Abbreviations Used in Notes and Bibliography AUA-M Air University Archive, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama ANL Archives Nationales Luxembourg BaB Bundesarchiv Berlin BaMF Bundesarchiv Militärarchiv Freiburg BaZnsA Bundesarchiv Zentralnachweisestelle Aachen GHM German History Museum Berlin HsaD Hauptstaatsarchiv Düsseldorf HasH Hauptstaatsarchiv Hannover HSaM Hessisches Staatsarchiv Marburg HStAWi Hauptstaatsarchiv Wiesbaden HIADL Hoover Institute Archives, Stanford Library, Daniel Lerner Collection IWML Imperial War Museum London IfZM Institut für Zeitgeschichte München IMTN International Military Tribunal Nuremberg LaSaar Landesarchiv Saarland LaSpey Landesarchiv Speyer LWVH Landeswohlfahrtsverband Hessen MHAP Military Historical Archive, Prague NAA National Archives of Australia NAL National Archives Kew Gardens, London NAW National Archives Washington D.C. OKaW Österreichisches Kriegsarchiv Wein ÖStA Österreichisches Staatsarchiv Vienna PMGO Provost Marshall General’s Office (U.S.A) SaL Staatsarchiv Ludwigsburg SaW Staatsarchiv Würzburg SAB State Archive Bydgoszcz, Poland TBJG Elke Frölich, Die Tagbücher von Joseph Goebbels: Im Auftrag des Institute für Zeitsgeschichte und mit Unterstützung des Staatlichen Archivdienstes Rußlands. Teil II Dikate 1941–1945 (Münich 1995–1996). WLC Weiner Library Collection 191 Notes Introduction: Sippenhaft, Terror and Fear: The Historiography of the Nazi Terror State 1 . Christopher Hutton, Race and the Third Reich: Linguistics, Racial Anthropology and Genetics in the Third Reich (Cambridge 2005), p. 18. 2 . Rosemary O’Kane, Terror, Force and States: The Path from Modernity (Cheltham 1996), p. 19. O’Kane defines a system of terror, as one that is ‘distinguished by summary justice, where the innocence or guilt of the victims is immaterial’. 3 . See Robert Thurston, ‘The Family during the Great Terror 1935–1941’, Soviet Studies , 43, 3 (1991), pp. 553–74. 4 . Golfo Alexopoulos, ‘Stalin and the Politics of Kinship: Practices of Collective Punishment, 1920s–1940s’, Comparative Studies in Society and History , 50, 1 (2008), p. 91. 5 . Alexopoulos, ‘Stalin and the Politics of Kinship’, p. 93. 6 . Discussing the 20 July 1944, Peter Hoffmann, The History of the German Resistance, 1933–1945 (Montreal 2001), p. 519, describes Sippenhaft as an inte- gral part of post-20 July 1944 terror, ‘not merely individuals, therefore, but their ... families ... were to be exterminated’. While Hannsjoachim Koch, In the Name of the Volk: Political Justice in Hitler’s Germany (New York 1997), p. 216, contends that Sippenhaft only existed post-20 July, and ‘belongs in the realm of legends’. See also Timothy Mason & Jane Caplan, Nazism, Fascism and the Working Class (New York 1995), p. 261. 7 . Evidence provided during the Nuremberg Trials shows that a policy of taking hostages (not exclusively but often members of the same family) were enacted and used in retaliation for acts of resistance in occupied Europe. In the Netherlands, document number PS1587 dated August 1942, from the Commander of the Wehrmacht, proscribes the taking of hostages for acts of resistance. In France, document UK20, 26 May 1943 – an order signed by Keitel decreeing that the families of ‘Free French’ airmen caught fighting on the Eastern Front are to have ‘severe measures taken against them’. In Poland, PS4041 (GB-556) consists of 31 posters for the years 1943–1944, signed by the Chief of the SS and Police or the Commander of the Security Police and SD in Warsaw, announcing the killing of hostages. Later, docu- ment USA-506 of 19 July 1944, written by the commandant of the Sipo and SD in Radom, specifically outlines that male relatives of individuals involved in resistance would be shot, while the female relatives over 16 years old would be sent to concentration camps. In Norway and Denmark, C-48 (RF-280) dated 30 November 1944, from Keitel to the Supreme Command of the Navy threatening ship-yard workers that they and their families will be held accountable for acts of sabotage. This resulted in a reply, PS870 (RF-281), from the Reichskommissar for Norway Josef Terboven, ‘This request 192 Notes 193 only makes sense and will only be successful if I am actually allowed to have executions carried out by shooting.’ See also the ‘Hostages Trial’, ‘The United States of America versus Wilhelm List, et al’, 8 July 1947 until 19 February 1948, United Nations War Crimes Commission Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals , Volume VIII, 1949; Raphael Lemkin & Samantha Power, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress (London 2005), pp. 249 & 615, and Thomas Laub, After the fall: German Policy in Occupied France 1940–1944 (New York 2010). 8 . Norbert Haase ‘The conscription of ethnic Germans in the occupied terri- tories by the Wehrmacht in World War Two and the repression of resist- ance among them’. Paper given at the XXVth Biennial Conference of the ‘Australasian Association for European Historians’, Melbourne University, Melbourne Australia, 11–15 July 2005. 9 . Peter Phillips, The Tragedy of Nazi Germany (London 1969), p. 156. 10 . Speaking about the role of women and wives in resistance activities, Timothy Mason contends, ‘Some working-class women were active in communist and social democratic resistance groups, not many; the wives and female supporters of the conservative and military groups appear to have played hardly any active role at all. In this, as in so many respects, the so-called Red Orchestra (a communist group led by a senior civil servant and an air force officer) was the exception which proves the rule.’ Mason & Caplan, Nazism, Fascism and the Working Class , pp. 150–1. See Klemens von Klemperer for the counter-argument, ‘In my own studies of the subject [German Resistance] I have rarely encountered a conspirator who did not need and rely on his family – on his father, mother, sister, brother, and especially on his wife, who stood by him and offered him understanding and support.’ Klemens von Klemperer, ‘Foreword’, in Dorthee von Meding (Trans. Michael Balfour & Volker Berghahn), Courageous Hearts: Women and the Anti-Hitler Plot of 1944 (Providence 1997), p. vi. 11 . For an excellent summary of this debate see Richard Evans, ‘Coercion and Consent in Nazi Germany’, Proceedings of the British Academy , 151 (2007), pp. 53–81. 12 . See Eugen Kogon, Der SS-Staat: das System der deutschen Konzentrationslager (Munich 1946); Han Bernd Gisevius, To the Bitter End (London 1948); Edward Crankshaw, Gestapo: Instrument of Tyranny (London 1956); Jacques Delarue, The Gestapo: A History of Horror (New York 1987); Gerald Reitlinger, The SS: Alibi of a Nation 1922–1945 (Englewood Cliffs 1981). Partly, this embellished the story of Sippenhaft . Constantine Fitzgibbon claimed that many of 20 July conspirator Claus von Stauffenberg’s relatives ‘died in [concentration] camps’. Fitzgibbon, The Shirt of Nessus (London 1956), p. 220. 13 . Robert Gellately, Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany (London 2001), p. vii. Also Eric A. Johnson, Nazi Terror: The Gestapo, the Jews, and Ordinary Germans (New York 1999), p. 373. 14 . Gellately, Backing Hitler , p. 203. Gellately argues that whilst not unimpor- tant, Nazi party terror ‘should not be overstated’. 15 . Vandana Joshi, ‘The “Private” became “Public”: Wives as Denouncers in the Third Reich’, Journal of Contemporary History , 37, 3 (2002), pp. 419–35. 16 . Karl-Heinz Reuband & Eric A. Johnson, What We Knew: Terror, Mass Murder and Everyday Life in Nazi Germany (London 2005), p. 355. 194 Notes 17 . Eric A. Johnson, ‘Criminal Justice, Coercion and Consent in “Totalitarian” Society: The Case of National Socialist Germany’, British Journal of Criminology , 51, 3 (2011), pp. 599–615. 18 . Johnson, ‘Criminal Justice’, p. 603. Johnson’s research, especially his survey results needs some qualification. The survey was based on the average respondents being born in 1921 (being therefore 12 years old when the Third Reich began, 19 when war broke out and only 24 years old when the war actually finished), to suggest that this is a representative sample of the whole German nation between 1933 and 1945 is misleading. It also only credits those still alive with a voice about Nazi terror. In addition, Johnson’s figures do show that over 20 per cent of the non-Jewish respondents did actually fear arrest either ‘constantly’ or ‘occasionally’. In his analysis of special court documents, where he suggests that the low figures for individ- uals from a non-communist or non-socialist background sent to concentra- tion camps is representative of the ‘overwhelming majority of the German population’ is slightly dubious (in the November 1932 elections the KPD and SPD won 13.1 million votes compared to the Nazis’ 11.7 million). He also suggested that studying terror in the latter part of the war is also not representative of the Third Reich contradicts the majority of the adult expe- rience of his survey respondents. To claim that the period after Stalingrad or the 20 July should not be included in surveys of terror is limited in its outlook. 19 . See Nikolas Wachsmann, Hitler’s Prisons: Legal Terror in Nazi Germany (New Haven 2004) for an excellent survey of legalized terror. 20 . Evans, ‘Coercion and Consent in Nazi Germany’, pp. 63–7. 21 . Nikolas Wachsmann, ‘The Policy of Exclusion, 1933–1945’, in Jane Caplan (ed.), Oxford History of Nazi Germany (New York 2008), pp. 126–7. 22 . Geoff Eley, ‘Hitler’s Silent Majority: Conformity and Resistance under the Third Reich’, Part II, Michigan Quarterly Review , 42, 3 (Summer 2003), p. 561. 23 . Michelle Mouton, From Nurturing the Nation to Purifying the Volk: Weimar and Nazi Family Policy (New York 2007), p. 277. 24 . Alexopoulos, ‘Stalin and the Politics of Kinship’, p. 105. This view is supported by Robert Thurston, who found in his interviews with survivors from the Great Purge that most felt family punishment was reserved only for the families of ‘big party people’ as opposed to average Russians. See Thurston, ‘The Family during the Great Terror’, p.