HC Deb 11 July 1949 vol 467 cc24-5
49. Mr. Ellis Smith

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why decisions of the Lubeck panel for de-Nazification have been quashed and applicants advised to seek de-Nazification before a board in the French or American zones; and what is the British, American and French Military Governments' policy on the interchangeability of de-Nazification decisions.

Mr. Mayhew

The Schleswig-Holstein de-Nazification law provides that cases shall be heard in the locality in which the person concerned was best known during the Nazi régime. In a few cases heard by the Lubeck panel this provision was infringed, and the Land Committee for de-Nazification therefore quashed the decisions. In addition, two decisions of this panel have been quashed by Military Government. Mutual recognition of deNazification decisions between the three Western zones is complete but for recognition of British decisions in the French zone. Discussions are now taking place with the object of obtaining this.

Mr. Smith

In view of the new arrangement which has been made whereby the Allied High Commissioners will consider these matters in future, will the Under-Secretary ask his right hon. Friend to consider the advisability of submitting this matter to the Allied Commission with a view to an investigation being made into it?

Mr. Mayhew

I am not sure that the assumption in the first part of the Question is correct, and I should like notice of it.

Mr. Smith

Is my hon. Friend aware that I have here Command Paper 7727, on pages 4 and 5 of which it is laid down clearly that these matters can be submitted to them?

50. Mr. Ellis Smith

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give the names and pre-war positions of the persons who served on the panel that considered the case of Privy Councillor Gustav Breacht of Cologne, confirmed according to a notice which appeared on 27th January, 1949, in the British Licensed paper, "Die Welt"; why was he give a certificate and placed in category V by the panel at Miesbach on 3rd April, 1948; why is he to be a trustee of I. G. Farben; and is he to be considered as a candidate for trusteeship in the German Coal Industry.

Mr. Mayhew

As the answer is long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Austin

Is my hon. Friend aware that whatever may be the merits of the present attitude to de-Nazification there is grave concern about the military resurgence which is beginning to re-appear in Germany? Is he satisfied that his Department are watching the matter with all care and attention which it deserves?

Mr. Mayhew

Yes, Sir, we are watching it, but if there are any particular cases which my hon. Friend knows about I would be glad if he would draw my attention to them.

Following is the answer:

Mr. Brecht's de-Nazification case was heard in the United States zone, and we are, therefore, dependent on the United States authorities for our information. The names of the members of the panel were Otto Enders, Fritz Oberhauser, and Hans Lachner. I have no information concerning their pre-war positions. The panel placed Brecht in a category called "not concerned," a classification which is peculiar to the United States zone and which is reserved for persons who had no connection with the Nazi regime. Since his name had been cleared he was, therefore, eligible for appointment to the I. G. Farben dispersal panel. His name has appeared on lists of nominations submitted by various German bodies for employment as a trustee of colliery assets, but no selection has so far been made.

Back to
Forward to