I. Buildings Integral to the Former Life and/or Persecution of Jews in Hamburg - Neustadt/St. Pauli. © Wilhelm Mosel, Deutsch-jüdische Gesellschaft Hamburg. 22. No. 3 Sievekingplatz. Strafjustizgebäude (Landgericht) (Criminal Justice Building (District Court)). Former Strafkammer 6 für "Rassenschande"- Verfahren des Landgerichts (Division 6 of the Criminal Court for legal proceedings in cases of "Rassenschande" ("racial dishonour") (From 1941: Division 1). Former Derzernat für "Rassenschande"- Verfahren der Staatsanwaltschaft beim Landgericht (Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions of the District Court for legal proceedings in cases of "Rassenschande" ("racial dishonour")). In todays Strafjustizgebäude (Criminal Justice Building), built in 1882, a part of the larger law courts complex, between 1936 and 1943, legal proceedings were held in cases of so-called "Rassenschande" (racial dishonour). Oberlandsgerichtsgebaude and Ziviljustizgebaude (right), 1970. Strafjustizgebaude and part of the Untersuchungsgefangnis (UG), 1970. In the UG, foreground left, Jews were imprisoned for short or longer periods for "Rassenschande", and on political grounds. In Hamburg, during these 8 years, 429 individuals were accused and convicted for coming into conflict with Paragraph 2 of the so-called "Blutschutzgesetze" ("Blood Protection Act") (The Act of 15.09.1935 to "protect German blood and German honour". Following this Act marriages were forbidden between "Jews" and "German" nationals or those with "artverwandten" ("generically related blood"). Extramarital contact between these groups of people was also forbidden.) Addititionally, during the same period, judicial enquiries were carried out against 1,150 individuals on the suspicion of "Rassenschande" ("racial dishonour"). In Hamburg, between 1936 and 1943, around 1,580 individuals were investigated by the police and prosecuted in the courts under Paragraph 2 of the so-called "Blutschutzgesetze" ("Blood Protection Act"). However, the actual number of individuals affected by the application of Paragraph 2 of the "Blutschutzgesetze" was much greater. In practically all cases it was Jewish women who had "unlawful" relationships with non-Jewish men, or who were suspected of so having, who were arrested and held in prison for days or weeks. The non-Jewish women, who had alleged or actual relationships with Jewish men, and who were investigated, some being detained by the police, are not recorded. It can be assumed that, in Hamburg, at least 5,000 to 6,000 individuals were investigated, some being detained by the police, having allegedly or actually contavened Paragraph 2 of the "Blutschutzgesetze" ("Blood Protection Act"). At the beginning of December 1935 the public prosecutor in the Hamburg district court proposed the establishment of a special court for criminal cases involving the "Blutschutzgesetze", to achieve a standard administration of justice of a clearly formulated law. This proposal lead the presidency of the district court, in a resolution, to allocate the large Division 6 of the criminal court for such proceedings. Around the same time a "Rassenschande-Dezernat der Staatsanwaltschaft" (department of the public prosecutor's office for "Rassenschande" (racial dishonour)) was established in the criminal court building. At the end of 1937 the president of the Oberlandesgerichts (OLG) Provincial High Court and Court of Appeal, Dr. Curt Rothenberger focused his attention on the proceedings held before Division 6 of the criminal court. At the end of 1938 he requested to be submitted documentation of all future verdicts in "Rassenschande" cases. This affected such judgements as judges presiding over such cases knew that their verdicts were scrutinized by Rothenberger, feared his critism and that he determined their chances of promotion. Personnel policy also played its part in the judgement of such cases. Rothenberger promoted young lawyers, even when the professional qualifications of certain individuals were inadequate. For example, in 1939, a 35 year old Landgerichtsrat was appointed chairman of Division 6 of the criminal court, while the current incumbent a 51 year old, as Landgerichtsdirektor, was transferred. A non-Jewish woman and a Jewish man are exposed as "A warning against racial aberration", 1935. Between 1936 and 1943, of 215 "Jewish" accused in proceedings involving Paragraph 2 of the "Blutschutzgesetze", 202 were convicted (94%), and 13 acquitted (6%), whereas of the 116 accuser non-Jews the percentage of acqittals was nearly twice as high. Of these 202 convicted Jews, 128 (63·4%) were sentenced to imprisonment in a prison for capital offenders, and 74 (36·6%) were sentenced to prison, wheras of the 102 non-Jews convicted the figures were roughly 25% and 75%. This disparity is all the more remarkable, as the Reichsgreicht (Reich supreme court) in a judgement in 1938 established that their was no legal justification to generally sentence "Jewish" accused to prison for capital offenders and non-Jewish "deutschblütige" ("of german blood") to prison. A comparison with judgement policy in cases of "Rassenschande" in Köln and Frankfurt am Main reveals, among other things, that in Hamburg 63% of "Jewish" accused were sentenced to imprisonment in a prison for capital offenders, wheras in the other two cities it was 56%. Also, in Hamburg, the percentage of "Jewish" accused who were acqitted was appreciably lower than in either Köln or Frankfurt am Main. These figures indicate that the Hamburg courts proceeded with greater harshness. Division 6 of the Hamburg criminal court concerned itself with portraying the behavior of Jews accused under Paragraph 2 of the "Blutschutzgesetze" as being typically Jewish, i.e. typically criminal. A Jew is publically paraded on account of "Rassenschande". The following examples clearly demonstrate the prejudiced attitudes of the judges involved in such cases: Example 1. "In 1921, Herr B. met a young woman in the editorial office of a Hamburg newspaper. She sought his advice regarding the legal status of her illegitimate child. Herr B. was 51 years of age at this time. He had been married since 1893 and had grown-up children. His marriage had been unsatisfactory since 1914 but a divorce was not possible. Fräulein L. was 24 years younger than Herr B. She was distraught and revisited Herr B. shortly thereafter. So began an acquaintance which, within a few months, developed into an intimate friendship. Herr B. took care of Fräulein L. both emotionally and materially. He paid her rent, cared for her child, and in 1927 became the child's guardian. The discrepancy in ages was no problem. Herr B. was faithful to Fräulein L. In 1934, Herr B's. guardianship of the now 19 year old "deutschblütige" child was withdrawn following the enactment of the "Blutschutzgesetze". Following the enactment of the "Blutschutzgesetze" Herr B. and Fräulein L. abstained from sexual relations for a short period but then resumed realtions until Easter 1938." Herr B., who had lost his son in the First World War, was sentenced to three years in a prison for capital offenders and three years loss of civil rights. The judgement was so grounded: "(...) from the numerous newspaper reports of the previous years, (...) it was obvious, how severely "Rassenschande" was regarded (...). The fact that Herr B., after a short abstinence (...), resumed sexual relations, shows that for him the sexual side of the relationship took priority. He had behaved in a shameless way, like all members of his race (!). An engaged couple are paraded through Hamburg on account of "Rassenschande". Example 2. "Herr E., born in 1881, was a particularly conscientious, learned, and ethical man. Besides being a lawyer he held various social and political positions. Personal ambition was alien to him; he was content with the variety his work afforded him. For example, he was a membership of the Hamburg Bürgerschaft (parliament). The court ruled that Herr E. had to leave the Law Society. He then opened his own legal pratice. Immediately following this, he was arrested and imprisoned in a concentration camp for five weeks. During this time his secretary Fräulein G. maintained contact with his clients, (...). Fräulein G. was 18 years younger than Herr E. She sincerely loved him and stood by him during his "Rassenschande" process. (...)". His sentencing to five years imprisonment in a prison for capital offenders, was so grounded: "That he shamelessly continued with his "Rassenschande" until shortly before his arrest demonstrates a considerble criminal intention and a total disregard of the law of the land (...). The circumstances were aggravated by him dishonouring a woman who worked in his office, and thereby being in a relationship of dependency to him, and with whom he should have avoided any intimate relationship, it being the basic duty of a mananger to so do. That he renounced this responsibility classifies him as a typical example of the Jewish race, who simply regard their employees as fair game". The grounds for the sentencing were concluded with the following remarks: " (...) The picture presented to the court by the female witness indicates the severe consequences of Herr E's action. He had completely corrupted her and alienated her from her race and her self so that she showed no reticence, and continues to have no reticence in showing feelings for this Jewish criminal ..." German text: Dipl.-Pol. Wilhelm Mosel, Deutsch-Jüdische Gesellschaft, Hamburg.