Legislative Interventions into the Creation of Local Political Elites as an Instrument of Anti-Jewish Policy during the Holocaust (A Comparative View)*

80 Introduction In the short period from the German invasion of Poland and the outbreak of World War II in September 1939 until mid-1941, Nazi Germany was able to gain control over most of continental Europe. While some countries were fully incorporated into the Third Reich or were put under direct Nazi military occupation, other countries and newlyformed states became German war allies which, whilst being de jure independent of the Third Reich, were, however, fully serving its ideas. Nazi power or the newly-constituted non-democratic regimes in allied countries were accompanied by changes within the highest legislative and executive state authorities, which naturally resulted in political interferences at the lower levels of local administrations and the authorities of self-government. This process also resulted in the exchange of local political elites. A thorough knowledge of the composition and tasks of local elites, as political authorities with various levels of political infl uence, is a key element in understanding the character and the diversity of the non-democratic regimes. The total scope of the application of non-democratic principles (the “success” or “eff ectiveness” of regimes) was signifi cantly dependent not only on the central organs, but also on the performance, abilities, loyalty and behaviour of the elites at regional or local level, elites whose representatives were responsible for the process of local policy making and who played a signifi cant role in implementing anti-Jewish policy during the Holocaust era. The research on elites is currently multifaceted, and it can be analysed across several dimensions. One of these dimensions relates to the social background of an elite’s members and the positions held preceding their entering the elite, the course of their careers or their personal characteristics. Another dimension refers to whether the members of an elite share common ideological models and styles of Legislative Interventions into the Creation of Local Political Elites as an Instrument of Anti-Jewish Policy during the Holocaust (A Comparative View)*


Introduction
control. One specifi c dimension entails the study of circulation within an elite, not only how long members remain in their positions, but also how the exchange of that elite's membership takes place (evolutionary or revolutionary). A valid and important dimension of elite research refers to the interlinking of an elite (social, economic or ideological connection), that is, whether their members constitute a coherent elite or, on the contrary, are inconsistent. The communication and interaction of the members of elite with the masses, i.e., with people who do not belong among that elite (upward or downward communication, or the role played by mediating groups), and mechanisms leading to social interaction within the elite are also important in elite analysis. 1 One of the key problems in understanding the role of the political elite in a non-democratic regime is undoubtedly the role of the regime in the shaping of that elite and the regime's related legitimacy. The legitimacy of the elite in a non-democratic regime is ensured by ideology, which, enforcing universal moral principles, attempts to justify the existence of a ruling class and convinces the masses of the legitimacy of the power of the elite. 2 In this paper, the focus of attention is on the role of non-democratic regimes in the formation or the exchange of local political elites in relation to the establishment and consolidation of non-democratic regimes and to the occupation by Nazi Germany. The main aim is the analysis of the mechanisms of the creation of new local political elites in selected countries of Nazi-occupied Europe during the Second World War. 3 The subject of the research is l egal rules adopted by the contemporary legislatures and by the occupying power (regulations, legal acts, governmental or other decrees, etc.). Through their example can be explored dynamics of the transfer of political power as well as accompanying features related to the exchange of local elites such as, for example, the implementation of anti-Jewish policies by the removal of Jewish members from executive components of administrations, possibly speeding up the implementation of anti-Jewish measures by the appointment of offi cials loyal to the over-arching Nazi regime. In individual countries of Nazi-dominated Europe, the mechanism of power transfer was characterized by those countries own rules and had their own historical, ideological and political backgrounds and forms depending on the degree of control by the Third Reich. In this paper I try to provide a comparative view on the scale of the legislative interventions in selected examples of Nazi-occupied countries (General Government, Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia) and the allied regimes (Slovak State, Hungary).
The achievement of the above-mentioned aim can facilitate the fulfi lment of the following research objectives: to analyse the nature of legislative measures taken in the fi eld of executive units of individual countries; to explore the chronology of the legislative processes in selected countries; and to assess similarities and diff erences between the power transfer mechanisms in the four selected countries depending on the infl uence of Nazi Germany. The purpose of this research is not the analysis of the specifi c personnel changes at the district or municipality level in the form of microstudies, which are beyond the scope of this discussion. The analysis according 1 On issues of theoretical concepts of elite research see: WASNER, Eliten in Europa, 23-27.
3 The analysis of the mechanism in individual countries cannot be strictly linked to the defi ned time frame of the duration of the Second World War (1939)(1940)(1941)(1942)(1943)(1944)(1945) and must be exceeded. The attention is therefore paid also to the period before the outbreak of World War II (meaning the autumn of 1938).
to the above-mentioned objectives is perceived as a precursor to, and as a basis for, further research towards to the understanding and knowledge of the nature of nondemocratic regimes, knowledge which can help to shed new light on the process of German Gleichschaltung.
In terms of methodology, the research is based primarily on content and contextual analysis of the legal rules, allowing the assessment of historical and political factors and circumstances and the nature of the power transfer mechanisms at a local level as well as the consequences of the adoption of legislative measures. Legal rules adopted in the individual countries are available in preserved contemporary period collections of laws and regulations. 4 The content and contextual analysis is further supplemented by comparative analysis on selected examples of Nazi-occupied countries. The selection of countries is built on Hagen Fleischer's concept, which distinguishes between countries of Nazi occupation and domination in Europe according to the politicalideological motives and the military-strategic interests of Germany. It was political, military-strategic and economic as well as ideological factors that determined the various forms of Nazi occupation and administration during World War II. Within the categories laid down in Fleischer's concept, this study analyses countries from both groups defi ned -Czechoslovakia (the Slovak State and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia) represents a country whose conquest was based on the hegemonic interests of the Third Reich while Hungary is one of the countries whose occupation was considered militarily necessary or which were occupied during the war to ensure the original "possession". In the analysis is included also Poland, in whose case not only strategic but also racially-ideological, political, economic and psychopathological 4 The offi cial publication of German laws with validity in the occupied territories was the German offi cial gazette Deutsches Reichsgesetzblatt. Legal rules adopted for the territory of the General Government were formally published in Das Recht des Generalgouvernements. In addition, Polish law remained in force and it was published in [1939][1940] in Verordnungsblatt des Generalgouverneurs für die Besetzten Polnischen Gebiete with the Polish title Dziennik Rozporządzeń Generalnego Gubernatora dla Okupowanych Polskich Obszarów. After September 1940 the collection was renamed to Verordnungsblatt für das Generalgouvernement with the Polish title Dziennik rozporządzeń dla Generalnego Gubernatorstwa. The Reich laws applicable to the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia became valid through publication in the Deutsches Reichsgesetzblatt, or in the legal bulletins of its various ministries. The collection of regulations, decrees and orders for the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia issued by the Reich Protector valid within the protectorate was the offi cial gazette of the Reich Protector Verordnungsblatt des Reichsprotektors in Böhmen und Mähren with the Czech title Věstník nařízení Reichsprotektora in Böhmen und Mähren. In March 1941, the Czech title of the collection was modifi ed to Věstník nařízení říšského protektora v Čechách a na Moravě and after 1942 the Czech title was removed. During the military occupation in 1939, until entering Constantine von Neurath as the fi rst Reich Protector, the legislation was issued by the German Minister of State for Bohemia and Moravia in the collection of regulations for Bohemia and Moravia Verordnungsblatt für Böhmen und Mähren. The regulations issued during the military occupation by the Chiefs of Civil Administration were published in Ústřední list for the territory of Bohemia and for the territory of Moravia in Ústřední list zemského úradu v Brně. In addition, there was issued Czech autonomous legislation in the collection of laws and regulations with the name Sbírka zákonů a nařízení státu česko-slovenského. reasons for occupation prevailed. 5 On the one hand, each of the countries analysed was politically autonomous; on the other hand, the level of infl uence of the Third Reich and the direct interventions of the German authorities into political events and the countries' administrations, with respect to the aforementioned interests and motives of Germany, diff ered. Grounds for comparison are also based upon signifi cant diff erences in the national compositions of the countries, diff ering systems of administration and diff ering stages of political development and methods of government relating to political developments in the preceding, interwar period. Whereas in Poland (after the establishment of military dictatorship of Piłsudski in 1926) and in Hungary (after Miklós Horthy became a regent of the Hungarian Kingdom in 1920) authoritarian regimes were established, interw ar Czechoslovakia, as a multi-ethnic country with a pluralist democracy, guaranteed the protection of minority rights in its Constitutional Act of 1920 including the same political rights for all groups within the population. In connection with the above-mentioned analysis a diachronic approach is used, which allows us to observe the changes that occurred in each country over a specifi ed period in parallel with the thought timeline. The diachronic approach is combined with a synchronic approach allowing us to confront transformations in several locations (countries) within the same time frame and playing a key role in the application of the aforementioned comparative analysis.
Methodologically, the research is built also on the study of the results of previous research and current debates. The issue of the national-socialist German occupation policy in western, central and central-eastern Europe is a relatively well-explored area. 6 Similarly, nowadays, we can fi nd valuable results from systematic research focused on the issue of the interaction of Nazi Germany with local politics in occupied countries, off ering a multifaceted view of their relationships and collaboration with occupation forces. 7 A special topic deserving wider examination, especially in terms of a comparative perspective, is the issue of the support of local elites concerning anti-Jewish policy, since their having a key role in general is indisputable and it is an important subject in the broader fi eld of Holocaust research. Therefore, more attention is being given, at present, to research on the involvement and accountability of the civil administrators and state offi cials of local bureaucratic apparatuses, the matter being covered in an increasing number of case studies. These very eff ectively off er well documented cases at the level of regions and cities in the individual Nazi occupied territories and allied countries. 8 Despite the growing interest of historians, this question remains far from exhausted and further systematic and in-depth analysis of data collected from direct archival research, along with comparative-oriented research as well as detailed case studies, is needed. We cannot yet, in the current state of knowledge, answer all the major questions relating to such a wide and complicated issue and long-term research is required.

Theoretical Framework
Before analysing the legislative measures adopted in individual countries, I will try to briefl y defi ne the concept of local elites for the purposes of this contribution, with regard to the absence of a generally valid and common theory for the defi nition of the term "elite".
The theoretical framework to defi ne the term "elite" 9 in this paper is based on the so-called power line of elite concepts relating to the theories of Gaetano Mosca,Robert Michels,Sorel von Wiese,C. Wright Mills,James Burnham and,partially,Vilfredo Pareto. 10 According to this power line, the term "elite" is identifi ed with the "ruling class" and restricted only to the fi eld of power in the meaning of the Mosca concept. 11 Therefore, I defi ne the term "elite" as a small group with a dominant infl uence in whose hands is concentrated the political authority and whose infl uence determines the further direction of social and political development. Similarly, a "power elite" is defi ned by Mills as "composed of men whose positions enable them to transcend the ordinary environments of ordinary men and women; they are in positions to make decisions having major consequences". 12 In the literature, we can also see the term "strategic elite" because this grouping has more social weight and its activities have greater signifi cance for society than other elite groupings (e.g., economic elite). 13 In this meaning, the term "elite" covers a privileged functional elite whose members hold the highest positions at the state level, but also at the level of local politics, and monopolize power and enjoy its advantages while, in contrast, there are numerous groups of politically inactive people controlled and directed by this elite. 14 An important role is played by the fact that access to political offi ces is strictly limited to this relatively small and cohesive social group whose members have a commonality of interests 15 and participate (or are at least close to) political decision-making on serious matters of society's development (economic, political, cultural, etc.).
With respect to the above-mentioned defi nition, local political elites include the members of local government and self-government authorities holding executive or 8 On the issue of local initiatives in the implementation of anti-Jewish policy in Nazi Germany see for example case-studies by Wolf Gruner: GRUNER, Öff entliche Wohlfahrt Und Judenverfolgung. GRUNER, The German Council of Municipalities;or GRUNER,Local Initiatives, In the 17th century, the term "élite" referred to commodities of extraordinary quality, later it referred to higher social classes, e.g. higher nobility or prestigious military units. For more see: BOTTOMORE, Elites and Society, 1-14.  regulatory competencies within their political area 16 (civil servants appointed to their positions at the level of counties, districts or municipalities, and elected members of self-governing bodies).

Interv entions in the German-Occupied Countries (General Government and Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia)
As already mentioned, the mechanism and scope of interventions both in the composition of local and municipal self-government authorities and in the formation of new local political elites were diff erent in individual countries and depended on the scale of German infl uence. In the incorporated countries (in which the Nazi aim was the total assimilation of all political, social, economic and cultural institutions) an administrative system was automatically established according to the German pattern of administration. A slightly diff erent situation existed in non-incorporated areas, for example, the General Government or the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, which were not directly attached to the Reich, but were occupied by German forces. In the case of the Protectorate, this meant full economic cooperation and, partially, also political cooperation as well. In the General Government, as an area of German interest, this meant the intention of Germany to draw from this territory raw materials, food, labour, etc. In these countries Nazi rule was introduced in the form of the civil administration, which was deployed in "areas of settlement" with the colonization which had already begun during the war. Germany usurped the sovereignty by various legislative acts, which created the fundamental framework for the German occupational administration, by changing laws or by introducing a German pattern of administration, despite the fact that, after the start of the occupation, Germany had initially declared that the local legislation and law would remain in force unless it was contrary to Germany's occupation policy, the security of German troops and the purpose of warfare. 17 Immediately after the start of the Nazi occupation of the Polish territory, a military administration [Militärverwaltung] was established in Poland, lasting to 25 October 1939. 18 In the fi rst weeks of the war, preparations for the organization of the occupation administration began. The draft on the establishment of a military administration in occupied eastern territories was issued by Adolf Hitler on 8 September 1939. It became the basis for the Führer Decree on the organization of the military administration in the occupied former Polish territories issued on 25 September 1939. 19 Based on the afore-mentioned decree, in addition to establishing the military administration, the territorial organization of the civil administration, its hierarchical structure and also the engagement of former Polish offi cials were regulated. 20 The civil administration was headed by the Chiefs of Civil Administration [Chef der Zivilverwaltung], whose task was, in close cooperation with the army and the police, to secure the uniform management and administration of their area. 21  occupied Poland assumed that all top administrative posts would be staff ed by Germans, and former Polish civil servants would be employed in subordinate posts as an auxiliary staff . One of the main intentions was also the introduction of a unifi ed law throughout the territory of the Reich, including the occupied territories. The concept of the unifi ed administration 22 (the most eager supporter of this principle being the Governor General Hans Frank) was based on the elimination of the departmental principle and of special administration, and their consolidation under a single leadership. This meant that, at all levels, the administration was to be headed by a Chief Administrator, who was to hold all the power and responsibility in his hands. The intended principle of the unifi ed administration was also characterized by the politicization of administration, which meant that administrative leadership at all levels was also to be the party leadership, and, consequently, the dualism of state and Party was to be removed. For several reasons the principle of unifi ed administration was not fully implemented. 23 The original plans remained at the theoretical stage, not only for political reasons, but also because of high demands on the leader's position, and ultimately also for a lack of qualifi ed staff . 24 Later, after the abolition of the military administration, according to the Decree of the Führer and Reich Chancellor concerning the administration of the occupied Polish territories of 12 October 1939, taking eff ect on 25 October 1939, all branches of the administration in the newly established General Government for the occupied Polish territories [Generalgouvernement für die besetzten polnischen Gebiete] were directed by the Governor Ge neral for the occupied Polish territories. 25 The decree was based on the leadership principle [Führerprinzip] as well as the principle of unifi ed administration. 26 The basic principles of the civil administrative structure in the General Government were defi ned by the First Decree on the Development of the Administration in the Occupied Polish Territories, issued by the Governor General on 26 October 1939. 27 According to this decree, the four districts [dystrykt/Distrikt] of the General Government into which the territory was divided 28 were headed by the District Chiefs [szef dystryktu/Distriktschef], 29 who were subordinate to the Governor General and were responsible for managing the district's entire administration. These senior posts in the civil administration were occupied by Germans 30 -naturally, only longstanding party members. At the lower and lowest levels, the German administration supervised and controlled the Polish local community administration, 31 the structure of which was prescribed by a regulation of 28 November 1939. 32 The districts were divided into rural and urban counties [powiat/Landkreis und Stadtkreis] administered by the Offi ces of the County Governor [Kreishauptmannschaft] or in larger autonomous cities by the Offi ces of the City Governor [Stadthauptmannschaft]. Counties were further divided into municipal and village communes [miasto, wieś] headed by appointed Mayors or Commune and Village Administrators [burmistrz, wójt or sołtys]. 33 The Mayors appointed fi ve or ten advisers (depending on the number of inhabitants) who were to assist them in the administration of the municipalities. In addition, a Special Commissioner was also appointed (by the District Chiefs/Governor) to act in the municipalities with the Mayor. 34 The immediate superior bodies to the Village Councils and Administrators were the County/City Governors [Kreishauptmann/Stadthauptmann], who as the functionaries of the occupying administration utilized these units as an executive arm. The County/ City Governors had the power to abolish, modify, replace or forbid all self-government regulations. Thus, Polish, Ukrainian or ethnic German offi cials were subject to unlimited control by the German authorities. The structure created in this way was intended to eliminate Polish autonomy and to prevent the formation of a Polish elite from the beginning of Poland's occupation. 35 Interestingly, according to research by Markus Roth, the group of County/City Governors was relatively homogeneous in terms of social background, education and training. Despite the fact that one of the main selection criteria was NSDAP membership, the vast majority of individuals included in these posts came from a middle-class bourgeois background and had a good education, though almost half of them achieved offi ce without prior administrative experience. 36 In the period that followed, further steps were taken to build up the occupational administration and end self-government. On 27 June 1940 the Regulation on Creation and Administration of Municipal Associations in the General Government was issued, 37 on the basis of which the Municipal Associations [związek gmin] in each county were established as "territorial public corporations" and they were to be self-government bodies with their own responsibility. Although the Municipal Associations acted as selfgoverning units and took over the assets of previous self-governing units, according to § 2, item. 3, they were not their predecessors' legal successors. According to § 6 of this regulation, it was possible for these bodies to establish their own legal advisory boards, but in practice this was not allowed. As a result, Mayors and Village Administrators 33 The Mayors, who headed the municipal administration, were appointed by the Governor General in communities of over 20,000 inhabitants (in smaller communities they were appointed by the Governor became offi cials of the occupational administration, and the Municipal Councils, which had initially in 1939 continued to operate, were liquidated along with the whole Polish local self-government structure. 38 In an eff ort to introduce full centralization and unifi ed administration in the General Government, there were issued two further regulations by the Governor General: the Second Decree on the Development of the Administration in the General Government (Decree on the Unifi ed Administration), on 1 December 1940, 39 and the Third Decree on the Development of the Administration in the General Government, on 16 March 1941, 40 with eff ect from 1 April 1941. 41 The afore-mentioned decrees regulated the responsibilities and subordination within the civil administration and confi rmed that the District Chiefs and the County/City Governors were, as the administrative authority, the sole representative of the General Government. 42 Introducing Nazi rules generally meant the removing of the eligibility of local representative bodies, which were replaced by appointment, and they allowed not only central offi ces, but also local and municipal administrative positions to be occupied by local Germans, Volksdeutsche or Poles with pro-German sympathies. 43 This ensured the implementation of anti-Jewish legal regulations (for example, introducing the marking of Jewish people with an armband, the prohibition of staying at an indicated place of accommodation, the prohibition of performing certain professions, etc.). The Jewish population was naturally excluded from any public positions, although it can be assumed that only a very small number of civil positions were occupied by members of the Jewish minority in the preceding years. Already early in the interwar period, only 2.23 % of Jews were working in the state administration in Poland and, at the beginning of the 1930s, this number decreased to 1 %, which represented a signifi cant disparity with regard to the high percentage of Jewish population in Polish society. 44 With regards to the composition of the administrative authorities at the lower level, all members of public administration in the General Government had to submit proof of Aryan descent [Ariernachweis] and, on 31 July 1942, the Governor General issued a decree which ordered that all Polish servants still employed in the civil administration were to be dismissed. 45 Case-studies investigating the civil administration in the districts of the General Governm ent using a mostly a group-biographical and institutional approach of research confi rm the opinion that there is no doubt about the involvement of a signifi cant share of the civil administration and local administrative offi cers in the systematic implementation of anti-Jewish genocide policy. 46 Various case studies provide convincing evidence from a detailed analysis of specifi c authorities and offi cials that it was not an anonymous bureaucratic apparatus with minimal freedom to carry out its activities. Bogdan Musial, on the basis of his research on civil administration on the selected example of the Lublin district, expresses the opinion that the majority of the civil authorities in the investigated district were directly involved in the implementation of anti-Jewish policy in order to isolate the Jewish population and remove their infl uence from the economy. Like members of the Schutzstaff el (SS) or police, members of the civil administration at all levels of the local bureaucracy were aware of their decisions, and were willing or even active in the persecution of the Jewish population, whereat the implementation of a local politics which was mainly based on decisions of the County/City Gov ernors. The day-to-day implementation of the anti-Jewish policy was largely decentralized, and the County/City Governors had a high degree of freedom in their actions within the districts. 47 A similar conclusion is the result of research by Markus Roth reconstructing the social and political profi les of the County/ City Governors in the General Government and examining their role and importance in the German occupation policy of Poland. Roth demonstrated the direct involvement of the County/City Governors in the persecution of the Jewish population and showed that they had relatively great room for manoeuvre and freedom of choice in pursuing anti-Jewish policies. 48 Therefore, the intensity of the anti-Jewish measures at a regional level was largely dependent on the personalities of County/City Governors. Many of them took offi ce with anti-Semitism already rooted and spontaneously took their own initiatives, which were not ordered by central authorities and which sometimes even confl icted with the basic lines of central anti-Jewish policy. They were gradually guiding the occupation policy in an increasingly radical direction, sometimes even beyond their competence. The prevailing anti-Semitic consensus within the administration, with a corrupt and violent social environment acting as a catalyst, signifi cantly accelerated sociological changes in values. 49 The appointment of Germans to central authorities and local administrative offi ces was similarly allowed in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. The fi rst signifi cant personnel changes had already taken place during the post-Munich Second Republic, not only in the posts of the highest state authorities, but also in the fi eld of local administration and self-government. These changes were related to the formation of a new regime and the attempt to remove the exponents of the former "Beneš regime" and persons of Jewish origin. In December 1938, several District Asse mblies were 45 If they or their spouses were of Jewish or half-Jewish descent. MAJER, "Non-Germans", 298. dissolved by the Ministry of the Interior with the statement that the seats of these offi ces were outside the territory of Czecho-Slovakia, or that their composition no longer corresponded to the new political and national composition that had occurred in the republic as a result of the border changes after the Munich Agreement. These District Assemblies were replaced by the Administrative Committee. 50 These and similar measures were adopted under the Constitutional Act of 1938 Sb. z. a n. 51 and, on 27 January 1939, the Government Decree, which did not allow Jewish civil servants to remain in active service, was adopted. 52 During January and February 1939, in several cities there were changes in the posts of Mayors who were forced to resign as unsatisfactory persons, and Municipal Councils were disbanded on the grounds that they were unable to perform the tasks assigned to them. 53 According to the Government Decree of 3 February 1939, Municipal or (in more instances) District Secretaries were appointed in municipalities as stated by the government. The Secretaries (civil servants who exercised the transferred competence of the municipality and who had signifi cant supervisory and advisory powers) were authorised to propose the annulment of any orders of Mayors, Municipal Assemblies and Councils which they considered a threat to municipal or state interests. 54 After the start of the Nazi occupation of this territory by German military units on 15 March 1939, the area was, for several weeks, as the General Government, subjected to a military administration led by the Commander Generals and the civil administration led by the Chiefs of Civil Administration [Chef der Zivilverwaltung]. 55 At the middle level, Administrative Chiefs at Army Corps Headquarters [Korpsverwaltungschef] were subordinate to the Chiefs of Civil Administration and at the lowest level of German administration the offi ces of Oberlandrats were established according to the Reich pattern as basic units of the German military political administration. Their task was to manage the lower units of the occupation administration and to supervise the activities of the autonomous bodies of the Czech administration and organs of self-government. This meant that, until 15 April 1939, a civil occupation apparatus built on strict subordination supervised the Protectorate's government and the whole administration, and, irrespective of the law in force, interfered with its activities. 56 Although, according to Article 3 of the Decree of the Führer and Reich 50 SCHELLE, Organizace veřejné správy, 173. Chancellor concerning the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia of 16 March 1939, 57 the Protectorate was declared an autonomous area with rights to administer its territory itself and the exercise of paramount rights to be ensured by its own offi ces and its own offi cials in accordance with the political, military and economic needs of the Reich, its autonomy could be de facto limited or totally removed at any time. The changes of law were adopted by the Czech government under pressure from Germany or directly by the German authorities. 58 The civil administration of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was thus characterized by a specifi c feature -a dualism which was to be further profi led after the end of the military occupation, and which would create from the Protectorate a specifi c type of occupation regime which diff ered from most Nazi occupation regimes in Europe.
After  Reich offi ces could not be examined by courts or other administrative authorities of autonomous administration. 63 The power to make any changes in the Protectorate administration, and thus, de facto, to limit the autonomous rights in the Protectorate, was later enshrined also in the Decree of the Führer concerning administration in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia of 7 May 1942. 64 Germans thus controlled the autonomous authorities and also interfered with their composition and radically restricted their scope of competence, which fi nally led to its own occupation administration. As was mentioned, there was a gradual build-up of a strongly centralized occupation apparatus; the administration was restricted, and self-government was gradually liquidated. In many cities and municipalities with a German minority (even in some cities inhabited by a purely Czech population or with a minimal element of a German minority, such as Brno or Olomouc), the Municipal A ssemblies were dissolved, and the Mayors were replaced by appointed German Governmen t Commissioners [Regierungskommissar/vládní komisař]. Mayors, Municipal Assemblies and Municipal Councils had previously remained in cities with prevalently Czech populaces; however, later, the Mayors gradually assumed a key position, and were entrusted with a mandate to convene the Municipal Assemblies and the Municipal Councils only in case of need. Beside the Mayor was also installed a so-called Attache [přidělenec], most often a German offi cer, and German members were appointed to the Municipal Assemblies in many municipalities. Also, some District Assemblies were dissolved, and their power was transferred to the District Chiefs [okresní hejtman] or the German District Chiefs [Kreishauptmann]. 65 The German infl uence also gradually grew through the internal structures of autonomous authorities in cities and districts with a larger Czech share of the population. On 12 December 1939, the cities of the Protectorate were subjected to the same principles that had been established for the Reich administration by the German local self-government bodies were modifi ed, which speeded up the whole process of Germanization. 68 By the end of 1941, German officials almost fully staffed the autonomous offi ces. This was also related to the eff ort of Germans to remove the dual system of administration, as the autonomous offi ces were de facto German. 69 During the drafting of the proposal for administrative reform by Reich Protector Reinhard Heydrich on 14 November 1941, there was a clear intention for the wide-scale involvement of German offi cials in the autonomous administration in accordance with the principle that the autonomous government was to be liquidated from within and that, with a minimum of manpower, all possibilities for control of the Protectorate territory were to be maximized. 70 After obtaining the authorization to reorganize the administration on the basis of the Decree of the Führer concerning the administration in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia of 7 May 1942, 71 Heydrich issued, on 23 May 1942, the Decree on "Reichsauftragsverwaltung" in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (im Auftrage des Reichs), 72 according to which part of the agenda and powers of the Oberlandrats were transferred to the Czech administrative autonomous authorities for districts, on the basis of which action the administrative offi ces in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia were bound by the instructions of the Reich authorities and were occupied by Germans. The Oberlandrats were abolished and new authorities were created [vedoucí okresní hejtman] 73 whose territorial responsibilities corresponded to the former Oberlandrats. As a consequence of the reform, the majority of districts were under German leadership (in 50 districts out of 67 the position of District Chief was occupied by a German, while, in nine other districts, the post of deputy chief was occupied by a German, empowered to take independent decisions on matters of the administration of the Reich mandate). Similarly, at the lowest level, municipalities headed by Germans outnumbered municipalities with Czech leadership, and, by the end of 1942, this number had risen to almost 200 municipalities. 74 The process of the total liquidation of elected municipal and district self-government was fi nally completed on 26 February 1944 by Government Decree No. 51/1944 Sb. z. a n. 75 Based on this decree, Protectorate municipalities with more than 3,000 inhabitants were to be headed by appointed so-called Senior Offi cials [úředničtí vedoucí]. They took over the whole scope of competence of the Mayors and other municipal authorities, and thereby, municipal self-government in the Protectorate was fully removed, and district self-government and the agenda of their competence was transferred to the political authorities. 76 Similarly, as in the case of the General Government, in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia the Jewish population was banned from working in the civil and public administration. As noted above, the fi rst interventions in this direction had already occurred in the post-Munich period. The Germans exerted constant pressure in connection with the Czech attitude toward the Jews, which was supposed to clearly indicate the acceptance of the pro-German political direction of the Second Republic. In this context, on 16 November 1938 an ordinance concerning the provisional regulation of certain questions aff ecting the legal profession was issued. 77 Although the ordinance did not mention Jews explicitly, the result of its adoption was the exclusion above all of Jews. 78 Immediately after the establishment of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, according to the pattern of the Third Reich, 79 the preparation of a government regulation that would regulate the legal status of Jews was begun. On 4 July 1939 the government adopted basic legislation regulating the status of Jews in public life in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, referring directly to the Jews. 80 However, the act was not published until 24 April 1940. This delay related to the Protectorate government resisting the German requirements for enactment of a law openly discriminating between Jews and Czechs and defi ning Jews according to Nazi racial principles. 81 According to this act, Government Decree No. 136/1940 Sb. z. a n. concerning the legal status of Jews in public administration, Jews were forbidden to hold a number of public functions, including public administration. A later issued Regulation of the Reich Protector of 23 October 1939 allowed the further release of the Jewish population from the civil service. 82 Finally, in 1942, measures against Jewish civil servants were extended to half-Jewish people and Jewish spouses. 83 The offi cials in key positions and in the positions of local Mayors also participated in their implementation at all steps. This in part related to the fact that the Germans would exploit existing bureaucratic structures in the occupied countries, and the day-to-day introduction of anti-Jewish measures was left for the local bureaucracy as much as possible. On the one hand, this was due to Germany's lack of staff and the fi nancial resources to manage all of the occupied territories; on the other hand, the application of anti-Jewish measures required a knowledge of local realities (such as identifi cation of Jews and their property) that only local institutions could provide. 84 This is confi rmed by research on the activities of the local authorities and offi cials in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. Wolf Gruner concluded that the anti-Jewish persecution in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was not only the result of pressure and control from Berlin, but that the whole process of anti-Jewish policy and its radicalization was controlled and accelerated by regional and local actors. As in the case of the General Government, in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, the implementation of measures until 1941 was mainly supported by the Czech government and resulted from the initiative of regional authorities. 85 The same statement is made by Benjamin Frommer. According to him, the German occupiers were not the only ones to implement anti-Semitic regulations, and Czech offi cials throughout the bureaucracy, from state ministries to the lowest levels of Mayors, were an integral part of the anti-Jewish political system. 86 This issue cannot be deal with extensively here, but it is important to note that there were local political elites atop local structures and that their members, as direct perpetrators, auxiliaries or bystanders, 87 through their decisions, directly or indirectly, infl uenced the development of anti-Jewish policy and made considerably easier the implementation of anti-Jewish regulations at a local level.

Interventions in the Countries within the Nazi Sphere of Power (Slovak State and Hungary)
A similar mechanism of interventions leading to the centralization and gradual liquidation of self-government during this period can also be observed in the countries which were not directly occupied by Germany but which were within the Nazi sphere of power. The Slovak State and Hungary, as German allies, were not subjected to direct interventions by Germany in the fi eld of administration until direct German occupation of their territories in 1944; despite this, we can fi nd common features of intervention in the composition of local public administration and offi ces of self-government with the intention to shape new local political elites to satisfy of the regimes in these countries.
After the establishment of authoritarian regimes and the seizure of power by Hlinka's Slovak People's Party in Slovakia in the autumn of 1938, the top leadership positions were occupied by the new political elite, for which it was necessary to consolidate its positions by introducing legislative measures and controlling the regional structures. 88 Similarly, according to Article II of the Constitutional Act No. 330/1938 of 15 December 1938 the Slovak autonomous government was empowered to issue decrees in matters in which the parliament was authorized to issue legislation. See: Sbírka zákonů a nařízení státu česko-slovenského, 1938, 1205 (Ústavný zákon changes were relatively radical, at the middle and lower levels of the administration and bodies of self-government the personnel changes were not signifi cantly refl ected. The reason was mainly that many civil servants -for example, the District Chiefs [okresný náčelník] -were willing to collaborate with the new regime and adapted to the new conditions in order to preserve their positions. 89 In order to remove any vestiges of pluralist democracy, the new regime fi rst adopted legislative measures intended to remove inconvenient people from the local and municipal public administration and self-governing authorities, especially representatives of socialist and Jewish parties. In the fi rst instance so-called National Committees [národný výbor] were established as subsidiary organs, which de facto represented a counterbalance to elected selfgovernment authorities. Their establishment marked the fi rst attempt to infl uence the activities of the autonomous municipal authorities. 90 In the second phase, municipal self-government was gradually liquidated. Based on the relatively general and vaguely formulated Regulation of the Land Offi ce in Bratislava of 19 October 1938, concerning the dissolution of Municipal Assemblies, the municipal self-government authorities were liquidated in towns or villages where their representatives "did not suit the needs" of the new regime. Later, this process was further specifi ed in Regulation 42.070-5/1939 of 27 February 1939, which, in addition, allowed almost unlimited interference of the state administration into the fi eld of local self-government and introduced the party principle into the process of the dissolution of the Municipal Assemblies. 91 Representatives of elected municipal self-governments, in particular the deputies of dissolved political parties, who lost their mandates, were replaced by Government Commissioners [vládny komisár]. They had decision-making powers and as loyal civil servants they were supposed to replace inconvenient self-governing bodies and the Municipal Assemblies, which continued to function only formally. Immediately after the establishment of the independent state a relationship was also established with the Third Reich, anchored in the so-called Protection Agreement of March 1939. By signing it, Slovakia committed itself to a close link to Germany, which was then further strengthened after mutual negotiations in Salzburg in the summer of 1940, the result of which was, among other things, the arrival of so-called Advisers as an instrument of Germany's "revolutionary foreign policy". 95 However, Tatjana Tönsmeyer notes that the Slovak political elite did not perceive German infl uence as a disturbing factor "in terms of pursuing its own political ideas and goals" and, as far as possible, circumvented it. 96 In 1940, with the intention to remove decentralized power, a reform of the public administration was introduced according to Act No. 190/1939Sl. z. of 25 July 1939. On the basis of this act, the provincial establishment 97 in Slovakia (including provincial self-governing bodies) 98 was removed and district-level self-government was replaced by self-government at county level. 99 All the powers of the abolished district selfgoverning elected bodies passed into the hands of appointed civil servants -the County Governors [župan], who became, as heads of the County Offi ces, relatively strong actors within the local state administration. Within the county self-government offi ces, the County Committees [župný výbor] were established, consisting of 12 members and 12 alternates, who were not elected by the people but were appointed by the Minister of the Interior. Thus, instead of inconvenient self-governing bodies, the regime could use the services of loyal civil servants to promote its policy across regions. In the lower instances, the District Chiefs, as heads of the district offi ces, were appointed by the Minister of the Interior and were responsible to the Minister of the Interior and to the appropriate County Governor. Pavol Tišliar rightly states that the justifi cation of the Committee of the Slovak Parliament in discussing the outline of the Act on Public Administration in the context of the abolition of district self-government, referring as it does to the fact that district-level self-government was not viable because it was limited to "providing assistance, subventions and, at most, the building of luxury district offi ces", sounds incompetent and without reasoning considering the fact that one of the main purposes of the introduction of the district self-government at the time of the provincial establishment was support activity. 100 In addition, the liquidation of self-government continued at the level of the municipalities in the context of increased centralization in the 1940s. In the selection of Government Commissioners, who were appointed to replace dissolved municipal self-government representatives and who were granted all competences of the former municipal authorities (Mayor, Municipal Assembly, Municipal Council and Commissions) in April 1941, their nationality was taken into account, and Czechs and Jews were excluded. In 1942, the elected municipal authorities operated in only a third of 95 TÖNSMEYEROVÁ, Od ochranného přátelství, 228-231.
97 The principle of the provincial establishment, according to which the highest administrative institution in Slovakia was the Land Offi ce, was introduced from 1 July 1928 by law no. 125/1927 Sb. z. a n. on the organization of political governance. From the territorial-administrative point of view the Land Offi ce in Bratislava was the link between the Ministry of the Interior in Prague and the lower administrative units. 100 See: TIŠLIAR, Okresné zriadenie, 113-114, 117-118. municipalities. 101 Municipal self-government in the Slovak State was fi nally liquidated in 1943 by Act No. 171/1943Sl. z. of 22 December 1943 which removed all remnants of municipal self-government with eff ect from 1 January 1944, and subsequently the new administrative authorities (six-member Municipal Committees [obecný výbor] headed by the Mayors), which were governed by civil offi cials and fully serving the needs of the regime, were created. The list of candidates for these posts was discussed by all members of Hlinka's Slovak People's Party in the respective municipalities, which meant that the appointment was signifi cantly infl uenced by family relationships and neighbourly rivalries, and by political and confessional orientation, providing opportunities for total control of local administration by the state-party. 103 The establishment of the authoritarian regime in Slovakia in the autumn of 1938 and the collaboration of Hlinka's Slovak People's Party with the Third Reich, with respect to which the anti-Jewish doctrine became an offi cial part of government policy, was refl ecting an open and strong anti-Semitism in this post-Munich era. In connection with the cessation and later banning of socialist and Jewish parties their representatives lost their membership in self-governing bodies. Subsequently, the fi rst anti-Jewish proposals were submitted, which were implemented in modifi ed form as early as the fi rst year of the existence of the Slovak state (including the defi ning of Jews and the restricting of Jewish participation in economic and public life). 104 The Jews had been expelled from the public administration in under Government Decree No. 74/1939 z. o f 24 April 1939. All Jews employed in the civil and public administration were to be dismissed according to § 2 of this decree no later than 1 January 1940. 105 The time limit for the dismissal of Jews according to § 2 was later extended to 1 March 1940 according the Decrees with the force of Law No. 7/1940Sl. z. from 11 January 1940 The reform of the public administration in 1940, accompanied by the process of liquidation of self-government authorities, made it possible to occupy the key posts of local administrations with "reliable" personnel and shape the new local political elites, whose members were to direct the political decision-making on serious issues such as the implementation of the anti-Jewish policy. A signifi cant role and obvious personal involvement of the highest representatives of the regime, 107 and also of other members of the bureaucratic apparatus in the adoption of anti-Jewish measures is undeniable. Present research indicates that the C ounty Governors and the District Chiefs had relatively broad powers and a large margin of manoeuvre in the adoption of many local legislature anti-Jewish regulations, with such eff ect as to accelerate the process in a more radical direction. In the territory of Eastern Slovakia (Šariš-Zemplin County) especially, with the highest percentage of Jewish people, anti-Jewish measures (concerning for example the obligatory marking of Jews with a three-centimetre wide yellow armband regardless of age or gender; the prohibition of Jews entering public parks or other public places; the prohibition to live in specifi ed parts of cities, etc.) were taken on their own initiative by local actors ahead of state regulations, often with a stricter character and greater intensity than in the rest of the Slovak State or going far beyond instructions from above. 108 These claims are also confi rmed by recent research dealing with the role of Holocaust actors -perpetrators, in terms of the relationship between the centre and the periphery. The results of this research point out that there could be no single centralized command, but that the process of genocide (the term being applicable to all steps of the anti-Jewish policy) was realized in the interplay between headquarters and the periphery, not only at the level of the relationship between Nazi Germany and the occupying/allied countries but also at the level of the relationships between the central authorities and local/municipal institutions, which developed their own initiatives to radicalize anti-Jewish measures. 109 Concerning analysis of the transformation of the public administration and the mechanisms by which power was seized by the new local political elites in Hungary between 1939 and 1945, it should be noted fi rst that Hungary represents a specifi c case within the countries analysed, this relating to the facts that Hungary was more independent compared to the Slovak state as an ally of Nazi Germany, and that as an ally of Germany achieved the assimilation of part of the surrounding countries into its territories immediately before and during World War II (southern area of Slovakia as a result of the fi rst Vienna arbitration in November 1938, Subcarpathian Rus in March 1939, Northern Transylvania as a result of the second Vienna arbitration in August 1940 and the regions of Baranja and Bačka in northeastern Yugoslavia in April 1941), in which local administrations were rebuilt and new local elites were formed with some regional diff erences compared to the territory of Trianon Hungary. 110 The administration of Trianon Hungary organized before German occupation, according to Act No. XXX of 1929, 111 enshrined local autonomy; however, it refl ected also the government's eff orts to centralize the system. Counties and towns with full municipal rights were formally governed by the Lord Lieutenants [fõispán] nominated by the Minister of the Interior and appointed by the Regent, who had the power to control all local administrative authorities. The factual control of counties and towns with full municipal rights was in the hands of the Sub-prefects [alispán] elected by the Municipal Assemblies. At a lower level of the local administration were the districts [járás] headed by the Chief Constables [főszolgabíró] and were subordinate to the County Offi ce. At the head of the county towns and cities with full municipal rights were the Mayors elected by the Municipal A ssemblies. 112 However, the aforementioned Act No. XXX established the right to dissolve the Municipal Assembly in the case of threatening the political interests of the state or economic plans, and, after 1942, according to Act No. XXII of 1942 the Minister of the Interior acquired t he right to appoint the offi ce holders, whereas previously they had been elected. 114 The gradually increasing centralist eff orts of the Hungarian government and the eff ort to replace the elected members of the representative A ssemblies by appointed offi cials were also refl ected in the areas annexed by Hungary. In the case of the Slovak southern area, which was attached to Hungary as a result of the First Vienna Award, measures to occupy all administrative offi ces by the Hungarian offi cials (the District Chiefs [okresný náčelník] being replaced by Chief Constables [főszolgabíró]) were in troduced immediately after the start of the Hungarian military occupation on 11 November 1938. In the offi ces of the district and municipal self-government bodies, not only Slovaks, but also elected offi cials of Hungarian nationality were removed, primarily representatives of inconvenient political parties and members of the Jewish minority. After the end of the military administration and the establishment of the civil administration on 22 December 1938, this level of government was annexed to the respective political districts, and the administrative standards in force in Trianon Hungary were introduced throughout the territory. 115 The power of the self-government authorities was limited by extending government control over municipal authorities and gradually appointing representatives of the regime, 116 naturally the most reliable, mostly from landowners, Germanophiles and revisionists. The emphasis in the selection was naturally based on nationality or, in case of non-Hungarian nationals, on loyalty to the Hungarian nation. 117 Elections to the representative bodies never took place in this area, and, with the introduction of Act No. XXII of 1942, they were abolished throughout the territory of Hungary. 118 A similar situation was also unfolding in other incorporated areas. Positions within the communal bureaucracies, administrative fi elds and public service were occupied mostly by Hungarian civil servants beginning immediately after the start of the military occupation. Later the Hungarian right began expanding into these territories. 119 Although in the case of Subcarpathian Rus the Hungarian government declared the idea of autonomy in March 1939, from the beginning of the military occupation such autonomy was restricted by provisions concerning the assimilation of the administration of Subcarpathia into the regime of Hungary. The administration was originally in the hands of the Hungarian military authorities, but, after the offi cial annexation of this territory on 22 June 1939, a civil 112 MOLNÁR, Nazi Perpetrators.
113 Országos Törvénytár, 1942Törvénytár, , 153 (1942  116 VIETOR, Dejiny okupácie, [23][24][146][147][148]Personálna kontinuita,[132][133]Dejiny okupácie,[23][24][146][147][148] 119 For the case of Northern Transylvania see, e.g.: HORVÁTH,Ethnic Policies,[110][111]114. administration headed by a Commissioner was introduced and the vaunted autonomy was never granted. 120 Immediately after the start of the German occupation of Hungary on 19 March 1944, Hungary lost its sovereignty. Germany demanded the dismissal of all Lord Lieutenants and Sub-prefects. The most important criterion was political reliability and affi liation to the right-wing Hungarian ruling circles, despite the fact that, according to the law concerning administrative matters, the posts were to be held by persons with adequate training and qualifi cations. The massive dismissal and exchange of civil servants which took place during this period was legislatively enshrined in the aforementioned Act No. XXII of 1942. The Lord Lieutenants and the Chief Constables were gradually removed, while the Sub-prefects and the Mayors remained almost untouched by such interventions until the end of June 1944. In some counties, almost all Chief Constables were replaced (up to the end of July 1944, 58 new Chief Constables were appointed and, in 25 cities and towns, new Mayors were installed); 121 in other counties no changes were undertaken. 122 The exchange in the positions of the Lord Lieutenants also aff ected, for example, seven of the 10 Lord Lieutenants in the territory of Northern Transylvania and several Mayors, while the Sub-prefects, with just a few exceptions, remained in their posts. 123 The exchange in positions did not especially aff ect those offi cials who had already in the fi rst weeks of the occupation recognized the legitimacy of the new government along with the anti-Jewish acts.
The main aim of the changes made in individual posts was, as in other countries, the intention primarily to replace the Chief Constables with reliable persons who would seamlessly ensure the eff ective implementation of anti-Jewish measures and speed up the process of the deportation of the Jewish population. Although the implementation of anti-Jewish measures was basically an everyday issue of the Hungarian administration from 1938 onwards, after the German occupation it rose to the top of list. Here, the specifi city of Hungary among the countries analysed should be highlighted. Already in the interwar period, there were clearly evident anti-Semitic attitudes in Horthy's Hungary towards the Jewish population, despite this demographic constituting at that time a relatively integrated part of economic and cultural life (mainly on the basis of a national-Hungarian identifi cation on the part of most of the regions Jews). Indeed, Hungary became the fi rst country in post-war Europe, without Nazi pressure, to enact Jewish legal discrimination by the adoption of the so-called Numerus Clausus Act No. XXV/1920 on 20 September 1920, which limited the number of Jewish students in universities to 6 % of the total number of students enrolled. 124 Although the provision was essentially abolished in 1928, further regulations were adopted in 1938-1939 to limit the "disproportionate" proportion of Jews in certain professions. Similarly, as in the other countries analysed here, in Hungary also the Jews were gradually excluded from state and public services. First, in 1938, the percentage of Jews in liberal professions and fi nancial, commercial and industrial enterprises was reduced to 20 % by the First (Anti-) Jewish Law No. XV/1938 of 29 May 1938, enacted with the stated intention of ensuring greater effi ciency in securing balance in social and economic life. 125 Subsequently, the Jewish population was excluded from state and public services and offi ces by the Second (Anti-) Jewish Law No. IV/1939 of 5 May 1939, limiting the expansion of Jews within the public and economic spheres, which defi ned a Jew not only on the basis of religious affi liation, but also racial principles along the lines of German racial theories. 126 Later, the exclusion of Jews from representative bodies was also enshrined in Act No. XIX of 1940. 127 From early April 1944, a series of decrees were issued by the Hungarian government for the total exclusion of Jews from public life. The municipal authorities, together with their offi cials, were fully involved in their implementation. Around 200,000 state offi cials within the Hungarian administrative apparatus actively participated in the execution of these decrees, from members of the government to local clerks and offi cials, including members of the gendarmerie, police and other security forces. 128 As Randolph L. Braham noted, only a few county and municipal offi cials, including police offi cers, refused to participate in anti-Jewish actions and resigned, but the vast majority of local, district and county offi cials and civil servants fully cooperated with the occupying powers or with the new politics. 129 According to research by Judit Molnár, most offi cials approached the implementation of the anti-Jewish measures with fl exibility and often with enthusiasm or their own initiative. In some cases, they also ensured such anti-Jewish decrees were marked as confi dential or were not offi cially published. 130 A similar situation existed in the occupied territories, where the anti-Jewish persecution was carried out by the local authorities to a greater or lesser extent, essentially freely, without much restriction. 131 Above all, the Sub-prefects played one of the most important roles in the process of the implementation of anti-Jewish policy and ghettoization. For many of the civil servants, collaboration with the regime meant the opportunity to build their careers or to move up on the professional ladder. 132 The relatively strong local support for anti-Jewish policy was driven most signifi cantly by the economic interests of the local Hungarian community. 133

Conclusion
This paper analysed the mechanisms by which the transformation of local political elites was eff ected by interventions of the regime or the occupying power into the 125 Magyar Törvénytár, 1938Törvénytár, , 132 (1938 évi XV. Törvénycikk a társadalmi és a gazdasági élet egyensúlyának hatályosabb biztosításáról).
126 The Second (Anti-) Jewish Law No. IV/1939 reduced the proportion of Jews in state service and economic sphere to 6 %, the right to acquire citizenship and determined the position of Jews in society. See: Magyar Törvénytár, 1939Törvénytár, , 129 (1939 évi IV. Törvénycikk a zsidók közéleti és gazdasági térfoglalásának korlátozásáról).
127 Országos Törvénytár, 1941, 185 (1941  composition of local public governments and self-government authorities through the issuing of legislative acts to four selected examples of countries in Nazi-dominated Europe (the Nazi-occupied General Government, the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and the German allies the Slovak State and Hungary). Despite the diff erences of historical and political background and character of occupation regimes, the analysis within the four cases showed some common parallels.
First, within all countries analysed, there was a clear intention to centralize the administration and to remove the eligibility of the autonomous government as a pillar of pluralist democracy. Self-government was not removed immediately in any of these countries but from the beginning (the beginning of the occupation or the establishment of a new regime) clear steps were taken for its gradual liquidation. The dissolution of the local autonomous government units meant direct decision-making from above or through appointed offi cials who replaced elected members of representative bodies in the posts at the middle and lowest levels of the public administration and the forming of new local political elites. Individuals did not become members of these elites on the basis of previously highly valued characteristics (fi rstly origin and family, later property, intellect, education or skills); rather, the main attributes that allowed participation in political power and created the conditions for entry into the local political elites were membership of the "Chosen Nation", membership in the ruling party, loyalty (even unlimited devotion) to the ruling regime or other values corresponding to the offi cial ideology. The question remains to what extent membership in the ruling party or loyalty prevailed over the appropriate education, experience or qualifi cation. It can be assumed that, rightly regarding these criteria, the abilities of such newly appointed political actors did not always fully correspond in practice to the positions they held. Regardless, it is certain that there was widespread exchange in key posts of local public administrations following the onset of occupation power or non-democratic government in all the countries here analysed. In the German-occupied countries, native heads at the middle and lower levels of administration were replaced by Germans, and all-important posts were transferred to Germans or people with a strong pro-German orientation. The lower subordinate posts remained occupied by native civil servants, many of whom were actively involved in the implementation of anti-Jewish measures, as is confi rmed by many case studies. The new structures of occupation power were aimed at eliminating local autonomy and preventing the formation of local political elites from native actors from the beginning of the occupation. In allied countries, the most reliable pro-German and pro-regime-oriented members of the ruling party were appointed until a country's elected government was fi nally removed and the process of centralization of the public administration was complete. A common motive for the interventions of the ruling power was to clear the local and municipal administrative and executive authorities of anti-German and undesirable elements with the intention both to replace any unreliable personnel with offi cials whose loyalty and devotion to the regime had been clearly declared, and to build its own strongly centralized administrative apparatus devoid of the principles of eligibility. In so doing, the Nazi regime ensured the hegemony of the ruling state-party or occupation power at all levels of administration and, in this regard, also increased their eff ectiveness in implementing anti-Jewish measures.
As the analysis above has shown, the interventions into the formation of new local elites were undertaken within the limits of laws put in force to establish a semblance of legitimacy. In the occupied countries, despite the fact that after the start of occupation local legislation and law remained in force unless it was contrary to Germany's occupation policy, Nazi power guaranteed for itself by decrees the power to make any changes to the administrations, to change or abolish all autonomous regulations, and to issue its own regulations, which fi nally meant the limiting of autonomous rights in the occupied countries with the intention to introduce a unifi ed system of municipal administration, as in Germany, according to the German Municipal Code. Simultaneously, the structure of the occupation power was deliberately created to allow the occupiers to work closely with local administrative authorities and to minimize the need for the use of German personnel. In the allied countries, the measures necessary for the transfer of power at local level were taken in the form of regulations, acts of law or decrees. An important role was played by the fact that the allied countries shared some aspects of National Socialism to an extent that was refl ected in similar tendencies and in the adoption of very similar legislative legal rules even before the direct German occupation of their territories. Steps had been taken, for example, concerning the transfer of legislative competences from parliament to the government, which due to the Enabling Legislation received practically unlimited power or the removal not only of inconvenient members of opposing political parties but also of people of Jewish origin from positions of the public administrations and authorities of self-government. According to Nazi racial principles, legal rules were adopted which legally defi ned Jews on the basis of race and which openly discriminated between them and the majority population, etc.
The analysis can only furnish conclusions on legislative interventions into local and municipal government across the range of a country; the scope and possibilities of this paper do not allow us to assess the deeper level of personnel changes at a local level or to outline all the impacts of this exchange (for example the degree or extent of the decision-making power of the local elites to impose their own Jewish policies or specifi c autonomous initiatives for their implementation). In spite of this, the personal involvement of a large majority of such newly appointed representatives of the state governments and of civil servants remaining in key posts of local administration because of their willingness to collaborate with the new regime or occupying power and to adapt to new conditions in the adoption and implementation of anti-Jewish measures is undeniable in all the countries surveyed. A s Raul Hilberg noted, persecution to such an extent would undoubtedly not have been possible without the execution of orders from upper levels of the hierarchy of the entire bureaucratic apparatus; however, it would not have been possible to implement the whole process if all members of the bureaucratic apparatus had had to wait for instructions. 134 Therefore, a signifi cant role was undoubtedly played by their own initiative and, in many cases, the putting into practice of anti-Jewish measures in the various posts in particular offi ces or departments of local government authorities beyond central government decrees. A great number of civil servants within local public administration fully participated in all steps of anti-Jewish policy (organizing the registration of Jews, the Aryanization or expropriation of Jewish real estate and property, the establishing of ghettos and forces labour, deportation, etc.) and tried to pursue their own agendas. In all countries analysed, the radicalization of anti-Jewish policy was accelerated by local actors (a process which in all countries concerned the middle level of governance) who, due to the relatively large margin of manoeuvre and freedom in their actions, approached the implementation of anti-Jewish policy quite fl exibly, developing their own initiatives