“Isolating Nazism: Civilian Internment in American Occupied Germany, 1944-1950”
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Carolina Digital Repository “ISOLATING NAZISM: CIVILIAN INTERNMENT IN AMERICAN OCCUPIED GERMANY, 1944-1950” Kristen J. Dolan A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History Chapel Hill 2013 Approved by: Konrad H. Jarausch Christopher Browning Klaus Larres Wayne E. Lee Richard H. Kohn ©2013 Kristen J. Dolan ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT KRISTEN J. DOLAN: “Isolating Nazism: Civilian Internment in American Occupied Germany, 1944-1950” (Under the direction of Konrad H. Jarausch) This dissertation examines the Allied program of mass arrests that, in the aftermath of World War II, was part of a larger attempt to locate those suspected of atrocities, neutralize potential disruptions to the occupation, and uproot National Socialist ideology. Under the auspices of Allied “denazification,” which sought to eradicate Nazism for security reasons and as a precursor to democratization, the American Military Government arrested a wide array of Nazi Party-affiliated Germans. By late 1945, the Army had detained roughly 150,000 persons in a hastily established system of civilian internment enclosures. Within a year, however, American authorities greatly reduced the number of detainees. Moreover, after recognizing that successful reorientation toward democracy would require increased German participation, they handed administration of the camps to German officials—thus heralding an important transition in the relationship between occupier and occupied. Exploring American and German authorities’ ensuing struggle to translate the goal of eradicating Nazism into a coherent plan of action, this study offers insight into fundamental challenges of transforming a political culture as well as the difficulties of reconstituting a society that has been atomized over the course of a firmly entrenched dictatorship. Much of the historiographical attention to civilian internment has focused on the program’s inequities. By closely examining the origins and aims of arrest policies, as well as pragmatic iii implementation issues with feedback and adjustments, this study investigates whether and how such a drastic measure contributed to the security of the occupation and early stages of the Federal Republic’s postwar political transformation. This dissertation ultimately finds that, in spite of numerous practical shortcomings, the program contributed to both endeavors. Clearly a blunt, inequitable instrument when examined on a case-by-case basis, the arrests nevertheless collectively interrupted political and social continuity at a critical juncture, creating space in which democracy could take root. The process of confronting large groups of people regarding their activities during the Third Reich prompted changes in discourse and behavior toward at least outward acceptance of reforms. Moreover, ensuing debates spurred necessary deliberations over how to move forward in the wake of a twelve-year fascist dictatorship. iv In memory of Janet and Joe Dolan v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Working on this project has repeatedly reinforced to me that an undertaking such as this is simply not possible without a great deal of help from multiple directions. Fellowships from the Smith Richardson and George C. Marshall Foundations supported various stages of research at the U.S. National Archives in College Park, Maryland and the Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv in Wiesbaden, Germany, as did research awards from the Society for Military History and Department of History at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. During these visits, I found the assistance of the extremely knowledgeable staffs and archivists at both institutions to be invaluable. The Triangle area has proved to be an engaging and supportive scholarly environment. As I look back on my graduate training at UNC, I would like to thank the History Department—staff, faculty and graduate students—for what has been a truly remarkable experience. In particular, I am grateful to Violet Anderson, Joy Jones and Wanda Wallace in the department office for patiently answering my (many) procedural questions. Among the faculty, Don Reid, Karen Hagemann, Joe Glatthaar and Miles Fletcher generously offered very helpful advice at several points along the way—all of which I greatly appreciated. The same can be said of (current and former) graduate students Philipp Stelzel, Friederike Brühöfener, Franklin Williamson, Julia Osman, Tom Goldstein and Ned Richardson-Little, whose suggestions and encouragement have meant a great deal. vi I would especially like to thank my advisor, Konrad Jarausch, for being both incisive critic and tireless supporter. I am also indebted to the members of my dissertation committee, Christopher Browning, Klaus Larres, Wayne Lee, and Richard Kohn for their constructive feedback and perceptive insights, as well as for giving me ample food for thought regarding how to take this project forward. I feel very fortunate to have been part of a vibrant intellectual community over the past five years, and for a much longer period of time, to have had unwavering support from a wonderful group of family and friends. There are a number of people to whom I am very thankful for helping me to maintain equilibrium—beginning with my brothers Michael, Leif and Nels—who took turns checking in and encouraging me as I worked on this project. Kat Stoddard and family got me to occasionally step away from the computer and in the process enabled me to collect some very special memories. My extended family—Cheryl and Brian Barker, Lisbeth Fuentes, Paula Hopper, Stella Ruth and Madeline Deleo—kept me entertained, made sure I had a sufficient supply of knitted scarves, and always remembered to politely ask about the “paper” I was writing. In Germany, Mary Anheuser offered a place to stay and, along with Elke Herberger, graciously helped me tackle several logistical issues. Thank you all. My deepest—and most heartfelt—thanks go to my parents, to whom I not only owe my intellectual curiosity, but without whose inspiring examples I simply cannot imagine having gotten to this point. This dissertation is, of course, dedicated to them. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………………...xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………….xii INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………….1 A Widely Divergent Experience that Transcended Zonal Boundaries……………….5 Historiography……………………………………………………………………….17 Approach and Conceptual Framework………………………………………….…...24 Organization………………………………………………………………………....30 I. THE ‘FOG’ OF PLANNING: ANGLO-AMERICAN POLICY DEBATES ON CIVILIAN INTERNMENT, JUNE 1944-APRIL 1945…………………34 The End of ‘Nazi Tyranny’: Efforts to Move Beyond Broad Allied Statements…………………………………………………………………….37 The ‘Punitive’ Approach: Anglo-American Policy Divergence and Civilian Internment……………………………………………………………...43 The ‘Carpet’ Unfurled: The Case of Aachen and its Impact on Occupation Policies………………………………………………………………….51 The Occupation Widens: Arrest and Internment During the ‘Mobile’ Phase……………………………………………………………………….64 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………...…71 II. ‘GERMANY OVERRUN’: ARRESTS IN THE IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH OF FIGHTING, APRIL 1945-AUGUST 1946…………………………74 Out of the ‘Academic Cloister’ and into the ‘Mud’: Military Government Emergent……………………………………………………………….77 Security Suspects and Automatic Arrests: Casting a Wide Net…………………….86 viii The ‘American Gestapo’: Counterintelligence and the Dragnet in Operation…………………………………………………………………97 Caught in the Bow Wave of Arrests: Ad Hoc Establishment of Camps…………………………………………………...104 ‘Liberation from National Socialism and Militarism’: The Case of Greater Hesse……………………………………………………………………….112 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….129 III. ‘NO KNOWLEDGE ATROCITIES WERE PERPETRATED’: INTERNMENT AT THE HEIGHT OF MILITARY OCCUPATION, AUGUST 1946-JANUARY 1947……………………………………………………..131 ‘Our Anger…must be Subject to the Law’: Nürnberg’s Impact on Civilian Internment…………………………………………………………………134 ‘A Definite Step Forward’: American & German Preparations for the Handover……………………………………………………...144 ‘Like Cutting an Egg in Two’: Transfer of Lager Darmstadt to German Administration…………………………………………………………….162 ‘The Collapse of Hope’: Darmstadt Camp Tribunals in Operation………………..173 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...…..182 IV. ‘THE STRUGGLE FOR JUSTICE’: INTERNIERUNGSLAGER DARMSTADT AND THE POLITICS OF DENAZIFICATION, JANUARY-MARCH 1947……………….…...185 ‘Leave the Fellow Travelers in Peace’: The Burgeoning Discourse on Denazification………………………………………………………..189 Contention Reaches its Peak: The Divergence in American and German Perspectives………………………………………………………………..198 ‘The Brightest Light of Scrutiny’: Efforts to Address Perceptions of Lager Darmstadt……………………………………………………214 ‘We Didn’t Lose A Single Minute’: Circumstances Surrounding Kogon’s Inspection…………………………………………………...226 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….236 ix V. A CONTENTIOUS WAY FORWARD: THE ‘RACE’ TO END DENAZIFICATION AND CIVILIAN INTERNMENT, MARCH 1947-OCTOBER 1948…………………………………………………..……239 ‘Wholesale Extenuation’ or Denazification Reform? The October 1947 Amendment……………………………………………..………242 Negotiating the Draw Down of Civilian Internment Enclosures………………..….252 From ‘Die-Hard Nazi’ to ‘Convinced Democrat’? (Re)education in Lager Darmstadt ……………………………………………..…..265 ‘To Be the First in