Download PDF - Gedenkort für die im Nationalsozialismus ...

tightened up in 1935, was not relaxed until 1969 – and even then it was notabolished by any standards. By acting in this way, the constitutional state ofthe Federal Republic of Germany offered a most peculiar example, since itcontinually placed itself above that Unrechtsstaat (lawless state) the GermanDemocratic Republic. To this must be added the homophobic prejudices,which have by no means been overcome, of my fellow historians.‘In my opinion, the decisive point is that people still do not properly graspthe significance of the persecution of homosexuals within the racial NationalSocialist state. This takes us straight to the question of whether one of thespecific features of the persecution of homosexuals doesn’t lie in its continuityafter 1945. We have to see the persecution of homosexuals in connectionwith the Nazis’ racial policy, which aimed, as the Nazis put it, at the“purification of the German race”. It thus became a matter of “purifying” theGerman body politic from all racial aliens, the Jews and the Sinti andRoma, the sick, the so-called hereditarily sick, and the asocial elements inorder to impose a hierarchical racial order and to reallocate arable land inEastern Europe on “an racial basis”. It is only in this context that we cangrasp persecution. I believe that it is historically problematic to restrict thispolicy to one group of victims only.‘So why were homosexuals made victims of this policy? Firstly, becausethey were portrayed as being sick; secondly, as asocial – as hereditarilyand racially asocial, in fact, just like the Sinti and Roma; and thirdly,because they evaded their “duty to procreate” as the Nazi’s put it, or asHimmler stated in his own inimitable way: “they disturbed Germany’s sexualbalance”. The racial argument must be taken seriously, for this is the contextin which we must see persecution.‘I do not think the current tendency to separate the different groups of victimsis very useful. Above all, I totally reject for historical reasons and – ifyou like – for moral and ethical reasons, too, the concept of “other victims”.If we talk of “other victims” we are already applying the terminology of theNational Socialists and creating a hierarchy of victims. Unless we gobeyond this way of thinking, we shall not go beyond the inscription “Beatento Death, Forgotten in Death” in Sachsenhausen either. In this regard I ammore sceptical and pessimistic than some of the previous speakers, especiallyas I know my colleagues, my fellow historians.‘The memorial should impart knowledge. So it should be accompanied byan information building which clearly shows that injustice was done, regardlessof how big the individual groups were. This is not the occasion forcomparing figures. Murder was murder, injustice was injustice.’Günter Dworek thanked the panel discussion guests and opened the discussion,which began by addressing the question of compensation for thehomosexual victims of the Nazis.Günter Dworek remarked that the inappropriate compensation paid to thepersecuted homosexuals was an “open wound”. No matter what the outcomeof the memorial project, this matter would be pursued further, eventhough very few survivors were now known by name. For as Dr. GünterGrau pointed out, there was no sign of any redress for the injustices sufferedafter 1945, despite the fact that approximately 50,000 sentences werepassed under Section 175 (in the version of 1935) following the collapse ofthe Third Reich.42