Goebbels heard windowpanes shatter and saw synagogues burning, leaving him with only two hours of blissful sleep. When he awoke, “In the morning early come the first reports. It has gone awfully wild. That was to be expected. The whole people are in disorder. Jewry will pay dearly for this death. The dear Jews will in the future think twice about shooting German diplomats so cowardly.”20
The press instantly fell into action. On the morning of November 10, the following decree appeared in newspapers throughout Germany:
Jews Forbidden to Possess Weapons By Order of SS Reichsführer Himmler Munich, November 10
The SS Reichsführer and German Police Chief has issued the following Order:
Persons who, according to the Nürnberg Law, are regarded as Jews, are forbidden to possess any weapon. Violators will be condemned to a concentration camp and imprisoned for a period of up to 20 years.21
The number of Jews who were thrown into concentration camps beginning that day for possession of weapons and for any other reason—including just for being Jewish—will never be known. Something far worse was in store for the German Jews, but the “final solution” was still four years into the future. At this point, it is difficult to contemplate a sentence of twenty years for possession of a weapon that on the previous day had been lawful for a Jew to possess. Had the war and the Holocaust never occurred, a Jew sentenced to the maximum would not have been released until 1958.
Reichsführer Himmler’s decrees were binding as ministerial decisions.22 Whether by coincidence or not, on November 10 the Prussian Administrative High Court confirmed its lack of authority to review any decision by the Gestapo.23 This meant that no judicial review could exist for Jews thrown into concentration camps for alleged possession of firearms or any other reason.
Noting the morning’s disorders, Goebbels wrote in his diary: “I consider with the Führer what should now be done. Continue the attacks or stop them?”24 Still in Munich, he was informed by Standartenführer Heinrich Müller, who had issued directives the night before from Gestapo Headquarters in Berlin, of the following:
Müller reports the actions in Berlin. It has proceeded there quite fantastically. Fire after fire. But that is so good.
I prepare a decree to conclude the actions…. If it continues, then the danger exists that a mob appears on the scene. In the whole country, the synagogues are burned down. Jewry must pay dearly for this death.
I report to the Führer at the [Restaurant] Osteria. He agrees with everything. His views are totally radical and aggressive. The action itself proceeded perfectly. 17 dead. But no German property damaged.
With minor alterations, Hitler agrees to my decree ending the actions. I immediately publish it in the press and by radio. The Führer wants to take very sharp measures against the Jews. They must themselves put their businesses in order again. The insurance companies will pay them nothing. Then the Führer wants gradually to expropriate Jewish businesses and to give the owners papers for them that we can debase at any time. I give appropriate secret orders. We now await foreign reactions. For the time being, they are silent. But the uproar will come.25
Indeed, it did. The Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung reported from Berlin the following under the headline “Numerous Arrests?”:
Last night the Gestapo started to arrest Jews in Berlin and in other German cities. Most of those arrested were respected Jewish personalities. At a reception for the press, the Reich Minister for Propaganda [Goebbels] denied that there had been any arrests; when asked again later, however, [his office] said that the arrests had been made in connection with Himmler’s decree prohibiting Jews from owning arms. The explanation given was that the Jews had retained weapons even though the Chief of the German police in his latest decree had threatened to punish them with protective detention of 20 years.26
In further foreign reaction, U.S. ambassador Hugh Wilson telegraphed Secretary of State Cordell Hull from Berlin at 2:00 p.m. on November 10: “In the early hours of this morning systematic breaking of Jewish owned shop windows throughout the Reich and the burning of the principal synagogues in Berlin was carried out. Observers noted no uniforms of Nazi organizations among the perpetrators of this action. Nevertheless, it is not conceivable that this admirable body of police would have tolerated such infraction of order unless general instructions to that effect had been issued.” Ambassador Wilson quoted an item from the semiofficial German press: “‘When news of the death of the German diplomat and party member Von Rath [sic] at the hands of a Jewish murderer became known spontaneous anti-Jew demonstrations in the whole Reich developed.’” He continued: “Editorial comment continues along the same lines described in my telegrams under reference which seems to imply a continuation of anti-Jewish measures. Moreover, an order by Himmler is published forbidding Jews to possess arms. This has given rise to considerable apprehension in connection with the return of Von Rath’s body to Germany.”27
President Roosevelt would recall Ambassador Wilson from Germany a few days later in protest against the pogrom.
German newspapers were relatively silent on what occurred, although some sought to justify the weapons searches. The Hamburger Tagblatt noted: “Because there had been reports that the Jews owned large amounts of weapons, and because the rumor had circulated that weapons were hidden in the synagogues, some of the demonstrators searched synagogues.”28
But the international press reported the frightful details. The headline in the New York Times said it all: “Nazis Smash, Loot, and Burn Jewish Shops and Temples until Goebbels Calls Halt.”29 In Berlin and throughout Germany, thousands of Jewish men, in particular prominent leaders, were taken from their homes and arrested. The Times reported the arms prohibition under the heading “Possession of Weapons Barred”: “One of the first legal measures issued was an order by Heinrich Himmler, commander of all German police, forbidding Jews to possess any weapons whatever and imposing a penalty of twenty years confinement in a concentration camp upon every Jew found in possession of a weapon hereafter.”30
The destruction was carried out by Rollkommandos (wrecking crews) under the protection of uniformed Nazis or police. However, the people at large generally did not participate, and most appeared to be gravely disturbed by the attacks. Some members of the public helped Jews leave their stores unmolested, but citizens who protested against the attacks on Jews were threatened and silenced by the Rollkommandos.31
Observing that the people at large took no part in and were repulsed by the pogrom, anti-Hitler plotter Hans Gisevius later reflected that they could also see what might happen to themselves if they spoke out or resisted. In addition to the mortal blow to the German Jews, “the cowed middle class stared at the Nazi monster like a rabbit at a snake. A general psychosis had been created, under which the populace was reduced to absolute submission; and this effect was valuable to the Nazis. The class was doomed, but for the present it had its uses and would be made to serve.”32
The anti-Jewish pogrom extended into Austria, which Germany had annexed earlier that year. Arson was committed against Vienna’s temples, and Nazis attacked Jewish businesses. The New York Times reported: “Thousands of Jews had their dwellings searched for concealed arms, documents and money. The police claim to have found quantities of them.”33
Some 20,000 Jews were arrested in Germany and Austria on November 9–10. Two Jews were shot to death in the riots, one in Polzin, Pomerania in Bonndorf, where Nazis clashed with members of a Jewish training camp. The semiofficial periodical Neuigkeitsweltblatt, organ of Austrian Nazi commissioner Joseph Buerckel, claimed that in raids on many Jewish homes “arms, Communist agitation pamphlets, and illegally possessed foreign currencies were found.” Heinrich Himmler issued a decree “forbidding the Jews to own any weapons.”34
On November 11, Interior Minister Frick promulgated the Regulation Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons.35 Its preamble recites that it was issued pursuant to section 31 of the 1938 Weapons Law, which in turn empowered t
he interior minister to issue “the necessary legal and administrative regulations for the implementation and fulfillment of this law.” The new regulation provided: “Jews (§ 5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of November 14, 1935…) are prohibited from acquiring, possession, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as cutting or stabbing weapons. Those now having in their possession weapons and ammunition must at once surrender them to the local police authority.”36 Foreign Jews could be exempted by the interior minister or delegate.37
As to the property confiscated, it stated: “Weapons and ammunition found in a Jew’s possession will be forfeited to the Reich without compensation.”38 Penalties were as follows: “Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of § 1 shall be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.”39 The regulation was applicable in Germany, Austria, and the Sudetenland.40
Approximately 550,000 Jews lived in those jurisdictions. And approximately 30,000 males ages sixteen to eighty were arrested during the rampage.41 So many arrests were made that by November 12, Buchenwald was full and a message had to be sent to all Gestapo offices that no more transports of prisoners should be sent other than the ones that were already on their way.42
Why would Frick decree a prohibition on possession of firearms by Jews punishable by five years in prison when the previous day Himmler had decreed the same offense punishable by twenty years in a concentration camp? Frick and Himmler had a long history of intrigue and struggle for power against each other, and Himmler had made Gestapo and SS authority inviolable.43 A Jew arrested under Frick’s decree would be entitled to a trial, albeit in a Nazi court, but a Jew in Gestapo custody had no right to judicial review.
“Possession of Weapons by Jews Now Forbidden by Reich Law” declared the lead headline of the Völkische Beobachter on November 12. It had three subtitles: “Prison and Penitentiary besides Protective Custody,” “The First Response to the Provocation by World Jewry,” and “Further Measures as a Precaution.” Referring to Himmler’s earlier decree and to Frick’s new regulation, it stated: “According to the SS Reichsführer and Chief of the German Police in the Reich Ministry of the Interior, Jewish possession of arms, already ended abruptly by police regulations, is now immediately followed by a legal ban. The Reich Minister of the Interior yesterday issued the following regulations against weapons possession by the Jews.” Following the text of the regulations, the article noted: “Reich Minister Dr. Goebbels has made known, as we already reported, that the final response to the Jewish assassination attempt in Paris would be given to Jewry in the form of legislation or in the form of regulations. For the first of these responses it has not been necessary to wait long!”44
Beside this article in the Völkische Beobachter appeared the article “The Grünspan Case, by Reich Minister Dr. Goebbels.” He asked: “Where was Grünspan [sic] in the past three months?…Who gave him instruction in pistol shooting?” He must have been helped by some “Jewish organization” in his murderous plot. The “parallel with the Gustloff case” was unmistakable, and there, too, the assailant, Frankfurter, had not acted alone but was part of a plot against National Socialist Germany sanctioned by the “world Jewish press.” Both assassinations were inspired by persons behind the scenes, such as the Jews Georg Bernhard and Emil Ludwig Cohn.45 The latter were German exiles critical of Nazism. Emil Ludwig—Goebbels insisted on adding “Cohn” to his name—was author of the 1936 book The Davos Murder, which had depicted David Frankfurther’s killing of Wilhelm Gustloff in Switzerland as an understandable act of defiance.46
The murders of Gustloff and Rath, Goebbels continued, were part of the war of world Jewry against Germany, which would now strike back—as the people spontaneously demonstrated on the night of November 9–10. The world press, in particular the “Jewish press in North America,” slandered the people’s action as that of a “Nazi mob.” Goebbels concluded: “The Jew Grünspan was a representative of Judaism. The German vom Rath was a representative of the German people. Thus, in Paris Judaism fired on the German people. To that, the German government will respond legally but harshly.”
Wolfgang Diewerge quotes these words in his 1939 book Attack on Peace: A Source Book on Grynszpan and His Accomplices. Diewerge had previously written two books on Frankfurther’s shooting of Gustloff in Switzerland. After quoting Goebbels, he explains: “The new laws and decrees announced by minister Dr. Goebbels in the article were the result of the assassination. On November 10, 1938, through an order by the SS Reichsführer and German Police Chief in the Reich Minister of the Interior, persons defined as Jews in the Nuremberg Laws were prohibited possession of any type of weapon.”47 A list of other measures followed.
The Völkische Beobachter on November 13 published a lengthy official commentary, “Explanation of the Decree Against the Possession of Weapons,” on the new prohibition against firearm possession by Jews and its basis in the 1938 Weapons Law. Its author was a Dr. Ehaus, a senior executive officer (Regierungsrat). The full text states:
The preliminary police decree issued by the Reichsführer SS and the Chief of the German Police in the Reich Ministry of the Interior, which immediately after the assassination in Paris had prohibited persons considered Jews under the Nürnberg laws to possess any weapons, has been followed within a very short period of time by a decree that settles the prohibition of weapons for Jews for good. In order to make those concerned understand the extent of this law, it is necessary to explain the few paragraphs of the decree of November 11, 1938, in more detail.
To begin with, we need to note that the preventive activity of the Security Police will not be limited by the rules prohibiting Jews from possessing weapons. The security measures ordered by the Reichsführer SS and the Chief of the German Police in the Reich Ministry for the Interior will remain in force. § 1 prohibits any and all Jews from acquiring, possessing, or carrying firearms or ammunition, as well as weapons for hitting or stabbing. § 5 of the First Supplementary Decree of November 14, 1935, to the Reich Citizenship Law is mentioned in parentheses. That is only meant to point out that the issue of who is Jewish should be settled by using the standard of the Nürnberg Law. Of course, not only German Jews of the Reich, but also all foreign Jews (Jews with foreign citizenship and Jews without citizenship) are subject to the decree.
The new decree makes reference to § 31 of the Weapons Law of March 18, 1938. From that it can be concluded that the definitions for firearms, ammunition, and weapons for stabbing or hitting of § 1 of the Weapons Law apply. According to that, firearms are weapons that allow a projectile to travel through a barrel propelled by gas or air pressure; weapons for hitting or stabbing are weapons that by their nature are meant to inflict injuries by hitting or stabbing.
It is remarkable that muzzle loaders, rifle models of antique design, blank cartridge firearms, gas, stun and dummy weapons [Scheintodwaffen], gallery rifles, parlor rifles, small-caliber rifles, small-caliber sports rifles, and spring guns fall under the term “firearm.” Ammunition means not only finished ammunition for firearms, but also gunpowder of any kind. In order to prevent any circumvention of the Weapons Law, finished or prefabricated essential parts of firearms or ammunition are given the same status as finished firearms or finished ammunition (§ 1, paragraph 3 of the Weapons Law).
We have already mentioned what the term “weapons for hitting or stabbing” means. Even though the legal provisions are clear enough, we shall list such individual weapons one more time: daggers and stilettoes; swords, sabers, bayonets, fencing foils and students’ rapiers; sword canes and defense canes (canes with metal spirals, wire cable or truncheon); clubs, steel rods, and horsewhips; brass knuckles, iron rods, and fighting rings; weapon rings, deer knives, and hunting knives. It will depend on each individual case whether lockable folding knives or fixed knives that cannot be folded have to be considered weapons. Knives with a han
dle will then have the nature of a weapon when their size and design show that they were meant to serve the purpose of a dagger.
The Jews must be warned that they should interpret the new ordinance and the already existing Weapons Law strictly. Otherwise they will have to expect severe penalties pursuant to § 4 and, if applicable, protective custody. When following the order spelled out in § 1 of the new decree immediately to surrender all of the weapons and ammunition to the local police authority, the Jews must make sure that no weapons whatsoever are left behind with them.
One thing in particular should be pointed out: Any Jew who, after this decree forbidding the possession of weapons by Jews has become effective, destroys, gives away, or otherwise disposes of a weapon, that action violates § 1, sentence 2, and § 4 of the ordinance. He should have turned in the weapon immediately. As for the rest, he did not have the right to dispose of the weapon anymore because pursuant to § 2 weapons and ammunition in the possession of a Jew become the property of the Reich, without compensation. That means that with the entering into force of this decree all of the weapons in the possession of Jews have become the property of the German Reich.
§ 3 of the aforesaid decree provides exceptions for Jews with foreign citizenship. Of course, those Jews too must immediately fulfill their duty to turn in their weapons. Their weapons too have become the property of the Reich. Should their request to be exempt from the prohibition be granted, the property they lost will be returned to them.
The punishment provided by the decree against weapons possession by the Jews goes beyond that provided by the Weapons Law. As the assassination in Paris shows, the German ethnic community has a strong interest in disarming all Jews living within the boundaries of the Reich. By providing for severe prison and penitentiary terms, the State will discourage all Jews from violating its laws enacted to protect the German people. Where even such punishment has no effect, the authorities of the Security Police will ensure full compliance with the authority of the Reich.
Gun Control in the Third Reich Page 22