Berlin to mark Nazis' gay victims

tonyh · Post by **tonyh** » 15 Dec 2003 15:55

Isn't it true that most of the homosexuals sent to prison in the Third Reich were there for a criminal offense, other than their homosexuality?

Tony

nondescript handle · Post by **nondescript handle** » 15 Dec 2003 17:16

Just to avoid the impression that the homosexual victims are forgotten:
There are some memorials remembering the homosexual victims of the nazis (in Berlin, Frankfurt a.M., Köln)
In Berlin since 1989 the plaque at the Nollendorfplatz:

Regards
Mark

R.M. Schultz · Post by **R.M. Schultz** » 15 Dec 2003 18:06

Rob S. wrote:
One word — entrapment. Vice squads around the world used this tactic successfully for decades.
I doubt it. If Imperial Germany and the Weimar Republic had the laws earlier stated outlawing homosexuality; then legal and social barriers would have still existed; which they did. How do you know who to entrap? Did they go around seducing random people? Remember accused homosexuals are not necessarily homosexuals. I sincerely doubt there were 10,000 gays caught in the act.

Imperial and Weimar laws did not outlaw homosexuality, they outlawed anal sodomy, a much more difficult charge to prove! They also outlawed male prostitution. Thus, Weimar police departments had extensive records on who was hustling, who their customers were, where this activity went on, etc. There was also an extensive gay "scene" in Berlin replete with gay dance halls, taverns, and social clubs. (For a listing of these, see: Voluptuous Panic: the Erotic world of Weimar Berlin by Mel Gordon, Feral House, Los Angeles, 2003.) When the Third Reich toughened up the laws and banned any form of homoeroticism, and it was no longer necessary to catch them in the act, it would have been a simple matter to use these existing records to crack down.

tonyh wrote:Isn't it true that most of the homosexuals sent to prison in the Third Reich were there for a criminal offense, other than their homosexuality?

Such a statement is as best misinformed. I must urge Mr. H to become aquatinted with the facts of the matter before he dismisses a democide so cavalierly.

Dan wrote:
Ha! Ha! Nothing like a genocide joke to show how truly heart-less we are!
I thought what happened to gays was democide, and thus better than genocide, because as you say sexual preference is a personal choice.

You are absolutely right! I meant to say that there was nothing like a democide joke to show how truly heart-less we are! Genocide, unlike democide, is no laughing matter!

Beppo Schmidt · Post by **Beppo Schmidt** » 15 Dec 2003 20:46

I fail to see how mass persecution of one group is morally superior to the mass persecution of another. And just for Michael Mills' information, sexual orientation is not necessarily a personal choice.

ChristopherPerrien · Post by **ChristopherPerrien** » 15 Dec 2003 20:50

Beppo Schmidt wrote:I fail to see how mass persecution of one group is morally superior to the mass persecution of another. And just for Michael Mills' information, sexual orientation is not necessarily a personal choice.

I fail to see how you will ever make it in the ranks of the politically correct , obviously the murder of one group is more important than the murder of another group. Perhaps you just have an issue with who ranks who.

Beppo Schmidt · Post by **Beppo Schmidt** » 15 Dec 2003 20:53

I fail to see how you will ever make it in the ranks of the politically correct

When did I ever say I was a member of "the ranks of the politically correct?" I don't believe people should be judged by their race, religion, sexuality, etc., I guess that makes me "politically correct" in your eyes.

obviously the murder of one group is more important than the murder of another group.

Would you care to explain exactly how the murder of one group is more important than the murder of another group?

ChristopherPerrien · Post by **ChristopherPerrien** » 15 Dec 2003 21:27

Jeezus, Beppo I was agreeing with you, Please realize my post was sarcasm

Beppo Schmidt wrote:
I fail to see how you will ever make it in the ranks of the politically correct
When did I ever say I was a member of "the ranks of the politically correct?" I don't believe people should be judged by their race, religion, sexuality, etc., I guess that makes me "politically correct" in your eyes.

obviously the murder of one group is more important than the murder of another group.
Would you care to explain exactly how the murder of one group is more important than the murder of another group?

The political correct view is some people are more important or different from others and deserve recognition or special treatment (Nazis believed this too). As I said, obviously since you can't see that, you won't make it in the PC world and will never understand it.

Apologies for interjecting a little realism, I don't feel that it was right for the nazis to exterminate a few thousand people because "they were gay"
and I have an issue that to some people that this is somehow less morally wrong than the Nazis exterminated another few million because "they were Hebrew". Of course now some people will call me a Holocaust Denier because in their eyes I am minimalizing the Jewish Holocaust simply because I am equalizing it with another group of just as dead people. Go figure.

Looks to me like modern day "hate crime " legislation and thought policing to me.

Beppo Schmidt · Post by **Beppo Schmidt** » 15 Dec 2003 21:41

LoL, sorry ChristopherPerrien, I took your post seriously and was trying to fathom how someone could seriously suggest that murdering one group of people is morally superior to murdering another. Now that I've realized what you really meant, I totally concur. Berlin taking 60 years to recognize the Nazis' gay victims is disappointing, as is the protests of Jewish organizations' at Catholic crosses being erected at Auschwitz. Actually it's just plain reprehensible and an insult to those who suffered and died. This isn't directed at all Jews, but it seems a lot of them need to realize they don't "own" the Holocaust, and it wasn't just about them. Using the deaths of 11 million people, including 6 million of "your" people for attention and money is disgusting.

michael mills · Post by **michael mills** » 15 Dec 2003 22:03

Beppo Schmidt wrote:

And just for Michael Mills' information, sexual orientation is not necessarily a personal choice.

Why for my information, Beppo?

I said nothing about homosexuality being a personal choice.

In fact, I said nothing whatever about the phenomenon of homosexuality as such, or about its causes, whatever they may be (or even if there really is such a thing as "homosexuality" as opposed to the performance of sexual acts with persons of the same sex as oneself). If anyone actually made the claim that sexual orientation was a personal choice, it was RM Schultz or Dan, not I.

I wrote solely about the prosecution of punishment of men for specific actions that were defined in National Socialist Germany (and no doubt in the United States at that time) as sexual crimes.

The point I was making was that men defined as "homosexuals" ended up in concentration camps due to their having been convicted of actions that were defined in the German criminal code as sexual crimes, and having received sentences of sufficient length to make them eligible for transfer to a concentration camp for "destruction through labour" under the Himmler-Thierack agreement of 1943.

I also made the point that those men were in exactly the same position as any person convicted of an offence under the German criminal code who received a sentence of sufficient length to make him eligible for transfer to a concentration camp. The number of persons sent to concentration camps sentenced for crimes totally unrelated to homosexuality must run into the tens of thousands. Those convicts do not seem to be regarded as "victims" of national Socialist persecution, presumably because they do not constitute an influential lobby.

The question of whether the German laws criminalising homosexual acts and behaviour were "fair" is irrelevant. In evaluating the prosecution of homosexual acts in National Socialist Germany we must apply the standards of the 1930s, not those of today. And the fact is that in the 1930s male homosexual acts were regarded almost everywhere in the cultural sphere to which Germany belonged as severe sexual crimes. I am sure that many of the United States imposed penalties for male homosexual acts that were every bit as severe as those imposed in National Socialist Germany.

R.M. Schultz · Post by **R.M. Schultz** » 15 Dec 2003 23:19

michael mills wrote:I also made the point that those men were in exactly the same position as any person convicted of an offence under the German criminal code who received a sentence of sufficient length to make him eligible for transfer to a concentration camp. … The question of whether the German laws criminalising homosexual acts and behaviour were "fair" is irrelevant. …

At long last Mr. Mills, have you no sense of decency? The fact that petty thieves were sent to concentration camps constitutes draconian punishment, yet every sensible person will agree that theft is a crime that actually victimises society. Private homosexual relations between consenting adults poses no clear and present danger to society and it is barbaric to punish this.

michael mills wrote:… In evaluating the prosecution of homosexual acts in National Socialist Germany we must apply the standards of the 1930s, not those of today. …

This kind of relativism has no place in moral thinking. It is the same sort of thing that is used to defend slavery, female circumcision, suttee, and human sacrifice. If there are no fixed moral standards to which all men living in every society are bound to obey, then such an argument can be used to justify anything.

michael mills wrote: …And the fact is that in the 1930s male homosexual acts were regarded almost everywhere in the cultural sphere to which Germany belonged as severe sexual crimes. I am sure that many of the United States imposed penalties for male homosexual acts that were every bit as severe as those imposed in National Socialist Germany.

The trend in the rest of the civilised world was to regard homosexuality as a sickness, to be pitied and treated psychiatrically, not to be punished. In every other civilised nation the penalties were being lessened during that period, not drastically increased. So even by your bankrupt morally relativistic standard, German behaviour in the 1940's was barbaric!

ChristopherPerrien · Post by **ChristopherPerrien** » 16 Dec 2003 00:32

I also made the point that those men were in exactly the same position as any person convicted of an offence under the German criminal code who received a sentence of sufficient length to make him eligible for transfer to a concentration camp. The number of persons sent to concentration camps sentenced for crimes totally unrelated to homosexuality must run into the tens of thousands. Those convicts do not seem to be regarded as "victims" of national Socialist persecution, presumably because they do not constitute an influential lobby

Very true Mr Mills , perhaps we need a memorial for the "common theives" executed by National socializism, just to be fair.

At long last Mr. Mills, have you no sense of decency? The fact that petty thieves were sent to concentration camps constitutes draconian punishment,

True Mr Schultz , but remember better people have been executed, with, excuse me, than, theives by other groups long before Nazi Germany. One example really sticks in my mind. Perhaps , "no sense of decency" is a relative term.

Penn44 · Post by **Penn44** » 16 Dec 2003 00:38

ChristopherPerrien wrote: Very true Mr Mills , perhaps we need a memorial for the "common theives" executed by National socializism, just to be fair.

Criminals would fall under the "asocial" catagory of concentration camp prisoner. Yes, they, too should have a memorial. Like the homosexuals who suffered under the Nazis, all groups should be memorialized so that the world should know the full and everlasting shame of the Nazis.

.

ChristopherPerrien · Post by **ChristopherPerrien** » 16 Dec 2003 01:08

Penn44 wrote:
ChristopherPerrien wrote: Very true Mr Mills , perhaps we need a memorial for the "common theives" executed by National socializism, just to be fair.
Criminals would fall under the "asocial" catagory of concentration camp prisoner. Yes, they, too should have a memorial. Like the homosexuals who suffered under the Nazis, all groups should be memorialized so that the world should know the full and everlasting shame of the Nazis.

.

Well thanks Penn , I only have a problem with one word "shame". Shame implies a personal guilt. True Nazis believed what the Nazi's did was right. Just as other groups have persecuted and executed people for being gay, Jewish, witches , criminals. And it still is matter of perception what is "right"and what is "wrong" . I myself would kill a thief. Some people would kill a homosexual or think that homosexuals should die, based solely on their beliefs. To take the same idea further eventually you end up not only with Nazis but with everyone, as most people due to their upbringing and perceptions, TRUELY believe that some people need to die.

I realized what I say in a way could excuse alot of things , but it is human nature. If you look at serial killings and mass murders it is not so much the horrible pile of bodies left over after the fact that you need to look at, it is the , "first killing" that really, takes a group, mob, person, to this "shame" as you say. In other words, "After the first victim there is no shame".

Hope that made some sense.

Penn44 · Post by **Penn44** » 16 Dec 2003 03:44

ChristopherPerrien wrote:
Well thanks Penn , I only have a problem with one word "shame". Shame implies a personal guilt.

Shame can be a collective response as well, for example, a family or community might feel shame over its collective behavior or the behavior of one of its members.

ChristopherPerrien wrote: True Nazis believed what the Nazi's did was right. Just as other groups have persecuted and executed people for being gay, Jewish, witches , criminals. And it still is matter of perception what is "right" and what is "wrong" . I myself would kill a thief. Some people would kill a homosexual or think that homosexuals should die, based solely on their beliefs. To take the same idea further eventually you end up not only with Nazis but with everyone, as most people due to their upbringing and perceptions, TRUELY believe that some people need to die.

I realized what I say in a way could excuse alot of things , but it is human nature.

It is amazing how you can completely and frivalously disregard morality. Your moral relativism is deeply disturbing.

ChristopherPerrien wrote: Hope that made some sense.

Yes, what you said made sense, but probably not in the manner that you intended.

Let me give you an analysis on one basis for moral relativism, sensitivity towards shames, and Nazi apologetics. I make this analysis in the earnest hope of helping persons identify those bias that distort their historical and moral reasoning.

Some people use moral relativism as a convenient means to escape the burden of having to adhere to morality. Some use moral relativism to escape the repercussions of morality - social censure for example. They have fears that if others used standards of morality, then the others would discover that person's moral transgressions, and that person would be punished in some way. And this doesn't have to be individual transgressions. Social bodies can use moral relativism as well. For example, many lawyers are sensitive to discussions regarding their profession because some attorneys have in fact committed ethical violations. Some persons from the Southern US, a region where historically racism and civil rights abuses have occurred, are sensitive about criticism of Nazi Germany, a nation notorious for racism and civil rights abuses. In this regards, any criticism of Nazi Germany also implies a criticism of the Southern US.

The psychological or moral needs for moral relativism serves as a bias that distorts the historical and moral reasoning of the person it affects. Before someone can hope to having an adequate "understanding" of history, they need to have some understanding of themself.

.

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 16 Dec 2003 03:51

Please refrain from personal comments about other posters and stay on topic.