World stage process

That World stage process (frequently also World stage process) one of the most spectacular criminal procedures against military-critical press organs and journalists was in that Weimar Republic. During the process that became the weekly newspaper , and betrayal of military secrets accused and in November 1931 of the IV. Criminal senate of the in to ever 18 months condemns.

Because of the explosive topic, - the secret structure of one -, and the attack on those, intended with accusation and judgement the process abroad the in and excited large attention. A resumption of the procedure before courts of the German Federal Republic failed 1992. The process is considered as example of political law in the Weimar Republic.

Table of contents 1 The prehistory 1.1 The contract of Versailles 1.2 Military-critical press 1.3 The inkriminierte article 2 The procedure 2.1 Political implications 2.2 The legal participants 2.3 The negotiation 2.4 The judgement 3 Consequences of the judgement 3.1 Political reactions 3.2 Legal estimate 3.3 The reopening of the proceedings 4 Web on the left of 5 Literature 5.1 Sources 5.2 Secondary literature 5.2.1 Monographien 5.2.2 Essays

The prehistory

The contract of Versailles

After the defeat in The First World War that had with that to a strong restriction of its military forces to consent must. Despite the performed signature tried realm government and systematically the regulations of the contract. Above all the strength of the German army of 100, specified in article 163.000 men one tried from the outset to go around. Thus the realm resistance supported the structure of paramilitaerischer federations and put on illegal weapon camps. These federations, from that the direct post-war period had come out and also as were designated, formed a constant factor of uncertainty of the German home policy. The federations formed partially right-free areas, in which acts of violence were tolerated against other-thinking one and abtruennige members.

Pazifisti and antimilitaristische forces in the Weimar Republic saw a danger for the consolidation with regard to foreign policy of the German Reich as well as the internal peace in the behavior of the realm resistance therefore. In different publication organs on the bad states one made attentive. Thus a publication that led World stage over those Fememorde in the black realm resistance finally to several criminal procedures against the authors. The legal processing of these delikte was from beginning of the Weimar Republic to however from an extreme for the authors coined/shaped. Thus the realm court granted to favour of the Fememoerder, "that there is also a self-defence right of the individual citizen in relation to illegal attacks on the vital interests of the state" (RGSt 63, 215 (220)). In response Pazifisten, which had betrayed the illegal weapon camps, were condemned because of landesverrats to ten to 15 years detention.

Military-critical press

Also the media, which made attentive to the bad states, were exposed to strong Repressionen. The journalists Berthold Jacob and Fritz kuester for example because of such "journalistic landesverrats" were condemned, because they had uncovered the system of the time zeitfreiwilligen. These soldiers were consulted at short notice for military exercises and emerged in no statistics. The realm court presumed in its judgement against Jacob and kuester to the statement, according to which the thought to reject is, "the fact that uncovering and publication of illegal conditions the realm well-being can be never detrimental, only favorable, because the well-being of the state in its legal order is fixed and in their execution carries out itself" (RGSt 62, 65 (67)). Beyond that the realm court required: "each citizen has to hold the loyalty for the own state. The well-being of the own state to notice, is for it highest requirement ". From this perspective it does not surprise that alone in the years to more than 1000 persons were condemned because of landesverrats, offense of the realm resistance and similar delikten. Like very much itself those in this question with the policy, shows a passage from one identified to the landesverrat in German :

If one refers to the large number of the national betrayal processes after the war compared with in times of peace, then it is to be answered on that that the number of these processes will not sink so long, when once the forced upon contract of Versailles validity possesses disgraceful us, which evenly consciously so thought out regulations contains, which also with the best will by us not until into the smallest detail be fulfilled can, which is intended last end also of the Entente, in order to let us continuously the whip of the Frohn feel, and on the other hand, than it will give Germans, which to the Buettel of the Entente to degrade themselves so long, even consciously admit because them a fulfilment of the disgrace peace regulations appears more important, than the well-being of the native country.
(Josef walter Frind: The landesverrat in the German criminal law. Breslau 1931, S. 69)

The regulations of the Versailler of contract did not however only limit the strength of the army. They forbade the structure of their own Air Force in article 198 also expressly. In pazifistischen circles it was however well-known that also this regulation was gone around. Thus Berthold Jacob at that criticises Rank list of the German realm Reich a missing transparency,

because a set of actually existing departments of the realm military Ministry, as for instance the fliegerei, which gas combat preparation, which departments of counter espionage and espionage and many andre go, officially not at all into action.
(of an old soldier: "the new rank list", in: The world stage, 20.7.1926, S. 83)

To the journalists, who were concerned particularly intensively with the secret structure of Luftwaffe, the airplane technical designer belonged Walter Kreiser. In a letter from August 1925 Kreiser called itself as that "only in pazifistischen circles, which has exact view of the fliegerei". Therefore it had already under the alias Konrad Widerhold sieve contributions to the topic aviation in that World stage published. Because of the cooperation at the work The German military politics since 1918 1926 had been already introduced against it a procedure because of landesverrats and betrayal of military secrets, which was however stopped 1928. At the beginning of of 1929 offered finally Kreiser to that World stage a new article on, from whose publication he promised himself a large resonance. This goes also out of a letter Kreisers of 4. March 1929 at Ossietzky out, which was rated later by the court loading against the accused. Therein it meant:

It is appropriate, the essay in that World stage of the 11. To bring March. On this day in the evening o'clock in the manor-house one of the W finds 8.G.L. called up aviation meeting instead of, where all are to be found prominent ones of aviation and those, which want to be it. Perhaps beordern you an efficient newspaper salesman there, that becomes surely some hundred copies loose, since the article straight might affect this meeting like a bomb.
(walter Bussm ann u.A. (Hrsg.): Documents to the German foreign policy. 1918-1945. Series of B: 1925-1933. Volume XIX. 16. October 1931 to 29. February 1932, Goettingen 1983, S. 365)

The inkriminierte article

Before the described background it does not surprise that under the alias Heinz hunter to 12. March 1929 in that World stage published articles "windy from German aviation" the displeasure of the realm resistance excited. In the extensive, five-one half-lateral article Kreiser was concerned first with general questions for the situation of the Germans and aircraft industry dedicated. From this section it followed that the realm resistance obviously under evasion of the Versailler of contract the secret structure of a Air Force operated. Under the heading "department of M" wrote Kreiser:

Similar Kapriolen became also on that made. On the Adlershofer side that insisted as special group German laboratory for aviation a so-called department of M. When with the before-year old aviation budget the socialist delegate Krueger in the budget committee asked the government representatives for information, for which purpose the department was M there, he did not get an answer, because otherwise the authorities would have had to make attentive to the fact that "M" is also the initial letter of the word military. Thus one was silent rather. In addition, works here findige atomising tactics. In order to be able to say with a renewed inquiry: such a department of M does not give it any longer, with these obscenities we cleared up, this department also was dissolved, came on the Johannisthaler to side of the airfield and is called now "test department Albatros", to the difference of a test department, those already possesses. This "test department Albatros" is to country the same that to the lake the "coastal flight department that Lufthansa"represents. Both departments possess ever about thirty to forty airplanes, sometimes also more.
But all airplanes always are not in Germany...
(Heinz hunter: Windy from German aviation. In: The world stage. 12. March 1929, S. 402-407, here: S. 407)

In addition in the manuscript it is to have confessed that the airplanes would be occasionally in Russia. These passages from Ossietzky caution for the sake of had painted and to the suggestion had been limited. Kreiser referred with its expressions partially to minutes of the 312. Meeting of the committee for the realm household of 3. February . Although this minutes were present as print, the upper realm lawyer started a preliminary investigation because of offence against the Landesverratsparagrafen of the Penal code and against Paragraf 1, paragraph 2 of the law against the betrayal of military secrets (sucked. of the 3. June 1914, RGBl, 195).

The procedure

At the 1. August 1929 was finally placed a charge. In a letter of 8. August 1929 communicated the upper realm lawyer to the Prussian Minister of the Interior that one because of the inkriminierten article introduced is. For reason it meant that Ossietzky and Kreiser,

Message, from which they knew that their secrecy of another government is necessary in relation to for the well-being of the German Reich, publicly admit made, as well as deliberately messages, whose secrecy is necessary in the interest of the national defense, let a foreign arrive at government or at a person, who is active in the interest of a foreign government, and thus the security of the realm to have endangered.
(Ursula Madrasch Groschopp: The world stage. Haven-guesses/advises a magazine, Berlin 1983, S. 257)

In the course of the determinations the editorial offices became that World stage as well as the dwelling Ossietzkys scans. In August 1929 Ossietzky was heard in addition to the case. The fact that it did not come afterwards to the negotiation is attributed to the political implications described in the following one.

Political implications

The realm government was after the publication of the article in a dilemma. If it would have ignored the article or would have only disclaimed, it would have run the risk that further details would have penetrated from the secret armament efforts to the public. A sharp procedure against author and publisher equaled however the confession that that actually hurt the regulations of Versailles and constructed secretly a Air Force. The interests of realm military Ministry and Foreign Office collided therefore very strongly.

As itself in the further showed, the military interests were more importantly estimated than the damage with regard to foreign policy, which should arise as a result of a condemnation of the journalists. The evaluation of archives it resulted in that the publication of the article also in wahrgenommen worden war.

In the second yearly half 1929 the Politbuero of the ZK of the communist party of Russia (Bolsheviks) advised over the relations with the realm resistance in the Kremlin. Under point 1a of the protocol for making decisions it is to be read that one from the German side "the reinforcement of the conspiracy in co-operation between the two armies as well as warranties (required) that none are published however constituted information, which concerns this co-operation.“
(Gerd emperor: Windy from German aviation (II). In: The lamella. 21. December 1997)

To the realm military Ministry had very much to be not to endanger important military co-operation with the Soviet Union. The Foreign Office had to regard against it by a public court hearing the negotiating position of the realm with that Geneva disarmament negotiations as threatened. How importantly the office took the process, also the fact shows that the collected documents filled several document volumes in the legal department. The fact that the trial beginning retarded so for a long time is attributed to the resistance of the State Department, until October 1929 still of led was. There with view of mentioned realm tag minutes the question was raised whether the data from the article were actually secret.

The procedure was not terminated nevertheless. In the spring 1931 the Ministries involved realm resistance, law and Foreign Office finally agreed on a compromise, around in open to be able. More than two years after appearance of the article, to 30. March 1931, became raised.

The legal participants

On sides of the public prosecutor's office and the realm court it had those World stage to do with lawyers, who had acquired already relevantly reputation. Realm lawyer Paul Jorns had prove-measured with the determinations to the murders on and traces smeared and the opposite of the determinations into minutes to register leave. The chairman of the IV. Criminal senate, Alexander tree garden, had in the autumn 1930 undisturbed to state it leaves that after its accession "heads roll" became.

The defense of the accused took over the renowned lawyers Max when mountain, Kurt rose field, Alfred apple and Rudolf Olden. Since the defense was convinced of a successful exit of the process, from Ossietzky had also done without, a motion for rejection against the IV. To place criminal senate. "I had written for many years that the IV. Criminal senate the right of the German republic does not speak, but quite the customs of a court martial accepted ", its distrust justified against the court from Ossietzky.

The negotiation

The legal regulations in accordance with § 174 Abs. 2 that forbade it World stage, details on the process to report. For reasons of the public security the public was anyway excluded from the negotiations. In addition the process-taken part were obligated to the discretion, which concerned also the grounds later. To 5. The readers of the magazine finally received May 1931 from the procedure, which already floated for two years. To 8. May 1931 should finally begin the process.

The negotiations were immediately again postponed, because no representative of the State Department had appeared. The defense had persisted in the fact that beside the realm military Ministry also the Foreign Office should send an expert. This should answer the question whether the article actually contained data, which were unknown the foreign country. The State Department let the gerichtstermin burst however and carried for far heavy doubts, which concerned the effect with regard to foreign policy of the procedure. Therefore it refused also one month later a further mark sending a consultant to Leipzig. To 9. July 1931 turned the general and later realm chancellors therefore it in a letter on Bernhard Wilhelm von Buelow, undersecretary of state in the Foreign Office, and reprimanded its delaying tactics. Schleicher saw a precedent during the process, in order to implement the "most effective defense and the best vorbeugung against the Verraetertum". For this reason the Foreign Office is its political doubts "withdraw to let" and an appraisal write. Buelow answers few days later that its Ministry wants in such a way to arrange the "fight against the Verraetertum", "like it the interests of the realm, in particular (...) the national defense" requires. Finally the office provided to 24. August 1931 a written appraisal, which was read out during the negotiation.

The negotiations under exclusion of the public finally began to 20. November 1931. As witnesses of the accusation major Himer of the realm military Ministry and Ministerialrat Wegerdt of the traffic Ministry functioned. They confirmed that the data from the article would correspond to the truth and would have had in the interest of the national defense to be kept secret. Major Himer was the conviction that the article also of foreign evaluated is. It could not furnish a proof for it however.

The court rejected all 19 witnesses of the defense. Also the central proof request did not find the hearing of the judges. Therein the defense had wanted to prove that the reported activities to the foreign country already for a long time admits were. Ossietzky argued in own thing that in the article only budget criticism should have been practiced. The formulations in the complained of section were also hardly understandable to it to attribute and for the uninformed public to a large extent. He pursued the purpose to warn the realm military Ministry before from the affair a public scandal became.

The judgement

The process ended to 23. November with the condemnation of the two accused because of "crimes against § the 1 paragraph 2 of the law over betrayal of military secrets of the 3. June 1914" to the term of imprisonment at a value of 18 months, demanded by the public prosecutor's office. Also the expenditure concerned was that World stage from March 1929 "just like too their production necessary plates and forms" to make useless. The grounds were likewise read out under exclusion of the public, "there the actual and legal appreciation of the inkriminierten article via the court naturally not to take place could to consider and light up without the secret messages in speech".

In its reason the court argued that the accused would have spread message actually which can be kept secret according to indication of the experts. The term of the secret unity is only relative in this case. It is irrelevant whether within certain circles already admits the activities mentioned were. As off during the process against kuester and Jacob main header the court on the fact that the citizen has to hold the loyalty for his country and not arbitrarily the injury of international contracts may to denounce. This is only possible, as domestic organs were taken up. The court justified the necessary facts of the resolution with the fact that the accused had been Pazifisten. This justifies the conclusion that they would have wanted anti-military to work. From which "informally" their will would result to secretly uncover something from the military administration holding.

The fact that the condemnation did not take place due to the Landesverratsparagrafen did not mean in opinion of the court however that the accused would not have fulfilled the appropriate criminal offence existence. The realm court was rather the opinion that that criminal offence existence of the espionage law the likewise relevant Landesverratsparagrafen of the penal code in the way that displace. In the formally still secret grounds it was called corresponding in addition:

With the legal appreciation of circumstances the court assumes an act, both the factual characteristics of the landesverrats after § 92 paragraph 1 number 1 StGB. like those of the betrayal of military secrets after § 1 of the law of the 3. June 1914 fulfilled, under the criterion of the latter crime to only judge is, because between the two regulations law unit exists.
(walter bus man u. A. (Hrsg.): Documents to the German foreign policy. 1918-1945. Series of B: 1925-1933. Volume XIX. 16. October 1931 to 29. February 1932. Goettingen 1983, S. 368)

Consequences of the judgement

Political reactions

To the condemnation reacted from Ossietzky with Sarkasmus. "one and a half years imprisonment? It is not so bad, because it is with the liberty in Germany not far ago. Maehlich fade the differences between locking up and niece-Inge-closed.“ The judgement did not surprise it, even if it did not consider the exit of the process conceivable:

I know that each journalist, who is occupied critically with the realm resistance has a national betrayal procedure for gewaertigen; that is a natural occupational hazard. Was this time provided for a delightful alternation nevertheless: we left the hall not as national traitors but as feeler gauges.
("the world stage process", in: The world stage, 1.12.1931, S. 803)

Thus Ossietzky alluded to the fact that he was not condemned, as from the public prosecutor's office requests also because of landesverrats. A differentiation, which was actually appropriate, if one considers the remarks of the grounds quoted above, after which the realm court the criminal offence existence of the landesverrats quite as carried out regarded. In later articles Ossietzky did to stress this difference. He selected now a formulation, which becomes rather fair the remarks realm court:

The realm court stamped me as a precaution in most unpleasant way. Landesverrat and betrayal of military secrets - which is a most diffamierende label, with which easily cannot be lived.
("account", in: The world stage, 10. May 1932, S. 691)

The judgement excited large attention abroad the in and for several reasons. Those World stage published in the expenditures of the 1. December and 15. December 1931 numerous foreign press comments to the process, whose tenor comes in the following passage to the expression:

First of all: it is the hardest judgement, which was ever imposed over a non-communist journalist, and it is typically for those radical treatment, which German courts to everyone assign now become let, which does not agree with a return to the Vorkriegsmilitarismus to Germany. Secondly one should assume that the government or at least the Foreign Office does not approve of this judgement, because it directs the attention of the public on procedures, which would have been otherwise perhaps long forgotten or surveyed. Germany, whose argumentation always went before the disarmament commission on it outside that the Versailler contract was fulfilled and had completely disarmed it, against the reproach to defend again now will have itself that it a forbidden air fleet maintenance. Critics will appoint themselves less in the future to the world stage article than to the realm court, which considered this article so dangerous that it punished it with eighteen months prison. There is no appointment and Ossietzky... must this long punishment begin. Characteristically of the tendency of German courts it is that National Socialist traitors always moderate, mostly also to be condemned, while a liberal critic of the militarism with common criminals is together locked up.
(New York Evening post office of 24. November 1931)

Also in Germany many democratic politicians appeared frightened. Realm tag president wrote: "I do not only have rarely a judgement as such a miss in legal, but also in political regard felt as this (...) after my knowledge also nothing was written, what could be hidden to the foreign country or been useful, so that the judgement appears perfectly incomprehensible to me.“

Different organizations tried to prevent after the pronouncement of judgement that Ossietzky had to actually begin the detention. Thus those sent SPD- an interpellation to the realm government and inquired whether this was not ready, to do "all steps, in order to prevent the enforcement this judgement of the realm court.“ There were protest meetings and signature actions that German league for human rights. Many prominent writers and scientists how , . and supported a request for grace at the realm presidents against the critical press in the Weimar Republic. In addition the foreign country in this way it had become clear that Germany did not intend to consider obviously important points of the Versailler of contract no more. Also during its KZ detention Ossietzky should feel still the consequences of the condemnation. Thus became in the argument around the award of the frequently as argument against the KZ prisoner aforementioned that he is finally a condemned national traitor.

The judgement is seen of today's lawyers as important step on the way to the LV law. The realm court established its own legal order, which did not orient itself at laws and condition with the national betrayal processes, but at emergency and allegiance of the citizen as well as at the indefinite term of the public welfare.

Realm court advice riveting hammer confirmed "Schrittmacher" services for the LV right, and "the national" defender Alfons bag praised the RG for "the courageous step... against the letters of the condition the new state thought on victories to help", with which it had made its contribution for "the creation of the new right, for which alone the safety device of the German people forms the yardstick". With something other words Ossietzky defender Olden described the same: "from here comes that rotting of the right and the sense of justice, which leads the highest Court of Justice up to the National Socialist twist of all right terms, up to the legitimacy of the murder, if he serves only" the Staatswohl` ".
(Gerhard Jungfer; Ingo Mueller: "70 years world stage judgement" in: New legal weekly revue (NJW), 2001, S. 3464 f.)

Ossietzky granted after its condemnation that the republic at least "the Dekorum of the legal procedure"protected. "if in the third realm only once after the platform of Box home one will govern, then traitors become such as Kreiser and I without waiving fuesiliert", he wrote at the 1. December 1931 in that World stage.

The memory of the world stage process contributed surely to the fact that the public in that during the in such a way specified a similarly stored interference into those not to accept wanted. In the meantime a publication would be as in the case of the World stageText anyway no longer punishable. Because in the Paragraf 93, paragraph 2 of the StGB is supplemental for the term of the state secret:

Facts, which offend against the liberal democratic constitutional structure or under secrecy opposite the contracting parties of the Federal Republic of Germany approximately intergovernmentally agreed upon restrictions of arms, are not state secrets.

The reopening of the proceedings

Into that years by German lawyers, one was tried . Thus the judgement should be revised of 1931. Pink lime tree of Ossietzky Palm, only child Carl von Ossietzkys, led as request-entitled at the 1. March 1990 with the citizen of Berlin the procedure into the ways. As new evidence the appraisals of two experts were submitted, who should show that the French army was informed already before the publication of the text about the activities of the realm resistance. In addition some the complained of "secrets" would not have corresponded to the facts. The Court of Appeal explained a resumption of the procedure for inadmissible. The new appraisals are not sufficient as facts or evidence, in order to acquit of Ossietzky after right at that time. In the reason of the 11. July 1991 was called it:

The circumstance that foreign governments were informed about the secret rearmament of the German Reich, justifies if necessary the indefinite assumption that to them also already admits the procedures uncovered in connection with the airfield Johannisthal Adlershof before the publication was. (...) For the view of the consultant that the French military guidance was informed about each step of the German armament, thus also about the facts communicated in the article, it is missing at a comprehensible argument with the consulted material.

That afterwards a complaint rejected against the decision of the Court of Appeal. It justified this in a resolution of 3. December :

Incorrect application of the law for itself alone is not a reopening reason after the code of criminal procedure. With exception of the case of the co-operation of a dishonest judge the "still so wrong decision" which is based on wrong legal concept can be eliminated in the reopening of the proceedings only with incorrectness the incorrect decision of underlying circumstances. (...) After the iurisdiction of the realm court the illegality of the kept secret procedures did not exclude the secret characteristic. Each citizen owes an allegiance of contents in the opinion of the realm court its native country that the tendency could be never carried out after the adherence to the existing laws only by a recourse to of the domestic organs for this appointed and by an announcement at foreign governments.“

The Federal High Court "did not confirm" thus the judgement realm court in the actual sense, but only it decided that the submitted "new facts and evidence" loud § 359 StPO were not sufficient, in order to resume the procedure. Whether in a resumed procedure the earlier judgement would have been revised, remains open.

The decisions of the two courts were rated of critics as indication for the fact that the law of the German Federal Republic does still with the processing of the German historical jurisprudence heavily. The view of the Court of Appeal confirmed by the BGH, whereafter "a further expert than such no new evidence is fundamental", offence in addition against the "unanimous comment opinion" (Ivo of holy). The criticism at the BGH goes leaving thereby in the direction that the new appraisals were already evaluated in the decision over the permission of the reopening of the proceedings contentwise too strongly, instead of this estimate to the reopening of the proceedings.

Although pink lime tree of Ossietzky Palm deceased in the meantime, there is still another request-entitled for a renewed reopening of the proceedings: those . Therefore the lawyers demand Gerhard Jungfer and Ingo Mueller:

After also with the BGH the realization became generally accepted that each realm court decision is not receive worth and the 5. Criminal senate already reprimanded the unsatisfactory past processing of the BGH, would be it a nobile officium the German law to waive the 70 years old judgement and to rehabilitate the Nobelpreistraeger - not last also itself -.
(Gerhard Jungfer; Ingo Mueller: 70 years world stage judgement. In: New legal weekly revue (NJW). 2001, S. 3465)

Web on the left of

• Gerd emperor: Windy from German aviation (II)
• Die Bestimmungen des Versailler Vertrages zur Luftwaffe

Literatur

Quellen

• Die Weltbühne. Vollständiger Nachdruck der Jahrgänge 1918–1933. Athenäum Verlag, Königstein/Ts. 1978
• Walter Bußmann u. a. (Hrsg.): Akten zur deutschen auswärtigen Politik. 1918–1945. Serie B: 1925–1933. Band XIX. 16. Oktober 1931 bis 29. Februar 1932. Göttingen 1983
• Foreign Office: Secret documents of the old persons legal department, legal matter: Criminal procedure because of landesverrat against editor Carl von Ossietzky, Baende 1 and 2 (unpublished)
• Foreign Office: Documents of the legal department, legal matters secretly, spec. Kreiser and Ossietzky, volumes 1-3 (unpublished)
• Court of Appeal Berlin 1. Criminal senate, resolution of the 11. July 1991, Az: (1) 1 ACRE 356/90 (4/90), publishes in: New legal weekly revue (NJW). 1991, 2505-2507
• BGH 3. Criminal senate, resolution of the 3. December 1992, Az: StB 6/92, publishes in: 39, 75-87

Secondary literature

Monographien

• Bruno free: Carl von Ossietzky: a political biography. Berlin 1978
• Heinrich Hanover: The republic before court 1975-1995: Memories of an uncomfortable attorney. Berlin 2003, ISBN 3-7466-7032-2
• Ursula Madrasch Groschopp: The world stage. Haven-guesses/advises a magazine. Book publishing house of the mornings, Berlin 1983. Reproduction: Bechtermuenz publishing house in the conception of the world publishing house, Augsburg 1999, ISBN 3-7610-8269-X
• Dieter long: State, right and law in the comment of the magazine The world stage. Frankfurt/Main 1996, ISBN 3-631-30376-9
• Elke Suhr: Carl von Ossietzky. A biography. Cologne 1988, ISBN 3-462-01885-X
• Hermann Vinke: Carl von Ossietzky. Hamburg 1978, ISBN 3-7915-5007-1

Essays

• Gerhard Jungfer; Ingo Mueller: 70 years world stage judgement. In: New legal weekly revue (NJW). 2001, S. 3461-3465
• Ivo of holy: A second miscarriage of justice against Ossietzky. In: Critical law (KJ). 1991, S. 498-500
• Ders.: Windy from the German iurisdiction. In: Critical law (KJ). 1993, S. 194-198
• Ingo Mueller: The famous case Ossietzky from the year 1930 could repeat itself at any time... In: Quite law criticism, anniversary publication for Richard Schmid, hrsg. of Hans seriousness Boetcher. Nomos publishing house, Baden-Baden 1985, ISBN 3-7890-1092-8, S. 297-326