An analysis of Ernst Kalkkuhl's Memorandum

Below is an analysis of the memorandum in English.

Memorandum

My removal from Office was the doing of the NSDAP

The article has two main elements: a general background of the political, social and economic climate of the time (1924 – 1933) and his personal fate. It is very well written – excellent grammar and choice of words. This is just my interpretation of the gist of the article – not an actual translation.

Introduction

EK (Ernst Kalkkuhl) decribes the Nurnburg trial as the proper stage and process to ‘lift the curtain’ on the wrongdoing of the leaders of the Nazi party, ‘ The parties which were directly affected by the Nazi party are known but there are many indirect victims of Nazi actions and propaganda.

Ammerland – a bastion of the Nazis

It is quite striking how quickly the Nazis gained ground in this area, The local Nazi party was founded in 1928, yet by 1933 it had 80% of the vote.

Cause of the financial problems of the community

The defeat in WW1 led to highest rate of inflation in history. As a result all communities had insufficient funds and could not balance the books. This was the breeding ground for Hitler’s unscrupulous propaganda which undermined local authorities.

Secondary Cause of the financial problem

Rampant unemployment led to increasing popularity of parties at the political extremes. People were reluctant to conform and threatened to withhold paying tax.

The demon of our time

Apen has a population of 5800. He lists various costs stating that the community is basically bankrupt. The number of unemployed rises day by day and social security payments and loan interest are unaffordable. Yet the amount of social security per person is extremely small. People would not be able to survive on it. This creates an atmosphere in which extreme political ideas will flourish.

The precursor to my removal from office

Some members of the community proposed to start a dairy. EK argued that it was not a viable proposition and in any case they didn’t have the money. He was thus branded as a spoil sport which led to some people asking for his removal from office.

Nobody has done it

This refers to his adversary – a Nazi by the name of Ott – who denies that EK’s removal from office was his doing.

I am not as to exact reasons and timeline. EK states that he still held various offices within the community until May 1933. However, the decisive meeting of the local council took place on 28^th April 1931. This meeting was open to the public and was dominated by the Nazis in the crowd. His explanations were ignored and he was laughed and shouted at. He stormed out of the meeting and was later told that the application of his removal from office was approved by the council. It is not clear on what grounds this was approved. He later mentioned that ‘incompetence’ and ‘misappropriation of funds’ were cited.

‘The greatest pleasure in life is to ease the load on others.’

On 28^th April 1946 EK applied to the local council to have the decision to remove him from office in 1931 reviewed. The council stated that his removal from office was not a reflection of his inability to lead the council and his ‘honour’ remains intact. However, it refused to reinvestigate. It is perhaps interesting that only 2-3 members of the council had attended the 1931 meeting.

‘If you are not willing I shall use force’

EK suggest that he had some offers and financial inducements to step down from his position voluntarily before he was removed. EK had declined these offers. He regards his removal from office as illegal as the council had not used the proper procedure and legal process.

My removal from office was a result of the increased influence of the Nazis.

EK’s adversary – Ott – has been very clever in the way he (mis) represented facts and reality and how he undermined his position by turning the local population against him.

The letter kills, the spirit lives

EK states that it was just about impossible to balance the books. He also felt that the account was incompetent and he had tried to change the accountant. Finally, he states that thousands of officers in the local communities in Germany could have been removed from office using the same justification which is exactly what happened after 1933.

‘Without doubt my removal from office was instigated by the Nazis.’

---------------

It is a good description of how the macro economic and political climate affected a small rural community at the edge of Germany. The defeat in WW1, economic chaos and rampant unemployment radicalised the population. Germany was also a new democracy and not equipped to deal with these challenges.

The Nazis first gained the support of the people and then cleverly undermined the already weakened administration. It is also interesting that EK’s superiors supported him privately but not in public. After 1945 nobody seemed to have the appetite to revisit the past.

What puzzles me is what happened to EK between 1933 and 1946. He clearly was no friend of the Nazis. So why didn’t he end up in a concentration camp or – more likely – was sent as cannon fodder to the eastern front? As he had lost his job, and thus his income, how did he survive those years? Perhaps it was possible in this remote little town to survive with whatever goodwill there was from friends and family.