BGuthrie Photos: DC -- GWU -- Elliott School -- Exhibit: Rosenburg - The Federal Ministry Of Justice In The Shadow Of The Nazi Past (w/Emb of Germany)

DC -- GWU -- Elliott School -- Exhibit: Rosenburg - The Federal Ministry Of Justice In The Shadow Of The Nazi Past (w/Emb of Germany):

Bruce Guthrie Photos Home Page: [Click here] to go to Bruce Guthrie Photos home page.

Description of Pictures: The Rosenburg - The Federal Ministry Of Justice In The Shadow Of The Nazi Past
The exhibition is the latest step in Germany's ongoing and wide-ranging efforts to address its Nazi past, in this case by examining the approach of the West German Ministry of Justice which was housed in a castle called the Rosenburg.
The Rosenburg Project was initiated in 2012 when the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (BMJV) commissioned an independent team of researchers headed by historian Professor Manfred Görtemaker and legal scholar Professor Christoph Safferling to examine how the Ministry dealt with the Nazi past in the 1950s and 60s.
Topics investigated by the commission included the following: continuities between the Nazi and West German periods regarding personnel and basic approach; the prosecution of Holocaust-related crimes; amnesties; and policies related to the statute of limitations on Nazi crimes.
The results of the concluding report, titled "The Rosenburg Files," were presented for the first time in 2017 in a travelling exhibition in Germany.
The German Embassy supports the inaugural exhibit in the U.S. presented by the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection in co-operation with the Elliot School. The exhibit is divided into nine sections which feature display stands and multi-media content and draw on biographies and original quotes.
With this exhibition, the German Ministry of Justice seeks to present the findings of "The Rosenburg Files" to a wide audience and to raise awareness of the historical injustices that took place.

Same Event: Wait! There's more! Because I took too many pictures, photos from this event were divided among the following pages: [Display ALL photos on one page]:

2019_DC_GWU_Rosenburg: DC -- GWU -- Elliott School -- Exhibit: Rosenburg - The Federal Ministry Of Justice In The Shadow Of The Nazi Past (w/Emb of Germany) (143 photos from 2019)
2019_DC_RosenburgR_190205: DC -- GWU -- Elliott School & Emb of Germany -- Event: Opening Reception for Rosenburg - The Federal Ministry Of Justice In The Shadow Of The Nazi Past Reception (35 photos from 2019)

Recognize anyone? If you recognize specific folks (or other stuff) and I haven't labeled them, please identify them for the world. Click the little pencil icon

underneath the file name (just above the picture). Spammers need not apply.

Slide Show: Want to see the pictures as a slide show? [Slideshow]

Copyrights: All pictures were taken by amateur photographer Bruce Guthrie (me!) who retains copyright on them. Free for non-commercial use with attribution. See the [Creative Commons] definition of what this means. "Photos (c) Bruce Guthrie" is fine for attribution. (Commercial use folks including AI scrapers can of course contact me.) Feel free to use in publications and pages with attribution but you don't have permission to sell the photos themselves. A free copy of any printed publication using any photographs is requested. Descriptive text, if any, is from a mixture of sources, quite frequently from signs at the location or from official web sites; copyrights, if any, are retained by their original owners.

Help? The Medium (Email) links are for screen viewing and emailing. You'll want bigger sizes for printing. [Click here for additional help]

Share: Facebook Twitter Digg
[1] ROSEN_190205_001.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[2] ROSEN_190205_004.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[3] ROSEN_190205_007.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[4] ROSEN_190205_012.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[5] ROSEN_190205_013.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[6] ROSEN_190205_015.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[7] ROSEN_190205_017.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[8] ROSEN_190205_021.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[9] ROSEN_190205_026.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[10] ROSEN_190205_030.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[11] ROSEN_190205_031.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[12] ROSEN_190205_038.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[13] ROSEN_190205_042.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[14] ROSEN_190205_049.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[15] ROSEN_190205_051.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[16] ROSEN_190205_061.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[17] ROSEN_190205_063.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[18] ROSEN_190205_067.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[19] ROSEN_190205_071.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[20] ROSEN_190205_075.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[21] ROSEN_190205_080.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[22] ROSEN_190205_089.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[23] ROSEN_190205_091.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[24] ROSEN_190205_094.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[25] ROSEN_190205_101.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[26] ROSEN_190205_109.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[27] ROSEN_190205_114.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[28] ROSEN_190205_120.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[29] ROSEN_190205_126.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[30] ROSEN_190205_131.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[31] ROSEN_190205_136.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[32] ROSEN_190205_138.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[33] ROSEN_190205_142.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[34] ROSEN_190205_145.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[35] ROSEN_190205_148.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[36] ROSEN_190205_150.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[37] ROSEN_190205_153.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[38] ROSEN_190205_156.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[39] ROSEN_190205_159.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[40] ROSEN_190205_163.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[41] ROSEN_190205_167.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[42] ROSEN_190205_171.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[43] ROSEN_190205_173.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[44] ROSEN_190205_177.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[45] ROSEN_190205_181.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[46] ROSEN_190205_184.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[47] ROSEN_190205_187.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[48] ROSEN_190205_192.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[49] ROSEN_190205_196.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[50] ROSEN_190205_199.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[51] ROSEN_190205_202.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[52] ROSEN_190205_204.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[53] ROSEN_190205_206.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[54] ROSEN_190205_208.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[55] ROSEN_190205_213.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[56] ROSEN_190205_217.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[57] ROSEN_190205_222.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[58] ROSEN_190205_226.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[59] ROSEN_190205_229.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[60] ROSEN_190205_231.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[61] ROSEN_190205_233.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[62] ROSEN_190205_236.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[63] ROSEN_190205_239.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[64] ROSEN_190205_246.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[65] ROSEN_190205_248.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[66] ROSEN_190205_252.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[67] ROSEN_190205_256.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[68] ROSEN_190205_263.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[69] ROSEN_190205_265.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[70] ROSEN_190205_268.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[71] ROSEN_190205_271.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[72] ROSEN_190205_274.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[73] ROSEN_190205_276.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[74] ROSEN_190205_283.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[75] ROSEN_190205_285.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[76] ROSEN_190205_287.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[77] ROSEN_190205_293.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[78] ROSEN_190205_296.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[79] ROSEN_190205_298.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[80] ROSEN_190205_315.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[81] ROSEN_190205_319.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[82] ROSEN_190205_322.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[83] ROSEN_190205_324.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[84] ROSEN_190205_326.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[85] ROSEN_190205_328.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[86] ROSEN_190205_330.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[87] ROSEN_190205_333.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[88] ROSEN_190205_335.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[89] ROSEN_190205_339.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[90] ROSEN_190205_341.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[91] ROSEN_190205_344.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[92] ROSEN_190205_346.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[93] ROSEN_190205_350.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[94] ROSEN_190205_354.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[95] ROSEN_190205_358.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[96] ROSEN_190205_360.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[97] ROSEN_190205_364.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[98] ROSEN_190205_368.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[99] ROSEN_190205_370.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[100] ROSEN_190205_373.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[101] ROSEN_190205_375.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[102] ROSEN_190205_377.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[103] ROSEN_190205_380.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[104] ROSEN_190205_383.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[105] ROSEN_190205_385.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[106] ROSEN_190205_387.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[107] ROSEN_190205_390.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[108] ROSEN_190205_393.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[109] ROSEN_190205_397.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[110] ROSEN_190205_400.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[111] ROSEN_190205_402.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[112] ROSEN_190205_404.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[113] ROSEN_190205_406.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[114] ROSEN_190205_410.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[115] ROSEN_190205_412.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[116] ROSEN_190205_414.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[117] ROSEN_190205_415.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[118] ROSEN_190205_419.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[119] ROSEN_190205_420.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[120] ROSEN_190205_422.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[121] ROSEN_190205_429.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[122] ROSEN_190205_431.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[123] ROSEN_190211_001.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[124] ROSEN_190211_004.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[125] ROSEN_190211_006.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[126] ROSEN_190211_008.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[127] ROSEN_190211_015.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[128] ROSEN_190211_019.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[129] ROSEN_190211_023.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[130] ROSEN_190211_026.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[131] ROSEN_190211_029.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[132] ROSEN_190211_033.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[133] ROSEN_190211_037.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[134] ROSEN_190211_049.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[135] ROSEN_190211_053.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[136] ROSEN_190211_061.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[137] ROSEN_190211_064.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[138] ROSEN_190211_067.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[139] ROSEN_190211_071.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[140] ROSEN_190211_078.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[141] ROSEN_190211_083.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)
[142] ROSEN_190211_090.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)	[143] ROSEN_190211_098.JPG Medium (Email) (Bigger?)

Specific picture descriptions: Photos above with "i" icons next to the bracketed sequence numbers (e.g. "[1] ") are described as follows:
1. ROSEN_190205_007.JPG: "The Rosenburg - The Federal Ministry Of Justice In The Shadow Of The Nazi Past"
2. ROSEN_190205_061.JPG: Forgetting history = enabling a new start?
3. ROSEN_190205_075.JPG: Soap dish from the former Reich Ministry of Justice during the Nazi era.
4. ROSEN_190205_131.JPG: [1 Front] Democratic new beginning with former Nazi jurists? The Federal Ministry of Justice in the shadow of the Nazi past 01 The Federal Ministry of Justice The founding of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1949 also saw the creation of the Federal Ministry of Justice (BMJ). The new democracy was the alternative to Nazi dictatorship. The Basic Law gave high priority to human dignity and civil liberties. Within the ministries, however, the democratic new beginning often took place with former personnel from the Nazi period. Many jurists working in the Federal Ministry of Justice, for example, had previously worked in the Reich Ministry of Justice or in the judicial system of the Nazi dictatorship. The Federal Ministry of Justice set up an Independent Academic Commission to investigate the extent of this personnel-based continuity and its effects. The researchers gained access to all the Ministry's files for the first time. The findings of their work were presented in autumn 2016: "The Rosenburg Files". 02 Constitution Ministry To this day, the Federal Ministry of Justice is first and foremost a ministry that drafts legislation. It prepares the Federal Government's bills in the fields of civil law, criminal law, commercial and economic law and procedural law. As the "constitution ministry", it also examines the draft laws of other ministries to ensure their conformity with the Basic Law. The Ministry is also responsible for supervising the authorities in its area of competence, for example the Public Prosecutor General of the Federal Court of Justice. Administrative matters concerning the Federal Court of Justice, the Federal Administrative Court and the Federal Fiscal Court are also subject to its supervision. The Ministry also prepares the election of judges to these courts.
5. ROSEN_190205_142.JPG: The Rosenburg, a villa in Bonn, the former capital of the Federal Republic of Germany, was the seat of the Federal Ministry of Justice from 1950 to 1973.
6. ROSEN_190205_145.JPG: [1 Back] Democratic new beginning with former Nazi jurists? The Federal Ministry of Justice in the Shadow of the Nazi past 01 Why this Exhibition? This exhibition is part of a critical study of the National Socialist past of the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (BMJV). Supplemented by accompanying events, the exhibition is intended to present the results of the "Rosenburg Files" study and stimulate discussion. What until now has been "in the shadows" is to be brought to light. That is why the exhibition elements also have two sides: a brighter front side = public façade and a darker shadow side = background and abyss. The critical examination of Germany's Nazi past is not over – there are still many open questions. We are all part of this awareness-raising process, in which we learn from the mistakes of the past and prevent them happening in the future. 02 The Rosenburg Files Presentation of "The Rosenburg Files" by Professor Manfred Görtemaker and Professor Christoph Safferling to Heiko Maas, former Federal Minister of Justice, and his predecessor in office, Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger on 10 October 2016 in Berlin.
7. ROSEN_190205_156.JPG: [2 Back] Who were the staff? The organisation chart shows the staff structure at the Federal Ministry of Justice in 1957. The staff whose names appear with a grey background were members of the Nazi party or its sub-organisations before 1945, and those whose names appear on a darker background were seriously tainted by involvement with the National Socialist regime. The names of politically untainted members of staff are shown against a white background.
8. ROSEN_190205_159.JPG: [2 Back] Who were the staff?
9. ROSEN_190205_163.JPG: [2 Front] Who were the staff? "The Federal Ministry of Justice is regarded as the best-quality ministry in Bonn. It has staff of exceptional quality and with an exceptional willingness to serve our democratic system." Richard Jaeger, Federal Minister of Justice, 1965
10. ROSEN_190205_173.JPG: [3 Front] Only the best? The Federal Ministry of Justice's personal policy between 1949 and 1963 01 The "Final Denazification Law" Dr. Adenauer's objective of integrating the civil servants of the "Third Reich" in the new state was implemented in 1951. All former civil servants, judges, workers and employees of the Nazi state were given the right to be reemployed. The following exceptions were made: • those classified as "main offenders" or "offenders" in the denazification process. Across all the zones of occupation, this applied to only 1.4 percent of all the people vetted, of whom 1,071 were civil servants. • former members of the Gestapo or Waffen SS. An exception was made if they had taken on this activity "against their will", however. Since this was assumed even if they had consented to the transfer – which was almost always the case – members of the Gestapo and Waffen SS also had a right to reemployment. 02 Reliance of "Proven Personnel" Adenauer in his government declaration of 20 September 1949: "We stand fundamentally and decidedly on the ground of the civil service. Much misfortune and much harm have been caused by denazification. Those really guilty of the crimes committed in the Nazi period and during the war should be rigorously punished. But otherwise we should no longer put people into two categories: those who are politically irreproachable and those who are not irreproachable. This distinction must disappear as soon as possible." 03 Walter Strauss' Personnel Policy Dr. Walter Strauß – who was himself persecuted by the Nazis - was responsible for the BMJ's personnel policy between 1949 and 1963. He held the office of State Secretary in the Ministry of Justice under six Ministers of Justice. His personnel selection emphasised candidates' specialist legal skills. "People with the qualifications for such ministerial service are a relatively limited resource at all times (...). An administration can only perform such tasks (...) if it succeeds in recruiting the best men. (...) The decision should be based only on objective qualifications."
11. ROSEN_190205_187.JPG: [3 Back] Only the best? The Federal Ministry of Justice's Personnel Policy between 1949 and 1963 01 Nazis or Democrats? Strauss' view of Nazi Civil Servants Strauss consciously relied on jurists tainted by their Nazi involvement. He passed conspicuously lenient judgement in particular on ministry officials: "Certificates of good standing (Persilscheine) were unavoidable". Walter Strauss, 1976. "It was said that members of the civil service had nothing to set against National Socialism because, for lack of political expertise, they did not have the (...) sense of orientation and because in many cases they were outstanding technicians in their specialist fields - perhaps a specific German quality (...). Nominally, the vast majority in the higher echelons of ministerial bureaucracy maintained (...) their negative attitude towards National Socialism (...). A large majority, however, (...) simply carried on cooperating on the basis of this misguided technical attitude." Walter Strauss, Parliamentary Council, Main Committee Meeting held on 23 February 1949 Strauss pursued a personnel policy that led to a considerable number of personnel who had been involved with the Nazis being integrated into the BMJ. However, he did not instigate any targeted integration of people persecuted by the Nazis in senior positions, although presumably this would have easily been possible. Thus, in 1949, there were on the one hand 67 planned civil service appointments at the BMJ, and on the other 574 Jewish lawyers who had worked in the judicial system and had been thrown out of office after 1933. In Prussia, another 205 non-Jewish judicial officials had been dismissed on political grounds. Figures from Lothar Gruchmann, Justiz im Dritten Reich 1933-1940, Munich, 1987 02 How Walter Strauss dealt with people tainted by Nazi involvement: The Gessler Case "However, tough political vetting took place, particularly at that development stage." Walter Strauss, Stuttgart 1976 Dr. Ernst Gessler worked in the Reich Ministry of Justice until 1945 and from 1949 in the BMJ. The "tough vetting" of staff with regard to their Nazi past that Strauss retrospectively claimed had taken place did not take place in the 1950s. Only after 1965, after Strauss had left the Ministry, was a regular enquiry made to the Berlin Document Center, where the Nazi Party membership file was kept, when new appointments were made. Strauss had already been aware of key biographical data about staff from the personnel files back in 1949, however. The way in which he dealt with these data shows that he felt even extreme Nazi involvement, such as that of Dr. Ernst Gessler, to be unproblematic, and that he even strongly relativised it. This is shown in his statement on the case of Dr. Ernst Gessler, a senior civil servant at the BMJ. When in 1950, he was to be promoted to the position of Ministerialrat, the Federal Ministry of the Interior expressed its reservations. Gessler had been a member of the Nazi Party since 1933, a Rottenführer in the SA and had held the senior position of Oberregierungsrat in the Reich Ministry of Justice until 1945. Statements that were to be interpreted as anti-Semitic were also attributed to him. Although Strauss was aware of some of these statements, he attached no great importance to them. 03 The Nazi Involvement of BMJ Staff 53% Members of the Nazi Party 20% Members of the SA 3.5% Members of the SS The Nazi involvement of 170 senior staff at the BMJ between 1949 and 1973.
12. ROSEN_190205_192.JPG: Were professional skills more important that democratic values?
13. ROSEN_190205_217.JPG: [4 Front] Drawing a line under the past instead of dealing with the past? The Federal Ministry of Justice and its handling of Nazi criminals 01 Drawing a Line Under the Past Mentality In 1945, the Allies and the West German judiciary had quickly begun to bring Nazi criminals to justice. Yet the Germans' will to deal self-critically with the past soon slackened. In the judiciary, former Nazi judges returned to their posts and in society at large, the dominant mentality was to "draw a line under the past". The BMJ was involved in these developments in a number of ways. In the 1950s, the Ministry drafted two amnesty laws and in the 1960s, the BMJ was increasingly confronted with the Nazi past of its staff and advocated their exoneration. 02 Zeitgeist In the 1949 Bundestag election campaign, many political parties advocated putting an end to denazification. There was a widespread desire for an amnesty, not only on the political right, but across the political centre and into the milieu of the SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany). FDP election poster for the election to the Bundestag, 1949 03 Adenauer's plans for an amnesty From the beginning, the first Federal Chancellor Konrad Adenauer linked his assumption of government office with his will for an amnesty. His aim in so doing was to strengthen confidence in the new state. In his first government declaration of 20 September 1949, he underlined: "The war and also the turmoil of the post-war period have brought such a hard test for so many people and such temptations that one has to show understanding for some wrongdoings and offences. The question of an amnesty will therefore be examined by the Federal Government". 04 1949 Amnesty The first Federal Law drafted by the Federal Ministry of Justice in 1949 was the "Amnesty Law". Its main purpose was to deal with black market and property offences committed between May 1945 and 1949.
14. ROSEN_190205_222.JPG: [4 Back] Drawing a line under the past instead of dealing with the past? The Federal Ministry of Justice and its handling of Nazi criminals 01 The Amnesties of 1949 ... Already in 1949, black marketeers and people who stole to make ends meet were not the only ones to benefit from the amnesty. All prison sentences of up to 6 months and fines of up to DM 5,000 were amnestied. Nazi perpetrators convicted of assault or membership of criminal organisations (SS, Gestapo, SD, Führerkorps of the NSDAP) were among those benefiting from the amnesty. 02 ... And 1954 In 1954, a second Amnesty Law came into force. It covered all offences committed after 1 October 1944 for which a prison sentence of less than three years had been imposed or was threatened. That enabled crimes typical of the final phase of the war to go unpunished, for example the execution of "deserters" or crimes against prisoners of war. The law also amnestied anyone who "for political reasons" had concealed their civil status. This benefited Nazi perpetrators who had assumed a false identity after 1945 in order to evade prosecution. The law symbolised the attitude in West German society of "drawing a line under the past"; it was the political signal to the judiciary to end the prosecution of Nazi crimes. [Chart] Sentences passed by West German courts between 1945 and 1959 for Nazi crimes 03 A Model of Personnel-based Continuity Max Merten worked at the Reich Ministry of Justice from 1938 to 1942 and had processed enforcement law. In spring 1952, he was employed by the Federal Ministry of Justice and once again took up the post of Head of Division on Enforcement. With regard to his activities during the war, Merten had previously stated that he had been a war administration counsellor in Northern Greece. In a detailed curriculum vitae, he had presented himself to the BMJ as the rescuer of some 13,000 Greek Jews. 04 The Deportation of 50,000 Greek Jews to Auschwitz In autumn 1952, the Greek Public Prosecutor General handed over a list of wanted war criminals to the German authorities: it included the name Max Merten. Merten was said to have extorted considerable assets from Greek Jews in the Thessaloniki region by making false promises for their protection and later to have signed the decisive orders for their "resettlement". Some 45,000 to 50,000 people were subsequently deported to Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen; most were murdered. Having evidently been confronted with the Greek investigations by his superiors, Merten asked to be dismissed from the BMJ a few days later. He left the service – there were no criminal law consequences for him. 05 A Helping Hand for a Colleague (war criminal) Max Merten was so sure that he would not be held accountable for his actions that in spring 1957 he returned to Greece. To his great surprise, he was arrested and sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment by a special military court for war criminals in Athens. The BMJ then demonstrated a remarkable willingness to act on behalf of the war criminal and former colleague. Ernst Kanter, Head of the Criminal Law Directorate at the BMJ, travelled to Athens himself to make Merten's case – and was successful: Just 8 months after his conviction, Merten was handed over to Germany where, within a few days, he was released by the German judiciary. Max Merten's handcuffs are removed at the beginning of the trial in the Athens courtroom in March 1959.
15. ROSEN_190205_226.JPG: How can the intensive support for war criminals be explained?
16. ROSEN_190205_231.JPG: Sentences passed by West German courts between 1945 and 1959 for Nazi crimes.
17. ROSEN_190205_239.JPG: [5 Front] Should murder be subject to a statute of limitations? The Federal Ministry of Justice and the Statue of Limitations for Nazi Crimes 01 Debates on the Statute of Limitations In the early 1960s, a debate began in the Federal Republic of Germany on the statute of limitations for Nazi crimes. Under the Criminal Code, manslaughter offences were to be statute-barred from 8 May 1960 and murders were to be statute-barred from 8 May 1965. In spring 1960, the SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany) advocated enabling the judiciary to prosecute these offences for a few more years. The Federal Ministry of Justice strongly objected. The Bundestag rejected the SPD's applications and the manslaughter offences became statute-barred. In 1965, however, a majority in the Bundestag advocated a longer period within which Nazi murderers could be prosecuted. In an impressive speech, Ernst Benda, a young Bundestag deputy, had convinced many parliamentarians in favour of an extension. In 1979, the statute of limitations was finally abolished in cases of murder. Thus, perpetrators in Nazi extermination camps can still be tried today. Fritz Schäffer, Federal Minister of Justice: "I am convinced that the German people and the German legal system have already done the best that is possible to prosecute the crimes committed during the Nazi period. It is my conviction that today, there is no longer a danger that any major matter in this field remains undiscovered and therefore threatened by the statute of limitations." The statute of limitations debate was revived in 1965 when murders from the Nazi period threatened to become statute-barred. The Federal Minister of Justice was now Ewald Bucher, who from 1931 had been a member of the National Socialist Schoolchildren's League, had been awarded the Golden Party Badge of the Hitler Youth organisation and in 1937 had joined the Nazi Party. Once again, the Ministry and the Minster opposed a longer period of prosecutability for Nazi murders. Ewald Bucher, Federal Minister of Justice: "The exceptional situation referred to as the Third Reich has already been taken into account in that our judiciary has suspended the limitation period for specific Nazi crimes for the entire duration of the Nazi regime. That is something." Der Spiegel no. 5/1965 When Jewish organisations in New York demonstrated against the impending statute of Ewald Bucher, Federal Minister of limitations, Justice, accused them of provoking anti-Semitism: "It should not be overlooked that these demonstrations, mainly supported by Jewish organisations, could feed latent anti-Semitism in the world – after all, it is not just a German characteristic." Der Spiegel, no. 5/1965. 02 Today For a long time, many Nazi perpetrators could not be punished because their involvement in a specific killing in the concentration camps could not be demonstrated. In 2011, the courts changed their view. The proceedings against Gröning and Hanning represent a very late legal anyone who kept the SS Unterscharführer Oskar Gröning was deployed in Auschwitz concentration camp from 1942 to 1944 where he was responsible for administering prisoners' money. In 2015, he was convicted by the Regional Court Lüneburg as an accessory to murder in 300,000 cases. Oskar Gröning in SS uniform during his time in Auschwitz from 1942 to 1944 Oskar Gröning in court in Lüneburg, April 2015 SS Unterscharführer Oskar Gröning was deployed in Auschwitz concentration camp from 1942 to 1944 where he was responsible for administering prisoners' money. In 2015, he was convicted by the Regional Court Lüneburg as an accessory to murder in 300,000 cases. Reinhold Hanning in uniform as an SS Unterscharführer, around 1943/1944 Reinhold Hanning in the courtroom in Detmold, June 2016 SS Unterscharführer Reinhold Hanning was deployed at Auschwitz and Sachsenhausen concentration camps. In 2016, he was convicted by the Regional Court Detmold as an accessory to murder in 170,000 cases.
18. ROSEN_190205_256.JPG: [5 Back] Should murder be subject to a statute of limitations? The Federal Ministry of Justice and the Statue of Limitations for Nazi Crimes 01 Cold Amnesty In 1968, a limitation of Nazi crimes unintended by the legislator took place. Discussions continue to this day as to how this "limitation mistake" could have happened. It has often been suspected that Dr. Eduard Dreher, who was in charge of criminal law reform at the BMJ, sneaked this "cold amnesty" past the legislator. It may certainly be assumed that he was well aware of the consequences and knowingly did nothing. Dr. Dreher profited personally from the amendment since in 1968 he had to reckon on being called to account for his Nazi past. 02 Did Dreher Manipulate the Situation? 24 MAY 1968 The Bundestag adopts the Introductory Act to the Act on Regulatory Offences. It includes an amendment to Section 50 of the Criminal Code. The Act is to come into force on 1 October 1968. 17 SEPTEMBER 1968 Rudolf Schmitt, Judge in the Fifth Criminal Senate of the Federal Court of Justice, tells a member of staff at the BMJ that the amendment to the Act could result in ongoing criminal proceedings for Nazi crimes being stopped on account of the statute of limitations. 23 SEPTEMBER 1968 Richard Sturm, Head of Division at the BMJ, passes on the information orally to his superior Dr. Eduard Dreher. Dreher does nothing. 26 SEPTEMBER 1968 Richard Sturm informs Dr. Dreher and the Head of Directorate-General Hans-Joachim Krüger in writing of the information from Rudolf Schmitt, a Judge at the Federal Court of Justice. Neither State Secretary Horst Ehmke nor Federal Minister of Justice Gustav Heinemann is informed of the problem. Thus, no attempt is made to amend the act at short notice. 1 OCTOBER 1968 The Introductory Act to the Act on Regulatory Offences (Einführungsgesetz zum Gesetz über Ordnungs widrigkeiten – EGOWiG) comes into force. 20 MAY 1969 The Fifth Criminal Senate of the Federal Court of Justice decides that "base motives", such as racial hatred, are special personal characteristics within the meaning of the new Section 50 II of the Criminal Code. This means that all cases of being an accessory to murder on account of racial hatred become statute-barred. Under the 16th Amendment to the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch - StGB) of 1979, the statute of limitations for murder was lifted in the cases of perpetrators and accomplices (accessories) for all offences not yet statute-barred before this date. Thus, today, Nazi crimes can be prosecuted. 03 Revised Version Section 50 II of the Criminal Code 1968 The following second paragraph was inserted into Section 50 of the Criminal Code: "(2) If special personal characteristics, conditions or circumstances (particularly personal traits) are lacking in the case of an accomplice on which to establish the criminal liability of a perpetrator, his punishment shall be mitigated in accordance with the regulations on the punishment of an attempt." 04 The Effect of the "Statute of Limitations Mistake" "If special personal traits are lacking (...)" From 1969, the Federal Court of Justice treated racial hatred as a "personal trait". "(...) in the case of an accomplice" From the 1950s, people who obeyed orders to kill Jews were regarded as accomplices (accessories) and not as perpetrators. "(...) the sentence shall be mitigated." The sentence was now reduced. From now on, the maximum sentence was 15 years' imprisonment and not, as previously, life imprisonment. In the legislative process, a provision that reduced the maximum sentence without shortening the period of limitations is forgotten.
19. ROSEN_190205_263.JPG: How did the "statute of limitations mistake" happen?
20. ROSEN_190205_283.JPG: The victims of Nazi genocide in the concentration camps
21. ROSEN_190205_285.JPG: Dachau concentration camp
22. ROSEN_190205_287.JPG: [6 Front] Prisoners of war or war criminals? The "Central Division for Legal Protection to Germans Prosecuted Abroad" in the Federal Ministry of Justice official help and warnings for Nazi criminals 01 Help for Prisoners of War It went without saying that the young Federal Republic of Germany would work committedly on behalf of former German soldiers held abroad as prisoners of war. However, former Nazi jurists in the Ministry used their knowledge about the whereabouts of "old comrades" to warn them of the threat of prosecution abroad. Thus, under the cloak of offering legitimate legal assistance, an efficient "early warning system" was set up, benefiting a large number of war criminals who had absconded abroad. How much did the Federal Government know about this secret dual function? 02 The Founding of the Central Division On 1 December 1949, the Bundestag passed a resolution to set up a Central Division for Legal Protection to Germans Prosecuted Abroad (Zentrale Rechtsschutzstelle – ZRS). Its task was to provide legal assistance for Germans being held abroad as prisoners of war or facing charges on account of their actions during the Nazi period. Thomas Dehler, Federal Minister of Justice, to the Bundestag on 1 December 1949: "The Federal Government recognises the need to provide legal protection for Germans detained and prosecuted abroad as a result of the war - not with a view (...) to granting protection to war criminals, but at least to do our part to grant these people the most primitive legal guarantees." 03 The Leading Figures Dr. Hans Gawlik took overall charge. Dr. Gawlik had been a public prosecutor in Breslau before 1945 and subsequently worked as counsel for the defence. He had experience of criminal trials and was the Director of the "Coordination Office for the Promotion of Legal Protection for German Prisoners Abroad" at the Länder Council in Stuttgart.
23. ROSEN_190205_315.JPG: Prisoners of war or war criminals? The "Central Division for Legal Protection to Germans Prosecuted Abroad" in the Federal Ministry of Justice official help and warnings for Nazi criminals "On the basis of the Ordonnance of August 1944 that was authoritative during the trials in France (...), it is assumed that every member of an SS or SD unit or of the Feldgendarmerie is guilty, unless he proves that he was forced to join these organisations or was not involved in the act in question, proof that is practically impossible to provide. (...) I am only telling you this to show you how necessary it is for us to help the defendants from here so that there is the possibility of adequate legal protection." Thomas Dehler, German Bundestag, 1 December 1949 01 Political Tailwind The French High Commissioner André François-Poncet accused the Central Division for Legal Protection of systematically attempting to "present those convicted as victims of Allied justice." André François-Poncet: Letter to Adenauer of 2 July 1951 Adenauer replied to François-Poncet on 2 August 1951 in a letter largely drafted by Walter Strauss, State Secretary at the BMJ: "The Federal Government exercises its right and its duty through this department to grant legal protection to German citizens accused or sentenced by Allied courts for war crimes. (...)." Dr. Konrad Adenauer, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany from 1949 to 1963 02 A Fatal Choice The choice of Dr. Gawlik as Director of the Central Division for Legal Protection proved fatal. From 1933, Dr. Gawlik had been a Nazi Party member and associate judge at the Nazi Gau Court in Lower Silesia. From 1942, he had worked as a public prosecutor at the special court in Breslau, where he had been involved in passing many death sentences. He was part of the Nazis' politicised penal judicial system that imposed death sentences on supposed enemies of the regime for even the most trivial offences. After 1945, Dr. Gawlik had acted as defence counsel for Nazi criminals. He appeared at the Nuremberg trials and later defended Waldemar Hoven, an SS camp doctor at Buchenwald concentration camp. Dr. Gawlik thus consistently used the opportunities of the Legal Protection Division to warn Nazi war criminals and protect them from punishment. 03 Secret Advice Encouraged by the political tailwind, Dr. Gawlik operated in particular in the Western countries. Here there was more hope of achieving something on behalf of the perpetrators than in East Germany, Yugoslavia or the USSR. By mid-1950, 2,784 people, mainly convicted or wanted war criminals, were being advised. The Central Legal Protection Division developed into an instrument that protected Nazi perpetrators who were officially being sought. In 1953, Dr. Gawlik and his division were transferred to the Federal Foreign Office. The Central Legal Protection Division informed Nazi perpetrators that they had been convicted and were being sought. The perpetrators reacted by going underground, thus escaping their punishment.
24. ROSEN_190205_335.JPG: [7 Front] Convincing facade? Handling of its own case 01 The "Spirit" of the Rosenburg The romanticism of the building rubbed off on the mood of the staff. They deliberately looked forward, not back. This attitude enabled past injustice to be ignored. This self-imposed amnesia stood in contrast to a demonstrative enthusiasm for the new start. It is reflected in nostalgic memoires. Sometimes, however, the brown surface below the carefully applied whitewash became visible again. How did those who were exposed justify their actions? "It was a pleasant, very lively time. (...) People came together for meals, not just at lunchtime. Many people also had their evening meal in the canteen. Back then, official hours of duty played no role. (...) To sum up, one can say: A lot of work was done, and done effectively." Eduard Dreher, in: Der Geist der Rosenburg, 1991 "Free weekends had not yet been introduced and often even Sundays had to be used for official work." Heinrich von Spreckelsen, in: Der Geist der Rosenburg, 1991 "In my view, the drive and energy of the Federal authorities and parliamentary bodies of that period can be explained mainly by the immense need for regulation and the will of all the staff to prove themselves in the unique opportunity to build the young republic. We all wanted to achieve something, we all wanted to prove our motivation to ourselves and to others." Heinrich von Spreckelsen, in: Der Geist der Rosenburg, 1991. In 1991, the BMJ Staff Council published a volume of reminiscences entitled "The Spirit of the Rosenburg. Memories of the Early Years of the Federal Ministry of Justice". It made no mention of the are not to gradually fall into oblivion, the memories have to be put on paper (...)." From the preface to "Der Geist der Rosenburg", 1991 02 Suppress or be silent? Looking back, those involved presented the years in which the BMJ was accommodated in the sequestered, picturesque Rosenburg as a time of intensive joint work and the performance of duties. What is entirely lacking in the "spirit of Rosenburg" that is repeatedly invoked is a critical reflection of the years before 1945. People often knew each other from the Nazi years and knew about many colleagues' Nazi involvement. The fact that people hardly discussed these years among themselves is interpreted partly as a collective suppression of the Nazi period and thus as a failed attempt to reestablish the state. Another socio-psychological interpretation by Hermann Lübbe sees in this process a "communicative silence." People avoided an open critical discussion of National Socialism in order not to have to discuss people's individual involvement.
25. ROSEN_190205_354.JPG: How did the perpetuators justify themselves?
26. ROSEN_190205_358.JPG: [7 Back] Convincing facade? Handling of its own past 01 Living a lie? Justification strategies From the 1950s, the past of BMJ staff tainted by their Nazi involvement was increasingly revealed to the public. The people concerned had to answer to the Ministry and the general public for what they had done. There were recurring patterns of justification: 02 "The war was an exceptional situation" Dr. Eduard Dreher • 1943-1945: First Public Prosecutor at the Special Court Innsbruck • He was involved in passing many death sentences for minor offences • In 1959, the first case during the Nazi period came to light in which Dreher had applied for the death penalty • He invoked having complied with the established case law of the Reich Court The Basic Law had abolished the death penalty. Yet in 1958, Dr. Dreher was still justifying the death penalty in wartime. "Indeed, the whole issue changes quite fundamentally in wartime. (...) Life imprisonment definitely cannot be a substitute for the death penalty in this case. In wartime, when the whole nation is in mortal danger, deprivation of freedom is in itself a weak measure. This is particularly the case when the convicted person can expect to regain his freedom at the end of the war or even more than that, can expect a reward from a possibly victorious enemy." Eduard Dreher: Für und Wider die Todesstrafe (For and Against the Death Penalty). In: Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, volume 70, 1958, page 543 et seqq. 03 "I was only involved in order to prevent worse things from happening" Franz Massfeller • Massfeller had worked in the Family Law Division of the Reich Ministry of Justice between 1934 and 1943 • He wrote a commentary on the Nuremberg Race Laws • In 1942, he took part in two follow-up conferences to the Wannsee Conference in which the topics of discussion were the dissolution of "mixed marriages" and forced sterilisation • At the Wannsee Conference, the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question", the genocide of the Jews of Europe, was discussed 04 "I had absolutely no idea..." Heinrich Ebersberg • From 1942, he was personal assistant to Otto Thierack, Reich Minister of Justice • He was aware of countless judicial crimes committed by the Nazis, such as the failure to prosecute "euthanasia" murders or the "special treatment" of prisoners, leading to their death • In 1969, the judiciary carried out investigations against him as an accessory to the murder of prisoners • The BMJ initiated disciplinary proceedings against him • In 1970, the criminal proceedings against him were stopped on account of the statute of limitations due to the "cold amnesty" of 1968 • Ebersberg lost his position as Head of Directorate, however, but remained Head of Division "As a young person, I had no influence on the then Reich Minister of Justice, whose attitude was absolutely authoritarian." Note by Heinrich Ebersberg, 1968
27. ROSEN_190205_360.JPG: [8 Back] Georg Petersen before the Reich Court, 1940: "In any case, the (...) general basic idea taken from the racial policy laws must be taken into account to eliminate the Jewish influence from German business." 01 The Federal Court of Justice and the BMJ: Kindred Spirits? The BMJ and the judiciary were closely linked. The Ministry contributed to the selection of judges at the Federal Court of Justice. Conversely, many BMJ staff had previously worked in the judiciary. There was also a high level of continuity with the Nazi judiciary at the Federal Court of Justice. Of the judges working at the Federal Court of Justice in 1962, 77 per cent had previously worked in the Nazi judiciary. As a result, little distance was created in the BMJ from the jurisprudence of the Reich Court, which closed in 1945. Georg Petersen, the first Director-General for Civil Law at the BMJ, is a striking example. 02 Georg Petersen: From Looters' Counsel To Director-General At The BMJ On the opening of the BMJ in 1950, Petersen invoked the "tradition of the Reich court" as a role model. As an example, he stated that even in the Nazi period, the Reich Court's decision-making yardsticks had been "good faith" and "common decency". A problematic resource, since these undefined legal terms enabled Nazi ideology to be superimposed on existing regulations, thereby systematically depriving opponents and persecuted people of their rights. 03 The Federal Court of Justice and the "Gypsies" A residue of Nazi racial ideology is also to be found in the jurisprudence of the Federal Court of Justice in connection with the compensation of Sinti and Roma. In 1956, the Federal Court of Justice rejected such claims because it was said that "Gypsies" were not taken away to the concentration camps purely on racist grounds. "Since the Gypsies have largely resisted settlement and thus adaptation to the settled population, they are regarded as antisocial. Experience shows that they have a tendency towards crime, particularly theft and fraud, and often lack the moral motivation to respect other people's property because, like primitive prehistoric people, they have an uninhibited inherent urge towards occupation. (...) The purpose of all public authority measures (...) was not to persecute Gypsies specifically on account of their race, but to protect the rest of society from their socially damaging actions based on strange group traits. (...)" Judgment by the Federal Court of Justice of 7 January 1956 The Federal Court of Justice even justified a circular from Heinrich Himmler, the Head of the SS, of 8 December 1938. In particular, it said, this circular indicated "that in spite of the occurrence of racial ideology aspects, it is not race as such that is the reason for the orders given, but the Gypsies' antisocial characteristics referred to before." 04 The Victims' Concerns: Overlooked and Ignored The Fourth Rosenburg Symposium of the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection in October 2014 prompted the Federal Court of Justice to subject its "Gypsy" jurisprudence to critical examination.
28. ROSEN_190205_375.JPG: [8 Front] Discrimination by law? What Remained of Nazi Law After 1945? 01 Criminalization of Homosexuals Not only did many of the legal personnel of the Nazi regime remain in office in the young Federal Republic – many laws also remained in force. Only evidently unjust laws were abolished or amended by the Allies and the Federal Republic. In the Criminal Code in particular, Nazi influences remain to this day, for example in the sections on murder (Section 211 of the Criminal Code), the reform of which is still under discussion. The competent actors in the BMJ did too little to bring about a constitutional renewal of the laws. In significant cases, they repeatedly adhered to the status quo, for example concerning the punishability of homosexuality. National Socialism had an evident influence on State Secretary Walter Strauss' attitude to homosexuality. He favoured the strict punishment of homosexuals in the civil service who used their position to support homosexuals. To substantiate this view, Dr. Strauss referred to the Röhm Putsch of 1934. Nazi propaganda had presented the murder of Ernst Röhm and the SA leadership as the suppression of a supposed homosexual conspiracy. 02 Stock Corporation Legislation The continuation of Nazi law was not limited to criminal law. In supposedly politically less highly charged areas such as civil and commercial law, the Federal German legislator followed the law of the Nazi period. An example is the Stock Corporation Act of 1937 with its decision to strip the general meeting of shareholders and the supervisory board of their powers and to give the Executive Board practically unlimited management powers. "The Board has to manage a company on its own responsibility as required to ensure the well-being of the operations and their supporters and the general benefit of the people and the Reich." (Section 70 (1), Stock Corporation Act of 1937) This wording allowed large companies to be controlled in the interests of Nazi ideology, particularly the war economy. The legislator of 1937 distrusted shareholders and the supervisory boards elected by them. "Operation managers" were to have their say. After 8 May 1945, the Stock Corporation Act of 1937 remained in force for another twenty years. Even today, shareholders and supervisory boards have very weak codetermination rights. Stock corporation legislation shows the connection between personnel-based and content-based continuities. Dr. Ernst Geßler was in charge of stock corporation legislation at the BMJ for years. He had previously collaborated on the reform of the Stock Corporation Act of 1937 at the Reich Ministry of Justice. Geßler remained distrustful of the effectiveness of democratic decisions in companies. Inconsistency in dealing with the Nazi past: Dr. Ernst Geßler, stock corporation law expert and former Nazi Party member, is handed the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany by Gerhard Jahn, Federal Minister of Justice. During the Nazi period, Jahn was deemed to be a "half-Jew"; his mother was murdered in Auschwitz concentration camp. 1871 Section 175 of the Criminal Code criminalises "unnatural fornication" between men. 1935 The Nazi regime strengthens Section 175, but in particular, the Reich Court changes its jurisprudence, enabling even acts involving no physical contact to be punished as "fornication". There is a dramatic increase in the number of homosexuals subject to criminal prosecution. 1945 Section 175 of the Criminal Code remains in force unchanged. 1951/1967 On two occasions, the Association of German Jurists speaks out in favour of decriminalising homosexuality. Medical associations and the Grand Criminal Law Commission deployed by the BMJ also plead in favour of decriminalisation. However, civil servants at the BMJ hold fast to punishability, also using arguments from the Nazi period. 1969 Homosexual acts between adults are decriminalised. Between 1945 and 1969, approximately 50,000 men were sentenced under Section 175 of the Criminal Code. 1994 Discriminatory youth protection regulations in the legislation governing sexual offences are lifted and Section 175 of the Criminal Code is fi nally deleted. 2017 With the Act of 17 July 2017, individuals who had been convicted of consensual homosexual acts after 1945 were criminally rehabilitated: their judgments were annulled by law. Furthermore, they are now entitled to monetary compensation for suffering the stigma of a criminal record and the deprivation of liberty associated with their criminal judgments.
29. ROSEN_190205_377.JPG: 1935 The Nazi regime strengthens Section 175, but in particular, the Reich Court changes its jurisprudence, enabling even acts involving no physical contact to be punished as "fornication". There is a dramatic increase in the number of homosexuals subject to criminal prosecution.
30. ROSEN_190205_393.JPG: [8 Back] Discrimination by law? What remained of Nazi law after 1945? Georg Petersen before the Reich Court, 1940: "In any case, the (...) general basic idea taken from the racial policy laws must be taken into account to eliminate the Jewish influence from German business." 01 The Federal Court of Justice and the BMJ: Kindred Spirits? The BMJ and the judiciary were closely linked. The Ministry contributed to the selection of judges at the Federal Court of Justice. Conversely, many BMJ staff had previously worked in the judiciary. There was also a high level of continuity with the Nazi judiciary at the Federal Court of Justice. Of the judges working at the Federal Court of Justice in 1962, 77 per cent had previously worked in the Nazi judiciary. As a result, little distance was created in the BMJ from the jurisprudence of the Reich Court, which closed in 1945. Georg Petersen, the first Director-General for Civil Law at the BMJ, is a striking example. 02 Georg Petersen: From looters' counsel to Director-General at the BMJ On the opening of the BMJ in 1950, Petersen invoked the "tradition of the Reich court" as a role model. As an example, he stated that even in the Nazi period, the Reich Court's decision-making yardsticks had been "good faith" and "common decency". A problematic resource, since these undefined legal terms enabled Nazi ideology to be superimposed on existing regulations, thereby systematically depriving opponents and persecuted people of their rights. 03 The Federal Court of Justice and the "gypsies" A residue of Nazi racial ideology is also to be found in the jurisprudence of the Federal Court of Justice in connection with the compensation of Sinti and Roma. In 1956, the Federal Court of Justice rejected such claims because it was said that "Gypsies" were not taken away to the concentration camps purely on racist grounds. "Since the Gypsies have largely resisted settlement and thus adaptation to the settled population, they are regarded as antisocial. Experience shows that they have a tendency towards crime, particularly theft and fraud, and often lack the moral motivation to respect other people's property because, like primitive prehistoric people, they have an uninhibited inherent urge towards occupation. (...) The purpose of all public authority measures (...) was not to persecute Gypsies specifically on account of their race, but to protect the rest of society from their socially damaging actions based on strange group traits. (...)" Judgment by the Federal Court of Justice of 7 January 1956 The Federal Court of Justice even justified a circular from Heinrich Himmler, the Head of the SS, of 8 December 1938. In particular, it said, this circular indicated "that in spite of the occurrence of racial ideology aspects, it is not race as such that is the reason for the orders given, but the Gypsies' antisocial characteristics referred to before." 04 The Victim's Concerns: Overlooked and Ignored
31. ROSEN_190205_400.JPG: How long did the Nazi laws remain valid for?
32. ROSEN_190205_406.JPG: [9 Front] No End to History The Current Ministry's Handling of its Own Past "There is no end to history. Even today, there are dangers to humanity and freedom that jurists, in their respective positions, have to resist. A knowledge of history can sharpen people's senses when human rights and the rule of law are being called into question again. In order to reinforce this ethos, the injustice caused by German jurists should be a compulsory subject in jurists' training." Excerpt from the speech by Heiko Maas, former Federal Minister of Justice and Consumer Protection 01 Consequences "The Rosenburg Files" showed the failures of the past. Now consequences have to be drawn for the present. For much too long, jurists in Germany understood themselves to be apolitical legal technicians; this attitude made many of them accomplices of Nazi injustice. Today, jurists should live and defend the values of the Basic Law – human dignity, individual freedom and social diversity. In order to further strengthen this ethos, Nazi injustice should become an obligatory subject of legal training. The Federal Ministry of Justice has launched a new in-service training programme and has commissioned a study of its official building in Berlin. As part of Berlin's Jewish textile-making district, many of its former owners and users were murdered in the Holocaust. All the Ministry's employees should be aware of this past and of the responsibility each and every one of them has for a free state under the rule of law. The work on "The Rosenburg Files" was accompanied by many public symposia. These events and this exhibition are intended to encourage other institutions also to deal with their own past and to ask what each of us can do today to protect human dignity, freedom and diversity. 02 Self-Criticism "The Rosenburg Files" also prompted many older people to ask themselves self-critically how they dealt with the Nazi contamination of leading jurists in the past. Dr. Hans-Jochen Vogel was Federal Minister of Justice from 1974 to 1981. In late 2016, he gave his opinion on camera on his own responsibility and the consequences of the historical findings.
33. ROSEN_190205_422.JPG: [9 Back] No End to History The Current Ministry's Handling of its Own Past And what lessons do you learn from history?
34. ROSEN_190205_431.JPG: ... and what are the consequences for the present?
35. ROSEN_190211_008.JPG: 1961 EICHMANN TRIAL The Eichmann Trial, which was held in Jerusalem in 1961, attracted world-wide attention. Adolf Eichmann was a former SS Obersturmbannführer and as such was responsible for the expulsion, deportation and thus murder of European Jews. After going underground in Buenos Aires for years, he was abducted and taken to Israel by Mossad, the Israeli secret service, and put on trial there. Not least, this trial changed the image of Nazi perpetrators. Initially, after 1945, the SS and the Gestapo had been identified as the main groups of perpetrators who had been involved in the extermination of the Jews, emphasising the image of the lower-class criminal murderer and thug. The Eichmann trial gave rise to the image of the "perpetrator behind his desk" from the bourgeois elite. Now the Holocaust appeared to be an industrialised mass extermination process ("death factories") in which the individual disappears in the faceless apparatus of the extermination machine. Only in the 1990s did research on the perpetrators detach itself from these images, once again placing the focus more strongly on perpetrators' individual actions and motivations.
36. ROSEN_190211_015.JPG: 1963-1965 AUSCHWITZ TRIAL IN FRANKFURT AM MAIN Starting in 1963, 22 former SS men from Auschwitz concentration camp were put on trial in Frankfurt. There had been considerable resistance to the trial from within the judiciary. It was only through the untiring commitment of the Hessian Public Prosecutor General Fritz Bauer that the proceedings took place. The trial lasted 20 months; more than 200 Auschwitz survivors were heard as witnesses. The proceedings, which attracted great media interest in Germany and abroad, showed the public the whole inconceivable dimensions of the mass murders committed in Auschwitz for the first time. The trial had a broad influence on the social image of the typical Nazi criminal. Most of those who bore the main responsibility for the organised mass murders came from the middle class, and were doctors, businessmen, craftsmen or bank managers. The lack of sympathy and remorse shown by the suspects on trial shocked many observers. These trials resulted in six defendants being sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. Ten defendants were sentenced to between three and fourteen years' imprisonment. Three defendants were acquitted. The court held that a sentence could only be passed if it could be demonstrated that each perpetrator had been specifically involved in committing a murder; thus, in the subsequent period there were only a few proceedings against people who had borne responsibility in the concentration camps. It was not until 2011 that the legal view taken by Fritz Bauer prevailed in the proceedings against former concentration camp guard John Demjanjuk. Anyone who kept the murder machinery going through his activity in an extermination camp was an accessory to murder. This change of legal view led to new trials against former SS men, such as Oskar Gröning in Lüneburg in 2015 and Reinhold Hanning in Detmold in 2016.
37. ROSEN_190211_019.JPG: Order form for phenol (carbolic acid). It was used to kill prisoners by an injection into the heart.
38. ROSEN_190211_023.JPG: Sketch of the courtroom in Haus Gallus by Erich Dittmann, view from the press gallery
39. ROSEN_190211_026.JPG: Auschwitzprozess Mai 1964 = Auschwitz Trial, May 1964 Skizze Erich Dittmann = Sketch by Erich Dittmann Blick von der Pressetribüne FFM = View from the press gallery in Frankfurt am Main Akten = Files Angeklagte = Defendants Bühne = Bench Dolmetscherin = Interpreter Justizbeamter = Judicial offi cial Lagerkarte Auschwitz = Plan of Auschwitz camp Nebenkläger = Auxiliary prosecutors Polizei = Police Radiotechnik = Radio technicians Rechtsanwälte = Attorneys Richter = Judges Staatsanwälte = Public prosecutors Standkarten = Bulletin board maps Zeuge = Witness Zuschauer = Spectators
40. ROSEN_190211_033.JPG: 1958 ULM EINSATZGRUPPEN TRIAL Between April and August 1958, the first trial before a German jury court in connection with the Nazi mass murders of Jews took place in Ulm. The accused were ten members of a task force that had killed more than 5,000 Jewish men, women and children in the German-Lithuanian border area in 1941. Public knowledge of these crimes brought about a change in the public mood. In an opinion poll carried out in West Germany before the judgment, 54% of those polled were in favour of punishing Nazi crimes. In view of the fact that the previous dominant view had been to reject denazification and Allied trials, it is likely that a much lower number would have been in favour in an earlier poll. The accused Edwin Sakuth, Harm Harms and Bernhard Fischer-Schweder during the Ulm Einsatzgruppen trial, 1958 Journalists and observers in court during the Ulm Einsatzgruppen trial, 1958
41. ROSEN_190211_037.JPG: 1957 THE BEGINNING OF THE GDR'S BROWN BOOK CAMPAIGN During the Cold War, the GDR collected a great deal of material against war criminals and Nazi perpetrators in the Federal Republic of Germany. Between 1957 and 1968, the GDR published a number of so-called "Brown Books", in which it publicised the Nazi past of the West German political, business, legal and academic elites. Initially dismissed as Communist agitation, the accusations generally turned out to be correct and also aroused international attention. The revelations led to the resignation of Federal Public Prosecutor General Ludwig Fränkel and Hans Krüger, Federal Minister of Displaced Persons. The West German authorities reacted, more frequently requesting information on senior officials from the Berlin Document Center, where the Nazi Party membership file was kept. Albert Norden, Member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED) and author of the Brown Book, here in 1962
42. ROSEN_190211_049.JPG: [1 Front] Democratic new beginning with former Nazi jurists? The Federal Ministry of Justice in the shadow of the Nazi past 01 The Federal Ministry of Justice The founding of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1949 also saw the creation of the Federal Ministry of Justice (BMJ). The new democracy was the alternative to Nazi dictatorship. The Basic Law gave high priority to human dignity and civil liberties. Within the ministries, however, the democratic new beginning often took place with former personnel from the Nazi period. Many jurists working in the Federal Ministry of Justice, for example, had previously worked in the Reich Ministry of Justice or in the judicial system of the Nazi dictatorship. The Federal Ministry of Justice set up an Independent Academic Commission to investigate the extent of this personnel-based continuity and its effects. The researchers gained access to all the Ministry's files for the first time. The findings of their work were presented in autumn 2016: "The Rosenburg Files". 02 Constitution Ministry To this day, the Federal Ministry of Justice is first and foremost a ministry that drafts legislation. It prepares the Federal Government's bills in the fields of civil law, criminal law, commercial and economic law and procedural law. As the "constitution ministry", it also examines the draft laws of other ministries to ensure their conformity with the Basic Law. The Ministry is also responsible for supervising the authorities in its area of competence, for example the Public Prosecutor General of the Federal Court of Justice. Administrative matters concerning the Federal Court of Justice, the Federal Administrative Court and the Federal Fiscal Court are also subject to its supervision. The Ministry also prepares the election of judges to these courts.
43. ROSEN_190211_061.JPG: [2 Front] Who were the staff? "The Federal Ministry of Justice is regarded as the best-quality ministry in Bonn. It has staff of exceptional quality and with an exceptional willingness to serve our democratic system." Richard Jaeger, Federal Minister of Justice, 1965 "When I was called to the Federal Ministry of Justice on 1 November 1962, I entered an institution where ‘old hands' had been at their desks for 10 years or more, (...) So understandably, it was with a ‘shiver of awe' that I entered this circle." Erich Corves, Head of Directorate, BMJ, 1991
44. ROSEN_190211_064.JPG: [3 Front] Only the best? The Federal Ministry of Justice's personal policy between 1949 and 1963 01 The "Final Denazification Law" Dr. Adenauer's objective of integrating the civil servants of the "Third Reich" in the new state was implemented in 1951. All former civil servants, judges, workers and employees of the Nazi state were given the right to be reemployed. The following exceptions were made: • those classified as "main offenders" or "offenders" in the denazification process. Across all the zones of occupation, this applied to only 1.4 percent of all the people vetted, of whom 1,071 were civil servants. • former members of the Gestapo or Waffen SS. An exception was made if they had taken on this activity "against their will", however. Since this was assumed even if they had consented to the transfer – which was almost always the case – members of the Gestapo and Waffen SS also had a right to reemployment. 02 Reliance of "Proven Personnel" Adenauer in his government declaration of 20 September 1949: "We stand fundamentally and decidedly on the ground of the civil service. Much misfortune and much harm have been caused by denazification. Those really guilty of the crimes committed in the Nazi period and during the war should be rigorously punished. But otherwise we should no longer put people into two categories: those who are politically irreproachable and those who are not irreproachable. This distinction must disappear as soon as possible." 03 Walter Strauss' Personnel Policy Dr. Walter Strauß – who was himself persecuted by the Nazis - was responsible for the BMJ's personnel policy between 1949 and 1963. He held the office of State Secretary in the Ministry of Justice under six Ministers of Justice. His personnel selection emphasised candidates' specialist legal skills. "People with the qualifications for such ministerial service are a relatively limited resource at all times (...). An administration can only perform such tasks (...) if it succeeds in recruiting the best men. (...) The decision should be based only on objective qualifications."
45. ROSEN_190211_067.JPG: [3 Back] Only the best? The Federal Ministry of Justice's Personnel Policy between 1949 and 1963 01 Nazis or Democrats? Strauss' view of Nazi Civil Servants Strauss consciously relied on jurists tainted by their Nazi involvement. He passed conspicuously lenient judgement in particular on ministry officials: "Certificates of good standing (Persilscheine) were unavoidable". Walter Strauss, 1976. "It was said that members of the civil service had nothing to set against National Socialism because, for lack of political expertise, they did not have the (...) sense of orientation and because in many cases they were outstanding technicians in their specialist fields - perhaps a specific German quality (...). Nominally, the vast majority in the higher echelons of ministerial bureaucracy maintained (...) their negative attitude towards National Socialism (...). A large majority, however, (...) simply carried on cooperating on the basis of this misguided technical attitude." Walter Strauss, Parliamentary Council, Main Committee Meeting held on 23 February 1949 Strauss pursued a personnel policy that led to a considerable number of personnel who had been involved with the Nazis being integrated into the BMJ. However, he did not instigate any targeted integration of people persecuted by the Nazis in senior positions, although presumably this would have easily been possible. Thus, in 1949, there were on the one hand 67 planned civil service appointments at the BMJ, and on the other 574 Jewish lawyers who had worked in the judicial system and had been thrown out of office after 1933. In Prussia, another 205 non-Jewish judicial officials had been dismissed on political grounds. Figures from Lothar Gruchmann, Justiz im Dritten Reich 1933-1940, Munich, 1987 02 How Walter Strauss dealt with people tainted by Nazi involvement: The Gessler Case "However, tough political vetting took place, particularly at that development stage." Walter Strauss, Stuttgart 1976 Dr. Ernst Gessler worked in the Reich Ministry of Justice until 1945 and from 1949 in the BMJ. The "tough vetting" of staff with regard to their Nazi past that Strauss retrospectively claimed had taken place did not take place in the 1950s. Only after 1965, after Strauss had left the Ministry, was a regular enquiry made to the Berlin Document Center, where the Nazi Party membership file was kept, when new appointments were made. Strauss had already been aware of key biographical data about staff from the personnel files back in 1949, however. The way in which he dealt with these data shows that he felt even extreme Nazi involvement, such as that of Dr. Ernst Gessler, to be unproblematic, and that he even strongly relativised it. This is shown in his statement on the case of Dr. Ernst Gessler, a senior civil servant at the BMJ. When in 1950, he was to be promoted to the position of Ministerialrat, the Federal Ministry of the Interior expressed its reservations. Gessler had been a member of the Nazi Party since 1933, a Rottenführer in the SA and had held the senior position of Oberregierungsrat in the Reich Ministry of Justice until 1945. Statements that were to be interpreted as anti-Semitic were also attributed to him. Although Strauss was aware of some of these statements, he attached no great importance to them. 03 The Nazi Involvement of BMJ Staff 53% Members of the Nazi Party 20% Members of the SA 3.5% Members of the SS The Nazi involvement of 170 senior staff at the BMJ between 1949 and 1973.
46. ROSEN_190211_071.JPG: [4 Front] Drawing a line under the past instead of dealing with the past? The Federal Ministry of Justice and its handling of Nazi criminals 01 Drawing a Line Under the Past Mentality In 1945, the Allies and the West German judiciary had quickly begun to bring Nazi criminals to justice. Yet the Germans' will to deal self-critically with the past soon slackened. In the judiciary, former Nazi judges returned to their posts and in society at large, the dominant mentality was to "draw a line under the past". The BMJ was involved in these developments in a number of ways. In the 1950s, the Ministry drafted two amnesty laws and in the 1960s, the BMJ was increasingly confronted with the Nazi past of its staff and advocated their exoneration. 02 Zeitgeist In the 1949 Bundestag election campaign, many political parties advocated putting an end to denazification. There was a widespread desire for an amnesty, not only on the political right, but across the political centre and into the milieu of the SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany). FDP election poster for the election to the Bundestag, 1949 03 Adenauer's plans for an amnesty From the beginning, the first Federal Chancellor Konrad Adenauer linked his assumption of government office with his will for an amnesty. His aim in so doing was to strengthen confidence in the new state. In his first government declaration of 20 September 1949, he underlined: "The war and also the turmoil of the post-war period have brought such a hard test for so many people and such temptations that one has to show understanding for some wrongdoings and offences. The question of an amnesty will therefore be examined by the Federal Government". 04 1949 Amnesty The first Federal Law drafted by the Federal Ministry of Justice in 1949 was the "Amnesty Law". Its main purpose was to deal with black market and property offences committed between May 1945 and 1949.
47. ROSEN_190211_078.JPG: FDP election poster for the election to the Bundestag, 1949
48. ROSEN_190211_083.JPG: Amnesty legislation from the Federal Law Gazette of 31 December 1949 The BMJV Library's Judicial Historical Collection
49. ROSEN_190211_090.JPG: [4 Back] Drawing a line under the past instead of dealing with the past? The Federal Ministry of Justice and its handling of Nazi criminals 01 The Amnesties of 1949 ... Already in 1949, black marketeers and people who stole to make ends meet were not the only ones to benefit from the amnesty. All prison sentences of up to 6 months and fines of up to DM 5,000 were amnestied. Nazi perpetrators convicted of assault or membership of criminal organisations (SS, Gestapo, SD, Führerkorps of the NSDAP) were among those benefiting from the amnesty. 02 ... And 1954 In 1954, a second Amnesty Law came into force. It covered all offences committed after 1 October 1944 for which a prison sentence of less than three years had been imposed or was threatened. That enabled crimes typical of the final phase of the war to go unpunished, for example the execution of "deserters" or crimes against prisoners of war. The law also amnestied anyone who "for political reasons" had concealed their civil status. This benefited Nazi perpetrators who had assumed a false identity after 1945 in order to evade prosecution. The law symbolised the attitude in West German society of "drawing a line under the past"; it was the political signal to the judiciary to end the prosecution of Nazi crimes. [Chart] Sentences passed by West German courts between 1945 and 1959 for Nazi crimes 03 A Model of Personnel-based Continuity Max Merten worked at the Reich Ministry of Justice from 1938 to 1942 and had processed enforcement law. In spring 1952, he was employed by the Federal Ministry of Justice and once again took up the post of Head of Division on Enforcement. With regard to his activities during the war, Merten had previously stated that he had been a war administration counsellor in Northern Greece. In a detailed curriculum vitae, he had presented himself to the BMJ as the rescuer of some 13,000 Greek Jews. 04 The Deportation of 50,000 Greek Jews to Auschwitz In autumn 1952, the Greek Public Prosecutor General handed over a list of wanted war criminals to the German authorities: it included the name Max Merten. Merten was said to have extorted considerable assets from Greek Jews in the Thessaloniki region by making false promises for their protection and later to have signed the decisive orders for their "resettlement". Some 45,000 to 50,000 people were subsequently deported to Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen; most were murdered. Having evidently been confronted with the Greek investigations by his superiors, Merten asked to be dismissed from the BMJ a few days later. He left the service – there were no criminal law consequences for him. 05 A Helping Hand for a Colleague (war criminal) Max Merten was so sure that he would not be held accountable for his actions that in spring 1957 he returned to Greece. To his great surprise, he was arrested and sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment by a special military court for war criminals in Athens. The BMJ then demonstrated a remarkable willingness to act on behalf of the war criminal and former colleague. Ernst Kanter, Head of the Criminal Law Directorate at the BMJ, travelled to Athens himself to make Merten's case – and was successful: Just 8 months after his conviction, Merten was handed over to Germany where, within a few days, he was released by the German judiciary. Max Merten's handcuffs are removed at the beginning of the trial in the Athens courtroom in March 1959.
50. ROSEN_190211_098.JPG: How can the intensive support for war criminals be explained?
Multi Column: Number of columns of thumbnails to appear per page (normally defaults to 3): [1 col] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
Bigger photos? To save server space, the full-sized versions of these images have either not been loaded to the server or have been removed from the server. (Only some pages are loaded with full-sized images and those usually get removed after three months.) I still have them though. If you want me to email them to you, please send an email to guthrie.bruce@gmail.com and I can email them to you, or, depending on the number of images, just repost the page again will the full-sized images.
Directly Related Pages: Other pages with content (DC -- GWU -- Elliott School -- Exhibit: ) directly related to this one: [Display ALL photos on one page]:
- 2023_10_02C3_GWU_Water: DC -- GWU -- Elliott School -- Exhibit: The Shape of Water (4 photos from 10/02/2023)
- 2023_10_02C1_GWU_Slovakia: DC -- GWU -- Elliott School -- Exhibit: We Want Freedom: The Fall Of The Communist Regime In Slovakia In 1989 (91 photos from 10/02/2023)
- 2020_DC_GWU_Peace: DC -- GWU -- Elliott School -- Exhibit: Waging Peace (121 photos from 2020)
- 2019_DC_GWU_Slovakia: DC -- GWU -- Elliott School -- Exhibit: We Want Freedom: The Fall Of The Communist Regime In Slovakia In 1989 (46 photos from 2019)
- 2019_DC_GWU_Rwanda: DC -- GWU -- Elliott School -- Exhibit: Remembering Rwanda (47 photos from 2019)
Same Subject: Click on this link to see coverage of items having the same subject: [World War II] [George Washington University] [Display ALL George Washington University photos]
2019 photos: Equipment this year: I continued to use my Fuji XS-1 cameras but, depending on the event, I also used a Nikon D7000. Trips this year: a four-day jaunt to Massachusetts (Boston, Stockbridge, and Springfield) to experience rain in another state, Asheville, NC to visit Dad and his wife Dixie, four trips to New York City (including the United Nations, Flushing, and the New York Comic-Con), and my 14th consecutive San Diego Comic-Con (including sites in Utah). Number of photos taken this year: about 582,000.
Connection Not Secure messages? Those warnings you get from your browser about this site not having secure connections worry some people. This means this site does not have SSL installed (the link is http:, not https:). That's bad if you're entering credit card numbers, passwords, or other personal information. But this site doesn't collect any personal information so SSL is not necessary. Life's good!
Limiting Text: You can turn off all of this text by clicking this link: [Thumbnails Only]
Photo Contact: [Email Bruce Guthrie].