Document Analyst's Report

During December I worked through the defense documents of the Reich Cabinet, which responded to the charge that it was a criminal organization, and began the defense documents of the SS (which I will comment on in the next report). The cabinet’s argument was that, despite its nominal position, it had no decisionmaking or controlling power in Hitler’s regime and thus no capacity to commit any crimes and had not participated in a conspiracy or criminal actions.

Titles without power: Law books published during the Nazi period stated the position of the cabinet clearly. The sole legislative power was Hitler; he gave orders to the cabinet, which deliberated (sometimes) but did not vote. Hitler made all policy decisions in the government and could overrule any administrative decision that a cabinet minister made. The ministers’ oath of 1934 reflected their role: “I shall be loyal and obedient to the Fuehrer.” In the early 1930s the cabinet sometimes ratified Hitler’s decisions in order to enhance their prestige, but by the end of the decade the cabinet made no decisions; it ceased to meet, and Hitler gave his orders to individual ministers separately. Thus the cabinet no longer functioned as an organization at all.

The minister as civil servant: Once the cabinet lost its legislative and policymaking power, the ministers were left in the position of administrative civil servants. The civil service law of January 1937 spelled out the implications. The civil servant’s oath was “loyalty and obedience to the Fuehrer personally,” an obligation that lasted “until death.” Hitler appointed, assigned, transferred, and retired civil servants at his discretion. The civil servant was required to perform his official duties in coordination with the NSDAP, since “State and Party are one.” Obedience and secrecy were the fundamental rules of administration.

The anti-Jewish laws: The cabinet argued that it had nothing to do with the attempted extermination of the Jews and no knowledge of it. As supporting evidence it offered the laws that it had approved or administered, pointing out that none of them involved extermination. This evidence did, however, show how comprehensive the anti-Jewish regime had been. Jewish religious organizations were reclassified from corporations to associations because they were not entitled to the various privileges of corporate status. Jews and ethnic Germans were not allowed to share housing because they could not constitute “a trustworthy house community.” Another law aimed at the “cleansing of Jewish influence” in specified industries. The exclusions included peddlers, inquiry offices, tour guides (since only pure Germans should present German culture), real estate, and marriage matchmakers.

Given the charge that the cabinet had been a criminal organization, the IMT judges focused on the issue of whether it had acted as an organization during the planning of the war and the war itself. They decided that it had not functioned as a collective organization when the crimes occurred. Individual cabinet ministers were implicated in the crimes, and some of them (e.g., Frick and Ribbentrop) were on trial at the IMT, and the prosecution of individual ministers for their own actions was appropriate. The Reich Cabinet as an organization was found not guilty.

Matt Seccombe, 2 January 2025