23 April 2024: We are investigating problems with ecommerce on Cambridge Core. We apologise for any inconvenience and hope to have full functionality restored shortly.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 December 2008
When the First World War ended, Germany experienced an unprecedented period of political revolution, economic turmoil, and social upheaval. Among the myriad problems facing the nation was one concern that cut across party lines and prompted attention at both the national and local levels. Lawmakers, doctors, clergy, and ordinary Germans across the political spectrum agreed that the breakdown of the family had weakened the nation, contributed to military defeat, worsened economic misery, and exacerbated societal conflict. High divorce and illegitimacy rates together with an alarmingly low birth rate created a picture of families in crisis. The belief was widespread that only by creating policies that strengthened families would Germany stand a chance of regaining its historical strength. Because both Weimar and National Socialist policymakers saw the family as essential to rejuvenating the battered nation, the interwar era witnessed a wide variety of family-directed policies. Social welfare, unemployment benefits, health insurance, and maternity benefits were just the beginning of a series of programs designed to strengthen Germany and support families. While state programs targeted many different groups within society, children stood out as especially worthy recipients. Policymakers in both the Weimar and National Socialist eras recognized that children, the most vulnerable members of society and the nation's future, required special attention.
1 Bessel, Richard, Germany after the First World War (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 274.Google Scholar
2 For Weimar, see Harvey, Elizabeth, Youth and the Welfare State in Weimar Germany (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Peukert, Detlev, Grenzen der Sozial-Disziplinierung. Aufstieg nnd Krise der deutschen Jugendfürsorge (Cologne: Bund-Verlag, 1986)Google Scholar; Benninghaus, Christina, Die anderen Jugendlichen. Arbcitermädchen in der Weimarer Republik (Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag, 1999)Google Scholar. For the Nazi era, see Klönne, Arno, Jugend im Dritten Reich. Die Hitler Jugend und ihre Gegner (Cologne: PapyRossa Verlag, 1999)Google Scholar; Reese, Dagmar, Straff aber nicht Stramm, herb aber nicht derb. Zur Vergesellschaftung von Mädchen durch den Bund Deutscher Mädel im sozialkulturellen Vergleich zweier Milieus (Weinheim: Beltz Verlag, 1989), 45Google Scholar; Rempel, Gerard, Hitler's Children: The Hitler Youth and the SS (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989)Google Scholar; Kühlmann, Carola, Erbkrank oder Erziehbar? Jugendhilfe als Vorsorge und Aussonderung in der Fürsorgeerziehung in Westfalen von 1933–1945 (Weinheim: Juventa Verlag, 1989).Google Scholar
3 Peukert, , Grenzen der Sozial-DisziplinienungGoogle Scholar. See also Peukert, Detlev, The Weimar Republic: The Crisis of Classical Modernity, trans. Devenson, Richard (New York: Hill and Wang, 1987), 146.Google Scholar
4 Usborne, Cornelia, Politics of the Body in Weimar Germany: Women's Reproductive Rights and Duties (Worchester, U.K.: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1992), 212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Weindling, Paul, Health, Race, and German Politics Between National Unification and Nazism 1870–1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), chapter 7, 442–487.Google Scholar
6 Dickinson, Edward Ross, The Politics of Child Welfare from the Empire to the Federal Republic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), 241.Google Scholar
7 Grossmann, Atina, Reforming Sex: The German Movement for Birth Control and Abortion Reform, 1920–1950 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), vii.Google Scholar
8 Bessel, , Germany after the First World War, 274.Google Scholar
9 Weimar Constitution, quoted in Harvey, , Youth and the Welfare State, 165.Google Scholar
10 Elizabeth Harvey and Edward Ross Dickinson have written on the difficulty passing the RJWG posed. Harvey, , Youth and the Welfare State, 182 ffGoogle Scholar. and Dickinson, , The Politics of Child Welfare, 153 ff.Google Scholar
11 RJWG §22. The RJWG defined a foster care child more carefully as “a legitimate or illegitimate child under twenty-four years of age who spends a long time in the care of others.” This definition stood regardless of whether the caregiver was financially reimbursed for the care or not. The children could be in the care of others continuously day and night or repeatedly for part ot the day or on particular days.
12 Furthermore the state's “observation” of foster children did not have an unblemished history. As early as 1915, the mayor of Siegen had complained about the etfect of the police supervision (polizeiliche Beaufsichtigung) that in “many cases leads to hardships in which ultimately the children themselves suffer.” Letter from Bürgermeister Siegen to Oberpräsident der Provinz Westfalen in Minden and Münster, May 8, 1915. Staatsarchiv Münster (hereafter SAM) Oberpräsidiurn Münster. 5925.
13 Crew, David, “Ambiguities of Modernity: Welfare and the German State from Wilhelm to Hitler,” in Society and Culture in Germany, 1870–1930, ed. Eley, Geoff, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996), 332.Google Scholar
14 Mouton, Michelle. “From Nurturing the Nation to Purifying the Volk: Conflicts in the Implementation of German Family Policy, 1918–1945” (Ph.D. diss., University ot Minnesota, 1997), chapter 7.Google Scholar
15 Detmold Kreis Jugendamt, August 10, 1928. Staatsarchiv Detmold (hereafter STAD) L80 IC Gruppe XXVIII, Fach 23, 5 bd. 2.
16 For a much fuller discussion of foster care, see Mouton, , “From Nurturing the Nation to Purifying the Volk.”Google Scholar See also Crew, David, Germans on Welfare: From Weimar to Hitler (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 125–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17 “Mitteilungen der Arbeitsgememschaft der bayerischen Berufsvormünder. Annahme an Kindes Statt,” Blätter für Öffentliche Fürsorge und Soziale Versicherung, Nr. 11 (Munich, 06 1933, 18. Jahrgang): 127–128.Google Scholar
18 Renner, Hedwig, “Aus Unserer Adoptionsabteilung,” Helfende Hände Blätter für freiwilligen Dienst in der Jugendfürsorge, 5. Jahrgang, Blatt 2 und 3 (06 1921), 30–31.Google Scholar
19 These “bogus” companies functioned under many names, such as Adoption Center, Adoption and Foster Home Offices, Trust Institutes for the Placement of Foster Children. Pressenotiz “Gefährdung von Säuglingen durch Verschleppung,” no date. STAD M11 JU, 29.
20 “Annahme an Kindes Statt,” 127–8.Google Scholar
21 Waisenhilfe, Heft Nr. 1, 50. Jahrgang (Berlin, 01 1930).Google Scholar
22 Cologne, Magdeburg, Berlin, and Halle had centralized adoption centers as early as 1911. STAD M1 I JU, 29.
23 In Westphalia, both the Catholic and Protestant churches and the youth departments established central adoption centers. In addition, by 1927, the Catholic Welfare Association (Katholische Fürsorge Vcrein, or KFV) and the Westphalian Women's Aid (EFH) also ran adoption agencies in Münster. In Dortmund, the Central Authority for Jewish Foster Homes and Mediation of Jewish Adoptions (Zentralstelle für jüdische Pflegestellenwsen und jüdische Adoptionsvermittlung) run by the Jewish Women's Organization (Jüdischer Frauenbund, or JFB) served Jewish children in Westphalia. It is not clear when the Central Authority for Jewish Foster Homes and Mediation of Jewish Adoptions began to organize adoptions. They announced their presence to the Detmold Landesjugendamt in October 1929, claiming to serve Jewish children all over Germany. STAD D 106 Detmold A, 581.
24 The personal names of the people involved in the adoption cases discussed in this article have all been changed to preserve their anonymity.
25 These descriptions were often quite graphic. One woman's doctor told her that because the development of her “uterus is retarded, menstruation will not begin.” SAM Amtsgericht Hohenlimburg, 81.
26 Ibid., 78.
27 It is also interesting to note that the entire cost for the adoption during the inflation in 1923 was 22 million marks. SAM Amtsgericht Wetter, 40.Google Scholar
28 Letter from Deutsches Kreuz, Rotes, Berlin to Preussische Justizminister, 04 18, 1932. STAD D23 Bielefeld, 961.Google Scholar
29 Dickinson, , The Politics of Child Welfare, 172.Google Scholar
30 Dickinson claims that of 10,712 officials employed in youth departments in 1928, only 2,667 were accredited social workers, and 2,013 had other formal training. Ibid., 172.
31 The analysis comes from the responses to this query from the Landgerichtspräsident in Arnsberg to the Amtsgerichte in Berleberg, Menschede, and Siegen.
32 Justizangestellter, Letter, Amtsgericht Menschede to Herrn Landgerichtspräsident Arnsberg, 04 18, 1932Google Scholar. SAM Landgericht Arnsberg, 685Google Scholar. Also STAD D 23 Vlotho, 666.Google Scholar
33 Amtsgericht Siegen to Landgericht Arnsberg, 04 19, 1932Google Scholar. SAM Landgericht Arnsberg, 685.Google Scholar
34 Letter Landgerichtspräsident Bielefeld to Herrn Oberlandesgerichtspräsidenten in Hamm. 05 13, 1932Google Scholar. SAM OLG Hamm, 364.Google Scholar
35 Amtsgericht Siegen to Landgericht Arnsberg, 04 19, 1932Google Scholar. SAM Landgericht Arnsberg, 685.Google Scholar
36 In his mind, even nationality and criminal records could, and moreover should, be obtained from the public prosecutor's office (Staatsanwaltschaft) without the aid ot the police. If in specific instances the police were necessary, “the sensitive nature of the task needed to be stressed.” Justizministerialblatt 268, “Inanspruchnahme der Polizeibehörden und Gericht bei Annahme an Kindes Statt und bei Ehelichkeitserklärung,” 12 20, 1932.Google Scholar
37 Crew, , Germans on Welfare, 47–66.Google Scholar
38 Oellers, case. STAD M1 I JU, 18.Google Scholar
39 Crew, , Germans on Welfare, 149.Google Scholar
40 The file ends here, perhaps because Elise did not respond, perhaps because the communication continued without Frl. T. Landesarchiv Berlin, Kinderrettungsverein, 1004.
41 Koonz, Claudia, The Nazi Conscience (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003), 106.Google Scholar
42 Notiz für Pg. Kreisamtsleitertagung, S., 06 7, 1940Google Scholar, Aufgaben der Kreise im Rahmen des Adoptionswesens. SAM NSDAP Volkswohlfahrt-Westfalen Nord, 497Google Scholar. Letter from Amt für Volkswohlfahrt Gau Westfalen Nord to Herrn Reichsstatthalter in Lippe und Schaumburg-Lippe, 11 17, 1938. STAD L80 IC Gruppe XXVIII, Fach 23, 8. In Westphalia, the first Reich Adoption Centers were created in Münster and Darmstadt in 1938 to serve north and south Westphalia respectively.Google Scholar
43 Hansen, Eckhard, Wohlfahrtspolitik im NS-Staat. Motivationen, Konflikte und Machtstrukturen im “Sozialismus der Tat” des Dritten Reiches (Augsburg: MaroVerlag, 1991), 253.Google Scholar
44 Notiz für PG. Kreisamtsleitertagung, S., 06 7, 1940Google Scholar, Aufgaben der Kreise im Rahmen des Adoptionswesens. SAM NSV, 497.Google Scholar
45 Landesarchiv Berlin, Kinderrettungsverein (hereafter KRV), 1004.Google Scholar
46 Ibid., 244.
47 Adoption und Unterbringung in Pflege bei Verschiedenrassigkeit, Runderlass des Reichs Minister der Interior, 08 6, 1937.Google Scholar
48 A 1938 directive encouraged the “service department leaders” (Dienststellenleiterinnen) to contact the university and women's clinic's (Landesfrauenklinik). midwives schools (Hebammenlehranstalten) and private delivery homes personally to encourage them to refer children to the Reich Adoption agencies. Professional organizations for midwives, doctors, and nurses that counseled single mothers were required to maintain ties with the Reich Adoption Centers (for example, the Fachausschuss für das Schwesternwesen, Fachschaft der Deutschen Hebammen, NSD-Ärztebund, Ärztekammer, Kassenärztliche Vereinigug, NS-Rechtswahrerbund, Anwaltskammer). Rundbrief der Reichs-Adoptionsstelle in der NS-Volkswohlfahrt e.V., 02 4, 1938. BAK NS 37, 1009.Google Scholar
49 Reichs-Adoptionsstelle in der NS-Volkswohlfahrt Berlin, E.V., Rundbrief der Reichs-adoptionsstelle, 02 4, 1938. BAK NS 37, 1009Google Scholar. The “black lists” were discontinued in 1943. Rundschreiben 111/43, 07 5, 1943. BAK NS 37, 1010.Google Scholar
50 Letter from Bürgermeister Lemgo to Herrn Reichsstatthalter in Lippe u. Schaumburg-Lippe, Landesregierung, Landesjugendamt Detmold, November 4, 1941. STAD L80 I A Gruppe XXVII, Titel 2, 3, Bd. 2.
51 Elternmeldung Eheleute F. from Amt Wohlfahrt/Jugendhilfe in Burgsteinfurt. SAM NSDAP Volkswohlfahrt-Westfalen Nord, 497.Google Scholar
52 Statistisches Jahrbuch für den Preuaisihen Staat 26 (1930): 252–253Google Scholar and Statistitches Jahrbuch des deutschen Reich 59 (1941/1942).Google Scholar
53 That personal motives and jealousies often motivated neighbors and made them unreliable reporters has been noted by other historians. Gellately, Robert, The Gestapo and German Society: Enforcing Racial Policy, 1933–1945 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Mallmann, Klaus-Michael and Paul, Gerhard, “Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent? Gestapo, Society and Resistance” in Nazism and German Society, ed. Crew, David (New York: Routledge Press, 1994), 166–196.Google Scholar
54 Eckhoff Case. STAD D23 Hohenhausen, 46.Google Scholar
55 Case of Gerhard K. 1932–1937; STAD L 80 IA XXVII Titel 2, 3 Bd. 2.
56 Landesarchiv Berlin, KRV, 107Google Scholar. For another example, see KRV, 106.Google Scholar
57 Notiz für die Reichsadoptionsstelle from Kreisamtsleitung Bielefeld-Halle, 10 1939Google Scholar. SAM NSDAP NSV, 497.Google Scholar
58 Notiz für die Reichsadoptionstelle, citing from Vierteljahresbericht der Kreis Bielefeld-Halle, 10 21, 1939Google Scholar. SAM NSDAP Volkswohlfahrt, 497.Google Scholar
59 Hansen, , Wohlfahrtspolitik im NS-Staat, 253.Google Scholar
60 Schücking, Dr. Ursula, Sachbearbeiterin in der Reichsadoptionsstelle Berlin, “Annahme an Kindes Statt. Die Weiterentwicklung der gesetzlichen Grundlagen seit 1933 und die Zuständigkeit der Adoptionsvermittlungsstelle,” Deutsches Recht Heft 49 (12 1941, Ausgabe A).Google Scholar
61 Wolper case. STAD L 80 IA Gruppe XXVII. Titel 2, 3 Bd. 3.
62 Letter Mayor Stadt Bad Salzuflen to Lippische Landesregierung Detmold, , 09 18, 1939. STAD L 80 I A Gruppe XXVII, Titel, 4.Google Scholar
63 Letter Bürgemeister Stadt Lage to Lippische Landesregierung Detniold, , 11 24, 1939. STAD L 80 IA Gruppe XXVII, Titel 2, 4.Google Scholar
64 Doctors in particular were also burdened with the responsibility of examining candidates for many other Nazi programs, including marriage loan candidates and those nominated for sterilization.
65 Wildt, Michael, “Gewalt gegen Juden in Deutschland 1933 bis 1939” Werkstatt Geschichte 18 (1997): 59–80.Google Scholar
66 Geyer, Michael and Boyer, John, “Introduction: Resistance against the Third Reich as Intercultural Knowledge,” in Resistance against the Third Reich 1933–1945, ed. Geyer, Michael and Boyer, John (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 7.Google Scholar
67 Kershaw, Ian, Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris (New York: W. W. Norton, 1998), 530Google Scholar; Brosat, Martin, The Hitler State: The Foundation and Development of the Internal Structure of the Third Reich, trans. Hinden, John W. (London: Longman Ltd., 1981).Google Scholar
68 Koonz, Claudia, The Nazi Conscience, 12.Google Scholar
69 Peukert, , The Weimar Republic, 146.Google Scholar
70 For a larger discussion of this takeover, see Hansen, , Wohlfahrtspolitik im NS-Staat, 86 ff.Google Scholar
71 Usborne, , The Politics of the Body, 212.Google Scholar
72 Weindling, , Health, Race, and German Politics, 442–487.Google Scholar
73 Grossmann, , Reforming Sex, vii–viii and 165Google Scholar and Dickinson, Edward Ross, “Biopolitics, Fascism, Democracy: Some Reflections on Our Discourse about ‘Modernity,’” Central European History 37 (2004): 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
