed of the necessary
directives.
[Typed] Signed: H. H
Certified: [Illegible signature]
SS Sturmbannführer

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-900

PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 453
 LETTER FROM THE CHIEF OF SECURITY POLICE AND SD TO
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, 3 MAY 1944, ENTITLED “REQUESTS MADE BY
THE COURTS FOR INFORMATION ON JEWS,” AND INTEROFFICE
MEMORANDUMS LEADING TO DISPATCHING OF A LETTER DRAFTED
BY DEFENDANT ALTSTOETTER

The Chief of the Security Police

and the Security Service
IVA b (I) a 4647/43
Please state this business number,
the date and the subject in
correspondence
Berlin SW-11, 3 May 1944
Prinz Albrechtstr. 8
Local Phone: 120040
Long distance: 126421

[Stamp] Reich Ministry of Justice

5 May 1944
Dept. VII-VI
[Initial] T [Thierack]
[Initials] K [Klemm]
To the Reich Minister of Justice
Berlin
Subject: Requests made by the courts for information on Jews
Reference: None
In a number of proceedings for the checking of descent, the District
Court Vienna requested information about the whereabouts of Jews, in
some cases it requested this information from the central office for the
regulation of the Jewish problem in Bohemia and Moravia at Prague, and in
some cases directly from here. These Jews were at some time either
evacuated to the East or were sent to Theresienstadt. Although my local
office drew the attention of the District Court Vienna several times to the
fact that such requests, as well as applications for the admission of such
Jews as witnesses before courts or for hereditary biological examinations
cannot be granted on account of reasons stated by the Security Police, the
District Court Vienna renews its applications continuously.
Besides the fact that the Jews for years had time and opportunity to
clarify their position with regard to descent, the proceedings for the
checking of the descent demanded by the Jews or their families are
according to experience in general made only in order to conceal their
descent so that they would not be subject to the measures of the Security
Police intended for them, or to those which have already been carried out.
For this reason and in the interest of urgent dispatch of work important to
the war effort the granting of applications of this kind has to be refused for
the time being.
Therefore, I request to direct the District Court Vienna not to submit any
such applications in future. I would be grateful to be informed about the
steps taken from there.
As deputy:
[illegible signature]

The Reich Minister of Justice Berlin, 3 June 1944

VIb 2 1124/44
Dispatched 14 June 1944, [initial] B
[Stamp] Office
8 June 1944
H/Frl. [illegible]
1. To the President of the Court of Appeal, Vienna
Subject: Handling of cases concerning descent of Jews or Jewish persons of
mixed race
No previous correspondence.
The Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service pointed out
that in cases concerning descent of Jews and Jewish persons of mixed race
the office of the police are frequently asked for information on the place of
abode of deported Jews by the courts especially by the District Court
Vienna, or that their admission, as witnesses or for the purpose of
examination for hereditary biological expert opinions is requested. These
requests cannot be granted for reasons of the Security Police.
Even if the hearing (and examination)[381] of the Jews (be an important
piece of evidence for the clarifying of the question of descent) in many cases
help to frustrate the intentions (of the Jews) to conceal their descent, reasons
of the security police demand to desist therefrom (from this piece of
evidence).
In the near future I intend to issue in a decree detailed regulations for the
handling of cases concerning the descent of Jews and Jewish persons of
mixed race. Already now I request to inform the District Court Vienna (and
other courts, in your district, which according to your judgment, Mr.
President of the Appellate Court, should be informed) of the following:
(insert)[382]
As deputy:

2. To the Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service

Subject: Requests for information on Jews made by the courts.
Reply to the letter of 3 May 1944—IV A-4-b (I) a-4647/43
1 enclosure (copy of 1)
[Stamp] Dispatched: 14 June 1944

3475/2 [Initial] B
In the enclosure I submit a copy of my letter to the president of the
Appellate Court Vienna for your information.
B
[Initial] A [Altstoetter]

3. Ministerial Counsellor Rexroth