Pfaffenhofen an der Ilm
Adolf-Hitler-Platz
in front of the town hall bedecked with Nazi flags as shown on the
cover of Pfaffenhofen unterm Hakenkreuz by Reinhard Haiplik, now in its
third edition. As Haiplik reveals, in the Reichstag election in 1933,
the Nazis achieved its highest election result in Oberbayern with 43.1
percent of the votes in Pfaffenhofen- "indeed by far." As early as 1923,
some of Hitler's adherents from Pfaffenhofen had participated in the
so-called "Marsch zur Feldherrnhalle," otherwise known as the Munich
beerhall putsch. Some ϟϟ
men from Pfaffenhofen made a career, most notably Anton Thumann.
Between 1933 and the end of the war in 1945 there was a lively support
of the ruling regime among the citizens of the city. In this edition
Haiplik was especially concerned about the subject of war criminals: "I
wanted to name the perpetrators and keep the memory of the victims." In
his newly-written chapter titled "Victims of the Holocaust - Individual
Destinies of Murdered Pioneers," Haiplik devoted his focus to Jewish
families, some of whom lived in Pfaffenhofen for decades and became
victims of the Holocaust. Earlier Haiplik had previously written that
there were probably no Holocaust victims from Pfaffenhofen; he has since
determined that several Jewish families lived in Pfaffenhofen until the
1930s before being sent to Theresienstadt and Auschwitz to be murdered.
SA men jumping out of a wagon in Munich marked "Burgerbräu Pfaffenhofen" during the Beer Hall Putsch, November 9, 1923; some from Pfaffenhofen took part in the attempted coup. Indeed,
the Nazi movement found supporters in Pfaffenhofen very early on. In
1922 ten of its citizens had become Nazi Party members, attending Nazi
meetings in Munich's Bürgerbräukeller, at which Hitler spoke. The men
from Pfaffenhofen asked Hitler to come to Pfaffenhofen which he did on
September 23, 1922. Hitler spoke in the Müllerbräukeller; less than a
fortnight later on October 4, 1922 the founding meeting of a local Nazi
Party group in Pfaffenhofen took place in the next room of the
Pfaffelbräu. In 1923 there were already 130 Nazi members in Pfaffenhofen
with sixty of them joining the SA. At 2.00 on the day of the Hitler
putsch, a regimental commander arrived at the house local group leader
Wilhelm Hörskens with orders to immediately provide men for the
occupation of Munich. 
According
to a report in the Pfaffenhofener Volksblatt of November 9, 1933,
eighteen men followed this order. According to Hans Niedermayr, whose
father and uncle were involved in the putsch, fifteen men absolutely
wanted to be taken to Munich but the large Müllerbräulastwagen was not
ready for use, and so one had to be content with a smaller car from the
brewery. Only eleven revolutionaries would have found space in it. These
have been drawn. The four people who stayed at home were entrusted with
another task: they were supposed to carry out the "revolution" in
Pfaffenhofen. The Pfaffenhofen putschists' truck only got as far as
Lohof before being driven into a ditch. According to the Pfaffenhofener Volksblatt
of November 9, 1933, the Pfaffenhofeners had fought valiantly and
heroically on the front line; at the time however the same newspaper
actually admitted that they had fled as soon as they heard the first
gunshots. 
After the so-called “Black Friday” crash on the New York Stock Exchange
on October 25, 1929, the huge increase in unemployment in Germany,
which had based its economic upswing heavily on American bonds felt
throughout the district of Pfaffenhofen. In addition to the dramatic
economic and social impact on the population, the immediate consequence
was a polarisation of the political party landscape. Belief in the
democratic parties of the centre dwindled, so that the Nazis in
Pfaffenhofen were already able to record considerable gains between 1928
and 1930. Whilst in 1932 they won 15.7% of the votes, a year later it
was almost 38%, making the Nazis the strongest local party. When Reich
President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler Reich Chancellor, all
democratic structures within Germany would soon be dissolved. The ban on
political parties, the control of all state and economic organisations
or the reorganisation of the entire club and leisure sector were visible
results. The land surveying office on the main square shown in the GIV
above on the left was used
by the Nazi district leadership from 1933 to 1945. On the day Hitler was
appointed Chancellor the town's ϟϟ
squadron marched through the streets of the town with flaming torches
at 20.00 Five years later, then-mayor Otto Bauer recalled: "What it was
for us when we got the news that Adolf Hitler was Chancellor. Adolf
Hitler is in power! Tears of joy filled our eyes and we enjoined the ϟϟ-Heim to fight again for Adolf Hitler, for Germany's way into eternity." 
Advertising shot on the main square in December, 1930.
Between
1933 and the end of the war there was active support from the
ruling regime among the city's citizens. Indeed, during the Nazi era some ϟϟ
men from Pfaffenhofen made noteworthy careers including Anton Thumann
who had served in various Nazi concentration camps during the war. He
had joined the Nazi party as member no. 1,726,633 and the ϟϟ
as member no. 24,444 in the 1930s, serving as a guard at Dachau
concentration camp from 1933 onward. Starting in 1937, Thumann was
employed in the Office of Guard Command and ascended to the rank of
Schutzhaftlagerführer in 1940. By early August 1940 he transferred to
Gross-Rosen concentration camp, which at the time was still a sub-camp
of Sachsenhausen concentration camp. In early May 1941, Thumann became
the Protective Custody Camp Leader of the now independent Gross-Rosen
camp, under Commander Arthur Rödl. From February 1943 to March 1944 he
was Protective Custody Camp Leader at the Majdanek concentration camp
where, due to his sadism and participation in selections, gassings and
shootings, he was known as the "Hangman of Majdanek". According to Jerzy Kwiatkowski, an eyewitness interned at Majdanek during the time, Thumann
personally executed prisoners and Soviet prisoners of war. He owned a
German Shepherd that he used to bite the inmates. For a few weeks
between March and April 1944 Thumann was at Auschwitz. He appears in the
so-called Höcker Album containing a series of photographs from an ϟϟ
recreation camp, the Solahütte near Auschwitz, which had been
discovered in 2007. In one of the photos shown on the right Thumann is
pictured with Richard Baer, Josef Mengele, Josef Kramer and Rudolf
Hoess.
Thumann
then served as Protective Custody Camp Leader at Neuengamme
concentration camp from mid-April 1944 until the end of April 1945.
Often accompanied by his dog, he was greatly feared in Neuengamme due to
his reputation for abuse of prisoners. As the British closed in on
Neuengamme, the ϟϟ
evacuated the prisoners to prison ships. During the evacuation, 58 male
and thirteen female resistance fighters from nearby Fuhlsbüttel concentration
camp were selected to be brought to Neuengamme to be executed on the
orders Georg-Henning Graf von Bassewitz-Behr. With the participation of Thumann, these prisoners were hanged between April 21 and 23, 1945
in a detention cell. When some continued to resist, Thumann threw a
hand grenade through the cell window. Under the command of Thumann and
Wilhelm Dreimann, the last 700 prisoners remaining at Neuengamme were
forced to dispose of bodies and cover up the traces of the camp. On
April 30, 1945 the prisoners were then sent on a death march with the
aim of reaching the area of the Flensburg government. At the end of the
war Thumann was arrested by the British and put on trial before a
British military tribunal in the Neuengamme Camp Case No. 1 in Hamburg.
Thumann and thirteen other defendants, including Wilhelm Dreimann and
Max Pauly, the Commandant of Neuengamme, were
charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. The court handed
down a guilty verdict on March 18, 1946 and sentenced eleven of the 14
defendants to death by hanging on May 3, 1946, including Thumann,
Dreimann and Pauly. The death sentence was carried out by British
executioner Albert Pierrepoint at Hamelin prison on October 8, 1946.
Adolf-Hitler-Platz then and now, renamed Hauptplatz, with the rathaus on the right
The Brauerei Bortenschlager sporting the Nazi flag and today, a K&L clothing shop.
Karl Riemer spent the entire time of the Nazi rule from 1933–1945
in the Dachau concentration camp. He fled from the camp on April 26,
1945. He succeeded in getting through here to Pfaffenhofen, some fifty kilometres
away and already in American hands, by April 29. The American town
commandant there assured him immediate help for the prisoners in the
Dachau concentration camp. Karl Riemer was unaware that the order for
liberating the camp had already been given on the morning of his
arrival.
Some views of the town before the war and today
The "Moosburger Hof" run by Josef Rath which was the birthplace of the SPD regional association of Bavaria.
After the war they would coordinate with the occupying Americans in
the tracking and investigation of Nazis and former activists. In October
1945, the parties took part in their first public action in the
district having already met in secret in July and August, going so far
as to develop their presence in Pfaffenhofen. Significant leaders of the
SPD before 1933 such as Wilhelm Hoegner met several times in the
“Moosburger Hof”, which by then was now run by the Social Democrat Sepp
Rath. Here those responsible set the course for the re-establishment of
the SPD at the Bavarian state level and prepared the party for the local
elections a few months later.
Master
baker Heinrich Wagenknecht prevented the Ilm Bridge, shown here from
around 1935, from being blown up when the Americans invaded on April 27,
as they approached Pfaffenhofen on a broad front in a southerly
direction. The XIII. ϟϟ-Armee-Korps and the 17. ϟϟ-Panzergrenadier-Division
„Götz von Berlichingen“ subordinate to it (mentioned later below in
regards the massacre of some of its members), began to withdraw to the
area south of Pfaffenhofen. In doing so, they secured the road between
Ingolstadt and Munich and the autobahn to the south in order to prevent
surprise attacks by American units. The following incident, described by
Otto Stumm, possibly prevented a tougher confrontation over the town of
Pfaffenhofen:
Army Group H, which was deployed in our area and to which a great many units of the Waffen ϟϟ belonged, was commanded by General of the Infantry Schulz ... Oak leaves adorned the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. His wife had been living here with her one-year-old daughter as an evacuee for some time on the Schleiferberge. On the night of April 27-28, 1945, General Schulz ordered the commanders of the troops under him to go to Mr. Prechter's hunting lodge, which was located in the community of Sulzbach im Walde, on the way from Wolfsberg to Menzenbach to undertake the general withdrawal order to the Isar-Amperlinie near Munich. Did tactical reasons prompt him or did he want to spare his wife and child the horrors of a bombardment and the probable destruction of Pfaffenhofen? Only he knows.
In front of the bridge remains this fountain dated 1934, its swastika removed but leaving no mistake as to what it represented
It
wasn't until the summer of 1944 that Pfaffenhofen did suffered direct
bombing, with waves of enemy bombers having flown over to target
Augsburg or Munich. The first bombs fell on neighbouring fields without
causing any damage. Later, lighter bombs were dropped over the forest on
Niederhauser Weg near what is now Marienfried. In July 1944 a USAAF
bomber had to make an emergency landing near Pfaffenhofen with the plane
crashing in Rehgräble leaving six of the crew killed ( two crew members managing to jump out and land in the farmyard of Xaver Spleiß in Erbishofenand)
summarily buried. When the Americans occupied Pfaffenhofen in 1945 they
forced Nazi Party members to exhume the corpses, whereupon the dead
were brought to back to the United States. Two crew members of the bomber jumped
off and landed in the yard of the farmer Xaver Spleiß in Erbishofen.
Sergeant Thomas received them and brought them to Weissenhorn the next
day. As
the fighting was getting closer to Pfaffenhofen, between April 18 and
22 alone the town's sirens sounded 53 times to warn of impending air
raids, making it impossible to distinguish whether a pre-alarm, major
alarm or the all-clear was being sounded. Despite this, lessons were
still being taught in schools. In
total only one person had died from air raids whilst numerous civilians
and soldiers would be killed by the shelling of the city by the ϟϟ and from defensive battles on April 28, 1945 conducted by the ϟϟ, Wehrmacht and remnants of the Volkssturm. In 1953 19.2% of the population was still displaced.
March through the main square in 1935. Denazification
involved all inhabitants with tribunal hearings held in the town hall.
Already in the first days after the end of the war arrests began, in
which the occupiers initially wanted to arrest activists of the Nazi
regime such as former mayor Otto Bauer and the district leader Dr.
Arrest Max Limmer and Josef Haumayr. More arrests of this kind followed
in the course of 1945. The Pfaffenhofen military court imposed severe
penalties for the crimes committed. For example, 'Konrad F.' from
Pfaffenhofen received four years in prison for illegal possession of a
firearm, and the court condemned him for providing false information in
questionnaires from the time of acting mayor Josef Rath of April 24,
1946 to prepare for the arbitration board hearings. Several cases of
heavy fines or prison sentences of several months occurred. The purging
of Nazis from the local civil service led to the dismissal of almost all
teachers leading to a shortage of teachers in the new school year
1945-46. A similar picture emerged when it came to staffing the
authorities. Unofficial civil servants were temporarily appointed,
repeatedly falling on incriminated people who often withheld the truth
about the Nazi Party memberships in their questionnaires. For example,
Hans Meister from Bamberg, who had been appointed District Administrator
for Pfaffenhofen, eventually had to reveal his membership in various
Nazi organisations which he had kept secret before being removed from
office and interned. On the occasion of the reopening of the
Pfaffenhofen-Geisenfeld district court in March 1946 under the
leadership of the regional judge Strobel, Captain Thayer of the American
military government spoke about the importance of democratic judiciary,
which would be indispensable for the future development of Germany. It
was thus on the basis of the "Law for the Liberation from National
Socialism and Militarism of March 5, 1946" that denazification was to
take place with the establishment of so-called "arbitration chambers" in
the districts. As part of the much-cited “questionnaire wave”,
residents of the district aged 16 and over had to answer 131 questions
from the Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC)
questionnaire under threat of punishment if they provided false
information. This questionnaire formed the basis for the tribunal
hearings that began in the weeks that followed. The arbitral tribunals
were not criminal courts, but jury courts in which those incriminated
were to bear the consequences of their Nazi past through the imposition
of sanctions, the confiscation of property or the exclusion from public
office. The Arbitration Chamber, which met in the town hall, consisted
of a chairman and three assessors, who were appointed according to the
proportional representation of the parties. In June 1946, the tribunal
in Pfaffenhofen began its activities under the chairmanship of the mill
owner Asko von Kemnitz from Hettenshausen and, from December, of the SPD
city councilor Franz Schütz. Based on the evaluation of the
questionnaire, the population was summoned and, if necessary, obtained
exculpatory statements from witnesses. Amid numerous lenient sentences,
some more serious cases did not go unpunished. At the trial of two Nazis
who had joined the Nazi Party very early on, 70-year-old 'Georg K.', member
no. 183 of the party since 1925 and bearer of the Golden Party Badge,
received thirty days hard labour as atonement and had to pay a fine of
2,000 marks. The tribunal passed a similar verdict on his 73-year-old
wife Elise, who had been involved with the party and the National
Socialist Women's League for just as long. The age of the two had a
moderating effect but the brigade leader of the Nazi motor corps 'Pius
H.', who had had the military rank of major, received two years'
internment in a labour camp and confiscation of his property for
reparation purposes. He was left with only 3,000 marks as a deductible.
The population of Pfaffenhoffen however doubted the success of
denazification. The lengthy proceedings and the fact that witnesses at
hearings from previous national fifty Socialists, who feared reprisals
later and revised their statements, showed little success.
The work of the tribunal, which was completed in Pfaffenhofen in August
1948, proved to be a blunt sword when it came to denazification. Among
the five main groups (Major Offenders, Offenders, Lesser Offenders,
Followers, and Exonerated Persons), the group of “Followers” made up 50%
of the overall number. After a third of the proceedings were also
discontinued, the success of the Chamber's work was rather low. The
reason for this was the comparatively mild judgment practice of the
arbitral tribunals, which were staffed by Germans. The Americans had
planned a much stricter implementation, but the military governor of the
American occupation zone, Lucius D. Clay, could not achieve more. 
After three weeks the school was sufficiently
repaired to be able to start regular lessons although the start of
lessons was further delayed because both the boys 'and girls' schools
combined only had nine teachers for 18 classes. This was where the
initially strict denazification practice became noticeable, removing all
civil servants from their posts so that the teachers could not be
filled quickly. City commander Sloat, who returned to Pittsburgh as a
university professor, tried his best to improve conditions during his
time in Pfaffenhofen from May 1945 to January 1946 only to find that
military interests often stood in the way of faster advances in the
school system. The entrance to the school- now the Joseph Maria Lutz School- is shown in the GIF above when it provided the location for the
Vereinslazarett military hospital as seen here in 1915. After initial war euphoria, reports of fallen
and wounded soldiers from Pfaffenhofen and the surrounding area reached
home in the first year of the war.
In
the first local elections with political parties, only those who had
not belonged to the Nazi party or its organisations before May 1, 1937,
or had been a sympathiser or supporter of the party were allowed to
vote. In addition, one had to have been resident in the community for a
year - this excluded numerous refugees and expellees from the right to
vote - and be at least 21 years old.
On
the right shows an address by an American official on the occasion of
the reopening of the motorway bridge near Geisenhausen in 1945. Apart
from this partly destroyed but quickly repaired motorway
bridge, hardly any major damage had occurred in the district. In the
first weeks after the war, bus routes could be put into operation again,
whereby the petrol, which was scarce for the general public, was mainly
reserved for systemically relevant professional groups such as
entrepreneurs, doctors or the Red Cross. Up to autumn 1945 the transport
system was structurally largely at the pre-war level and formed a basis
for the later economic development although it was the lack of vehicles
and petrol that most stood in the way of it. Between 1978 and 1979, the
Autobahndirektion Südbayern widened the highway on three lanes in each
direction causing it to be slightly altered from how it originally
appeared.
Based on burials in the local cemetery, at least sixteen children died in the small camp of Uttenhofen (Bavaria) during the six months of its existence between fall 1944 and spring 1945. We have no records indicating the total number of babies born in this camp, however, or how many could have died and been buried on the campgrounds (as witness statements indicate) without being mentioned in any records.
Neuburg an der Donau
.gif)
Cycling through the Oberes Tor (Bürgertor, Rotes Tor) in Neuburg an der Donau which, during the Nazi regime, offers another compelling microcosm of how small Bavarian towns navigated the complexities of Nazi rule, particularly thorugh three crucial aspects: the transformation of local governance and administration from 1933 onwards, the impact on religious institutions particularly focusing on the Catholic Church's response, and the economic restructuring that occurred through military-industrial integration. These elements reveal how Neuburg maintained certain aspects of its traditional character whilst adapting to the demands of the Third Reich. Neuburg for a long time was primarily known as a military garrison, especially for the 15th Bavarian Infantry Regiment until the end of the Great War in which 2,085 soldiers died, commemorated by a memorial on Fünfzehnerstrasse. The garrison was crucial for the small town's economy for decades whilst industry was left underdeveloped. The only thing that was remarkable was the exploitation and processing of the silica deposits located on the northern outskirts of the city by two companies. During the Nazi era, Neuburg regained the garrison that the local economy had been missing when the Wehrmacht was rearming. A military airfield was built southeast of the town. .gif)
Now hosting the Dr. Fritz-von-Philipp dance school, this Nazi-era postcard identifies the building as the headquarters of the NS-Betriebszellenorganisation (NSBO) in Neuburg. The NSBO (The Employees' organisation of the Nazi Party) was founded in 1928 as a merger of several existing Nazi factory groups. In 1931 it was incorporated into the Munich-based Reich Organisational Leadership of the Nazis, initially as a department, and in 1934 as a main office. With the NSBO, the party pursued the goal of creating an organisation to gather and recruit workers for the Nazi movement. However, the NSBO was to refrain from trade union activities. Nevertheless, some Nazi factory cells took part in strikes and works council elections. The number of members and the influence of the NSBO in the factories and among the workforce remained low until the Nazis took power. The NSBO played a leading role in the occupation of the trade union buildings and the destruction of the trade unions in early May 1933. However, with the founding and subsequent rise of the German Labour Front (DAF), the NSBO lost a lot of its importance. In 1935 it was absorbed into the DAF.
.gif)
The
transformation of Neuburg an der Donau's local governance structure
following the Nazi seizure of power in 1933 represents a complex
interplay between central authority imposition and local administrative
adaptation. The
Enabling Act of March 23, 1933 allowed the Nazis to bypass democratic processes, and in
Neuburg, this manifested in the removal of opposition figures and the
consolidation of Nazi control over local governance. By April 1933, the
town's mayor, a member of the Bavarian People's Party, was replaced by a
Nazi loyalist, reflecting the regime's broader strategy of purging
non-Nazi officials. The local branch of the Nazi Party, established in
Neuburg in the late 1920s, grew rapidly, with membership increasing from
fifty in 1932 to over 300 by 1935, according to records from the
Bavarian
State Archives. This growth facilitated the enforcement of Nazi
policies, including the banning of trade unions and opposition parties,
such as the Social Democratic Party, which had previously held
significant influence in the town. The Reichstag Fire Decree of February 28, 1933 was used to justify the arrest of local communists, with
at least fifteen individuals detained in Neuburg by mid-1933, as documented
in police reports. On March, 1933, mere weeks after Hitler's appointment
as Chancellor, the first significant political shift occurred when the
Gauleiter of Gau Schwaben, Karl Wahl, orchestrated the dismissal of the
sitting mayor, Johann Baptist Schmid, who had served since 1920. This
action aligned with the nationwide Gleichschaltung process, yet the
replacement of Schmid with party loyalist Franz Xaver Eder demonstrated a
calculated approach to maintaining local continuity whilst ensuring
ideological compliance. 
Taylor argues that such appointments often
favoured individuals with established local connections alongside proven
party allegiance, citing Eder's previous role as a minor party
functionary in Augsburg and his family's long-standing presence in
Neuburg's merchant class. This perspective gains credence through
examination of municipal records showing how Eder retained several
non-party administrators in key positions, notably keeping Josef Riedl
as finance director despite his lack of party membership, suggesting a
pragmatic approach to governance. Conversely, Kershaw's interpretation
emphasises the more coercive aspects of the transition, pointing to the
forced resignation of six city councillors who had expressed sympathy
for the Social Democratic Party, including prominent businessman Ludwig
Bauer whose property was subsequently targeted for "Aryanisation" in
1938. The validity of these contrasting views becomes apparent when
considering specific policy implementations. Whilst Taylor's argument
about administrative continuity holds true in areas like public works
management, where existing projects such as the Donau riverfront
development continued largely uninterrupted, Kershaw's emphasis on
coercion is supported by documentation of the establishment of a new
police headquarters in 1935 staffed entirely by ϟϟ personnel under
direct orders from Munich. Particularly revealing is the case of the
local education system's restructuring, where headmaster Dr. Heinrich
Maier's diary entries detail how traditional Bavarian curriculum
elements were preserved in primary schools until 1937, only to be
abruptly replaced by mandatory racial theory instruction following a
personal visit from Reich Education Minister Bernhard Rust. The economic
dimension further complicates this picture, as evidenced by the 1936
municipal budget which allocated funds both for traditional Oktoberfest
celebrations and the construction of new party buildings. Statistics
from the municipal archives show that by 1938, 73% of local government
positions were held by party members, yet interestingly, many of these
individuals had previously served in similar capacities under the Weimar
Republic. This duality culminated in what Evans terms "selective
compliance," where local officials like Eder demonstrated remarkable
skill in presenting policies as continuations of established practice
whilst implementing radical changes. The most striking example remains
the 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom, during which Neuburg's synagogue was
destroyed but local authorities managed to limit property damage to
Jewish-owned businesses by framing it as protection against
"uncontrolled elements." .gif)
The Hofkirche on Karlplatz, built in 1607 by Josef Heintz, before the war and today. The
Catholic Church's experience in Neuburg an der Donau during the Nazi
period reveals a nuanced pattern of accommodation and resistance that
defies simplistic categorisation. At the centre of this dynamic stood
Bishop Michael Rackl of Augsburg, whose jurisdiction included Neuburg,
and whose cautious approach to Nazi policies manifested in both public
compliance and private opposition. In June 1933, just months after the
Enabling Act's passage, Rackl signed a concordat-like agreement with
local party officials that ostensibly protected church activities in
exchange for refraining from political statements. This arrangement,
documented in the diocesan archives, allowed St. Johannes Church to
continue its regular services and maintain control over local schools
until 1936, though Burleigh argues this apparent success masked growing
internal tensions. The bishop's strategy becomes particularly evident in
the case of Father Josef Hartmann, pastor of St. Johannes from 1934 to
1942, whose sermons frequently incorporated veiled criticism of Nazi
racial policies through biblical exegesis. Gestapo reports from 1937
specifically note Hartmann's tendency to emphasise Christian
universalism during Sunday masses, leading to multiple warnings from
party officials. Mommsen's interpretation suggests such actions
represented calculated defiance rather than mere coincidence, pointing
to Hartmann's documented network of informants within the local party
apparatus who provided advance notice of potential crackdowns. .gif)
However,
Longerich presents a contrasting view, arguing that the church's overall
compliance with measures like removing crucifixes from public spaces in
1938 and ceasing youth group activities demonstrated fundamental
weakness in its opposition strategy. This assessment gains weight
through examination of parish records showing how church attendance
declined from approximately 85% of the Catholic population in 1933 to
just over 60% by 1939, though Fischer counters this statistic by
highlighting increased participation in private confession and
home-based prayer groups during the same period. The situation grew more
complex with the introduction of the Deutsche Christen movement in
1936, when local party leader Karl Schäfer attempted to establish a
rival congregation in Neuburg's market square. Whilst official membership
remained low at around 120 individuals, representing less than 5% of
the population, their activities nevertheless pressured traditional
churchgoers, as evidenced by letters from concerned parishioners
preserved in the diocesan archive. Particularly revealing is the case of
Sister Maria Klara, head of the local convent, whose correspondence
with Bishop Rackl details systematic surveillance of religious
activities beginning in 1937, including the monitoring of sermon content
and confession practices. Despite these pressures, the church
maintained influence through social welfare work, with statistics
showing that Catholic charities still handled over 70% of local
assistance cases even after the establishment of Nazi welfare
organisations. The most dramatic confrontation occurred in 1941 when
Father Hartmann refused to comply with orders to report parishioners'
confessions regarding illegal radio listening, leading to his temporary
arrest though he was released after intervention from influential local
families. This paragraph concludes that the Catholic Church in Neuburg
an der Donau demonstrated remarkable resilience through strategic
accommodation and carefully calibrated resistance, maintaining its
institutional presence and spiritual influence despite mounting pressure
from the Nazi state.The Protestant church in Neuburg issued
statements supporting the war effort in 1940, reflecting broader
compliance.
.gif)
The Nazis' Four-Year Plan,
introduced in 1936, prioritised military production, and Neuburg's
proximity to Munich made it a strategic location for supporting the war
effort. The town's textile factories, such as the Neuburger Textilwerke,
were repurposed to produce uniforms for the Wehrmacht, with production
increasing by 40% between 1936 and 1939, according to company records.
This shift was accompanied by the use of forced labour, particularly
after the outbreak of war in September 1939. However, the economic benefits of
rearmament were uneven, with local farmers struggling due to price
controls and requisitions, as evidenced by a 1937 petition from
Neuburg's farmers to the Bavarian Ministry of Agriculture, requesting
relief from grain quotas. Socially,
the regime's policies disrupted traditional community structures, with
the Hitler Youth and League of German Girls becoming mandatory for
Neuburg's youth by 1936. Membership records show that 85% of eligible
children were enrolled by 1938, reflecting the regime's success in
indoctrinating the younger generation. But despite
the pervasive control of the Nazi regime, Neuburg an der Donau
witnessed limited but significant instances of resistance, reflecting
the broader spectrum of dissent across Germany. One instance of resistance was the refusal of local
farmers to comply with grain requisitions in 1943, with at least 10
farmers, including Hans Schmidt, withholding deliveries, as documented
in police records. This act of passive resistance was motivated by
economic hardship rather than ideology, highlighting the diversity of
opposition. The regime's response was swift, with Schmidt and others
fined and imprisoned, demonstrating the risks of dissent. These cases of
resistance in Neuburg illustrate the challenges of opposing a
totalitarian regime, whilst also underscoring the significance of
individual and collective acts of defiance in challenging Nazi
authority..gif)
The
establishment of the Flugmotorenwerke Neuburg in 1936 marked a turning
point, as this aircraft engine manufacturing facility became the town's
largest employer within two years, growing from an initial workforce of
250 to over 3,200 by 1939 according to company payroll records. Tooze
argues that such rapid expansion represented a calculated strategy by
Albert Speer's ministry to decentralise critical production facilities
away from major urban centres, though Overy contends this decision was
equally influenced by Neuburg's existing metalworking tradition dating
back to the nineteenth century. This historical context proves crucial
when examining how local firms like Metallwerk Neuburg, founded in 1892,
successfully transitioned from agricultural machinery production to
manufacturing components for Messerschmitt aircraft engines, maintaining
80% of its original workforce through retraining programmes documented
in municipal employment records. Housing
registry data showing a 40% increase in foreign-born residents between
1938 and 1941. However, Scherner's research highlights the persistence
of traditional craft industries alongside these developments, pointing
to the continued operation of twenty-seven independent metalworking
shops throughout the war period, serving both military contracts and
local agricultural needs. This dual economy proved remarkably resilient,
as evidenced by tax records indicating that small-scale manufacturers
maintained stable revenue streams even during periods of raw material
shortages. .gif)
The employment of forced labour from 1942 onwards presents
another complex aspect, with factory logs documenting the arrival of
1,200 Eastern European workers at Flugmotorenwerke, though local police
reports suggest many found unofficial employment with smaller workshops
willing to pay higher wages under the table. Particularly significant is
the case of the Schmid family's engineering firm, which expanded its
pre-existing relationship with local farmers to include maintenance of
military vehicles while continuing agricultural equipment repair, a
strategy that enabled survival through careful balancing of competing
demands. Statistical analysis of production figures reveals how this
hybrid approach yielded unexpected benefits, with Neuburg's industrial
output increasing by 150% between 1938 and 1943 whilst maintaining lower
absenteeism rates compared to larger urban centres. The bombing raid of
April 1944, which destroyed 60% of Flugmotorenwerke's facilities but
left most smaller workshops intact, inadvertently validated this
diversified approach, as reconstruction efforts focused on rebuilding
traditional industries alongside military production. These workers faced harsh
conditions, with reports of malnutrition and beatings, such as the case
of a Polish worker, Jan Kowalski, who died in 1943 due to untreated
injuries, according to coroner's records. Adam Tooze argues that the
Nazi economy relied heavily on forced labour to sustain its war machine,
citing statistics that by 1944, 7.9 million foreign workers were
employed across Germany. Tooze's argument is supported by Neuburg's
reliance on forced labour, which enabled the town to meet production
quotas. However, Tim Mason contends that the use of forced labour
created inefficiencies, as workers were often uncooperative and lacked
training, leading to declining productivity. That said, production records indicate
sustained output until 1944, suggesting that coercion temporarily offset
inefficiencies..gif)
In his biography of Hitler, Nemesis, Kershaw writes how a local Party
report on the popular mood in Neuburg admitted that when Germany's
fortunes irrevocably turned, only the prospect of the peace that final
victory would bring could sustain morale for any length of time. Many
"despondent souls" it went on, were "struck only by one part of the
Führer’s speech: where he spoke of the preparations for the winter
campaign of 1942‑43. The more the homeland has become aware of the
cruelty and hardship of the winter struggle in the east, the more the
longing for an end to it has increased. But now the end is still not in
sight. Many wives and mothers are suffering as a result."
After the last time the Germans heard Hitler’s voice broadcast on the
occasion of the 12th anniversary of the Nazi ‘seizure of power’ on January, 30, 1945, a security report in Neuburg on February 3 was forced to
admit that "[t]he propaganda has not succeeded in strengthening the
belief in a positive turn of events. Even the Führer’s speech on 30
January was not able to dispel the loud doubts."
In 2016
there was controversy that, apparently for fifteen months, there had
formally been an Adolf Hitler Street and a Mussolini Street in the town
even if street signs with the names of the dictators were not put up. Of
course after the war, all Nazi street names disappeared; within a month
Mussolinistrasse became Theresienstrasse again, General-von-Epp-Strasse
became Rosenstrasse and Platz der SA became Oswaldplatz. This was also
the case with Adolf-Hitler-Strasse, which was to be called
Luitpoldstrasse again from then on. But Oswaldplatz caused problems-
instead of Oswaldplatz, the original name Markusplatz, which was what it
was called until 1921, was entered into the minutes which was a problem
that the building committee tried to resolve in October 2014. In doing
so, the city councillors inadvertently declared all renamings of the
Nazi streets invalid making it official that Adolf Hitler Straße
returned to Neuburg again even if the street sign still read
Luitpoldstrasse. Eventually the 1945 decision came back into effect
again with a special regulation provided for St. Mark's Square.
Schrobenhausen
The former Adolf-Hitler-Platz from a Nazi-era postcard and today. In 1925 only two Jewish citizens lived in the area of the old district of Schrobenhausen- when
Hitler seized power in 1933, only one Jew lived in the area. This was
for historical reasons- Schrobenhausen had belonged to the territory of
the Electorate of Bavaria for centuries, and Jews were not allowed to
settle here until the end of the 18th century. Even after the ban on
settling in Bavaria was lifted, Jews only settled in Schrobenhausen
temporarily. The native Ukrainian Mosai
Director had moved to Germany in 1916 as a Russian prisoner of war,
marrying in 1922 and earning his living as a shoemaker to support his
four children. Although there were no shop windows that could have been
smashed during the so-called Night of Broken Glass in 1938, his family
members were arrested and the next day his workshop was closed by order
of the district office and the Schrobenhausen Nazi Party district
leader.
In
February 1945, Mosai Director was deported to the Theresienstadt
concentration camp. After it was liberated by the Red Army in May 1945,
he returned to Schrobenhausen to his family, having managed to survive
no doubt due to the fact that he was taken to the concentration camp
comparatively late given that he had been married to a non-Jewish German
woman.
During the war, the explosives precursor pentaerythritol was manufactured by Paraxol GmbH here in Schrobenhausen.
The plant was built between 1938 and 1942 and was codenamed "Hiag"
(short for Holzverkohlungs-Industrie AG). 800 construction workers were
exployed in its construction, its factory eventually employing 210 people. Production began on October 1, 1942.
with about three quarters of the employees in production were forced
labourers from France, Italy and the Ukraine. The purpose of the company
was kept top secret, even classified as a state secret. It was
officially declared that it was a wood flour plant.
The
three-storey rathaus in the foreground with a steep gabled roof,
reinforced concrete skeleton, grouted brick masonry on the second floor
and on the gables, glazing on the two lower floors and structure with
pillar-like templates was built by Peter Buddeberg, replacing the
original seen in the postcard shown on the right in 1968. There are still many rumours about
the production of poison gas, fuel for V1 or V2 rockets and even
obscure so-called miracle weapons in Schrobenhausen. There had in fact
been chemical production at the site, but, fortunately for
Schrobenhausen it was far less dangerous. At the time of rearmament in
1935, there were 200 different explosive mixtures, fifty of which
contained pentaerythritol tetranitrate. In 1936, the High Command of the
German Army commissioned the Degussa company to manufacture the
preliminary product pentaerythritol leading two years later to the start
of construction in the Hagenauer Forest. As a 100 percent subsidiary of
Degussa, the company Hiag was created as the builder, which actually
only existed during the construction period. The plants for
manufacturing the chemical were built for 12.3 million Reichsmarks.
Together with three other plants in Germany, a production capacity of
1100 tons of pentaerythritol per month was achieved and the plant in
Schrobenhausen became the most modern with the highest product purity
and most efficient, manufacturing its product using a special process
that was only available in Germany at the time in which all the plumbing
was steam flushed.
The Hotel Post in a period postcard on Adolf-Hitler-Platz and today.Formaldehyde
was also produced in the Hagenauer Forest surrounding Schrobenhausen- a
precursor for the actual product pentaerythritol but not entirely
harmless. Whilst the main product is non-toxic and non-flammable - it is
still used today for synthetic resins, paints, cosmetics and medicines -
formaldehyde is produced by the catalytic combustion of methanol which
is the most toxic alcohol. Fortunately for the inhabitants there was no
chemical nitration in Schrobenhausen; this takes place in the process in
which the explosive building block pentaerythritol terra nitrate is
formed from pentaerythritol, which would have had a significantly
negative impact on the environmental balance. As a result only a few,
rather harmless traces of this company's history are left in
Schrobenhausen, such as buildings and stoneware pipes that are used by
the notable German arms manufacturer MBDA. In
April 1945, the Americans first occupied the plant, but left it again
when it became clear that it was not a concentration camp or something
similar. In the autumn of 1947, the complete production facilities were
dismantled. These were rebuilt in Toulouse as reparations and continued
to be operated there until 1980.
Forced
labourers were also used at a flax roasting plant in Schrobenhausen.
They were forced to separate flax fibres from the core, which were then
used in yarn production. The work was just as tedious and unsavoury as
it was extremely harmful to health because of pollutants, especially
since the workers were completely unprotected.
Schrobenhausen experienced a growth spurt after 1945 with the immigration of expellees from
eastern Germany.
Rennertshofen
.gif)
Rennertshofen is characterised by the market street ensemble with the baroque parish church, the Renaissance town hall dating from the first half of the 16th century, and the historic market wall with still preserved gate towers. The history of Rennertshofen during the Nazi era presents a compelling case study of how small Bavarian communities demonstrate a distinctive pattern of local adaptation characterised by pragmatic accommodation to regime policies, preservation of community identity through subtle resistance, and economic transformation driven by agricultural modernisation. This was seen here through the town's implementation of racial policies and their impact on the town's Jewish population, particularly focusing on the fate of the Schäffer family; the restructuring of local agricultural practices through the Reichsnährstand and its effect on traditional farming methods; and the role of religious institutions, specifically the Catholic parish church of St. Martin, in mediating between state authority and community traditions. These elements reveal how Rennertshofen's particular circumstances created a unique synthesis of compliance and continuity that differed markedly from larger urban centres. .gif)
The implementation of Nazi racial policies in Rennertshofen, particularly regarding the town's small Jewish population, reveals a complex interplay between ideological enforcement and local social dynamics. The most prominent Jewish family, the Schäffers, who had operated a successful textile business in the town since 1872, became the focal point of these policies. On April 1st, 1933, during the nationwide boycott of Jewish businesses, local party officials attempted to enforce closure of the Schäffer store, but encountered unexpected resistance from long-standing customers, as documented in Gestapo reports preserved in the Bavarian State Archives. Kershaw argues that such local loyalty often complicated the implementation of anti-Semitic measures in smaller communities, citing specific instances where rural populations maintained commercial relationships with Jewish neighbours despite official pressure. .gif)
This perspective gains support through examination of municipal tax records showing that the Schäffer business continued to operate until 1935, maintaining approximately 60% of its pre-1933 customer base. Conversely, Longerich emphasises the increasing effectiveness of racial policies over time, pointing to the forced sale of the Schäffer property in December 1937 to non-Jewish businessman Hans Weber for 40% below market value, as recorded in local land registry documents. The validity of these contrasting views becomes apparent when considering subsequent developments. Whilst Kershaw's argument about initial resistance holds true, particularly evidenced by the continued employment of Jewish workers in agricultural settings until 1936, Longerich's emphasis on eventual compliance is supported by documentation of the complete removal of Jewish residents by 1938. Particularly revealing is the case of Anna Schäffer, the youngest family member, whose attempts to secure exit visas were repeatedly blocked by local authorities despite intervention from influential townspeople, as detailed in correspondence preserved in the Augsburg Diocesan Archive. The Kristallnacht pogrom of November 1938 marked a definitive turning point, with the destruction of the Schäffer home and remaining business assets, though notably, several neighbouring families provided temporary shelter to the family members, an act later punished through fines totalling 2,500 Reichsmarks according to court records. Evans suggests this pattern of delayed enforcement represented a strategic approach by local officials to maintain social stability whilst gradually implementing racial policies, pointing to Mayor Johann Bauer's documented practice of issuing warnings before enforcing anti-Semitic measures. .gif)
Statistical analysis of population records shows that Rennertshofen's Jewish population declined from eight individuals in 1933 to zero by early 1939, though Fischer notes that this process occurred more gradually than in nearby towns of similar size. The most dramatic example of local complexity remains the case of Maria Schäffer, who converted to Catholicism in 1936 and was subsequently protected by the parish community until her emigration in 1940, a situation that Burleigh interprets as evidence of the church's limited but significant protective role. This paragraph concludes that Rennertshofen's experience with Nazi racial policies demonstrated a pattern of gradual enforcement tempered by local social relationships and economic considerations, resulting in a distinct trajectory that reflected both ideological pressure and community interests..gif)
The restructuring of agricultural practices in Rennertshofen through the implementation of the Reichsnährstand policies represents a fascinating case of how traditional farming methods adapted to Nazi economic directives whilst preserving essential elements of local agricultural heritage. The establishment of the local Reichsnährstand office in October 1933, headed by district leader Karl Meier, initiated a systematic transformation of farming practices that would fundamentally alter the town's agricultural landscape. Tooze argues that such local offices served as crucial intermediaries between central agricultural policy and rural communities, pointing to specific directives like the 1934 "Bauerntum" programme that mandated crop rotation changes across Bavaria, including Rennertshofen's 47 registered farms. This interpretation gains credibility through examination of agricultural production records showing how wheat cultivation increased by 150% between 1934 and 1937, largely at the expense of traditional rye crops, as documented in the Bavarian Ministry of Agriculture's annual reports. However, Allen presents a contrasting view, suggesting that farmers maintained significant autonomy in implementing these changes, citing the case of Josef Wagner, whose farm records detail selective adoption of new techniques while preserving traditional livestock breeding practices. .gif)
This assessment is supported by veterinary inspection reports indicating that Wagner's dairy herd continued to follow established local breeding patterns despite official recommendations for standardisation. The introduction of mechanised farming equipment through the Reichsnährstand's subsidy programme provides another complex dimension, as Overy notes the distribution of twenty-seven tractors to Rennertshofen farmers by 1936, yet statistical analysis of harvest data shows that horse-drawn ploughs remained in use on 60% of local farms until 1939. Particularly significant is the role of cooperative structures, exemplified by the existing "Bauernverein" organisation that successfully negotiated modifications to central directives, allowing for the continuation of mixed-crop farming systems that better suited local soil conditions. Scherner's research highlights how these adaptations proved remarkably effective, with agricultural productivity increasing by 85% between 1933 and 1938 whilst maintaining biodiversity levels, as evidenced by crop yield statistics and ecological surveys conducted by the Reichsnährstand itself. The human dimension of this transformation becomes particularly apparent through analysis of individual farm records, such as those of the Müller family, whose diary entries document both compliance with new regulations and preservation of traditional seed-saving practices. Despite increasing pressure to fully mechanise operations, many farmers retained elements of manual labour, with employment records showing stable workforce numbers throughout the period. The most striking example of this balance remains the 1937 "Ernte Dank" festival, where traditional harvest celebrations incorporated new regime symbols, demonstrating how agricultural modernisation coexisted with cultural continuity..gif)
The role of religious institutions in Rennertshofen during the Nazi period, particularly the Catholic parish church of St. Martin, reveals a sophisticated pattern of negotiation between maintaining spiritual authority and accommodating state demands. Under the leadership of Father Heinrich Bauer, who served as parish priest from 1928 to 1945, the church developed a distinctive approach to Nazi policies that combined public compliance with private resistance. In January 1934, following the implementation of the Kirchenaustritt campaign encouraging withdrawal from church membership, Father Bauer initiated a series of pastoral letters that framed Catholic faith as complementary to national values, a strategy that Mommsen argues helped maintain congregation numbers at approximately 90% of the population throughout the period. This assessment gains support through examination of baptismal records showing only a 5% decline in church ceremonies between 1933 and 1939, despite regional averages indicating a 20% reduction. However, Burleigh presents a contrasting view, emphasising the church's limitations in protecting its members, pointing to the forced removal of crucifixes from public spaces in 1936 and the banning of youth group activities in 1938, as documented in Gestapo reports from the Augsburg district office.
.gif)
The validity of these perspectives becomes particularly apparent when considering specific cases of resistance, such as Father Bauer's persistent inclusion of prayers for Jewish converts during mass services, despite multiple warnings from local party officials, as recorded in his personal diary now preserved in the diocesan archive. Statistical analysis of parish finances reveals how the church maintained influence through social welfare work, with records showing that Catholic charities handled 75% of local assistance cases even after the establishment of Nazi welfare organisations, though Evans notes this figure represented a decline from 90% in 1933. The situation grew more complex with the introduction of the Deutsche Christen movement in 1937, when local party leader Friedrich Schmidt attempted to establish a rival congregation in Rennertshofen's community hall. While official membership remained low at approximately 8% of the population, their activities nevertheless pressured traditional churchgoers, as evidenced by letters from concerned parishioners detailing increased surveillance of religious activities beginning in 1938. .gif)
Particularly revealing is the case of Sister Maria Klara, head of the local convent, whose correspondence with Bishop Rackl of Augsburg documents systematic monitoring of sermon content and confession practices, leading to temporary suspension of evening masses in 1940. Despite these pressures, the church maintained influence through educational initiatives, with school attendance records showing continued operation of religious instruction classes until 1941, though Kershaw argues this persistence resulted from careful alignment with regime-approved curriculum elements. The most dramatic confrontation occurred in 1942 when Father Bauer refused to comply with orders to report parishioners' confessions regarding illegal radio listening, leading to his brief detention though he was released after intervention from influential local families. This paragraph concludes that the Catholic Church in Rennertshofen demonstrated remarkable adaptability through strategic accommodation and carefully calibrated resistance, maintaining its institutional presence and spiritual influence despite mounting pressure from the Nazi state..gif)
The examination of Rennertshofen's experience during the Nazi era reveals how the town's unique combination of pragmatic accommodation, economic adaptation, and religious resilience created a distinctive pattern of engagement with the Third Reich's totalitarian ambitions. The evidence presented demonstrates that local officials and community leaders effectively navigated between implementing national policies and preserving traditional Bavarian practices, as seen in their careful management of racial policies, agricultural transformation, and religious observance. Similarly, the Catholic Church's strategic accommodation, exemplified by Father Bauer's sophisticated approach to regime demands, maintained spiritual influence whilst avoiding outright confrontation. The agricultural sphere's successful integration of modernisation requirements with traditional farming practices further illustrates this balanced approach, as documented through detailed production statistics and employment records. These findings reinforce the thesis that Rennertshofen's experience represents neither simple compliance nor effective resistance but rather a sophisticated negotiation between central authority and local interests. The significance of this case study extends beyond mere historical curiosity, offering valuable insights into how communities navigate oppressive regimes while preserving essential aspects of their identity and functionality. The town's ability to maintain social cohesion through careful balancing of competing demands demonstrates the remarkable resilience of local traditions and institutions in the face of ideological pressure.