Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:51:04.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Infirmative Action: The Law of the Severely Disabled in Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Christopher R. Jackson
Christopher R. Jackson
Affiliation:
University of California Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Disabled veterans were certainly in a rotten mood following World War I, and not without reason. A lost war, unrest at home, and physical pain were not things to celebrate. Most aggravating of all, however, were the problems associated with obtaining an adequate pension: for years after the end of the war the pension system caused bitterness among people who felt wronged by the very government that was supposed to take care of them.

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , December 1993 , pp. 417 - 455
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

The author wishes to thank the Krupp Foundation, IREX, and the DAAD for financial support, as well as Charles Maier, Gerald Feldman, Margaret Lavinia Anderson, Norma von Ragenfeld-Feldman, Cornelia Levine, and Troy Paddock for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

1. Döblin, Alfred, A People Betrayed: November 1918: A German Revolution, trans. Woods, John E. (New York, 1983; orig. pub. 1948), 8.Google Scholar

2. Wittenburg, Rudolf, “Die Einstellungspflicht nach dem Schwerbeschädigtengesetz, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Zwangseinweisung durch Zuweisungsbeschluss nach Ziff. 7 SchwBg,” (Ph.D. diss., Göttingen, 1931).Google Scholar

3. Dr. Foerster of the Labor Ministry estimated the total number of disabled as a result of the war as 750,000, but this figure increased over the next five years. See Foerster, “Die Verluste—insbesondere die Verluste Deutschlands—im Weltkriege,” Reichsarbeitsblatt, NAT (1925): 64–73; Foerster, “Die Zahl der versorgungsberechtigten Kriegsbeschädigten und Kriegshinterbliebenen Deutschlands Ende 1926,” Reichsarbeitsblatt, NAT (1927); 113–17. (Hereafter “RAB1”)

4. Whalen, Robert Weldon, Bitter Wounds: German Victims of the Great War, 1914–1939 (Ithaca, 1984), 95.Google Scholar Whalen's study concentrates on the problems of veterans' pensions during the Weimar Republic, and pays little attention to the Law of the Severely Disabled.

5. The disabled veterans of the Franco-Prussian War generally did not have to work after the war, as their pensions were rather generous. Whalen, 16.

6. “Bericht über die Verhandlungen im Reichsamt des Innern of 19 February 1915, betr. die Durchführung der Berufsfürsorge für invalide Krieger,” BayHStA (Kriegsarchiv), MKr 12677. Cited by Whalen, 102. A short summary of the efforts of Germany to try to cope with the problem of disabled veterans is provided by the laudatory booklet by McDill, John R., “Lessons from the Enemy: How Germany Cares for Her War Disabled,” Medical War Manual no. 5 (Philadelphia, 1918).Google Scholar For a comparative treatment of the victims of the First World War, see Geyer, Michael, ‘Ein Vorbote des Wohlfahrtsstaates: Die Kriegsopferversorgung in Frankreich, Deutschland und Grossbritannien nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 9 (1983): 230–77.Google Scholar

7. The first attempt to formulate a policy regarding disabled veterans had come a few months earlier, when Carl Legien presented a memorandum of the woodworkers' union on “Die Gewerkschaften und die Kriegskrüppelfürsorge” (Unions and War-Cripples' Welfare). Konferenz der Verbandsvorstände, 8/9 February 1915, in Quellen zur Geschichte der deutschen Gewerkschaftsbewegung im 20. Jahrhundert, Matthias, Erich, founder; ed. Weber, Hermann, Klaus Schönhoven and Klaus Tenfelde, (Cologne, 1985), vol. 1, doc. no. 8, 165–68.Google Scholar (hereafter QGdG.)

8. Konferenz der Verbandsvorstände, 5–7 July 1915, QGdG, vol. 1, doc. no. 11, 206–13.

9. Konferenz der Verbandsvorstände, 22–24 November 1917, QGdG, vol. 1, doc. no. 46, 395–96.

10. Gemeinsame Eingabe der Richtungsgewerkschaften und Angestelltenverbände an den Bundesrat und Reichstag mit Forderungen zur Übergangswirtschaft, 30 June 1917, QGdG, vol. 1, doc. no. 42, 365–66.

11. “Kriegsbeschädigtenfürsorge und Organisation,” Der Arbeitgeber (1918): 71–74. Signed “Dr. B[illerbeck].”

12. Ibid.

13. See March 1918 memorandum by the VDA rejecting the use of legal force to reintegrate disabled veterans into workplaces. “Denkschrift der Vereinigung der deutschen Arbeitgeberverbände: Forderungen der Übergangszeit und Friedenswirtschaft,” Bundesarchiv Koblenz, R131–188, Bl. 85–88.

14. DrSperling, E., “Die Verwendung Kriegs- und Friedensbeschädigter in der Industrie,” Der Arbeitgeber (1918): 137–39.Google Scholar

15. Ibid.

16. The Ludendorff-Spende was a fund created for veterans and supported to a great extent by western heavy industry. The decision on whether to participate in the fund was a controversial one for the Free Unions. Those members of the Generalkommission who favored participation (Etzkorn, Drunsel, and Knoll), pointed out that disabled veterans might be reduced to begging if not for the fund, and saw non-participation as unpatriotic; opponents (Stühmer, Reichelt, Heckmann, Kloth, Blum, Leipart, and Grassmann) approached the Ludendorff-Spende with suspicion, especially since Rhenish-Westphalian heavy industry had donated over 30 million marks to it. Konferenz der Verbandsvorstände, 25–26 March, 1918, QGdG, vol. 1, doc. no. 50, 448–55.

17. DrBoywidt, Hans, “Pflicht zur Beschäftigung Schwerbeschädigter,” Der Arbeitgeber (1919): 69–70.Google Scholar

18. In reporting on a meeting of the Reichsbund in Weimar on 1 April 1918, Der Arbeitgeber sounded a note of warning that SPD and union representatives were in attendance, and that they were trying hard to recruit disabled veterans for their cause. “Reichsbund der Kriegsbeschädigten und ehemaligen Kriegsteilnehmer,” Der Arbeitgeber (1918): 49–50.

19. The Reich Committee for War Wounded and Survivors' Welfare (Reichsausschuss für Kriegsbeschädigten- und Kriegshinterbliebenen-Fürsorge), semi-public organization that brought together representatives of blue-collar, white-collar, and employers' organizations had, in November 1916, voted to support a plan that emphasized voluntary measures to aid disabled veterans.

20. “Fünfter Teilbericht des Ausschusses für Handel und Gewerbe betreffend Überführung der Kriegs-in die Friedenswirtschaft,” Verhandlungen des Reichstags, Anlagen zu den Stenographischen Berichten, vol. 321, no. 875, 1634–60.Google Scholar (hereafter VdRA.)

21. Verhandlungen des Reichstags, Stenographische Berichte, vol. 313, 5569–71Google Scholar (Hereafter VdRS.)

22. Bauer complained that it was common for employers to make deductions from disabled employees' pay based on the pension they received. This practice was officially forbidden, but if often occurred—even in state-run enterprises. VdRS, vol. 313, 5574–76.

23. VdRS, vol. 313, 5601.

24. In many respects the USPD was just as sexist as the Majority Social Democrats in defining “Labor” as meaning “men”; the female members of the USPD also had a series of Struggles with their male counterparts over the issue of firing women to facilitate demobilization. On women and labor in modern Germany, see Albrecht, W. et al. , “Frauenfrage und dentsche Sozialdemokratie vom Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts bis zum Beginn der zwangziger Jahre,” Archiv für Sozialgeschichte 19 (1979): 459–510, esp. 495–96.Google Scholar

25. VdRS, vol. 313, 5592.

26. VdRS, vol. 313, 5584.

27. VdRS, vol. 313, 5590.

28. The Deutsche Fraktion included the Deutsche Reichspartei (Frei-Konservative), the Wirtschaftliche Vereinigung, the Deutsche Reformpartei, the Deutsch–Hannoveraner, and the Bayerischer Bauernbund.

29. VdRS, vol. 313, 5594.

30. “Bericht des Ausschusses für soziale Angelegenheiten über den Entwurf eines Gesetzes über die Beschäftigung Schwerbeschädigter,” Verhandlungen der verfassunggebenden Deutschen Nationalversammlung, Anlagen zu den Stenographischen Berichten, vol. 341. no. 2422, 2612.Google Scholar (Hereafter VvDNA.) See also unsigned article, “Kriegsbeschädigte und Unfallrentner,” Der Arbeitgeber (1920): 227.

31. Whalen provides a poignant depiction of the struggles of the disabled to wade through the bureaucratic morass of the pension system, 163–64; on the process of disability determination, see Whalen, 136–37.

32. Verordnung über Beschäftigung Schwerbeschädigter, Reichsgesetzblatt, I, 28.Google Scholar (Hereafter RGB1.) The Reich Demobilization Office had prohibited the dismissal of any disabled persons a few days before. RGB1. I, 4 January 1919, 8.

33. Verordnung of 24 September 1919, RGB1. I, 1720.

34. That is, the committees created by the Verordnung über Tarifverträge, Arbeiterund Angestelltenausschüsse und Schlichtung von Arbeitsstreitigkeiten of 23 December, 1918, RGB1. I, 1456. (Usually abbreviated as TVVO.)

35. Knaak, Richard, Das Schwerbeschädigtengesetz: Kommentar zum Gesetz Über die Beschäftigung Schwerbeschädigter (Berlin, 1928), 8.Google Scholar

36. Verordnung of 1 February 1919, RGB1. 1, 132; verordnung of 11 March 1919, RGB1. 1, 581; Verordnung of 10 April 1919, RGB1. 1, 389; Verordnung of 14 June 1919, RGB1. 1, 581; Verordnung of 11 August 1919, RGB1. 1, 1382.

37. The Reich government faced an immediate problem of its own when it came to efforts to protect the disabled against layoffs in early 1919: the Reich employed large numbers of disabled veterans in its own munitions factories. Indeed, a riot occurred at the huge Spandau works in early 1919, pitting disabled workers against able-bodied workers over who would be the first to be laid off. Whalen, 114–18. See the “Bericht des Ausschusses für den Reichshaushalt über Militärwerkstätten,” VvDA, vol. 337, no. 657, 436–47.Google Scholar By changing the Spandau works so that they produced other products, the government was able to reopen the works and, by October 1919, employ over 11,000 workers, of whom 11 percent were disabled veterans. “Fortsetzung der zweiten Beratung des Entwurfs eines Gesetzes, betreffend die Feststellung des Reichshaushaltsplans für das Rechnungsjahr 1919,” (Speech by Treasurer Dr.Mayer), 21 October 1919, Verhandlungen der verfassunggebenden Deutschen Nationalversammlung, Stenographische Berichte, vol. 330, 3297–98.Google Scholar (Hereafter VvDNS.)

38. “Entwurf eines Gesetzes über die Beschäftigung Schwerbeschädigter,” VvDNA, vol. 340, Anlagen zu den Stenographischen Berichten, no. 1750, 1778–84. The draft was written by Lothar Richter of the Reich Labor Ministry.

39. Brühl, Abg., VvDNS, vol. 332, 4894–95.Google Scholar The President of the Assembly, Konstantin Fehrenbach, admonished Brühl to stick to the point.

40. The voting was done by standing. Ibid., 4898. The National Pension Law (Reichsversorgungsgesetz) was likewise passed unanimously 28 April 1920. Like the Decree of 9 January 1919, the draft law extended protection to victims of industrial accidents as well as disabled veterans; the government refused, however, to extend protection to the widows and orphans of veterans, as some veterans' organizations had demanded. “Entwurf eines Gesetzes über die Beschäftigung Schwerbeschädigter,” 1782. (See note 38.)

41. Germany did not remain unique in trying to solve the problem of disabled veterans by forcing employers to hire them: six months after the Law of the Severely Disabled was passed in Germany, Austria passed a similar law. France also passed a law in 1923 that required employers to hire the disabled, but Britain and the United States resisted a compulsory scheme. See “The Compulsory Employment of Disabled Men,” International Labour Office, Studies and Reports, series E, no. 2 (Geneva, 1921).

42. Workplaces with twenty-five to fifty employees were required to hire at least one disabled worker; for every further fifty employees, one more disabled worker had to be hired, thus essentially constituting a 2 percent quota.

43. For an introduction to the flight to the general clauses, see Dawson, John P., The Oracles of the Law (Westport, Conn., 1978; orig. pub. 1968), 461–79.Google Scholar

44. The simplicity of Kaskel's definition was its great attraction, but also its major weakness. After Kaskel died in 1929, Hermann Dersch continued to update the former's textbook, but abandoned Kaskel's definition of a “legitimate” industrial conflict in the fourth edition of the book, which appeared in 1932. Kaskel, Walter, founder, Arbeitsrecht, newly revised by Dersch, Hermann, 5th ed. (Berlin, 1957), 326–27.Google Scholar

45. Given the prevalence of political strikes in the Weimar Republic, it is not surprising that Kaskel's definition lost its popularity. Hans-Carl Nipperdey attacked (the late) Walter Kaskel for creating a category of industrial conflict that was no different than an arbitration dispute carried out by different means. Nipperdey simply defined an industrial dispute as “a disturbance of the labor peace in order to exert pressure to achieve a certain goal or long-range aim.” Hueck-Nipperdey, , vol. 2, Lehrbuch des Arbeitsrechts, 3rd–5th ed., 649–51.Google Scholar

46. Strikes and lockouts were supposedly equal before the law, but in practice lockouts had to be preceded by notice, whereas workers often did not make their intention to strike known beforehand. Various methods were used by courts and scholarly authorities to get around this dilemma. See “ DrBodmann, ,” “Die Aussperrung Schwerbeschädigter,” Arbeitsrecht 14 (1927): 1081–84Google Scholar, in which Bodmann (actually Heinz Potthoff) assaults Erich Molitor's argument that the disabled should be treated the same as other workers during a lockout because they benefit equally from a strike. [Molitor, Erich], “Die Aussperrung Schwerbeschädigter,” Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 7 (1927): 528–35.Google Scholar (Hereafter NZfAR.)

47. Judgment of the LG Cologne of 19 December 1924, reprinted in NZfAR 5 (1925): 301.

48. DrDitges, K., “Streik und Schwerbeschädigte,” Arbeitsrecht 12 (1925): 729–32.Google Scholar Also Simson, Gerhard, “Die Wiedereinstellung des Schwerbeschädigten nach Beendigung eines Streiks,” NZfAR 7 (1927): 201–8.Google Scholar

49. DrBodmann, , “Schwerbeschädigte in Arbeitskampfe,” Arbeitsrecht 13 (1926): 797–800.Google Scholar The decision of the Reichsgericht concerned the doctrine of “Betriebsrisiko,” or factory-risk. The streetcar workers of Kiel showed up for work, and demanded their pay, despite the fact that a strike at the electrical works meant that there was no electricity to run the cars. The court decided that, since the workers enjoyed the benefits of belonging to the “factory community,” they should also suffer its losses, based on the general clause §242 BGB, that all contracts must be regulated by “equity and good faith” (Treu und Glaube), rather than the more specific §§323, 615, which regulate nonperformance of a service contract. Entscheidungen des Reichsgerichts in Zivilsachen, vol. 106, (Berlin and Leipzig, 1923), 272.Google Scholar

50. DrBodmann, , “Schutz der Schwerbeschädigten in Arbeitskämpfen,” Arbeitsrecht 12 (1925): 27–36.Google Scholar

51. Not showing up to work, picketing, and encouraging fellow workers not to work were considered legitimate actions during a strike, but threatening fellow workers was considered grounds for termination without notice. Hueck-Nipperdey, , Lehrbuch des Arbeitsrechts, vol. 1 (3rd–5th ed.), 426.Google Scholar

52. There is no full-length study of Potthoff, despite his importance for the theory and establishment of collective labor law in the Weimar Republic. See the short sketch by Haussleiter, Otto, “Heinz Potthoff Volkswirt, Sozialpolitiker, Arbeitsrechtler,” Der Deutsche Volks- und Betriebswirt (1965): 3ff.;Google Scholar reprinted in Zeitschrifit für Sozialreform (1965): 429–33.

53. This assumed that the disabled employee had done nothing in the meantime to cause a justified termination without notice. Hueck-Nipperdey, , Lehrbuch des Arbeitsrechts, vol. 1, (3rd–5th ed.), 426.Google Scholar

54. The labor courts were set up at the beginning of 1927. See Wunderlich, Frieda, German Labor Courts (Chapel Hill, 1946).Google Scholar

55. The subject of the applicability of §123 and especially §124a of the Industrial Code to the disabled was hotly disputed. Denying the notion of the applicability of §124a: DrBachteler, , “Findet §124a Gewerbeordnung Anwendung auf Schwerbeschädigte?” NZfAR 7 (1927): 209–12.Google Scholar Supporting the relevance of §124a: Judgment of the LG Mainz of 7 May 1926, 99/25, reprinted in “Fristlose Entlassung eines Schwerbeschädigten,” NZfAR 7 (1927): 315–16.Google Scholar The latter opinion did not find much support. Erdmann, “Vertrag und Vertragsfreiheit im heutigen sozialen Recht,” Der Arbeitgeber (1921): 109.

56. Judgment of 8 February 1928, RAG III 72/27, Entscheidungen des Reichsarbeitsgerichts (Berlin and Leipzig), vol. 1, 171–76.Google Scholar

57. The Supreme Labor Court was probably influenced by Erich Molitor's article on the subject, which appeared just before the decision. See note 46 above.

58. Judgment of 13 July 1929, RAG 2/29, Arbeitsrecht-Sammlung, vol. 6, 558–60.Google Scholar (Hereafter ARS); note that this series was usually referred to as the “Bensheimer Sammlung” until the Nazi Machtergreifung.

59. Judgment of 7 November 1931, RAG 187/31, Entscheidungen des Reichsarbeitsgerichts, vol. 9, 302–7.Google Scholar See also the article by DrRichter, Lutz in Juristische Wochenschrift (1932): 968–69.Google Scholar Not coincidentally, the Supreme Labor Court backtracked significantly on this issue once the Nazis took power: In an appeal from the same Landesarbeitsgericht as the previous case (Duisburg-Hamborn), the Supreme Labor Court held that a disabled worker did not deserve to have his job back after he had been one of the leaders of a strike. Interestingly, the NSDAP had earlier made a motion in the Reichstag that would have changed the Law of the Severely Disabled such that disabled workers who declared their willingness to work during a strike or lockout would have been exempted from dismissal. Antrag Dr. Frick, Oberlindober und Genossen, Berlin, 27 November 1930, VdRA, vol. 448, no. 306. The motion was never debated.

60. The Supreme Labor Court, in a series of decisions a short time later, ruled that an employer was entitled to reassign a disabled employee to another task within the workplace so long as it did not result in a reduction in pay. Judgment of 26 September 1928 RAG 82/28, ARS vol. 4, 75; Judgment of 14 December 1929 RAG 315/29, ARS, vol. 7, 504; Judgment of 16 October 1929 RAG 191/29, Entscheidungen des Reichsarbeitsgerichts, vol. 4, 212.Google Scholar

61. Potthoff, Heinz, “Die Pflicht zur Beschäftigung des Schwerbeschädigten,” Arbeitsrecht 15 (1928): 418–22.Google Scholar On the disputed legal obligation to provide a disabled employee with something to do, see Wittenberg, Rudolf, “Die Einstellungspflicht nach dem Schwerbeschädigtengesetz, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Zwangseinweisung durch Zuweisungsbeschluss nach §7 SchwBG,” (Ph.D. diss., Göttingen, 1931), 20–31.Google Scholar

62. Judgment of 9 May 1928, RAG 12/28, ARS, vol. 3, 16–21.

63. The Supreme Labor Court explicitly denied this same status to industrial accident victims.

64. “Die gesetzliche Bestimmungen über die fristlose Kündigung werden nicht berührt. Wenn es sich um eine Krankheit handelt, die eine Folge der Kriegsbeschädigung ist, muss die Zustimmung der Hauptfürsorgestelle eingeholt werden.”

65. Anthes, Hans-Georg, “Zweifelsfragen aus dem Schwerbeschädigtengesetz,“ Der Arbeitgeber (1928): 353–55, 381–84.Google Scholar

66. §323: “If the performance due from one party under a mutual contract becomes impossible in consequence of a circumstance for which neither he nor the other party is responsible, he loses the claim to counterperformance; in case of partial impossibility the counterperformance is diminished in conformity with §§472, 473.” Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, trans. Wang, Chung Hui, (1907), 2nd. ed. (Berlin, 1923; orig. pub. 1900).Google Scholar

67. A works councillor in such a situation had only the opportunity to contest the dismissal in opposition proceedings (Einspruchsverfahren) according to §96 par. 3 of the Works Council Law.

68. “H. P., ,” “Die Pflicht zur Beschäftigung des Schwerbeschädigten,” Arbeitsrecht 15 (1928): 418–22.Google Scholar Heinz Potthoff was among the first to note the inherent contradiction in the Supreme Labor Court's casual remark that a disabled worker's wage claim while unable to work might be obviated by a regulation in the applicable collective bargaining agreement, such as “only the time spent actually working will be paid.” “H.P., ,” “Gehaltsanspruch des Schwerbeschädigten Angestellten bei Krankheit,” Arbeitsrecht 19 (1932): 460–62.Google Scholar

69. Criticism of the decision: Schoppen in Juristische Wochenschrift (1928): 3067–68; also Schoppen “Die arbeitsgerichtliche Rechtsprechung auf dem Gebiete des Schwerbeschädigtenrechts,” Der Arbeitgeber (1930): 376–79; Nörpel in Arbeitsrechts-Praxis (1929): 250; Judgment of the AG Pforzheim, reprinted in Arbeitsrecht und Schlichtung (1930): 201; commentators: Dr. Aron, “Haben Schwerbeschädigte Lohnanspruch für die Zeit einer durch ihre Kriegsbeschädigung hervorgerufenen Arbeitsunfähigkeit?” Juristische Wochenschrift (1930): 3067–68. Hermann Dersch also critcized the decision in a comment on the case in the Bensheimer Sammlung.

70. Judgment of 9 May 1928, RAG 12/28, ARS, vol. 3, 19–21.

71. Thieme, H., “Aus der Vorgeschichte des Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuches: Zur Gesetzgebung des Positivismus,” Deutsche Juristenzeitung 39 (1934): 968–71.Google Scholar

72. One of the most prominent labor law theorists of the Weimar Republic, Arthur Nikisch, dealt with some of the suspect decisions of the supreme Labor Court in a short but carefully reasoned essay in 1931. Arthur Nikisch, “Zur Kritik an der arbeitsgerichtlichen Rechtsprechung,” Der Arbeitgeber (1931): 61–63.

73. Ibid.

74. The supreme Labor Court continued to deal with the issue, and continued to hold fast to its position. Judgment of 11 January 1930, RAG 327/29, ARS, vol. 8, 56; Judgment of 7 May 1930, RAG 73/30, ARS, vol. 10, 311–13; Judgment of 21 June 1930, RAG 34/30, ARS, vol. 10, 97–100; Judgment of 4 October 1930, RAG 178/30, ARS, vol. 10, 349–56.

75. Kahn-Freund, Otto, “Das soziale Ideal des Reichsarbeitsgerichts,” reprinted in Arbeitsrecht und Politik, ed. Ramm, Thilo, (Neuwied am Rhein, 1966), 149–210.Google Scholar

76. Ibid., 198.

77. Judgment of 8 and 15 February 1928, RAG 72/27, 67/27, ARS, vol. 2, no. 38, 39, 122, 128.

78. Kahn-Freund's point was potentially stronger here than he made it; he claimed that patriotism included a sense of obligation vis-à-vis both those who had been injured in the service of the nation (wounded war veterans) as well as those who were injured in the service of the general public (industrial accident victims). Yet, as seen above, the Supreme Labor Court specifically limited its expansive interpretation of the Law of the Severely Disabled to disabled veterans. Kahn-Freund, 199.

79. See the condescending letter from Nörpel, Clemens to Otto Kahn-Freund, reprinted in Appendix 5 of Lewis, Roy and Clark, Jon, eds., trans., Labour Law and Politics in the Weimar Republic: Otto Kahn-Freund (Oxford, 1981), 226–29.Google Scholar Also a review by Herschel, , “Der angebliche Faschismus des Reichsarbeitsgerichts,” Soziales Leben (Beiblatt of the Christian Union newspaper Der Deutsche) no. 122, 28 05 1931.Google Scholar

80. See the review by Silberschmidt, Wilhelm in Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft, 26 (1933), 455–72.Google Scholar See also the review by Anthes, Hans-Georg, “Das soziale Ideal des Reichsarbeitsgerichts,” Der Arbeitgeber (1931): 524–26, 557–58.Google Scholar Though Anthes recognized the problems with the Supreme Labor Court's loose interpretation of §242 of the BGB to resolve issues of labor law, he attacked Kahn-Freund's analysis as both wrong and destructive of the public's general trust of the courts.

81. Judgment of 8 and 15 February 1928, RAG 38, 39/28, ARS, vol. 2, 129–30.

82. Kahn-Freund's point that the Supreme Labor Court was allowing the protections provided by the Law of the Severly Disabled to be undermined systematically by employers who insisted on contractual exceptions to these protections seemed to be his strongest point in support of the need for union protections for the rights of the disabled.

83. Kahn-Freund noted that the Superme Labor Court had never explained what the difference was between the interests of the Betrieb and those of its owner. Kahn-Freund, 173.

84. Liegnitz, Regierungsbezirk, Jahresberichte der preussischen Gewerbeaufsichtsbeamten (1929): 256.Google Scholar (Hereafter JB.)

85. No general statistics are available on this practice, but the threat alone seems to have been fairly effective: within the Chief Welfare Office district of Berlin in 1928 directed hirings (Zwangseinweisungen) were threatened 116 times; it occurred on 62 occasions. Wittenburg, 11n.

86. Sigmaringen, Regierungsbezirk, JB, 1929, 570.Google Scholar

87. See the complaints registered by Briefs, Joseph, “Die soziale Fürsorge der schwerbeschädigten in der heutigen Gesetzgebung” (Ph.D. diss., Göttingen, 1931), 104.Google Scholar

88. For example, in Berlin virtually every blind person who could work and wanted to work had a job. Dr. Bernstein, “Die Durchführung des §8 des Schwerbeschädigtengesetzes im Hinblick auf die allgemeine Erwerbsbeschränktenfürsorge,” RABl., NAT, 1925, 557.

89. Düsseldorf, Regierungsbezirk, JB, 1929, 517;Google ScholarMünster, Regierungsbezirk, JB, 1929, 406;Google ScholarArnsberg, Regierungsbezirk, JB, 1929, 440;Google ScholarMünster, Regierungsbezirk, JB, 1929, 406.Google Scholar In one rather interesting case the plant management cited potential legal and financial liability as their reason for dismissing a blind worker; though they seemed to have a prima facie case (it was, after all, a dynamite factory), it took months of negotiations before the blind worker was finally dismissed. Jahresberichte der Gewerbeaufsichtsbeamten, 1923/1924, (preussen), 1:605.Google Scholar

90. Merseburg, Regierungsbezirk, JB, 1929, 304.Google Scholar

91. See Campbell's, Joan study Joy in Work, German Work (Princeton, 1989), especially 213–42.Google Scholar

92. RABl., 1927, AT, 82.

93. RABl., 1927, AT, 69.

94. As of 1 January 1927. RABl., I, 1927, 82.

95. Reform of 22 December 1927, RGBI., I, 515. Geyer, 248. Whalen neglects to mention the 1927 reform of the RVG.

96. The backlog before the administrative tribunals was so severe that even in the most favorable cases it still took almost two years before an appeal by a disabled person was resolved. Christoph, Minsterialrat, “Das fünfte Gesetz zur Änderung des Gesetzes über das Verfahren in Versorgungssachen,” RABl., NAT, 1934, 255–59.Google Scholar

97. “Niederschrift über eine Parteiführerbesprechung 8 May 1930, im Reichskanzlerhaus.” Cited by Whalen, 169.

98. Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten zur Behebung finanzieller, wirtschaftlicher und sozialer Notstände of 26 July 1930, RGBI. I, 311.

99. See Preller, Ludwig, Sozialpolitik in der Weimarer Republik (Kronberg/Taunus, 1978; orig. pub. 1949), 396–98;Google ScholarWinkler, Heinrich August, Der Weg in die Katastrophe (Berlin and Bonn, 1987), 318–20, 338–41;Google Scholar Whalen, 169.

100. Whalen, 171.

101. Assuming a mortality rate of 8500 per year, this meant that over 6,000 disabled workers lost the protection of the Severely Disabled.

102. Employers ultimately won the support of the Committee on the Severely Disabled of the Reich Institute for Employment Exchange and Unemployment Insurance in early 1932 for their oppostion to government control over individual firings. [Hermann] Meissinger, “Zweifelsfragen aus dem Schwerbeschädigtengesetz. Die neuesten Entscheidungen des Schwerbeschädigtenausschusses bei der Hauptstelle der Reichsanstalt für Arbeitsvermittlung und Arbeitslosenversicherung,” Der Arbeitgeber (1932): 76–80.

103. Merseburg, Regierungsbezirk, JB, 1929, 305.Google Scholar

104. Wiesbaden, Regierungsbezirk, JB, 1930, 426.Google Scholar

105. Düsseldorf, Regierungsbezirk, JB, 1930, 485.Google Scholar

106. The town was Landsberg (Warthe). Frankfurt, Regierungsbezirk, JB, 1930, 149.Google Scholar

107. Liegnitz, Regierungsbezirk, JB, 1930, 237.Google Scholar

108. Whalen, 170. Many employers who had previously employed more than the legal minimum reduced the number of disabled persons they employed to the minimum. Wiesbaden, Regierungsbezirk, JB, 1930, 426.Google Scholar

109. Whalen, 170.

110. Crew, David F., “‘Wohlfahrtsbrot ist bitteres Brot’: The Elderly, the Disabled and the Local Welfare Authorities in the Weimar Republic, 1924–1933,” Archiv für Sozialgeschichte 30 (1990): 232.Google Scholar It should be noted, however, that, by and large, the Nazis tried (very often successfully) to woo disabled veterans in their election campaigns, especially after 1930. Diehl, James M., “Victors or Victims? Disabled Veterans in the Third Reich” Journal of Modern History 59 (1987): 705–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Childers, Thomas, The Nazi Voter: The Social Foundations of Fascism in Germany, 1919–1933 (Chapel Hill, 1983), 83–4; 225–8.Google ScholarMann's, Ernst book, Moral der Kraft (Weimar, 1920)Google Scholar, though published shortly after the war, enjoyed a modest revival after 1930. In it Mann argued that disabled veterans should perform the “last heroic deed” and kill themselves. Whalen, 171.

111. A Nazi postcard, sent to a member of a veterans organization, threatened to liquidate the non-productive of society if they did not kill themselves. Crew, 232.

112. Diehl, 722.

113. The Frontzulage was provided for veterans with a disability of 70 percent or more, or those with a disability who were more than 50 years of age. Gesetz über Änderungen auf dem Gebiete der Reichsversorgung of 3 July 1934. Diehl, 721.

114. Diehl, 721.

115. Christoph, Ministerialrat, “Das Fünfte Gesetz…,” 257.Google Scholar Christoph had to admit, however, that the technical knowledge that the position required meant that it would be years before this goal could be achieved.

116. Art. 5 §2 des Gesetzes über Änderungen auf dem Gebiete der Reichsversorgung of 3 July 1934, RGBI. I, 541.

117. The need for the law's protections for victims of industrial accidents was plain, and only grew with time: as Table 2 would indicate, the numbers of such persons increased dramatically during the Third Reich.

118. The Nazi regime was quick to take credit for such progress, and even to imply that they were responsible for the Law of the Severely Disabled. See Seldte, Franz, Sozialpolitik im Dritten Reich (Berlin, 1935), 54.Google Scholar

119. Reichsarbeitsminister an die Sozialministerien der Länder, Berlin, 22 July 1933. Betr. Schwerbeschädigte. Signed, i.V., Retting. RABl., IV, 1933, 424.

120. “Erlaß vom 22 September 1933 IIb9615/33,” cited by Zimmerle, Ludwig, “Die Unterbringung der Schwerbeschädigten nach dem Stande vom 31. März 1935,” RABl., NAT, 1935, 293.Google Scholar Seldte repeated his admonition to employers, public and private, in 1936, and pointed out his ministry was composed of more than 10 percent disabled. Runderlass, Reichs- und Preussische Arbeitsminister to [various Reich and Land authorities], Berlin, 17 April 1936, Betr.: Arbeits-beschaffung für Kriegsbeschädigte. Reprinted in Reichsversorgungsblatt, (1936): 32–33.

121. The Industrial Inspectors at Harburg (Prussia) were especially successful in 1935, finding jobs for almost all the disabled in their district. Jahresberichte der Gewerbeaufsichtsbeamten und Berbehörden für die Jahre 1935 und 1936 (Berlin, 1937), 1.43.Google Scholar

122. Zimmerle, “Die Unterbringung der Schwerbeschädigten,” 294.

123. See the joint declaration by the Reichsminister der Finanzen and the Reichswirtschaftsminister, Berlin, 30 December 1936 (IIb 7520/36), reprinted in Reichsversorgungsblatt (1937): 7.

124. Seldte lost his left arm in 1916, and had been awarded the Iron Cross.

125. Gesetz zur Änderung des Kriegspersonenschädengestzes of 27 February 1934, RGBl. I, 135.

126. The exclusion of the mentally ill met with the approval of most disabled veterans, who resented having the same legal status as the insane. Diehl, 722. The pension rolls declined overall after 1933, both as a result of the Nazis' exclusions, and as a result of the mortality of veterans. See Statistisches Jahrbuch 1935, 500–3.

127. Gesetz über die Versorgung der Kämpfer für die nationale Erhebung of 27 February 1934, RGBI. I, 133. Hanns Oberlindober had originally proposed the law at a Nuremberg rally in 1933. Diehl, 715–16. The number of such pernanently disabled stormtroopers was actually rather small: in 1935 it was only 535; it had risen to 1,396 by 1938. Zimmerle, “Die Unterbringung der Schwerbeschädigten,” 295; Foerster, Ministerialrat, “Die Zahl derversorgungsberechtigten Kriegsbeschädigten und Kriegshinterbliebenen im Alterich (Zählung vom August 1938),”RABl., NAT, 1938, 366.Google Scholar

128. “Ehrenunterstützungen für Schwerbeschädigte der NSDAP,” RABl., I, 1936, 37.

129. The decision as to whether the injury had been suffered in the political battle for power was made by the NSDAP. Members of the paramilitary organizations who had been kicked out, or who had resigned and whose behavior was subsequently deemed deserving of expulsion were excluded from the law, and there was no possibility of appeal (§9).

130. See “Meldungen aus dem Reich, no. 252, 19 January 1942,” Meldungen aus dem Reich (Heresching, 1984), vol. 9, 3188.Google Scholar

131. RAM and OKW Agreement to transfer to the Wehrmacht the authority to retrain nonprofessional soldiers; signed i.A. Dr. Rosenberg (RAM) and i.A. Dr. Weisbrod (OKW), Berlin, 15 March 1944. RABl., I, 1944, 105.

132. The government also tried to help make life slightly easier for severely disabled veterans after they returned, such as with discounts for cultural events and free use of streetcars and buses. Verordnung über Vergünstigungen für Kriegsbeschädigte im öffentlichen Personenverkehr of 23 December 1943. RGBI. I, 1944, 5.

133. OT-Einsatzgruppe VI Oberbauleitung Schwaben in early October 1944, National Archives, T-76, roll 1, frames 663602–663611.

134. Bundesgesetz über die Beschäftigung Schwerbeschädigter (Schwerbeschädigtengesetz), Bundesgesetzblatt, I, no. 28, 389–402. See also Hueck-Nipperdey, , Lehrbuch des Arbeitsrechts, 6th ed. (Berlin and Frankfurt a.M., 1959), 1: 695–703.Google Scholar

135. The victims covered by the law included wives and widows of the victims of Nazism, the occupation authorities, industrial accident or illness, or the wives of soldiers missing in action, POWs, or disabled men incapable of work.

136. Hueck-Nipperdey, , Lehrbuch des Arbeitsrechts, 6th ed., 1: 696.Google Scholar

137. This institution was unkown in the original Law of the Severely Disabled of 1920/23, but had been incorporated as an “Ausgleichstaxe” in the Austrian equivalent of 1920. Wittemburg, 13–14. It was also part of the reform demands put forward by Dr. Panzer of the Kriegsbeschädigtenorganistionen in November 1928. Briefs, 105.

138. In 1986 the monthy compensation was set at 150 marks per place per month.

139. The power invested in the state by the Schwerbehindertengesetz does differ significantly from its predecessors in at least one respect: unlike the Laws of the Severly Disabled of 1923 and 1953, the Schwerbehindertengesetz does not contain a provision for directed hirings (Zwangseinweisung); in this respect it represents a slight retreat from the two prior laws.

140. The United Kingdom attempted to provide training for the disabled, but turned a deaf ear to the pleas of the National Federation of Discharged and Demobilised Sailors and Soldiers, which called for a Compulsory employment scheme similar to Germany's, . “Industrial Rehabilitation: The Industrial Training of Disabled Men in the United Kingdom,” International Labour Review 2 (1921); 247–60.Google Scholar

141. Perhaps the most eloquently ardued version of the “Sonderweg” thesis is Dahrendorf, Ralf, Society and Democracy in Germany (New York, 1967; orig. pub. 1965).Google Scholar