Editing Denazification (section)

===American zone===
[[File:Adler, Robert-Piloty-Gebäude, TU Darmstadt.jpg|thumb|Eagle above the rear main entry to the Robert-Piloty building, department of Computer Science, [[Darmstadt University of Technology]]. Note the effaced [[Swastika]] under the eagle.]]

The [[Morgenthau plan#JCS 1067|Joint Chiefs of Staff Directive 1067]] directed [[US Army]] General [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]'s policy of denazification. A report of the Institute on Re-education of the Axis Countries in June 1945 recommended: "Only an inflexible long-term occupation authority will be able to lead the Germans to a fundamental revision of their recent political philosophy." The [[United States military]] pursued denazification in a zealous and bureaucratic fashion, especially during the first months of the occupation.<ref name=taylor11/>{{rp|p=253}} It had been agreed among the Allies that denazification would begin by requiring Germans to fill in a questionnaire ({{langx|de|link=no|Fragebögen}}) about their activities and memberships during Nazi rule. Five categories were established: ''Major Offenders'', ''Offenders'', ''Lesser Offenders'', ''[[Mitläufer|Followers]]'', and ''Exonerated Persons''. The Americans, unlike the British, French, and Soviets, interpreted this to apply to every German over the age of eighteen in their zone.<ref name="Adam, pg 274">Adam, p. 274</ref> Eisenhower initially estimated that the denazification process would take 50 years.<ref>{{cite news|title=Eisenhower Claims 50 Years Needed to Re-Educate Nazis |author= Norgaard, Noland.|url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/1206197/eisenhower_50_years_for_denazification/|newspaper=The Oregon Statesman|date=October 13, 1945|page=2|via = [[Newspapers.com]]|access-date = November 9, 2014 }} {{Open access}}</ref>

When the nearly complete list of Nazi Party memberships was turned over to the Allies (by a German anti-Nazi who had rescued it from destruction in April 1945 as American troops advanced on Munich), it became possible to verify claims about participation or non-participation in the Party.<ref name=taylor11/>{{rp|p=249-252}} The 1.5{{nbsp}}million Germans who had joined before Hitler came to power were deemed to be hard-core Nazis.<ref name=taylor11/>{{rp|p=255}}

Progress was slowed by the overwhelming numbers of Germans to be processed, but also by difficulties such as incompatible power systems and power outages, as with the [[Tabulating machine|Hollerith IBM data machine]] that held the American vetting list in Paris. As many as 40,000 forms could arrive in a single day to await processing. By December 1945, even though a full 500,000 forms had been processed, there remained a backlog of 4,000,000 forms from POWs and a potential case load of 7,000,000.<ref name=taylor11/>{{rp|p=261-262}} The ''Fragebögen'' were, of course, filled out in German. The number of Americans working on denazification was inadequate to handle the workload, partly as a result of the demand in the US by families to have soldiers returned home.<ref name=taylor11/>{{rp|p=266}} Replacements were mostly unskilled and poorly trained.<ref name=taylor11/>{{rp|p=267}} In addition, there was too much work to be done to complete the process of denazification by 1947, the year American troops were expected to be completely withdrawn from Europe.

Pressure also came from the need to find Germans to run their own country. In January 1946 a directive came from the Control Council entitled "Removal from Office and from Positions of Responsibility of Nazis and Persons Hostile to Allied Purposes". One of the punishments for Nazi involvement was to be barred from public office and/or restricted to manual labor or "simple work". At the end of 1945, 3.5{{nbsp}}million former Nazis awaited classification, many of them barred from work in the meantime.<ref name=taylor11/>{{rp|p=268}} By the end of the winter of 1945–1946, 42% of public officials had been dismissed.<ref name=taylor11/>{{rp|p=278}} Malnutrition was widespread, and the economy needed leaders and workers to help clear away debris, rebuild infrastructure, and get foreign exchange to buy food and other essential resources.<ref name=taylor11/>{{rp|p=255}}

Another concern leading to the Americans relinquishing responsibility for denazification and handing it over to the Germans arose from the fact that many of the American denazifiers were German Jews, former refugees returning to administer justice against the tormentors and killers of their relatives. It was felt, both among Germans and top American officials, that their objectivity might be contaminated by a desire for revenge.<ref name=taylor11/>{{rp|p=271-273}}

As a result of these various pressures, and following a January 15, 1946, report of the Military Government decrying the efficiency of denazification, saying, "The present procedure fails in practice to reach a substantial number of persons who supported or assisted the Nazis", it was decided to involve Germans in the process. In March 1946 the Law for Liberation from National Socialism and Militarism ({{langx|de|link=no|Befreiungsgesetz}}) came into effect, turning over responsibility for denazification to the Germans.<ref name="Junker, pg 68">Junker, p. 68</ref> Each zone had a Minister of Denazification. On April 1, 1946, a special law established 545 civilian tribunals under German administration ({{langx|de|link=no|Spruchkammern}}), with a staff of 22,000 of mostly lay judges, enough, perhaps, to start to work but too many for all the staff themselves to be thoroughly investigated and cleared.<ref name=taylor11/>{{rp|p=281}} They had a case load of 900,000. Several new regulations came into effect in the setting up of the German-run tribunals, including the idea that the aim of denazification was now rehabilitation rather than merely punishment, and that someone whose guilt might meet the formal criteria could also have their specific actions taken into consideration for mitigation.<ref name=taylor11/>{{rp|p=282}} Efficiency thus improved, while rigor declined.

Many people had to fill in a new background form, called a ''Meldebogen'' (replacing the widely disliked ''Fragebogen''), and were given over to justice under a ''Spruchkammer'',<ref name="Adam, pg 274" /> which assigned them to one of five categories:<ref name="Junker, pg 68"/><ref>Adam, p. 275</ref><ref>Control Council Directive No. 38, Articles 7–13 (October 12, 1946)</ref>
* {{anchor|ListAnchor}}V. Persons Exonerated ({{langx|de|link=no|Entlastete}}). No sanctions.
* IV. Followers ({{langx|de|link=no|[[Mitläufer]]}}). Possible restrictions on travel, employment, political rights, plus fines.
* III. Lesser Offenders ({{langx|de|link=no|Minderbelastete}}). Placed on probation for two–three years with a list of restrictions. No internment.
* II. Offenders: Activists, Militants, and Profiteers, or Incriminated Persons ({{langx|de|link=no|Belastete}}). Subject to immediate arrest and imprisonment up to ten years performing reparation or reconstruction work plus a list of other restrictions.
* I. Major Offenders ({{langx|de|link=no|Hauptschuldige}}). Subject to immediate arrest, death, imprisonment with or without hard labor, plus a list of lesser sanctions.
Again because the caseload was impossibly large, the German tribunals began to look for ways to speed up the process. Unless their crimes were serious, members of the Nazi Party born after 1919 were exempted on the grounds that they had been [[Brainwashing|brainwashed]]. Disabled veterans were also exempted. To avoid the necessity of a slow trial in open court, which was required for those belonging to the most serious categories, more than 90% of cases were judged not to belong to the serious categories and therefore were dealt with more quickly.<ref name=taylor11/>{{rp|p=283}} More "efficiencies" followed. The tribunals accepted statements from other people regarding the accused's involvement in Nazism. These statements earned the nickname of ''[[Persilschein]]e'', after advertisements for the laundry and whitening detergent [[Persil]].<ref>Adam, p. 275. Also see Katrin Himmler's book "The Brothers Himmler", about the Himmler family</ref> There was corruption in the system, with Nazis buying and selling denazification certificates on the black market. Nazis who were found guilty were often punished with fines assessed in [[Reichsmark]]s, which had become nearly worthless.<ref name=taylor11/>{{rp|p=290}} In Bavaria, the Denazification Minister, Anton Pfeiffer, bridled under the "victor's justice", and presided over a system that reinstated 75% of officials the Americans had dismissed and reclassified 60% of senior Nazis.<ref name=taylor11/>{{rp|p=284}} The denazification process lost a great deal of credibility, and there was often local hostility against Germans who helped administer the tribunals. Threats and even violence against tribunal members had become fairly commonplace.<ref name=taylor11/>{{rp|p=285-288}}

By early 1947, the Allies held 90,000 Nazis in [[detention (imprisonment)|detention]]; another 1,900,000 were forbidden to work as anything but manual laborers.<ref>[http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/marshall/large/documents/index.php?pagenumber=4&documentid=24&documentdate=1947-02-28&studycollectionid=mp&nav=OK Herbert Hoover's press release of The President's Economic Mission to Germany and Austria, Report No. 1: German Agriculture and Food Requirements] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184912/http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/marshall/large/documents/index.php?pagenumber=4&documentid=24&documentdate=1947-02-28&studycollectionid=mp&nav=OK |date=September 30, 2007 }}, February 28, 1947. p. 2</ref> From 1945 to 1950, the Allied powers detained over 400,000 Germans in internment camps in the name of denazification.{{sfn|Beattie|2019}}

By 1948, the [[Cold War]] was clearly in progress and the US began to worry more about a threat from the [[Eastern Bloc]] rather than the latent Nazism within occupied Germany.<ref name=taylor11/>{{rp|p=277}}

The delicate task of distinguishing those truly complicit in or responsible for Nazi activities from mere "followers" made the work of the courts yet more difficult. US President [[Harry S. Truman]] alluded to this problem: "though all Germans might not be guilty for the war, it would be too difficult to try to single out for better treatment those who had nothing to do with the Nazi regime and its crimes."<ref>Steven Bela Vardy and T. Hunt Tooley, eds. [http://hungarianhistory.com/lib/vardy/vardy.doc ''Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe''] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071201112320/http://hungarianhistory.com/lib/vardy/vardy.doc |date=December 1, 2007 }} {{ISBN|0-88033-995-0}}. Subsection by Richard Dominic Wiggers, "The United States and the Refusal to Feed German Civilians after World War II" p. 281</ref> Denazification was from then on supervised by special German ministers, like the [[Social Democratic Party of Germany|Social Democrat]] Gottlob Kamm in Baden-Württemberg, with the support of the US occupation forces.

Contemporary American critics of denazification denounced it as a "counterproductive [[witch hunt]]" and a failure; in 1951 the provisional West German government granted amnesties to lesser offenders and ended the program.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_11_02_03_payne.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100615231451/http://independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_11_02_03_payne.pdf |archive-date=2010-06-15 |url-status=live|author= JAMES L. PAYNE|title=Did the United States Create Democracy in Germany?|access-date=January 14, 2014}}</ref>

====Censorship====
While judicial efforts were handed over to German authorities, the US Army continued its efforts to denazify Germany through control of German media. The [[Information Control Division]] of the US Army had by July 1946 taken control of 37 German newspapers, six radio stations, 314 theaters, 642 cinemas, 101 magazines, 237 book publishers, and 7,384 book dealers and printers.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.psywarrior.com/mcclure.html |title=McClure article |access-date=October 22, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061115053715/http://www.psywarrior.com/mcclure.html |archive-date=November 15, 2006 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Its main mission was democratization but part of the agenda was also the prohibition of any criticism of the Allied occupation forces.<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-4/lochner2.html| title = Lochner interview}}</ref> In addition, on May 13, 1946, the Allied Control Council issued a directive for the confiscation of all media that could contribute to Nazism or [[militarism]]. As a consequence a list was drawn up of over 30,000 book titles, ranging from school textbooks to poetry, which were then banned. All the millions of copies of these books were to be confiscated and destroyed; the possession of a book on the list was made a punishable offense. The representative of the Military Directorate admitted that the order was in principle no different from the [[Nazi book burnings]].<ref>{{Cite magazine |date=May 27, 1946 |title=Germany: Read No Evil |location=New York |magazine=Time |url= https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,776847,00.html |access-date=April 1, 2021}}</ref>

The censorship in the US zone was regulated by the occupation directive [[JCS 1067]] (valid until July 1947) and in the May 1946 order valid for all zones (rescinded in 1950), Allied Control Authority Order No. 4, "No. 4 – Confiscation of Literature and Material of a Nazi and Militarist Nature". All confiscated literature was reduced to pulp instead of burning.<ref group="Notes">In August 1946 the order was amended so that "In the interest of research and scholarship, the Zone Commanders (in Berlin the Komendantura) may preserve a limited number of documents prohibited in paragraph 1. These documents will be kept in special accommodation where they may be used by German scholars and other German persons who have received permission to do so from the Allies only under strict supervision by the Allied Control Authority."</ref> It was also directed by Directive No. 30, "Liquidation of German Military and Nazi Memorials and Museums". An exception was made for tombstones "erected at the places where members of regular formations died on the field of battle".

Artworks were under the same censorship as other media: "all collections of works of art related or dedicated to the perpetuation of German militarism or Nazism will be closed permanently and taken into custody." The directives were very broadly interpreted, leading to the destruction of thousands of paintings and thousands more were shipped to deposits in the US. Those confiscated paintings still surviving in US custody include for example a painting "depicting a couple of middle aged women talking in a sunlit street in a small town".<ref name="URL at Wayback machine">Cora Goldstein "PURGES, EXCLUSIONS, AND LIMITS: ART POLICIES IN GERMANY 1933–1949, {{cite web |url=http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/workshop/goldstein.html |title=Cultural Policy Program |access-date=2007-12-23 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071223153732/http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/workshop/goldstein.html |archive-date=December 23, 2007 }}</ref> Artists were also restricted in which new art they were allowed to create; "[[OMGUS]] was setting explicit political limits on art and representation".<ref name="URL at Wayback machine"/>

The publication ''[[Der Ruf (newspaper)|Der Ruf]]'' (''The Call'') was a popular [[literary magazine]] first published in 1945 by [[Alfred Andersch]] and edited by [[Hans Werner Richter]]. ''Der Ruf'', also called ''Independent Pages of the New Generation'', claimed to have the aim of educating the German people about democracy. In 1947 its publication was blocked by the American forces for being overly critical of occupational government.<ref>{{cite news
|url = https://www.nytimes.com/books/99/12/19/specials/grass-meeting.html
|title = Historical Analogy
|access-date = November 4, 2007
|author = Theodore Ziolkowski
|date = May 17, 1981
|newspaper = New York Times
}}</ref> Richter attempted to print many of the controversial pieces in a volume entitled ''Der Skorpion'' (''The Scorpion''). The occupational government blocked publication of ''Der Skorpion'' before it began, saying that the volume was too "nihilistic".<ref>{{cite web
|url = http://www.literaturkritik.de/public/rezension.php?rez_id=5863&ausgabe=200304
|title = Geburt als Skorpion, Tod als Papiertiger
|access-date = November 1, 2007
|author = Doris Betzl
|date = April 3, 2003
|work = Rezensionsforum Literaturkritik, No. 4
|publisher = Literaturkritik DE
|language = de
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060114061453/http://literaturkritik.de/public/rezension.php?rez_id=5863&ausgabe=200304
|archive-date = January 14, 2006
|url-status = dead
}}</ref>

Publication of ''Der Ruf'' resumed in 1948 under a new publisher, but ''Der Skorpion'' was blocked and not widely distributed. Unable to publish his works, Richter founded [[Group 47]].

The Allied costs for occupation were charged to the German people. A newspaper which revealed the charges (including, among other things, thirty thousand [[bra]]s) was banned by the occupation authorities for revealing this information.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Did the United States Create Democracy in Germany? - James L. Payne |url=http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=599 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171116190202/http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=599 |archive-date=November 16, 2017 |access-date=2024-12-16 |work=The Independent Institute |url-status=live }}</ref>

==== {{lang|de|Fragebogen}} ====
In 1946, the U.S. zone implemented a comprehensive survey known as the {{lang|de|Fragebogen}} (questionnaire).<ref>{{Cite web |title=GHDI - Image |url=https://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_image.cfm?image_id=1012 |access-date=2024-12-20 |website=ghdi.ghi-dc.org}}</ref> The survey was used to identify the level of involvement post-war Germans had had with the Nazi regime. It was the initial tool in the process of identifying and purging Nazi influence from positions of power and public life. The survey consisted of 131 questions that asked about personal information, political affiliation, military service, professional activities, financial and social status, and cultural and educational activities. The vast variety of questions gave the Allies an ability to assess, categorize, and determine eligibility for positions in government, education, and business. 

An early version was created in 1944 by the [[Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force]] (SHAEF).<ref name="StaffStudy1944">Staff Study, "Measures for Identifying and Determining Disposition of Nazi Public Officials in Germany," May 28, 1944, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), RG 331, SHAEF, GS, G-5, IB, HS, Box 104, p. 7, Doc. 9959/181.</ref> This original version of the {{lang|de|Fragebögen}} set the foundation of later questionnaires that were created by the Allies in the different occupation zones. The early version consisted of 78 questions and asked about one's profession. In comparison, the 131 question survey asked more personal questions and gave respondents the ability to write comments and explanations for any responses that may need clarification. 

The inspiration for both variations of the questionnaire came from the {{lang|it|[[Scheda Personale]]}}, which was created in 1943 by political scientist Aldo L. Raffa.<ref name="RaffaFile">Aldo L. Raffa, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), RG 331, SHAEF, GS, G-5, IB, HS, Box 119, Doc. 5601/620; Personnel File, "Rafta, Aldo L.," NARA, RG 226, OSS, Box 630.</ref> The goal of the document was similar to the denazification questionnaire but was aimed at the defascization of Italy from the former fascists under [[Benito Mussolini|Mussolini]].<ref name="Dack2023">Dack, Mikkel. ''Everyday Denazification in Postwar Germany: The Fragebogen and Political Screening during the Allied Occupation''. Cambridge University Press, 2023, p. 70.</ref>

In addition to the removal of Nazis from influential positions in government, education and business, Mikkel Dack argues that the Fragebogen had the effect of forcing a large part of Germany's postwar population to confront their relationship to the Nazi regime. Moreover, the Fragebogen gave many Germans the opportunity to rewrite their past and construct a new anti-Nazi identity, further helping to distance the country from National Socialism.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Dack |first=Mikkel |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781009216326/type/book |title=Everyday Denazification in Postwar Germany: The Fragebogen and Political Screening during the Allied Occupation |date=2023-03-31 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-009-21632-6 |edition=1 |pages=227–238 |doi=10.1017/9781009216326}}</ref>