people in Germany
during first half of the 20th century1
Individual aspirations and official employment policy
1.1 The situation
of young workers on the employment market
At the end of 1937 only a minority of young workers was still unemployed.
In the area of the Labour Exchange of the Rhineland, being responsible
also for the Saarland, the number of registered male youth being unemployed
and without an apprenticeship decreased from 30,261 at the end of March,
1937, to 7,721 at the end of September, 1937. This moderate figure increased
again in December, 1937, because 10,800 young people came back from different
employments in official youth schemes and programmes intended to stabilise
the German food production. 5,800 came from the obligatory LANDJAHR; 5,000
from the LANDDIENST and LANDHILFE. Part of these could not be supplied
of the employment policy in supplying the participants in the agricultural
food production programmes with apprenticeships were plain.3
In the area of the GAU Düsseldorf (national socialist administrative
district) the national socialist officials established courses to supervise
and to keep busy those returning young people who could not at once be
provided with an apprenticeship.4 These courses were
intended to prepare the young people in the district Ruhr-Niederrhein
(lower Rhine) for their respective future occupations and by the tight
regimenting of the courses keep away the young people from the pernicious
influences of the street.5
The following data
give evidence of the fact that as early as 1937 the situation on the employment
market was considerably less tense than in the preceding years. In the
GAU Essen 664 young male unemployed people met 737 vacant apprenticeships
and in the GAU Köln-Aachen 1668 young people met 1,007 openings excluding
those young people who were employed in the LANDJAHR and LANDDIENST.6
Already one year
later the demand for apprentices could not be satisfied anymore with the
available young school-leavers.7 The economic upturn
had particularly positive results for the GAU Düsseldorf with its
diversified metal producing and metal processing branches of industry.
As early as 1937 there were 321 vacant apprenticeships per 100 young people.8
Skilled or semi-skilled
workers had vanished completely from the unemployment statistics since
the middle of 1938. These workers were needed as a result of the economic
upturn and in particular an increased arms production. Especially in the
metal processing and chemical industries, there were next to no unemployed
workers.9 Because of the ...WEHRMACHT orders
coming in the companies needed ... every trained worker.10
Compared to the
figures of 1929, the output of the metal processing industry had doubled
as early as 1939.11 From this time on a continuously
increasing demand for workers was characteristic of the employment situation.12
As early as at the beginning of 1939 the national socialist planning officials
estimated the number of additional workers needed to be at least one million.13
Considering this situation, it is not astonishing that young people became
much sought-after employees.14 In Cologne in 1940/41
the bosses urged young employees not to attend vocational school. If the
district courts imposed a fine on these young people, the money was returned
to them in some cases by the factory owners.15
In 1939, the need
for workers in Duisburg had reached an extent that made the local GESTAPO
office intervene against a preventive detention ordered by the national
GESTAPO office in Berlin. Because of the great need for workers in Duisburg
the local GESTAPO official argued that the preventive detention
(of the young people concerned) was likely to cause a very great strain
in the face of the great need for workers.16 The
GESTAPO office in Düsseldorf shared the objection of their branch
official. As a result the national GESTAPO office in Berlin lifted its
In 1942 the REICHSJUGENDFÜHRUNG (leadership of the national socialist
youth organisation) stated that young workers were treated generally less
severe, ... because one was depending on them ....18
Through various employment regulations it was attempted to keep the demand
for workers within certain limits. One of these initiatives consisted
in shortening the duration of apprenticeships from four to three years.
In other cases young people were released from vocational school because
of the war, before they had finished it.19
After the beginning
of the war more and more conflicts of interest occurred between the WEHRMACHT
on the one hand and the representatives of industry and commerce on the
other. Both sides regarded their cause as having absolute priority. While
the WEHRMACHT requested young workers after medical examination for military
service, the business firms and concerns claimed them as labour power
for themselves. The 20-year-old grinder Hans said at the GESTAPO in November,
1940, according to the interrogation record, that he had been medically
examined and categorized as fit for military service (at the highest possible
level Ers.Res.I) in 1939 and had then repeatedly gone to see the
factory manager in order to be given leave for military service. But his
employer had not given his consent.20
people lost their apprenticeships, if their bosses were drafted for service
in the WEHRMACHT.21 By shutting down
and dragnetting of factories the Labour Exchange offices tried
to recruit a work-force to be flexibly used for different
purposes and to close the gaps which were generated as a consequence of
the high conscription rate of the WEHRMACHT.22
Within 12 days after
the beginning of the war in September, 1939, 640,000 workers were called
up for military service. In March, 1940, the WEHRMACHT called for 750,000
men, although the arms production industry needed an additional 500,000
employees in order to be able to carry out orders of importance for the
German war policy.23
In 1941 already
16.9 percent of all German industrial workers had been drafted for military
service. But for workers in the mining industry the same statistics shows
a considerably lower percentage of 11 percent.24 This
explains the higher percentage of young people among the KITTELBACH PIRATES,
a name certain subcultural cliques living in the lower Rhine mining area
gave themselves in this region. These were frequently employed in mining,
and thus their military service in the WEHRMACHT was for the time being
That the young KITTELBACH
PIRATES had the status as adults at a very early stage in their lives,
could be glimpsed from their criticizing and insulting the pupils of intermediate
and upper secondary school who were members of the HITLERJUGEND (Nazi
youth organisation): These were said not to know how to spend their time
during holidays and to be reluctant in actively looking for work.25
As an unskilled worker a young person had much more money than an apprentice
in one of the various occupations.26 A young worker
easily earned two or three times more in 1936/37 than an apprentice working
with a toolmaker or carpenter.27
Especially for the
KITTELBACH PIRATES the fast buck was often more important
than to acquire specific skills. In addition, it was easier to show off
in front of young females with some money in the pocket. These youth frequently
worked because of the predominance of metal producing and processing industries
in the GAU Düsseldorf in various occupations of these branches of
production. Every tenth questioned person was a metalworker. Obviously
this occupation was held by the young people much more often than by their
As early as 1937
employment politicians recorded a huge influx of male young
people into the occupations of the metal processing industries. In the
district of the Labour Exchange for the Rhine region 36,750 young people
applied for an apprenticeship in the metal industry. But they just met
14,550 apprenticeships being offered by employers.29
In 1939/40 for 26,400 apprenticeships in the metal industries there were
53,800 young applicants.30 A high official of the REICHSANSTALT
FÜR ARBEITSVERMITTLUNG UND JUGENDFÜHRUNG in Berlin (Institution
for employment and youth policy) stated in 1939, that among the young
people ... the interest concentrated more and more on a small number
of occupations, especially on the occupations of panel beater, aircraft
mechanic, precision engineer, office clerk and a few others. Other occupations,
no less vital and of no lesser importance for the four-year plan, like
farmer, miner or in some districts also construction worker, were avoided
by the youth.31 Leading functionaries like OBERREGIERUNGSRAT
(high-ranking civil servant) Stäbler of the Labour Exchange for the
Rhine region found that in 1940 the occupation of panel beater continued
to be very much applied for by the youth in the Rhine region.32
Also at the HITLERJUGEND
those youth were sought after who had qualifications as panel beaters.33
Already during the Weimar Republic it had been established through empirical
research in Düsseldorf, that besides apprenticeships in the metal
industries those in the automobile industry enjoyed an especially high
reputation among young people.34 Interviews with pupils
attending vocational school in the Westfalian industrial area at the beginning
of the 1930s revealed that the young people rather wished to have become
panel beater instead of the occupations they actually had.35
In spite of the otherwise epochal changes in 1945 young people were still
strongly attracted to this ocuupation after the war. In May, 1947, interviews
with male participants in a youth camp at the Blue Lake in Ratingen showed
that the youth strove nearly exclusively for an apprenticeship as a panel
In comparison, the
miners job had a completely different image among the young people.
Already before the coming to power of the national socialists the youth
had often tried to avoid work in the coal mines and the loss of prestige
which went with it. They were grateful for any help by their families
which prevented them from ending up in a miners career.37
In the Third REICH this kind of negative attitude remained unchanged.
Employment functionaries even spoke about a flight from mining.38
Only 89 young people out of 3,400 which left lower secondary schools in
Bochum at Easter, 1937 - that is not more than 2,6 percent - decided in
favour of this occupation.
In 1937/38 the newly
recruited miners still covered the needs of the coal mines in the Ruhr
area by 73.9 per cent. This figure decreased in 1938/39 to a poor 34 per
cent.39 Employment politicians stated, that in contrast
with the situation in the Saarland in the Ruhr area ... parents
as well as the young people showed a strong reserve in respect
to this profession.40
The demand for young
miners in the Rhineland on the other hand could still be covered by the
Labour Exchange offices in 1937/38.41 A social democrat
from Rhineland-Westfalia reported in 1939: The regime is anxious
about the lack of young blood, because whereas there was a tradition in
earlier days that the sons of miners became miners as well, now the youth
strive for different occupations.42
In spring, 1941,
the president of the regional Labour Exchange of the Rhineland interpreted
the young peoples antipathies as resulting from ... a certain
mental attidude in respect to mining, for which it was hard to give reasons
and which could be described really as a mining psychosis ....43
In the district of the regional Labour Exchange of the Rhineland only
835 persons out of the total of male young school-leavers as well as of
the older clients of the year under review (1939/40) were willing to become
miners. Thus, the need for young miners could just be covered at a level
of 15 per cent. 53,800 persons on the other hand applied for an apprenticeship
in the occupations of the metal processing industries.44
One of the national
socialist specialists on labour market problems, van der Wyenburgh, stated
in 1940 that employers had no adequate choice anymore among the youth
who were prepared to start as miners. These volunteers were in fact now
drawn from a group of pupils visiting schools for handicapped children
and school-leavers who had dropped out early somewhere in the lower secondary
In order to improve
the attractiveness of the miners job, in 1940 an apprenticeship
in mining was officially approved as being an education for skilled work.46
In the Westfalian industrial area there were numerous advertising campaigns
in favour of mining in the local press.47 However, the
effort and the new measures introduced in the attempt to give more value
and prestige to the occupation of miner were of no avail. In the following
years the mining companies and the regional Labour Exchange offices continued
reporting strong reserve among the young people. The regional Labour Exchange
for Westfalia suggested that school education ought to avoid painting
the miners life in dark colours, because the question of ...
winning sufficient numbers of new workers for the mining industry was
vital, not only for the branch of industry itself and for the whole economy
but for nation and state in general. ... The reason for the decreasing
efficiency of efforts directed at channeling young people into certain
occupations may be seen above all in the young peoples and their
parents strong reserve with regard to the occupation of miner.48
We do not know whether teachers took up the suggestion of the regional
Labour Exchange for Westfalia. If this was the case, then the attempt
was obviously not successful: The decree on compulsory mining for
all male Germans from 18 to 35 years..., insofar as the persons
concerned were physically fit, which was issued by the British authorities
during the Allied occupation49, met with strong resistance
among the young working people in the Rhenish-Westfalian industrial area,
among the regional youth organisations and also among the catholic youth
and the JUNGE UNION (youth organisation of the Christian Democrats CDU).50
In spite of the
privileges to be expected, the traditional aversions of the young people
remained unchanged. Thus, even after May, 1945, many young workers resisted
compulsory mining by refusing to work and by intentionally going slow.
occupations were those in farming and construction as well as some
trades of craftsmen. The construction jobs had always had few young
workers in the Rhineland ....51 This attidude
comes as a surprise because masons and carpenters were to be found among
the best paid tradesmen and skilled workers.52
of moulder and caster in the metal producing and metal processing branches
of industry had an equally poor reputation. As early as 1923/24 both occupations
were reckoned among young people to be very unattractive.53
Especially the young moulder was thought by people of the same age
to be rough.54 The negative image of the
occupation of caster lived on well into the 1930s, for which the numerous
call-ups of persons for essential service in this job give evidence.
The jobs chosen
by young people not only provide information about the industrial milieu
to which the young people belonged. They indicate in addition a particular
system of values in respect to the different occupations existing in the
youth subculture studied, which is to be understood as being specific
for a particular social milieu.
Only little was
left of the reputation once enjoyed by those traditional trades which
had been widely practised before the era of advanced industrialisation.
Already the young people in the 1920s evidently tended to have a negative
view of occupations like baker, tailor, shoemaker, saddler/upholsterer,
hairdresser, plumber, butcher and paper-hanger.55 Thus
it is clear that in the course of time the profiles and the attractiveness
of certain occupations underwent remarkable changes.
1.2 Employment of young people under conditions of intensified arms
It was characteristic of the situation of young workers at the end of
the thirties that there was a steadily increasing number of restrictions
in the individual choice of occupations as well as call-ups for essential
services. The necessary rise in arms production was intended to be reached
by new piece rates, higher wages and extended working-time.
It is true that
according to the GESETZ ÜBER KINDERARBEIT UND ÜBER DIE ARBEITSZEIT
VON JUGENDLICHEN (Law on child labour and the working hours of young
people), adopted April 30, 1938, it was not allowed to let young people
under 18 years work in night shifts or alternating shifts. However, in
practice the law was undermined by special orders and regulations. It
was, for example, possible to hire over 16-year old young people like
before for a 54-hour week.56
On September 1,
1939, the order limitating the working-time of male employees and workers
was suspended by the VERORDNUNG ZUR ABÄNDERUNG UND ERGÄNZUNG
VON VORSCHRIFTEN AUF DEM GEBIETE DES ARBEITSRECHTS (Decree on the amendement
and supplementing of regulations in the field of industrial law). Another
decree of September 11, 1939, modified the regulations which were until
then in force with regard to the working-time of young workers. From now
on a ten-hour working-day was allowed. Excluding the times at vocational
school the maximum working-time of young workers older than 16 years was
even 56 hours per week.57 Already before this it was
possible under a special order of December 23, 1938, to employ young workers
older than 16 years in the metal producing industry in weekly alternating
shifts for nine hours per day and up to a maximum of 54 hours per week.58
A young tool grinder
from Duisburg reported according to the interrogation record, that his
working day at the DEMAG started in the morning at 6h15 and ended every
day in the evening at 6h15.59 Many young workers mostly
just had every third or fourth weekend off.60 Under
these conditions the weekend trips of the informal youth groups were of
great importance for different experience and regeneration.
Young people tried
to evade the increasing demands put on them and the call-ups by changing
their places of work. In this they did profit from the competition between
the concerns and companies in wooing the insufficient number of workers
being available on the labour market.
to change jobs varied according to employment status and industrial branch.
The metal producing industry was spared from this movement of personnel
fluctuation for the most part, but not the construction industry.61
Semi-skilled blast furnace workers and steel workers could hardly get
equal employment conditions through changing the company. Workers skilled
in machine engineering as part of the metal processing industries on the
other hand were very much sought after.62 But skilled
workers had the tendency to remain attached to their factory, while male
unskilled workers tended most to change jobs.63 The
higher income made some youth even change to the unpopular mining industry.
The 17-year old later miner and member of a clique of young people, Karl
S., changed from the iron and steel works GUTEHOFFNUNG, where he had been
employed as an errand boy, to the coal mine KONKORDIA, because he just
wanted to earn more money.64
For those young
people who worked in the chemical plants of the IG FARBEN and the RUHRCHEMIE
the demand for workers made it possible to draw away from the dangers
for their health at their respective workplaces and find themselves another
In order to reduce
and possibly prevent a change of employment among skilled metal workers,
the national socialist employment politicians introduced a number of new
restrictive regulations. Since the ANORDNUNG ÜBER DEN ARBEITSPLATZWECHSEL
VON GELERNTEN METALLARBEITERN (decree on employment changes of skilled
metal workers), issued December 29, 1934, a skilled metal worker had
needed the approval of the respective Labour Exchange office, if the job
newly applied for and the place of residence were not located in the same
district. But in the metal industries a change of employment inside the
district of an employment office was possible, until the order of the
president of the REICHSANSTALT FÜR ARBEITSVERMITTLUNG UND ARBEITSLOSENVERSICHERUNG
(highest national socialist institution for employment and social insurance)
of February 11, 1937, was issued. From this date on workers needed a written
permission from the responsible Labour Exchange for any change of jobs
even inside the district. The same was decreed for the construction industry
fifteen months later.66
Before that, on
November 5, 1935, the GESETZ ÜBER ARBEITSVERMITTLUNG, BERUFSBERATUNG
UND LEHRSTELLENVERMITTLUNG (law on employment exchange, careers guidance
and placing of apprentices) had been passed, which assigned to the
REICHSANSTALT FÜR ARBEITSVERMITTLUNG UND ARBEITSLOSENVERSICHERUNG
by law the monopoly in the field of dealing with employment problems.67
The GESETZ ÜBER
DIE EINFÜHRUNG DES ARBEITSBUCHES (law on the introduction of a
compulsory workers log), passed in February, 1935, had been
put into practice as early as September, 1936, for the most important
occupations, where workers were really needed, while it was completely
applied to all occupations around spring, 1939, with the handing out of
22 million workers logs.68 When starting an employment,
the worker or employee had immediately to hand over for safekeeping the
workers log to the factory manager, and in case of unemployment
he/she had to present it to the Labour Exchange without special request.
The workers log was intended regulate the distribution of workers
within the German economy in an appropriate way.69
Finally the DURCHFÜHRUNGSVERORDNUNG
ZUR DIENSTPFLICHTVERORDNUNG (order regulating implementation of the
decree on call-ups), issued March, 1939, reduced the possibilities
of free choice of employment even further and did not allow any change
of employment without approval of the responsible Labour Exchange office.70
The hoped for success of these measures apparently did not come about,
as on September, 1, another new regulation was issued: the VERORDNUNG
ÜBER DIE BESCHRÄNKUNG DES ARBEITSPLATZWECHSELS (decree on
the restriction of employment change). It was designed to suppress
intiatives of the workers even more effectively.71 A
factory which hired an apprentice needed the approval of the employment
office. The distribution of the apprentices was carried out from this
date on by means of a numerical fixing ... for the different professions
in order to limitate the ... excessive influx of young people in the popular
The constant flow
of decrees was nevertheless not sufficient for limiting the employment
changes of the young people very much. For this the examples of many clique
members give evidence in the years 1937 to 1941. The national socialist
employment politicians therefore introduced the call-ups as a further
restrictive measure, beginning in June, 1938, with a partial call-up.
Following this decree, a German worker was forced for a limited time ...
to do service at a working place assigned to him.73
In February, 1939,
an additional order extended the legal possibility for call-ups to unlimited
time.74 Half a year later even school children from
10 to 16 years could be called-up for agricultural work in reference to
the VERORDNUNG ÜBER DEN EINSATZ DER ÄLTEREN SCHULJUGEND (decree
on the employment of the elder school children).75
What then was the
internal differentiation of the production milieu of sub-cultural youth
in the material under review? Out of 1,441 young clique members nearly
a third (if also the young miners are added) underwent vocational training
at the time of the GESTAPO interrogations. Every second (50.6 per cent)
out of a total of 1,441 persons had an occupation identified as skilled
work by industry and trade. 28.6 per cent were unskilled and 6.1 percent
The 313 different
occupational denominations appearing in the interrogation records are
widely spread over the various branches of the economy. However, certain
occupations are named especially frequently. To these belong in particular
the generally unpopular occupation of miner but also the occupations of
metalworker (5.4 per cent) and machine fitter (3.5 per cent) which enjoyed
a high reputation.76 Also named were the occupation
of lathe operator (4.9 percent) and that of apprentice for being office
clerk (4.0 per cent). Every sixth person questioned (18.9 per cent) spoke
explicitly of being worker or unskilled worker.77
The frequent naming
of the occupations of metalworker and lathe operator reflect the strong
position of the metal producing and processing industries in the region
of Düsseldorf. But it is surprising how much the choice of occupations
had changed in a comparison of the generations. While only 2.9 per cent
of the questioned persons were miners, every tenth father of persons questioned
worked in this field.78 In their attempt to give a higher
value to the miners job, the national socialist employment politicians
had visibly failed.
1.3 Refusal of work on the side of the clique members - staying away
from work and working slow intentionally
members reacted by certain forms of refusal of work to call-ups
for unpopular jobs and a working week sometimes ranging from 60 up to
72 hours.79 The offence of breaking the contract of
employment spread during the years of war like an epidemic, so to
speak, among the youth.80
Many young people
refused the well-ordered rhythm of the war economy.81
The 16-year old unskilled worker Bernhard K. declared according to the
GESTAPO interrogation record: Later I came to the coal-mine WALSUM.
I did not like it there, and therefore I stayed away from work arbitrarily
for part of the time. Once, e. g., I stood away from work for 17 weeks.82
The 15-year old EDELWEISS PIRATE (another name for the clique members)
Heinrich H. from Krefeld who was in an apprenticeship as smith at the
DEUTSCHE EDELSTAHLWERKE (in Krefeld) idled around because
the Labour Exchange did not endorse his employment application.83
A.G., Düsseldorf, denounced an EDELWEISS PIRATE to the GESTAPO: He
was described as a great idler, not appearing for much
of the working week, arriving too late very often, being
in fact sluggish at work, so that he could indeed be
described as work shy. No other boy had given them ... so much trouble
up to now....84 Other EDELWEISS PIRATES justified
their idling around with wages being too low, at least in
was tried often to avoid unwanted employments by volunteering for the
WEHRMACHT.86 This way of refusing work took up an extent
among the youth which made the GAUARBEITSGEMEINSCHAFT (gau association)
Ruhr/Lower Rhine suggest in 1942 that ... the military recruitment
offices should deliver the acceptance notice in the case of volunteers,
if possible, directly before the actual conscription and should include
in the text of the acceptance notice that the acceptance would be revoked,
if it was found that obligations at the level of employment would be neglected.87
In the eyes of the
Nazi inspectors young people who had ... broken their contracts
of employment and idlers were not only morally
in danger but already delinquent. A court in Essen described
the youth Manfred K. from Essen as delinquent because he had
no understanding that these days everybody had to do his duty at
his place of work.88
Under Allied occupation
this argument was retained: Refusal of work would favour among
minors a tendency towards other forms of delinquency and criminal offence
....89 In 1949 Rudolf Sieverts from Hamburg, professor
for criminal law and for law relating to young people, depicted a true
horror scenario of the future. He did this for the case of decreasing
efforts in ...fighting the more and more widespread phenomenon of
unwillingness to work which was becoming a habit of many young people,
wandering between the occupation zones and earning their living either
on the black market, or by all sorts of criminal behaviour, or by prostitution.
In this case, he said, there was a danger ... that out of these
work shy vagabonds organised gangsterism would develop in ways until then
not known in Europe.90
It is not surprising
that in this atmosphere the prosecution of so-called young idlers
was sometimes no less rigid under Allied occupation than under the Nazi
regime. The court for the district of Wuppertal delivered a 5-month prison-sentence
to a young woman in 1947 with reference to the decree No. 54 of the military
government, because of refusal of work. At the instigation
of the youth welfare department the young woman ... had been called-up
by the Labour Exchange office for working in a factory as unskilled worker.
It was intended to prevent her from idling around and mixing with soldiers
of the Allied occupation forces. At the beginning of 1947 she was given
a medical certificate for several weeks because of illness. However, after
recovery she did not take up work again and always used feeble excuses.
91 This then led to the sentence mentioned above.
Very soon the refusal of work by young people threatened to take on such
dimensions in the perspective of the responsible institutions that they
felt forced to intervene. To the Labour Exchange of Wuppertal it seemed
advisable to point repeatedly and explicitly to the official policies
and measures taken against those refusing work and idling
around. The Labour Exchange announced it would ... take effective
measures in all cases of unauthorised staying away from work. It
was seen as unacceptable ... that these work shy elements lived
at the expense of the working population. More than ever it would
now be ... the duty of all to achieve the highest possible production
A person being called-up
for essential service and refusing ... to do the work assigned to
him ... could be excluded from the food apportionment. A person
not obeying an order to work had ... to be prepared for severe punishment
from the responsible military government court according to article
II, clause 21 of the decree No. 1.93
The local youth
welfare departments tried to keep young people out of possible sanctions
ordered by the military courts.94 In order to achieve
this they proposed to order a temporary transfer to homes for bettering
youth in cases of persistent idling around. Thus it would
be possible for the Labour Exchange offices ... to prevent the reporting
of young people to the military court.
Labour Exchange offices never were in doubt about the necessity of sanctioning
the unwillingness of young people to work.
article is based on my dissertation Wilde Jugend. Lebenswelt großstädtischer
Jugendlicher zwischen Weltwirtschaftskrise, Nationalsozialismus und Währungsreform
(= Düsseldorfer Schriften zur Neueren Landesgeschichte und zur Geschichte
Nordrhein-Westfalens 42) (1996). For a closer look at the sources the
reader is referred to that publication. For help in translating the present
material I would like to thank Bruno Kirchhoff.
Walter Stets, Der Arbeitseinsatz der jugendlichen Schulentlassenen im
Rheinland, Die Rheinprovinz, 13 (1937), 825-828, 826.
interrogation record Paul N., Gladbeck (September 1937), Nordrheinwestfälisches
Hauptstaatsarchiv Düsseldorf (NWHStAD), Bestand Gestapo-Personenakten
(BW 58), Bd. 47601.
W.K. (Gauamt für Volkswohlfahrt), Wert und Zielsetzung der Betreuungs-
und Beschäfti gungskurse für erwerbslose Jugendliche im Gaubereich
Düsseldorf, Die Rheinprovinz 12 (1936), 194-196, 196.
Ohletz, Betreuungskurse jugendlicher Erwerbsloser, Die Rheinprovinz 13
(1937), 262-263, 262.
Stets (1937), 825.
Walter Stets, Nachwuchspolitik in Krieg und Frieden, Die Rheinprovinz
16 (1940), 44-48, 46.
Stets (1937), 827.
Hachtmann, Industriearbeit im Dritten Reich. Untersuchungen
zu den Lohn- und Arbeitsbedingungen in Deutschland 1933-1945 (= Kritische
Studien zur Geschichtswissenschaft 82) (1989), 38.
der Duisburger Firma Heinrich van Lackum an das Arbeitsamt Essen (11.
Oktober 1939), NWHStAD, RW 58/68205, Bl. 12.
Martin Rüther, Arbeiterschaft in Köln 1928-1945 (= Kölner
Schriften zu Geschichte und Kultur 16) (1990), 227.
(1989), 46. See also Timothy W. Mason, Arbeiteropposition im nationalsozialistischen
Deutschland, in: Detlev Peukert and Jürgen Reulecke (Ed.), Die Reihen
fast geschlossen, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Alltags unterm Nationalsozialismus
(1981), 293-313, 296f; also id., Sozialpolitik im Dritten Reich, Arbeiterklasse
und Volksgemeinschaft, (21978), 208ff., 221ff.
und Bandenbildung unter Jugendlichen, Denkschrift der Reichsjugendführung
(September 1942), Bundesarchiv Koblenz (BAK), Bestand Reichsjustizministerium
(R 22), 1177, Bl. 325-395, Bl. 332.
des Kölner Oberlandesgerichtspräsidenten an das Reichsjustizministerium
(31. August 1941), BAK, R 22/3374, Bl. 51.
der Gestapoaußendienststelle Duisburg an die Stapostelle Düsseldorf
(2. Juni 1939), NWHStAD, RW 58/48457, Bl. 119.
Bericht der Stapostelle Düsseldorf an das Geheime Staatspolizeiamt
Berlin (15. Juni 1939), NWHStAD, RW 58/48457, Bl. 16; Schreiben des Geheimen
Staatspolizeiamtes Berlin an die Stapostelle Düsseldorf (2. Juli
1939), NWHStAD, RW 58/32943, Bl. 15.
und Bandenbildung unter Jugendlichen, Denkschrift der Reichsjugendführung
(September 1942), BAK, R 22/1177, Bl. 325-395, Bl. 332. See also Hans
Stahlschmidt, Schutzpolizei in Düsseldorf. Organisation, Einsatz
und Verwendung - Eine Chronik über mehr als ein halbes Jahrhundert,
in: Hans Lisken (Ed.), Landeshauptstadt Düsseldorf und die Polizei.
50 Jahre Polizeipräsidium Jürgensplatz (1983), 106.
NWHStAD, Bestand Sondergericht Düsseldorf (Rep. 114) Bd. 8529, Bl.
record Hans F., Essen (November 1940), NWHStAD, RW 58/43761, Bl. 15. See
also NWHStAD, RW 58/68508, Bl. 48; interrogation record Josef G., Düsseldorf
(1941), NWHStAD, RW 58/63208, Bl. 11.
record H., Düsseldorf (1942), NWHStAD, RW 58/29376, Bl. 40.
Wolfgang Franz Werner, Bleib übrig!, Deutsche Arbeiter in der
nationalsozialistischen Kriegswirtschaft (= Düsseldorfer Schriften
zur Neueren Landesgeschichte und zur Geschichte Nordrhein-Westfalens 9)
Mason (1978), 225.
Kräftebilanz der deutschen Industrie, BAK, R 12 I/79 according to
Ulrich Herbert, Arbeiterschaft im Dritten Reich, Zwischenbilanz
und offene Fragen, Geschichte und Gesellschaft 15 (1989), 320-360, note
Kittelbachpiraten an die Hitlerjugend in Oberhausen (undated ),
NWHStAD, RW 58/9213, Bl. 21.
Gustav Vogel, Das Milieu des Rheinisch-Westfälischen Industriegebiets
im Hinblick auf seine Kriminalität, Diss. med. (1938), 53.
NWHStAD, Bestand Staatsanwaltschaft beim Landgericht Düsseldorf (Rep.
17), Bd. 397.
job of metalworker obtained in the group of the fathers only 4.4 per cent
of the values.
Stets (1937), 826.; cf. Michael Zimmermann, Ausbruchshoffnung. Junge Bergleute
in den dreißiger Jahren, in: Lutz Niethammer (Ed.), Die Jahre
weiß man nicht, wo man die heute hinsetzen soll. Faschismuserfahrungen
im Ruhrgebiet (= Lebensgeschichte und Sozialkultur im Ruhrgebiet 1930-1960,
vol. 2) (1983), 102.
F. Stäbler, Die Freiheit der Berufswahl, staatspolitisch
gesehen, Die Rheinprovinz 17 (1941), 69-77, 70.
Stets, Planmäßige Nachwuchslenkung und Jugendführung,
Die Rheinprovinz 15 (1939), 173-175, 173; cf. also Hans Langenberg, Untersuchung
über die pädagogischen Grundlagen des Düsseldorfer Erziehungsversuches
und den Lebenskreis der Jugendlichen, in: Verwaltungsausschuß des
öffentlichen Arbeitsnachweises Düsseldorf (Ed.), Erwerbslose
Großstadtjugend. Ein Düsseldorfer Erziehungsversuch an erwerbslosen
Jugendlichen (1925), 69; Stäbler (1941), 71; Walter Blumenfeld, Jugend
als Konfliktsituation, Jugendpsychologie mit Berücksichtigung des
jüdischen Kindes (= Passauer Schriften zur Psychologiegeschichte
8), (1988), 92.
F. Stäbler, Die Berufsnachwuchslenkung im Kriege, Die Rheinprovinz
16 (1940), 41-43, 43; interview Walter T. (born 1922), Wuppertal (6. Dezember
Ewald Schürmann, Dortmund - nordwärts wird erzählt, in:
Stadt Dortmund - Kulturbüro (Ed.), Nordstadtbilder. Stadterneuerung
und künstlerische Medien (1989), 46.
Langenberg (1925), 63.
Hermann Wagener, Der jugendliche Industriearbeiter und die Industriefamilie
(= Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Pädagogik A/9)
Rheinische Post 2 (1947) (16. Juli 1947).
Heinrich Többen, Die Jugendverwahrlosung und ihre Bekämpfung
(1922), 161; Wagener (1931), 61f.
Bax, Der deutsche Bergmann im Wandel der Geschichte, seine Stellung in
der Gegenwart und die Frage seines Berufsnachwuchses, Zeitschrift für
das Berg- und Salinenwesen im Deutschen Reich 88 (1940), 145-195, 185f;
Stäbler/Bäumer, Die Entwicklung des Berufseinsatzes der Jugendlichen
im Rheinland in der Zeit von 1933 bis heute, Die Rheinprovinz 15 (1939),
168-172, 171; Paul Seiler, Berufsziel Bergmann, Das junge Deutschland
36 (1942), 306-309.
Der deutsche Bergbau ohne Jugend, Das junge Deutschland 31 (1937), 456-461,
547. See also Barbara Dorn and Michael Zimmermann, Bewährungsprobe,
Herne und Wanne-Eickel 1933-45, Alltag, Widerstand, Verfolgung unter dem
Nationalsozialismus (1987), 146; cf. Ullrich, Aufstiegsmöglichkeiten
im Bergbau, NS-Frauenwarte 10 (1941/42), 197; Zimmermann (1983), 125.
der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands (Sopade) 6 (1939), (61982),
(StA) Gladbeck, C 643.
Stäbler (1941), 70.
van der Wyenburgh 1940, cited according to Zimmermann (1983), 107; interview
with Bernhard Röppel, Bottrop, Beitrag im Rahmen des Schülerwettbewerbs
Deutsche Geschichte um den Preis des Bundespräsidenten, Wettbewerb
Alltag im Nationalsozialismus. Die Kriegsjahre in Deutschland
(1983), 7; Anselm Faust (Ed.), Otto Faust, Vom Bremsjungen zum Betriebsdirektor,
Ein Leben im Ruhrbergbau (1867-1914) (1989), 75.
H. Wetzel, Erfahrungen bei der planmäßigen praktischen Ausbildung
des bergmännischen Nachwuchses in dem Untertage-Lehrrevier Amalia,
Glückauf 77 (1941), 128-130; Friedrich Kröker, Die praktische
Ausbildung der Berglehrlinge - Versuch der Aufstellung eines Grundlehrganges,
Glückauf 78 (1942), 90-95; Gerhard Lehmann, Der Berglehrling und
seine Ausbildung, Glückauf 79 (1943), 424-427.
Dorn/Zimmermann (1987), 146; see also the film Ein Bergmann will
ich werden (anonymous), Glückauf 78 (1942), 705.
des Präsidenten des Landesarbeitsamtes Westfalen in Dortmund an die
Regierungspräsidenten in Arnsberg und Münster über die
Behandlung des Bergmannsberufes im Schulunterricht (4. April 1941), StA
Gladbeck, C 643. See also Schreiben des Beauftragten des Reichstreuhänders
der Arbeit für das Wirtschaftsgebiet Westfalen-Niederrhein an den
Reichstreuhänder der Arbeit, Sachgebiet II, Essen (3. Juli 1941),
NWHStAD, RW 58/26003, Bl. 11; interrogation record Alfred R., Essen (Oktober
1941), NWHStAD, RW 58/59120, Bl. 17.
und Behörde müssen sich verstehen. Ein Gespräch mit dem
Leiter des Arbeitsamtes Düsseldorf, Rheinische Post 1 (1946), 61
(28. September 1946).
Katholische Jugend gegen Bergbaupflicht (anonymous), Rheinische Post 1
(1946), 81 (7. Dezember 1946); Jugend protestiert gegen den Zwang (anonymous),
Rheinische Post 2 (1947), 6 (22. Januar 1947). See also Heinrich Telaak,
Das Nachwuchsproblem im Steinkohlenbergbau der Montan-Union, Diss. oek.
Langenberg (1925), 69.
ibid., 63; cf. Hermine Albers, Die soziale Lage der Jugend und die Aufgaben
und Probleme der öffentlichen Jugendpflege, Jahrbuch der Jugendarbeit
1 (1949), 47-57, 54.
Dehn, Die männliche proletarische Großstadtjugend, in: Adolf
Busemann (Ed.), Handbuch der pädagogischen Milieukunde (1932), 232;
see also Stets (1937), 826.
Langenberg (1925), 40; Dehn (1932), 232; interview Walter T., Wuppertal;
Stets (1937), 827. Cf. SOPADE-Berichte 5 (1938), 546.; cf. interrogation
record Emanuel T., Essen, NWHStAD, RW58/5083, Bl. 14.
Erika Müller, Die neuen Jugendschutzbestimmungen, Die Rheinprovinz
14 (1938), 394-398, 397; Matthias Frese, Betriebspolitik im Dritten
Reich, Deutsche Arbeitsfront, Unternehmer und Staatsbürokratie
in der westdeutschen Großindustrie 1933-1939 (= Forschungen zur
Regionalgeschichte 2) (1991), 361ff.
Wolfgang Franz Werner, Bleib übrig! Deutsche Arbeiter in der nationalsozialistischen
Kriegswirtschaft (= Düsseldorfer Schriften zur Neueren Landesgeschichte
und zur Geschichte Nordrhein-Westfalen 9) (1983), 41f.
Hisashi Yano, Hüttenarbeiter im Dritten Reich. Die Betriebsverhältnisse
und soziale Lage bei der Gutehoffnungshütte Aktienverein und der
Fried. Krupp AG 1936 bis 1939 (= Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte
34) (1986), 77.
NWHStAD, RW 58/57120.
interrogation record Johann T., Gladbeck (November 1937), NWHStAD, RW
58/10740, Bl. 55; interrogation record Rudolf J., Düsseldorf (September
1940), NWHStAD, RW 58/13128, Bl. 7, interrogation record Josef G., Düsseldorf
(1941), NWHStAD, RW 58/63028, Bl. 12.
Rüdiger Hachtmann, Die Arbeiter der Gutehoffnungshütte 1933
bis 1939, Klaus Tenfelde (Ed.), Arbeiter im 20. Jahrhundert (= Industrielle
Welt, Schriftenreihe für moderne Sozialgeschichte 51) (1991), 105-141,
Rüdiger Hachtmann, Arbeitsmarkt und Arbeitszeit in der deutschen
Industrie 1929-1939, Archiv für Sozialgeschichte XXVII (1987), 177-227.
record Karl. S., Oberhausen (November 1938), NWHStAD, RW 58/25820, Bl.
7; cf. also interrogation record Peter P., Oberhausen (Juli 1941), NWHStAD,
RW 58/9213, Bl. 133; interrogation record Otto S., Wuppertal (September
1939), NWHStAD, RW 58/72029, Bl. 2; interrogation record Georg R., Oberhausen,
NWHStAD, RW 58/47520, Bl. 8.
interrogation record Kurt J., Wuppertal (1940), NWHStAD, RW 58/9457, Bl.
25; interrogation record Peter P., Oberhausen (Juli 1941), NWHStAD, RW
58/9213, Bl. 133.
Reichsarbeitsblatt (RABl) I (1935), 12; Hachtmann (1989), 44.
Reichgesetzblatt (RGBl), I (1935), 1281.
(Revisor), Das Arbeitsbuch und seine Bedeutung für den Arbeitseinsatz,
in: W. Sommer (Ed.), Die Praxis des Arbeitsamtes, Eine Gemeinschaftsarbeit
von Angehörigen der Reichsanstalt für Arbeitsvermittlung und
Arbeitslosenversicherung (1939), 45-56; 49 and 53.
RGBl. (1939), I, 444. See also Andreas Kranig, Arbeitnehmer, Arbeitsbeziehungen
und Sozialpolitik unter dem Nationalsozialismus, in: Karl-Dietrich Bracher,
Manfred Funke, Hans-Adolf Jacobsen (Ed.), Deutschland 1933-1945, Neue
Studien zur nationalsozialistischen Herrschaft (= Bonner Schriften zur
Politik und Zeitgeschichte; Bd. 23) (1992), 135-152, 148.
RGBl. (1939), 1685, cited in Hachtmann (1989), 48.
Berufslenkung der Jugend, ein Gebot der Stunde, Die Rheinprovinz 16 (1940),
11, 299-300, 300; cf. also Stäbler (1941), 76f.
(1938), I, 652.
RGBl. (1939), I, 206. See also Kühne-Erfurt (Revisor), Arbeitseinsatzmaßnahmen
zur Verbesserung des Altersaufbaues in den Betrieben, in: W. Sommer (Ed.),
Die Praxis des Arbeitsamtes, Eine Gemeinschaftsarbeit von Angehörigen
der Reichsanstalt für Arbeitsvermittlung und Arbeitslosenversicherung
(1939), 87-120, spec. 110-117; Leopold Ost, ZurDienstverpflichtung von
Jugendlichen, Das junge Deutschland 34 (1940), 3, 66-68. But see also
interrogation record Emil S., Düsseldorf (September 1940), NWHStAD,
RW 58/13128, Bl. 9; interrogation record Otto H., Wuppertal (1941), NWHStAD,
RW 58/22330, Bl. 23; Der Jugendführer des Deutschen Reichs, Kriminalität
und Gefährdung der Jugend, Lagebericht bis zum Stande v. 1. Januar
1941 (cited in: Lagebericht Reichsjugendführung 1941), in: Arno Klönne
(Ed.), Jugendkriminalität und Jugendopposition im NS-Staat, Ein sozialgeschichtliches
Dokument (= Geschichte der Jugend 1) (1981), 147f.
Ullmann, Zum Kriegseinsatz der deutschen Jugend 1939 bis 1945, in: Deutsche
Jugend im Zweiten Weltkrieg (1991), 33-42, 36.
on 1,320 valid cases.
77cf. Kenkmann (1996), 345.
79See Bernd-A. Rusinek, Desintegration und gesteigerter
Zwang. Die Chaotisierung der Lebensverhältnisse im Bombenkrieg der
Großstädte. Der Mythos der Ehrenfelder Gruppe, in: Wilfried
Breyvogel, Piraten, Swings und Junge Garde. Jugendwiderstand im Nationalsozialismus
(1991), 283. See also Karl-Heinz Jahnke and Michael Buddrus, Deutsche
Jugend 1933-1945. Eine Dokumentation (1989), 463-468; also Schreiben des
Führers der RAD-Abteilung 3/215 in Lüttelforst an den Führer
des Arbeitsgaues XXI in Düsseldorf über den Duisburger RAD-Angehörigen
Helmut S. (18. Februar 1943), NWHStAD, RW 58/16636, Bl. 39.
80Heinrich Jocks, Die Jugendkriminalität im Amtsgerichtsbezirk
Bottrop in den Jahren 1933-1953 (1957), 60.
81Lagebericht des Generalstaatsanwalts Hamm (30. September
1943), BAK, R 22/3367, Bl. 173.
82Interrogation record Bernhard K., Duisburg (Januar
1944), NWHStAD, RW 58/8057, Bl. 15.
83Interrogation record Heinrich H., Krefeld, NWHStAD,
Bestand Staatsanwaltschaft beim Landgericht Krefeld (Rep. 30), Bd. 106,
84Schreiben der Daimler-Benz Aktiengesellschaft, Düsseldorf,
an die Düsseldorfer Gestapo (9. Dezember 1942), NWHStAD, RW 58/29376,
Bl. 47. See also Schreiben der Kraftwagengesellschaft Dr. Wittenstein,
Wuppertal-Unterbarmen, an die Gestapoaußendienststelle Wuppertal
(17. Mai 1944), NWHStAD, Bestand Staatsanwaltschaft beim Landgericht Wuppertal
(Rep. 92), Bd. 97, Bl. 26.
85cf. interrogation record Klaus B., Köln (Dezember
1942), NWHStAD, Bestand Sondergericht Köln (Rep. 112), Bd. 18705,
86Zeugenaussage eines Düsseldorfer Betriebsobmannes
(1942), NWHStAD, RW 58/575, unpaged.
87Bericht über die dritte Sitzung der Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft
für Jugendbetreuung in Berlin (20. Oktober 1942), BAK, R 22/1197,
der endgültigen Fürsorgeerziehung über Manfred K., Essen,
durch das Amtsgericht Essen-Steele (21. Oktober 1944), Archiv des Landschaftsverbandes
Rheinland (ALVR), Bd. 17356, unpaged.
89Schreiben des Jugendamts Gladbeck an den Leiter der
Nebenstelle Gladbeck des Arbeitsamtes Bottrop (12. Mai 1949), StA Gladbeck,
D 66, unpaged.
90Rudolf Sieverts, Gegenwartsfragen des deutschen Jugendrechts,
Jahrbuch der Jugendarbeit 1 (1949), 59f.
91Harald Jaeger, Die Kriminalität der 14- bis 18jährigen
Mädchen im Landgerichtsbezirk Wuppertal während der Jahre 1942-1952
92Arbeitsamt Wuppertal, Betr.: Maßnahmen gegen
Arbeitsvertragsbruch und Arbeitsbummelei (1. Juli 1946), StA Wuppertal,
Mitteilungen der Militär-Regierung für den Stadtkreis Wuppertal,
Nr. 172 (6. Juli 1946).
93Der Oberpräsident der Nord-Rheinprovinz, Dr. Fuchs,
Betr.: Verordnung über die Leistung von Pflichtarbeit, StA Wuppertal,
Mitteilungen der Militär-Regierung für Wuppertal, 33 (31. Juli
1945). See also: Alfons Kenkmann, Jugendliche Arbeitsbummelanten
und die Akteure der sozialen Kontrolle gegen Ende des Dritten Reichs
und während der Besatzungszeit, in: Burkhard Dietz, Ute Lange and
Manfred Wahle (Ed.), Jugend zwischen Selbst- und Fremdbestimmung. Historische
Jugendforschung zum rechtsrheinischen Industriegebiet im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert
94cf. Schreiben des Jugendamtes Gladbeck an den Vorsitzenden
des Arbeitsamtes Bottrop (20. Juni 1947), StA Gladbeck, D 66, unpaged.