862.00/3440
The Ambassador in Germany ( Dodd ) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 2.]
Sir: I have the honor to report that on October 16 the Federal Government enacted a law providing a new oath of office for Ministers of the Reich and of State Governments. A copy and translation are transmitted herewith.44
The wording of this oath resembles that now administered to members of the armed forces and civil servants (see despatch No. 1232 of August 28) in that it obliges the individual taking it to swear loyalty and obedience only to “the Leader of the German Reich and People, Adolf Hitler.” This is the first great difference between the texts of the oaths of office prescribed by the laws of March 27, 1930, and October 17, 1933, and the new law. The other consists in the elimination of any mention of the Constitution of Weimar. These two facts demonstrate once more the unlimited supremacy of Hitler over Germany. To him alone must be given the undivided allegiance of the official.
The Nazi theory of an authoritarian form of government without direct responsibility towards people or constitution was discussed by Dr. Lammers, the Chief of the Reich Chancellery, in an address delivered on October 15 before the Academy of Administrative Officials in Berlin. He declared that the matter of state leadership was primarily one of political power and, from the Nazi standpoint, of personality [Page 250] as well, while constitutional questions were only of secondary importance. No constitution was necessary when the question of state leadership was to be considered, at least in a National Socialist state. The haste with which a new constitution was drawn up after the revolution of 1918 was based upon the false premise that the people existed for the sake of the constitution. Hitler, on the contrary, had refrained from giving the German people a new constitution because concurrently with the seizure of power by the Nazis the people had been conquered by the new concept of the state. By the Law of March 24, 1933, the Reichstag empowered the Federal Government to enact laws that were in conflict with the Constitution. Thereby the Reichstag abandoned its own position of influence. Furthermore, Hitler had assumed control over the state in a perfectly legal manner, for he had been appointed by the President and approved by the people in elections, as well as by the two houses of the legislature.
Lammers then announced to his audience that the Constitution of Weimar could no longer be considered the fundamental law of the state. It had lost its power when the Reichstag, by enacting the law unifying the Reich (see despatch No. 487 of January 31) nullified important parts of it. At present, according to Lammers, notwithstanding the non-existence of a formal document called a constitution, a situation of constitutional legality existed in Germany, through the legal principles according to which the people’s life was being governed.
Turning to the concentration of all governmental power into the hands of one person, Lammers stated that this process had been finally consummated by the passage of the law of August 1 (see despatch No. 1123 of August 345), and then made the important statement that Hitler had received the offices of Reich President and Reich Chancellor for a life-term. Furthermore, Hitler was no longer responsible to the Reichstag, as the supreme ruler of the state could not be subjected to such responsibility. The law of August 1 was necessary, he went on, in order to provide continuity in the position of Chief of State. The Führer now leads the state; he does not merely direct the affairs of state, and the Ministers are responsible to him and not to the Reichstag. The complete fusion of Party and State has not yet arrived, but it is one of the greatest questions to be settled in the future. This last statement indicates that the time is coming when all government officials must be party men.
Another announcement which sets forth the significance of the word “Führer” was issued on October 15 by Dr. Ley, the Chief of the Political Organization and the Labor Front. He stated that “the Fuhrer [Page 251] of the National Socialist Party is the ‘Führer’ of the entire people, and consequently the meaning of this word has been clearly determined not only from the standpoint of state but also of world politics.” Ley abandons therefore the title of Fuhrer of the Labor Front and prescribes in addition that he shall henceforth be termed the Chief of Staff of the Political Organization. No official of the Political Organization, furthermore, can use the term Fuhrer even when combined with another word.
The Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung rather naively attempts to compare Hitler’s method of abolishing the Constitution of Weimar in order to set up his form of government with an account of an episode in Lincoln’s career, when the latter in answer to a question whether the Southern States had legally seceded from the Union said the problem might be one of juridical interest but that for the welfare of the Union it would serve no useful purpose to discuss it. “In a similar manner the question of the constitution has remained undiscussed in Germany”. The paper completely overlooks the fact, however, that whereas Lincoln’s policy was one of strict loyalty to the constitution, Hitler has completely disregarded the fundamental law of his own country. It then goes on to say that the German constitution of the future may follow the British example and consist of a group of laws and public pronouncements on fundamental principles of government.
Respectfully yours,
- Law not printed; the new oath reads as follows: “I swear, I will be loyal and obedient to the Führer of the German Reich and People, Adolf Hitler, give my strength for the welfare of the German people, observe the laws, conscientiously fulfill the duties incumbent upon me, and transact my business impartially and with justice towards everyone, so help me God.”↩
- Not printed.↩