Jurisdictional conflicts and administrative strategies of the Nazi civilian administration under Klaus Zeltzner in the General District of Dnipropetrovsk

Abstract

This article examines the nature and distinctive features of jurisdictional conflicts within the system of Nazi civil administration in the General District of Dnipropetrovsk during the Second World War, viewed through the activities of Klaus Zeltzner. The study focuses on the interaction among the key components of the occupation apparatus – civil authorities, military structures, and party institutions – while also identifying the causes of administrative tensions and the methods employed to partially manage them at the regional level.

It is demonstrated that governance within the district was marked by blurred lines of authority, competition between power centers, and unstable administrative practices. These conditions were intensified both by кадрова policies of the Nazi leadership and by the challenges inherent to wartime circumstances. At the mid-level administrative tier, such contradictions assumed a practical dimension and directly affected the implementation of occupation policies.

The article analyzes Zeltzner’s managerial approaches, which combined coercive measures with pragmatic attempts to establish limited interaction with the local population. This strategy is shown to have somewhat alleviated tensions within the administrative system, while simultaneously conflicting with the rigid directives issued by higher authorities. Particular attention is paid to the role of individual agency in decision-making and in adapting general administrative guidelines to specific regional conditions.

The study concludes that jurisdictional conflicts were an inherent feature of Nazi occupation governance and significantly influenced the effectiveness of administrative operations. Even relatively flexible management strategies did not alter the exploitative nature of the occupation regime, while internal contradictions further complicated policy implementation. The findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of occupation governance at the regional level and highlight the importance of individual factors under conditions of institutional instability.