You are on page 1of 13

1

Sex Between Men in Nazi Germany

A full spectrum of homosexual acceptance in society has been seen in Germany from the end of the
First World War to the modern day. The Berlin of the Weimar era was renowned as a gay hotspot
across Europe. Hitler’s National Socialist regime prided itself, in propaganda at least, on an
intolerance of any sexuality that strayed from the heterosexual norm. It is this acute juxtaposition
between the two regimes that makes the question of sex between men an intriguing one. This essay
will argue that the Nazi’s ambiguous and generalized definition of a ‘homosexual’ and ‘homosexual
behaviour’ actually reflected the blurred sense of what German men at this time considered to be
accepted ‘heterosexual horseplay’ and intolerable ‘gay indulgences’. This essay will then propose
that not only did the Nazi policy echo the hazy lines between homosexual, bisexual and heterosexual
orientations amongst German men but that ironically, in some cases, it promoted homosexual
behaviour. It will be shown that the wording of the 175 act as well as its implementation lacked
consistency and clarity which coupled with the ambiguous sexual behaviour of various men within
the National Socialist party itself left some observers perplexed as to what was considered sexually
acceptable in Nazi Germany. Finally it must be considered in retrospect whether our twenty-first
century categorisations of an exclusive homosexual or heterosexual orientation can even be used in
reference to this German era and if so what the defining factors between the sexual categories were?

The successful integration of a homosexual culture into Weimar society is an essential influence on
the Nazi’s policy introduced by Hitler. Despite the fact that male homosexuality had been illegal in
Germany since 1871, the gay movement was so successful post First World War that it had
significant representation in literature, politics and academia.1 Most notably, however, the general
populace were aware of this movement and especially in the larger cities German men had a chance
to involve themselves in it. Despite the fact that the Nazis could and would eradicate political parties
and literature affiliated with homosexuality, they would find it harder to eliminate the sympathies
and acceptance of homosexual behaviour amongst some of the Weimar generation who had grown
up amongst it. In a lecture given by Nazi Josef Meisinger (Head of the Reich Office) in 1937 he
reflected, “In the period before the war, homosexuality stayed at a moderate level in Germany. After
the war, however, it became so widespread in Germany that people in England and France called it
the ‘German Disease’. The description, by the way, would seem to be completely inappropriate.
With no less right one could call it the ‘French or English disease.’ In the end homosexuality rose so
much in Germany that immediately after the Marxist revolution, homosexuals used the unbridled

1
H. Heger, The Men With The Pink Triangle (London, 1980) p.10
2

freedom of the time to form clubs and associations that would represent their interests.” 2 Dr Magnus
Hirschfeld’s career pre-1933 justified Meisinger’s claim. Hirschfeld co-founded the Scientific-
Humanitarian Committee in 1897 who, supported by the League for Human Rights, socialists,
communists and many liberals, recommended the abolition of paragraph 175 at the Reichstag
committee in 1929.3 Even though their request was rejected, the ability to even mount a case with
this much support was unprecedented especially taking into account the twenty years that would
follow in Germany. Hirschfeld’s name is again synonymous with the homosexual cultural impact on
Weimar Berlin in which his Sexual Science institute was built in 1919. 4 A gynaecologist, Ludwig
Lenz, who worked there wrote in his memoirs, following the destruction of the building and its
contents by the Nazis in 1933, “our Institute was used by all classes of the population and members
of every political party.”5 In the same vein the popularity of periodicals and magazines published by
homosexual organisations and sold at most newsstands was perceived to be such a problem that right
wing parties unsuccessfully attempted to ban them in 1926 with the Harmful Publications Act.6

As mentioned earlier, it is the effect of this passively accepted homosexual movement on the
common German man that has the most relevance in terms of the overall question. The openly visual
nature of the Weimar homosexual culture may have shaped a proportion of this generation to not
only be aware of a homosexual movement but to in some way be involved in it. As this essay will
argue later, being engaged in the toleration of homosexuality was not as simple as ever being gay or
not but included a whole spectrum of sexual choices from the occasional experimentation to a
complete immersion in the lively homosexual scene. The most passive and yet still a highly
significant acceptance of homosexuality is displayed in the experiences of Michael Davidson. In his
autobiography, The World, The Flesh and Myself, he described Weimar Berlin as having “the whole
spectrum of sexual lust.” He recounted a personal experience in the city where he was accosted by a
young rent boy. He rejected the child who pestered him, however, a policeman who had misread the
situation approached Davidson and advised, “You should be very careful which boys you pick-up.
There are some bad ones about.”Davidson also described a situation in which a gay friend of his was
approached by an old man at his front door who asked after his son. “I believe you’re a friend of my
boy?” inquired the man in reference to Davidson’s friend’s lover. The father having viewed the

2
G. Grau, Hidden Holocaust (Chicago, 1995) p.111
3
J. Lemke, Gay Voices From East Germany (Indiana, 1991) p.63
4
G. Grau, Hidden Holocaust (Chicago, 1995) p.2
5
E. Haeberle, ‘Swastika, Pink Triangle and Yellow Star-The Destrustion of Sexology and the Persecution of
Homosexuals in Nazi Germany’ in H. Duberman (ed.) Hidden From History: Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past
(1989)
6
K. Petersen, ‘The Harmful Publications (Young Persons) Act of 1926: Literary Censorship and the Politics of Morality
in the Weimar Republic,’ German Studies Review 15, no.3 (October 1992) pp.505-523
3

young man’s surprise added, “Oh it’s all right. I just came to call – I always like to know what kind
of man my son is going with.” 7 It would be a generalisation and inaccurate to use these two
examples as proof of a moral acceptance of homosexuality in the Weimar police corps or in the older
generation of Berlin society at this time. Where these primary source accounts do hold significance is
through displaying the most docile involvement in the homosexual movement. They display an
almost personal approval of homosexuality as tolerable behaviour in the morality of these two men
which was not forced by the Weimar regime and which a Nazi Regime probably could not destroy.

Two more obviously complicit homosexual accounts are described here. They display that
homosexuality was not purely an indulgence of ‘academics’, as the Nazis originally presumed, but
that it was present across the country in many Weimar classes and age groups. The first is from an
interview with ‘Herr Wolf’, a pseudonym for a once prominent German actor. He reminisced that “in
larger towns the gay scene was very open – in full flower, you might say.” One of his personal
experiences started in Magdeburg, Germany: “I had a wonderful adventure with a guy from the ballet
company there. I met him again in Berlin in 1930 when I was singing at the Metropol Theatre. He
worked at a gay bar in Berlin.”8 Pierre Seel in the smaller town of Mulhouse in Alsace wrote, “A
bunch of us would congregate there [the square] after classes. To gossip among ourselves. To wait
for a stranger to seduce us....Sheltered from prying eyes, relations were formed among young men
like us and not-so-young ones, with no mention whatsoever of money....A far cry from love, these
exchanges were purely sexual...These men were highly respected by the local bourgeoisie, which
chose to ignore the few nasty rumours about them.” 9 The casual nature of these accounts, in which
acquaintances are made in public bars or squares and the relationship is pivoted around the sexual act
itself, display the popular nature of homosexuality only a few years before the Nazi regime began.
Again emphasis must be made that a sudden switch to a homophobic culture is almost impossible to
believe amongst the men described here, even those who were “highly respected by the local
bourgeoisie.”

To generalise from these sources that there was a total acceptance of homosexuality amongst the
Weimar population would be inaccurate. In his adolescence, years before the Nazi regime came to
power, Pierre Seel realised that his homosexuality would never have been tolerated by his deeply
Catholic parents. He wrote, “young as I was, I realised that this difference [his sexuality] would
create an unbridgeable gap between me and my family.” 10 Much of Hitler’s appeal to the Weimar
7
M. Davidson, The World, the Flesh and Myself (New York, 1994) pp.150-153
8
F. Rector, The Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals (New York, 1981) p.153
9
P. Seele, Liberation Was For Others Memoirs of a Gay Survivor of the Nazi Holocaust (New York, 1997) p.12
10
P. Seele, Liberation Was For Others Memoirs of a Gay Survivor of the Nazi Holocaust (New York, 1997) p.10
4

population was his promises to revitalise a sluggish and morally corrupt Germany. During the 1928
Reichstag elections a Nazi pamphlet titled “Service before Self” read, “The stronger are right. And
the stronger will always assert themselves against the weaker. Today we are the weaker ones. Let us
make sure that we again become the stronger! We can do this only if we assert discipline.” 11 The
popularity of this ethos among the population was displayed when the National Socialists became the
largest party in the Reichstag after the federal election of 1932 subsequently taking power in 1933. 12
The experiences of Davidson, Wolf and Seel, however, emphasize that Weimar Germany did not
actively prosecute homosexuals which lies in strong contrast to the ‘homocaust’ of the Nazi regime.
The effect of this laissez-faire Weimar attitude on the population was that the authorities allowed
homosexuality to grow openly and visibly even if it was scorned upon by many. Thus these men,
described in the sources earlier, and many others had the opportunity to integrate themselves into the
homosexual spectrum from passive support to full intercourse without fear of official prosecution.

Nazi propaganda, such as the election pamphlet mentioned previously, did not only appeal to the
homophobes and moral authoritarians. In fact the ambiguity of the Nazi’s policy towards
homosexuals, which this essay will elaborate on later, was present from the beginning of Hitler’s
election campaign. Much of Hitler’s appeal came from his ability to call for support from all sexual,
political and class groups and for them in turn to believe his promises. He stated, “We are
determined to create a new community out of all the German peoples – a community formed of men
of every status and profession and of every so-called class... All classes must be welded together into
a single German nation... You should look upon me as a man who belongs to no class, who belongs
to no group, who is above all such considerations ... To me everyone is entirely equal... Only when
the entire German people becomes a single community of sacrifice can we hope and expect that
Providence will stand by us in the future.” 13 Karl, a gay German in his mid-twenties during the
election, clearly believed Hitler’s ethos that everyone was “entirely equal”. Coupled with the
politician’s ability to improve the country’s economic slump he gave his support. Karl stated in
interview, “at home I had never eaten such fine meals... I am telling you this in order to explain why
we voted for the man [Hitler]. I am honest enough to admit it... The new regime brightened Mother
up. She could keep the house properly again. All of a sudden rent was no longer a problem.”14

To take Hitler’s election campaign propaganda and argue that the Nazi party was in fact a pro-
homosexual organisation would be ridiculous and simply offensive to those who suffered under his
11
G. Grau, Hidden Holocaust (Chicago, 1995) p.25
12
F. Rector, The Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals (New York, 1981) p.32
13
R.Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler (New York, 1993) p.342
14
J. Lemke, Gay Voices From East Germany (Indiana, 1991) p.31
5

regime. Like many other homosexuals Karl soon realised that they had fallen into the trap of Hitler’s
ambiguity. An anonymous homosexual recalled that “over the years, more and more of my political
friends disappeared, of my Jewish and my homosexual friends. Fear came over us with the
increasingly co-ordinated pressure of the Nazis. For heaven’s sake not to attract attention, to exercise
restraint. 1933 was the starting–point for the persecution of homosexuals. Already in this year we
heard of raids on homosexual pubs and meeting places.”15Hitler’s dream “to create a new community
out of all the German peoples” clearly did not include the homosexual demographic. However,
defining this homosexual group proved to be a challenge. Nazi official policy and philosophy
towards the homosexual ‘problem’ clearly displays an awareness of a haze between a homosexual
man and a man who indulges in homosexual pursuits. This essay has argued that this inability to
clearly define a man as specifically gay in many cases, could have been a product of the homosexual
spectrum allowed by the sexually liberal Weimar era. Alternatively the militant categorisation of
bisexual, homosexual or heterosexual orientation, used by commentators in the twenty-first century,
perhaps just did not exist in German society at this period. The Nazi Government, however, needed
to clearly outline in policy those men who could legally be prosecuted and arrested for
homosexuality by the police and judges of their regime.

At the start of the Third Reich, Reichsfuhrer of SS Heinrich Himmler, seemed confident that he
could define the differences between homosexual men and experimenters. In 1937 he stated, “When
we took power in 1933 we also discovered the homosexual associations. Their registered
membership was over two million; cautious estimates by officers dealing with the matter range from
two million to four million homosexuals in Germany. I myself do not put the figure so high, because
I do not believe that everyone in these associations was personally a homosexual in the real sense.” 16
His division of the ‘Hanghomosexuelle’ (the homosexual in the “real sense”) and the
‘Gelegenheithomosexuelle’ (opportunistic homosexual) at least displayed a basic understanding of
the homosexual spectrum mentioned earlier. 17 However, as the persecution of homosexuals
continued the number of prosecutions under the 175 act increased despite the initial purge of all
registered and renowned gays in the first few years of the regime. Historian David Fernbach claims
that between 1937 and 1939, 24450 men were convicted under paragraph 175 which was almost ten
times more than the 2319 men convicted in the three years from 1931 to 1933.18 Michael Burleigh
and Wolfgang Wippermann agree that around half of the 50,000 convictions in relation to
15
M. Burleigh and W. Wippermann, The Racial State (Cambridge, 1991) p.183
16
G. Grau, Hidden Holocaust (Chicago, 1995) p.91
17
G. Grau, ‘Final Solution of the Homosexual Question?’ in M. Berenbaum and A. Peck, The Holocaust and History
(Indiana, 2002) p.342
18
H. Heger, The Men With The Pink Triangle (London, 1980) p.12
6

homosexuality throughout the Nazi regime occurred between 1937 and 1939.19 Specific figures of
conviction and murder in terms of the homosexual persecution must always be taken with a pinch of
salt. The study of this area is renowned for its lack of numerical records which were either destroyed
by the Nazis or never specifically kept. Nevertheless the trend indicates that convictions reached
their peak in the second half of the Third Reich.

The amendment to section 175 of the Penal code was passed on 28 June 1935 and came into force on
September 1 instigating the rapid rise in homosexual convictions. 20 The significant change made was
of three words in the original code. The term “unnatural sex act” was replaced with the phrase “sex
offense” in reference to the type of homosexual action a German man could be prosecuted for. 21 This
may seem like a menial replacement, however, public prosecutors perceived an “unnatural sex act”
to be intercourse only, where as a “sex offense” was a much broader term referring to any
‘homosexual act’ no matter how small. Dr Leopold Schafer, assistant head of department at the
Reich Ministry of Justice, summarised that “the essential defect of the previous Section 175 of the
Penal Code lay in the fact that – at least in the former case law – it applied only to intercourse-like
acts, so that public prosecutors and the police could not proceed against evidently homosexual
practices unless they were able to prove such acts. The gap has now been filled, so that any sex
offence between males renders them liable to imprisonment.”22 This amendment is one of the clearest
indications of Nazi policy reflecting the ambiguity of male German sexual orientation at this time.
Himmler’s black and white summary of homosexuals in the “real sense” and men who dabbled
occasionally in ‘horseplay’ had been found wanting. The “police and prosecutors” had realised in
court that a whole section of those men brought to trial were neither guiltless experimenters nor true
homosexuals and yet prosecution was impossible. The continuation of this issue before 1935 forced
the authorities to broaden their definition of homosexual behaviour to encompass the broad spectrum
of homosexuality present in male society. The underestimation of the magnitude of this homosexual
haze is thus displayed through the evolution of the Nazi’s primary floored definition to a much
broader one within only two years of prosecuting under the original 175 act.

The rationalisation that the Nazis gave in their published philosophy for this middle ground between
heterosexual and homosexual behaviour displays an inability to truly explain an unwanted popular
phenomenon. The reasons given for an admitted homosexual’s sexuality did not differ so much from
today’s explanations. There was a constant debate in theories between homosexuality as an
19
M. Burleigh and W. Wippermann, The Racial State (Cambridge, 1991) p.197
20
G. Grau, Hidden Holocaust (Chicago, 1995) p.64
21
G. Grau, Hidden Holocaust (Chicago, 1995) p.65
22
G. Grau, Hidden Holocaust (Chicago, 1995) p.66
7

orientation inherent in a subject’s genes or bred through experiences after birth. For the spectrum of
behaviour between homosexuality and heterosexuality, Nazi philosophy resorted to an explanation of
these tendencies as a ‘vice’ or ‘disease’ that corrupts the body. A senior civil servant wrote in his
instruction concerning unnatural sexual offences in 1934 that homosexuality can be “an innate
predisposition, but that it may also be a vice which causes normal sexual feeling to be lost over
time.” He thus came to the conclusion that “there are cases where the psychological and physical
possibility exists for both homosexual and heterosexual intercourse, and where the two forms of
intercourse are actually practiced alongside each other.” 23 In a pamphlet named “Special Measures
for Combating Same-Sex Acts” written in 1943, “homosexual lapses” were described as extremely
perilous “due to their epidemic effect.” “On occasion one individual seduces ten or more youths or
infects an entire group. Many who have been seduced later become seducers so that often... an
endless chain of infection occurs.”24 The portrayal of homosexual tendencies as an “epidemic” is
intriguing. It proves that the straying of men between sexual orientations was so frequently observed
by the Nazi authorities that a comparison to an infectious disease was the only apt description. It
would also suggest that the German man’s ability to be “infected” was beyond his control and thus
any male in the society could fall victim to this ‘illness’. Finally, the senior civil servant admits that
“homosexual and heterosexual” urges could occur simultaneously in an individual. According to
these sources one could summarise that an involvement in the spectrum between heterosexuality and
homosexuality was seen frequently in the population, any man in society was susceptible to it and
heterosexual men had ability to perform homosexual intercourse. The Fuhrer displayed his fear of
these three observations when he stated, “homosexuality is actually as infectious and as dangerous as
the plague.”25

This essay has argued that the National Socialist’s written policy and philosophy reflected the
blurred distinctions between heterosexuality and homosexuality in German society at the time. The
way in which this policy was implemented by the regime and projected by the Nazi figures
themselves will now be analysed in order to debate whether the regime was not only aware of this
phenomenon but in certain cases added to it. Hitler fiercely announced that “wherever symptoms of
homosexuality appear...they should be attacked with barbaric severity.” 26 The wording of the 175a
act as well as the disgust weaved into the Nazi’s written musings in relation to homosexuality would
coincide with the Fuhrer’s ethos. Conversely, in practice numerous exceptions were made to these
23
G. Grau, Hidden Holocaust (Chicago, 1995) p.22
24
H. Oosterhuis, ‘Medecine, Male Bonding and Homosexuality in Nazi Germany’, Journal of Contemporary History, 34
(no.2) (1997), p.195
25
J. Noakes, Nazism 1919-1945, Volume Four: The German Home Front in World War II (Exeter, 1998) p.392
26
J. Noakes, Nazism 1919-1945, Volume Four: The German Home Front in World War II (Exeter, 1998) p.392
8

policies by Himmler and Goring at the top of the Nazi hierarchy all the way down to SS officers in
the concentrations camps at the bottom. Herr Wolf’s personal experiences certainly display this
inconsistency in the persecution of homosexuals. Wolf, while incarcerated in Lichtenburg Prison,
described how “Himmler visited the prison and recognized me from my performing days. He walked
up to me and started to shake my hand...He asked how long I had been gay. I lied and said that I had
been gay for one-and-a-half years. Then he said, “It’s that damned morally corrupt Berlin. I’ll take
care of that.”... Soon, the order for my release arrived.” 27 In reference to other gay actors Wolf noted
that “they didn’t bother non-Jewish superstars, not generally anyway. Many were under the
protection of Hermann Goring. The SS knew who was gay and who wasn’t.” 28 Both comments
display exceptions made to the 175 act by leading Nazi officials. A comparison can perhaps be made
between the inconsistency of the implementation of the Jewish and homosexual policies. Both
written policies are strict in their wording. Verified Jews and homosexuals should have been
prosecuted to the full extent of the law, however, Wolf made an observation in his second comment.
He stated that “non-Jewish” yet gay superstars were commonly saved from persecution. Although it
would be ambitious to make a generalised claim that homosexuals across the country had a better
chance of avoiding imprisonment than Jews, in this highly specific case, leading Nazi figureheads
still made a distinction in their minds between the ‘vices’ of a Jewish belief and a homosexual
orientation rejecting one and protecting the other.

Highly visible exceptions to the 175 act were made by these two men as well. Again Wolf reminisces
that the only gay bar still open in Berlin was the highly renowned Ellie’s Bier Bar. In full visibility of
the public Wolf stated that the bar was “obviously under the protection of Goring.” 29 Himmler also
publicly ‘suspended’ the 175 act during the 1936 Berlin Olympics. He sent a decree around the party
reading, “for the coming weeks I forbid the taking of action, including interrogation or summons,
against any foreigners under the 175 without my personal approval.” 30 Neither of these examples
encouraged homosexual behaviour amongst the observing population, however, there is no doubt
that they were a visible contradiction of the Nazi policies.

The examples of exceptions made to the 175 act at lower levels in the Nazi hierarchy went one step
further and allowed homosexual acts to continue. Two highly different sources display a similar
outcome. They also exhibit the authorities in each case ironically involving themselves in the
homosexual spectrum. Heinz Heger described homosexual relationships between capos (prisoners
27
F. Rector, The Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals (New York, 1981) p.158
28
F. Rector, The Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals (New York, 1981) p.160
29
F. Rector, The Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals (New York, 1981) p.160
30
G. Grau, Hidden Holocaust (Chicago, 1995) p.59
9

with authority) and young Polish prisoners in the Flossenburg concentration camp. He observed that
“many SS officers, naturally knew about these relationships with the young Poles, even if nothing
was officially said about it.” He explained, “what in one case is accepted with a smile, is completely
forbidden when it is openly proclaimed or made public. Homosexual behaviour between two
‘normal’ men is considered an emergency outlet, while the same between two gay men, who both
feel deeply for one another, is something ‘filthy’ and repulsive.” 31 In this next source the
Reichmaster of Justice described methods used by police who wondered the streets looking to be
picked up by homosexual men. In Frankfurt a police officer described here simply as the “man”
allowed the “defendant” to make advances on him. The report read:

“As the defendant had reason to believe from the man’s behaviour that he was willing to get sexually
involved with him, he twice went over to the man, looked at him in an ostentatious manner and
indicated that they should go and sit on a bench on the other side of the Zeil. After a certain time the
man sat down next to the defendant, who soon took hold of his right knee. When the man did nothing
to resist this, the defendant felt for the man’s sex organ and put it in his mouth. At this point the man
stood up and identified himself as a police officer.”

This example of police ‘work’ is one of three accounts referred to by the Minister of Justice. 32 In
Jurgen Lemke’s Gay Voices From East Germany, one of the interviewees recounts how he himself
was arrested in a similar fashion by an undercover police officer. 33 Heger points out that the SS
officers in the first source justify allowing homosexual intercourse to take place because it involves
two ‘normal’ men. This morally makes the intercourse acceptable in their rational despite the legality
of the situation. This essay would argue that these men along with the SS are evidently involved in
the homosexual spectrum through passive acceptance much like the police officer and father that
Michael Davidson referred to during the Weimar period. The second source falls into the same
category but evidently with a more physical acceptance. The Minister of Justice summarising these
reports starts his letter stating that he was forced “to draw your attention to the highly questionable
methods of investigation used by certain officers to secure the conviction of offenders.” It is this
perceived ‘natural’ sense of what is sexually ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ which these policemen
act upon as opposed to the central guidelines (such as act 175) that not only displays questionable
implementation of National Socialist homosexual law but perhaps, as will be elaborated on later,
explains the phenomenon of heterosexual men indulging in homosexual acts as a whole.

31
H. Heger, The Men With The Pink Triangle (London, 1980) p.61
32
G. Grau, Hidden Holocaust (Chicago, 1995) p.147
33
J. Lemke, Gay Voices From East Germany (Indiana, 1991) p.33
10

Thus far it has been shown that the Nazi authorities made exceptions to their own laws regarding
homosexuality. Although these cases were clearly observed by others, as the presence of the primary
sources would prove, there is no evidence in these documents that the population acted upon what
they observed or that they were under the impression that homosexuality was a grudgingly accepted
phenomenon in the Nazi party. Nevertheless, multiple accounts exist concerning members of the
Nazi party participating in indisputable homosexual acts. Herr Wolf recounts that while in prison “in
the cell next to ours there was a young male prostitute from Steglitz who the SS forced into giving
them blow jobs, one after another.”34 Heinz Heger recounts the actions of an SS concentration camp
commander while observing prisoners being punished with a whip. “The camp commander stood
right by, and looked visibly more interested in the proceedings. At each stroke his eyes lit up, and
after a few strokes his whole face was red with excitement. He buried his hands in his trouser
pockets and could clearly be seen to masturbate, quite unperturbed by our presence. After satisfying
himself in this way, the perverted swine suddenly disappeared... I myself witnessed on more than 30
occasions how this camp commander got sexual satisfaction from watching the lashings.” 35 Heger
also witnessed a high ranking SS officer being detained in the concentration yet not killed for an
overt affair. He wrote, “The SS officer and his lady... had been arrested in a box in the Hamburg
Opera.... The SS-Obersturmbannfuhrer was an officer at the front, with many decorations, including
the Knight’s Cross... His lady turned out to be a young man of 19, a soldier in the Waffen-SS at
home on leave in Hamburg.”36 Although these accounts do not prove an acceptance of homosexual
behaviour across the Nazi Party or even the SS, each source has a common theme of SS officers
openly participating in gay activity in the presence of their peers. Several SS officers forcing a
prisoner to give fellatio amongst each other, the camp commander masturbating in front of his guards
and the highly decorated soldier having an affair with a young SS teenager display the level of
relaxation these offenders felt breaking the 175 act in front of other Nazis. The level of their
disregard for the 175 law is even more surprising when it is considered that SS men and policemen
were not prosecuted under the civilian act. Hitler personally made alterations to the code whereby “a
member of the SS and police who commits unnatural acts with another man or lets himself be abused
for unnatural acts shall be punished with death.” 37 From these sources one can not dispute that the
haziness of sexual boundaries between homo and hetero sexuality did only occur amongst the
civilian population but also in the Nazi party itself despite fatal deterrents.

34
F. Rector, The Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals (New York, 1981) p.156
35
H. Heger, The Men With The Pink Triangle (London, 1980) p.55
36
H. Heger, The Men With The Pink Triangle (London, 1980) p.65
37
J. Noakes, Nazism 1919-1945, Volume Four: The German Home Front in World War II (Exeter, 1998) p.393
11

The final question in regards to homosexuality in the Nazi party is whether homosexual behaviour
was encouraged in any way within National Socialism despite the clear punishments written in
policy. The figure of Ernst Rohm is constantly cited by historians as a figure who contradicted
Hitler’s anti-homosexual propaganda. As SA Chief of Staff, Rohm was not only renowned for the
extremely powerful position he held in the Nazi party but also for his overt homosexual orientation.
Hubert Knickerbocker’s primary source work, Is Tomorrow’s Hitler’s: 200 Question on the Battle of
Mankind displays Rohm’s fame:

“Q: Is it true that Hitler is a homosexual?

A: No, it is not true. He came seriously under suspicion because of his intimacy with Rohm, and
because for so many years he tolerated the blatant homosexuality of Rohm and his cohorts... Rohm
as the head of 2,500,000 Storm Troopers had surrounded himself with a staff of perverts.”38

To cite Rohm as an example of homosexual encouragement in the Nazi Party would be a flawed
argument. Quite clearly Rohm was an exception that Hitler made. Rohm was needed by the Fuhrer
while the Nazi party was in its infancy because he wielded much power in the Weimar Republic. It
should not be forgotten that Rohm was also assassinated by Hitler during ‘The Night Of The Long
Knives’ in 1934 with his homosexuality being cited by the Fuhrer as the reason for the SA man’s
death.39 Whether the overt sexuality of men placed in such high positions as Rohm had an effect on
the Nazi members and population observing him is another question? Even Gad Beck, a gay Jewish
teenager from Berlin, was aware of Rohm’s reputation. He recounted that “to watch over the Jewish
forced labourers, they had hired a former SA man named Hinrichs, who was disabled. It was said he
had been shot in the leg in 1934 during the so called Rohm Putsch – which means he was a hundred
percent gay, just like Rohm.”40 Can Rohm be cited as the direct justification for homosexual acts?
The case of Gauleiter Bruckner, chief party and government official of the province of Silesia, would
suggest so. In 1935 he was arrested for homosexuality. He was married yet a self confessed bisexual
who admitted to having indulged in mutual masturbation in his youth. He did not see this as grounds
for ever arrest or shame claiming that he had not contradicted the ethos of the Nazi party and that
“the number of men of my by no means pathological makeup [or bisexual disposition] are at least
twelve million.” In court he referred to Rohm when stating in his defence, “National Socialism not
only confirmed in an authoritative and visible manner the recurrent opinion of the Supreme Court in
the question of mutual masturbation [that it was not intercourse thus it was legal], but expressly

38
H. Knickerbocker, Is Tomorrow’s Hitler’s: 200 Question on the Battle of Mankind (New York, 1941) pp.34-35
39
F. Rector, The Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals (New York, 1981) p.53
40
G. Beck, An Underground Life (Wisconsin, 1999) p.48
12

endorsed it, and even removed inhibitions by public recognition [accorded to Rohm].” 41 A sweeping
declaration that the Nazi Party in some ways promoted homosexual behaviour would be an
overstatement. This source is the only one that can be cited in this essay justifying the thesis. The
analysis of the Nazi implementation, wording and projection of the 175 act displays that a mixture of
many different factors led to a reflection of the homosexual spectrum present in German society in
the Nazi movement. A haziness in sexual definition is seen not only in the written Nazi policy but in
many of the Nazi members themselves.

In conclusion can a definite twenty-first century division between heterosexuality and homosexuality
be made in reference to this German society? The gay interviewee Karl claimed, “You must know
that wherever men live together and are not immediately threatened with death, they do it with one
another... they eat and smoke, they come back to life again, and that is quickly followed by love and
sex.”42 This would appear to be an optimistic generalisation although perhaps Karl summarises his
era while this essay analyses from its own more conservative epoch. Gad Beck reminisces over his
first sexual encounters. He was twelve and his gym teacher was twenty-two. “We caressed each
other and rubbed against each other, not even all that much, and then we came, both of us.” He
nonchalantly follows this account stating “now that teacher is over eighty, has been married for an
eternity, and has a number of grandchildren. He probably wouldn’t even remember who I am.” 43
Many of Gad’s primary sexual experiences were with boys who even he defined as heterosexual.
Manfred, his first love, was so uncomfortable with intercourse that he described it as “indulging in
our weakness” only finally accepting that solely with Gad “it’s okay.” 44 Gad knew from the point of
courtship that his second major love was not homosexual. He wrote, “I knew from the very
beginning that Zwi was without doubt a heterosexual.” 45 These three accounts of heterosexuals
performing homosexual acts are just a few of hundreds of similar examples recorded across even
more sources but to the modern eye they seem to be rare and bizarre contradictions of sexuality. How
does Gad so easily define between heterosexual male lovers and gay men? “I don’t think a man is
really gay until he needs the penis of the other man” is his explanation. 46 This summary would
appear to ignore emotions felt beyond sexual lust that were clearly present in Gad’s relationships
with Zwi and Manfred. In fact one could go as far as to say that two married criminals who Heinz
Heger was locked in a prison cell with before his conviction could be defined as gay under Gad’s

41
R. Gellately and N. Stoltzfus, Social Outsiders in Nazi Germany (Princeton, 2001) p.242
42
J. Lemke, Gay Voices From East Germany (Indiana, 1991) p.26
43
G. Beck, An Underground Life (Wisconsin, 1999) p.23
44
G. Beck, An Underground Life (Wisconsin, 1999) p.55
45
G. Beck, An Underground Life (Wisconsin, 1999) p.83
46
G. Beck, An Underground Life (Wisconsin, 1999) p.83
13

definition. Having berated Heinz as a “filthy queer” and “sub-human... they had sex together, not
even caring whether I saw or heard. But in their view – the view of ‘normal’ people – this was only
an emergency outlet, with nothing queer about it.”47

Geoffrey Giles wrote, “It sounds like a sick joke, but medical scholars in the Third Reich used to say
in all earnestness that the high suicide rate among homosexuals simply further confirmed that gay
people were mentally ill.”48Karl also refers to a suicide in his unit. A young man who had a
homosexual aura was bullied as a potential “175er”. Karl writes, “it is possible that he, like I, wanted
to keep his secret at all costs, but I suspect he had not yet come to terms with things. In any case, he
cracked up and chose suicide.”49 This reference to the high suicide rate amongst homosexuals
perhaps alludes to the only means in which a man involved in the homosexual spectrum of this era
could define himself as gay or a heterosexual performing homosexual acts. Having analysed
hundreds of sources, including situations where homosexuals were married with children or
heterosexuals were in love affairs with other men, possibly the only way in which a sexual certainty
was achieved was within one’s own conscience. This is conceivably the reason why the Nazis faced
such an enigma in creating a consistent policy for such a wide spectrum of sexuality. This is why
many SS men did not feel they were breaking the law or at least were overstepping the mark in front
of their peers when instigating homosexual acts. They did not consider themselves to be homosexual.
Maybe even Himmler’s and Goring’s laxity towards the homosexual issue on occasion displayed
their acceptance that homosexuality was such an indefinable concept that a total eradication of this
group from society was impossible unlike with the ‘Jewish problem.’ To our modern categorisations
this era seems to be a melee of sexual desires, however, we do not share the same need as the Nazis
to define them. As Heinz Heger put it, “as if you could divide homosexuality into normal and
abnormal... I still wonder today how this division between normal and abnormal is made. Is there a
normal hunger and an abnormal one? A normal thirst and an abnormal one? Isn’t hunger always
hunger, and thirst thirst? What a hypocritical and illogical way of thinking!”50

47
H. Heger, The Men With The Pink Triangle (London, 1980) p.25
48
J. Lemke, Gay Voices From East Germany (Indiana, 1991) p.14
49
J. Lemke, Gay Voices From East Germany (Indiana, 1991) p.32
50
H. Heger, The Men With The Pink Triangle (London, 1980) p.25

You might also like