Hohmann affair

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Hohmann affair was a political affair in Germany that was triggered by a speech by the then CDU - and now AfD - politician Martin Hohmann on the Day of German Unity on October 3, 2003 and his exclusion from the Christian Democratic Union , which was criticized as anti-Semitic led.

The occasion

On October 3, 2003, Hohmann gave a speech in Neuhof on the Day of German Unity . In it he complained that “Germans do not enjoy preferential treatment in Germany” and asked whether it would not make sense to reduce payments to the EU and compensation payments to former slave laborers during the Nazi regime and to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust in view of the poor economic situation. He also complained that “more and more generations of German scientists were researching even the tiniest ramifications of the Nazi era” with “almost neurotic zeal”.

To refute the argument that this was not possible for historical and moral reasons, he then discussed the term “ perpetrator people ” in connection with “the Germans ” during the Nazi era on the one hand and “the Jews ” during the October Revolution and the Stalinist era on the other hand. He referred to the work of Jewish Bolshevism by Johannes Rogalla von Bieberstein (Dresden 2002, Neuausg. Graz 2010) and quoted, among other things, from the book Der internationale Jude , which was published in the 1920s by Henry Ford . According to these theses, according to Hohmann, one could "with a certain justification ... ask about the 'perpetrators' 'of the Jews" and "with some justification call them' perpetrators ''". This would only mean "following the same logic that is used to describe Germans as perpetrators". In the further course, Hohmann made the statement that the term “perpetrator people” and the associated accusation of “ collective guilt ” were absurd and inappropriate towards both “the Jews” and “the Germans”. According to Hohmann, the true perpetrators of the 20th century were the “godless with their godless ideologies”.

Quotes from Hohmann's speech

The following passages from the speech brought Hohmann the charge of anti-Semitism:

“The guilt of ancestors for this crime against humanity has almost led to a new self-definition of the Germans. Despite the assurances on all sides that there is no collective guilt, despite nuanced word creations such as 'collective responsibility' or 'collective shame': the core remains the accusation: the Germans are the 'perpetrators'. "

"Against this background, I ask the provocative question: Is there a dark side in recent history even among the Jewish people, whom we perceive exclusively in the role of victims, or were Jews exclusively the victims, those who suffered?"

“Ladies and gentlemen, you will be surprised that the American car king Henry Ford published a book in 1920 called ' The International Jew '. [...] In it, Ford denounces the Jews as 'world Bolsheviks'. He thought he could make out an 'all-Jewish stamp on red Russia', where the Bolshevik revolution was raging at that time. He described the Jews as “revolutionary makers” to an “excellent degree”. [...] Ford expressed in his book an alleged 'identity' of Judaism and communism or Bolshevism. How does Ford come up with his theses, which to our ears resemble the Nazi propaganda of ' Jewish Bolshevism '? "

“With a certain justification one could ask about the 'perpetrators' of the Jews in view of the millions of dead during this first phase of the revolution. Jews were active in large numbers both at the management level and in the Cheka firing squads. Hence, Jews could with some justification be called 'perpetrators'. That may sound terrifying. But it would follow the same logic that is used to describe Germans as perpetrators. "

“Therefore, neither 'the Germans' nor 'the Jews' are perpetrators. But one can rightly say: The godless with their godless ideologies, they were the perpetrators of the last, bloody century [...]. With God into a good future for Europe! With God into a good future, especially for our German fatherland! "

Hohmann's argument

Contrary to what was initially reported in the media, Hohmann actually did not explicitly name the Jews in his speech as the perpetrator people, but nevertheless stated that they could be called that under certain conditions, and listed a number of reasons for this. This listing makes up a large part of the speech. His reasoning is similar to the classical syllogism and can be summarized as a three-step as follows:

  1. Because of the National Socialist crimes, the Germans are accused of being a “perpetrator people”.
  2. Jews also committed crimes during the Bolshevik Revolution without being called a "perpetrator people".
  3. Since the Jews could not be called "perpetrators" despite these crimes, this designation was also inappropriate for the Germans.

Critics accuse Hohmann of pursuing a hidden argument in his speech that spreads anti-Semitic stereotypes from which he only appears to distance himself. This hidden argument takes place in four steps:

  1. First he asks: How did Ford come up with his theses, which to our ears resemble the Nazi propaganda of “Jewish Bolshevism”?
  2. The following part of Hohmann's speech lists numerous arguments or sham arguments that make it clear that Hohmann considers Ford's point of view to be sound.
  3. Then Hohmann explains: “We have to take a closer look. The Jews, who had committed themselves to Bolshevism and the revolution, had previously cut their religious ties. "
  4. At the end of his speech, in contrast to Ford, Hohmann makes it clear that he does not consider Jews dangerous, but rather godlessness and “godless ideologies” in general.

The level of detail with which Hohmann argues against Jews, as well as his refusal to distance himself from Ford's theses, is viewed by critics as an expression of anti-Semitic thought.

The consequences

Of Hohmann's 120 listeners, mostly members of the CDU local association Neuhof, no one was irritated by his statements. The speech initially went unnoticed by the public. Only after the CDU local branch Neuhof had put it on its website did a critical article by journalist Andrea Livnat appear in the online magazine Hagalil.com on October 27, 2003 . It says:

“Martin Hohmann does not say anything forbidden in his speech, he does not rush with anti-constitutional slogans. His reasoning is much more sophisticated and perfidious. If he ultimately denies that the 'Jews' as a collective are a 'perpetrator people', he first lists 'evidence' for this. By juxtaposing National Socialism and Bolshevism or between Germans and Jews as 'perpetrators', the Holocaust is played down, the 'guilt' of National Socialist Germany is relativized and, finally, anti-Semitic arguments of the worst kind are rehashed and served again. Jews are optionally the masterminds of Bolshevism, communism, socialism, capitalism, depending on how the speaker needs it. "

It was this article that brought the speech to the attention of the media and the general public. Hohmann immediately came under heavy criticism nationwide, both from the media and from politicians from other parties and, ultimately, from the CDU. The anti-Semitic tenor of the speech subsequently provoked a broad public debate.

Votes against

The criticism of Hohmann is based on the fact that his argumentation is wrong and tends to be anti-Semitic because its premises are incorrect . The central arguments against Hohmann's views were as follows:

  1. In the debate about Germany's responsibility for the Holocaust, the term “perpetrator people” plays no role at all. Hohmann is trying to divert attention from the core of the debate.
  2. The equation between the contribution of individual Jews to Bolshevism and the contribution of a majority of Germans to National Socialism was completely disproportionate, distorted historical facts and represented a well-known anti-Semitic cliché . Neither Lenin nor Stalin were Jews, and even before the beginning of the large wave of terror in the 1930s, party functionaries of Jewish origin like Trotsky were ousted from all leadership positions.
  3. The equal absolution of both Jews and Germans from the charge of “perpetrator” essentially amounts to relativizing and playing down Nazi crimes, which is a common practice of anti-Semites. Hohmann's argument coincides with the controversial theses of Ernst Nolte , which were rejected by the great majority of German historians in the historians' dispute in the mid-1980s .

Central Council of Jews in Germany

The then President of the Central Council of Jews in Germany Paul Spiegel criticized Martin Hohmann's speech on ARD :

"The statements of Mr. Hohmann are a grip in the bottom drawer of the disgusting anti-Semitism."

The MP did

"Brutally trample the delicate plants of reconciliation between Jews and non-Jews".

In this spirit, Salomon Korn , Vice President of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, expressed himself on November 9, 2004 in a speech commemorating the November pogroms of 1938 :

“There is no question that Hohmann's speech is anti-Semitic: Anyone who expressly bases their considerations on a standard work in anti-Semitic literature such as Henry Ford's book 'The International Jew', published in 1920, and cites it with approval, makes an anti-Semitic argument. Anyone who contrasts the alleged participation in crimes of 'Jews' with that of 'Germans' and tries to accuse the collective liability of the 'Jewish people' in their entirety with a communist state crime with the argument that many Jews were involved is an anti-Semitic argument. "

A few months earlier, Korn had already commented on the decision of the Public Prosecutor's Office in Frankfurt am Main not to initiate criminal proceedings against Martin Hohmann for sedition (see below):

“The fact that Hohmann has packed his anti-Semitic speech, paired with anti-democratic and völkisch ideas, in subjunctive , in order to keep it below the criminal sanctioning possibilities, makes it all the more cunning. (...) But it can be said with certainty that Hohmann could be described with some justification as an anti-Semite, always a subjunctive anti-Semite. "

historian

After analyzing Hohmann's speech, the historian Ulrich Herbert from the Albert Ludwig University of Freiburg came to the following conclusion:

“What he does is an exculpatory argument. The Germans should finally free themselves from the past. You would have to cast off this disgrace of the term perpetrator people. And he does this by saying that he would not call others perpetrators either, although they deserved it as much as the Germans. He then addresses the Jews through a historically incorrect and sometimes absurd equation of Judaism and Bolshevism and thereby takes up the central ideas of National Socialist anti-Semitism, which with this connection - Judaism and Bolshevism - justified and legitimized the Holocaust. "

Wolfgang Benz , head of the Center for Research on Antisemitism in Berlin, argued in the same way . In view of Hohmann's assertion that because of the participation of individual Jews in the Cheka firing squads, the Jews as a whole “could be described with some justification as the perpetrators”, Benz referred to the same line of argument used in National Socialist propaganda :

“That is pure Goebbels , there is no other way of saying it. The National Socialists made propaganda with the stereotype of Jewish Bolshevism . With the same allegations that appear in Mr. Hohmann's speech as a factual report. "

The historian Jörg Baberowski from Berlin's Humboldt University accused Hohmann of having suppressed the reasons why a relatively large number of Jews had been on the side of the revolution against the tsarist regime: because they were a discriminated and persecuted minority in Russia that had existed since the beginning of the In the 1880s, they were repeatedly exposed to state-tolerated or even propagated pogroms . But Baberowski also made it clear that only a very small number of Russian Jews committed themselves to the Bolsheviks and that they had expressly described themselves as Jews neither ethnically nor religiously.

For this reason, Benz also accused Hohmann of adopting the Nazi definition of Jews as a people instead of a religious community and of having put them on the same level as the Nazi perpetrators in his argumentation. For Benz, Hohmann gave a "flawless test" of how anti-Semitism works. For the first time in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany, a politician from a democratic party put forward "a closed anti-Jewish argument" with appropriate preparation and conviction.

Political scientist Wolfgang Gessenharter also drew attention to the fact that Hohmann had questioned Article 3 of the Basic Law of equality with his demand that Germans should be given preferential treatment in Germany .

Atheists

The central conclusion of Hohmann's speech was that “ungodliness” is the real evil and the wicked are the “executors of evil”. For Wolfgang Benz, this argument shows Hohmann to be an advocate of Christian fundamentalism .

In contrast, atheists like Hans Schauer protested against Hohmann's general accusation that the “godless” of all kinds were the “perpetrator people” responsible for the catastrophes of the 20th century. Hohmann's statement "Only religious roots and ties will prevent similar catastrophes as they caused us wicked" was perceived as a gross insult in view of the church's criminal history and the rejection of atheism by the National Socialists. Various free-spirited and atheist organizations therefore filed criminal charges against Hohmann.

Reactions in the CDU

Critics from his own party such as Jürgen Rüttgers and Heiner Geißler also accused Hohmann of making use of anti-Semitic prejudices and thus reinforcing them. They therefore called for his exclusion from the parliamentary group and party.

Hohmann rejected the encouragement from the anti-Semitic side that he received after his speech and regretted the impression made:

“It was not my intention to deny the uniqueness of the Holocaust and it was also not my intention to call Jews as perpetrators. If, however, the impression is different, then I apologize very specifically and I regret it if I hurt people's feelings as a result. "

However, he refused to take back the ambiguous passages of his speech. In the ZDF broadcast Frontal21 he said:

“An apology, I believe, would be a signal that the facts that I have given are incorrect. But the facts are correct. There are dark spots in the history of the Jewish people too. One such stain was the participation of many Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917; many people died as a result. But I don't want to say that as a reproach - I only say that as a statement. "

Hohmann's attitude ultimately led to his expulsion from the CDU parliamentary group and from the party.

In November 2016, in his application speech for a promising place on the Hessian AfD list for the 2017 federal election , Hohmann confirmed that there had been a “media campaign” that was “very bad and perfidious” and that “falsified the speech”.

Group exclusion

The CDU federal chairwoman Angela Merkel reprimanded Hohmann on November 3, 2003, but initially did not consider further consequences to be necessary unless Hohmann expresses himself again in line with his criticized speech. Because of the ongoing public discussion, she finally applied a week later to be expelled from the CDU / CSU parliamentary group and also announced that she would be expelled from the CDU.

After the party leadership of the CDU initially did not want to draw any further conclusions with regard to Hohmann, it took over Merkel's position on November 10, 2003. On November 14, 2003, the CDU / CSU parliamentary group decided to expel Hohmann. With 78%, more MPs voted for the motion than the required two-thirds, but fewer than expected. It was the second parliamentary group exclusion of a Union member in the history of the German Bundestag after Schmidt-Wittmack .

Exclusion from party

On November 21, 2003, the Hessian CDU initiated partisan investigative proceedings against Hohmann, which ended on July 16, 2004 with his exclusion from the party by the state party court of the CDU Hesse.

Hohmann, so the reasoning of the court, had "culpably and seriously violated the principles and order of the party". In a speech he “linked Judaism and Bolshevism argumentatively” and thus “used an offensive cliché” that had already been used by the Nazis to justify the Holocaust. In addition, Hohmann had "not clearly" distanced himself from the speech and thus caused "serious damage" to his party.

Hohmann appealed to the federal party court against the decision of the regional party court. This was rejected by resolution of November 4, 2004. However, the deputy chairman of the court Friedrich-Wilhelm Siebeke spoke out in a special vote against the exclusion of Hohmann from the CDU.

Martin Hohmann then tried civil jurisdiction to challenge his exclusion from the CDU. The Berlin Regional Court dismissed his complaint on November 11, 2005, and the Higher Regional Court rejected Hohmann's appeal against the regional court's judgment and did not allow the appeal . The Federal Court dismissed on 10 December 2007 Hohmanns complaint back against the refusal of the appeal. Hohmann had announced that he would bring his case to the Federal Constitutional Court if necessary .

Support for Hohmann

After his speech became known, Hohmann not only received criticism, but also met with approval, especially in his party's internet forums and various media.

Several prominent Union politicians took Hohmann under protection, including the CSU member of the Bundestag Norbert Geis , the former Berlin Senator for the Interior Heinrich Lummer and the CDU parliamentary group leader in the Saxon state parliament, Fritz Hähle . Irrespective of the criticism from numerous specialist historians, Vera Lengsfeld, member of the Bundestag CDU, spoke of a "media campaign" against Hohmann in interviews with the weekly newspaper Junge Freiheit and the news magazine Focus . At the beginning of 2005, the Northwest Mecklenburg District Association of the Junge Union planned to invite Hohmann to an event, but had to forego internal party pressure. The JU district chairman had to resign.

The historian Ernst Nolte interpreted Hohmann's speech in a historical context and came to the conclusion that it was not conducive to a desire to understand and to overcome collectivist ascriptions of guilt, but that the criticism expressed by Hohmann was not met with enough respect from the political side, provided that the critical intention had even been noticed. Hohmann's criticism is admissible and deserving for the sake of free democracy: “Such criticism should be treated with respect if it is based on arguments and the (perhaps erroneous) establishment of facts. This respect was not shown to Martin Hohmann. But his bravery in the midst of an unbridled campaign and his refusal to renounce his freedom of conscience beyond the right to freedom of expression deserve recognition and admiration. "

Former ZDF journalist Fritz Schenk , also a CDU member, called the "Critical Solidarity Initiative with Martin Hohmann" into being. He also initiated an advertising campaign in the FAZ and other German daily newspapers, in which Hohmann was asked to remain in the party and parliamentary group. The signatories of the appeal included a. Heinrich Lummer and the Munich major publisher Herbert Fleissner (CSU). Not all of the signatories defended Hohmann's speech, but saw his constitutional right to freedom of expression violated. According to Alfred Schobert from the Duisburg Institute for Language and Social Research eV , the first signatories of the appeal can be assigned to three organizations: More than half of them had more or less close ties to the right-wing conservative weekly newspaper Junge Freiheit . Some of the signatories came from the Christian Conservative Germany Forum (CKDF), to whose Hessian state forum , the Conservative Christian Working Group (AKC) around Herbert Gassen, Hohmann had close ties. Many of the first signatories got involved in “ Voice of the Majority ”, a subdivision of the North Rhine-Westphalia regional association of the self-employed, founded in 1997 . On July 23, 2005 Fritz Schenk announced his departure from the initiative and justified this with the independent candidacy of Hohmann.

Hohmann received massive support from all circles of the “ New Right ”, from Junge Freiheit to the Weikersheim study center .

Occasionally Hohmann received support from the Jewish side. Moishe Friedman Hohmann , who describes himself as an “anti-Zionist Jew”, defended himself and called on the Bundestag to rehabilitate him. Even Norman Finkelstein , author of the controversial book The Holocaust Industry found nothing wrong Hohmanns speech.

Hohmann and Günzel

The affair continued at the beginning of November 2003 when Hohmann presented a letter from Brigadier General Reinhard Günzel to the ZDF magazine Frontal21 . The commander of the Special Forces Command (KSK) applauded Hohmann for his speech on Bundeswehr stationery.

Federal Defense Minister Peter Struck thereupon put the general into early retirement on November 4, 2003, because he had violated the political neutrality requirement applicable to the Bundeswehr. Hohmann later apologized to Günzel by saying that the reporter had promised him that he would not present the letter by name in the program and would report positively about Hohmann.

No criminal investigations against Hohmann

On February 5, 2004, the public prosecutor's office at the Fulda regional court refused to initiate criminal investigations against Hohmann for sedition and insult . In their opinion, his speech did not represent incitement to hatred within the meaning of Section 130 (1) No. 1 and 2 StGB, as neither the element of “inciting hatred” nor that of “attacking the human dignity of others” was given.

This decision was made on May 14, 2004 despite complaints - u. a. on the part of the Central Council of Jews in Germany  - confirmed by the Public Prosecutor's Office in Frankfurt am Main .

Consequences under civil law

In 2004, Hohmann obtained an injunction against the Stern magazine published by Gruner + Jahr . After the decision of the Higher Regional Court in Frankfurt am Main , the magazine can no longer claim that Hohmann described the Jews as perpetrators.

The WDR , Spiegel Online , the Frankfurter Rundschau , Bild.T-Online.de , the Schweriner Volkszeitung and Berlin Online have made a legally binding commitment to Hohmann not to claim that he has described the Jews as perpetrators.

In 2016, Martin Hohmann failed with a lawsuit before the Dresden Regional Court , where he sued the Kulturbüro Sachsen for reimbursement of the costs of a warning. The judge there took the view that one could call him anti-Semitic due to the “common interpretation” of his speech of the “Jews as perpetrators”.

literature

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b Complete speech by Hohmann ( Memento from May 4, 2009 in the Internet Archive )
  2. ↑ http://www.hagalil.com/archiv/2003/10/hohmann.htm
  3. ^ A. Dirk Moses: Stigma and Sacrifice in the Federal Republic of Germany. In: History & Memory 19 (2007), No. 2, pp. 139–180, here p. 172, fn. 36.
    Pól Ó Dochartaigh: 2007. Philo-Zionism as a German Political Code: Germany and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Since 1987. In: Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe 15 (2007), pp. 233-255, here p. 251.
    Matthias Küntzel: Confronting Anti-Semitism - But How? In: Telos 2006, pp. 140-153.
    Joanne Sayner: 2008. Review of “Literary Antisemitism after Auschwitz”. In: Monatshefte 100 (2008), No. 4, pp. 638–640, here p. 640.
    Robert S. Wistrich : The Politics of Resentiment: Israel, Jews, and the German Media . Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, Jerusalem 2004, pp. 21ff.
  4. ↑ Tagesschau.de: CDU deputy calls Jews "perpetrators" ( Memento from May 4, 2009 in the Internet Archive )
  5. ↑ Jörg Brase, Werner Martin Doyé: Dangerous Lies ( Memento from May 19, 2004 in the Internet Archive ). In: Frontal21 . November 11, 2003
  6. ^ Christian Esser, Ulrike Hinrichs, Friedrich Kurz: The Hohmann Affair ( Memento of February 14, 2007 in the Internet Archive ). In: Frontal21 . November 4, 2003.
  7. ^ Wolfgang Benz: Hohmann Affair. In the S. (Ed.): Handbook of Antisemitism. Hostility to Jews in the past and present. Vol. 4: Events, Decrees, Controversies. W. de Gruyter, Berlin 2011, p. 170.
  8. ↑ a b Wolfgang Gessenharter: Strategies and spheres of influence of the 'New Right'. In: Mechtild Gomolla, Ellen Kollender, Marlene Menk (eds.): Racism and right-wing extremism in Germany. Figurations and interventions in society and state institutions. Beltz Juventa, Weinheim 2018, p. 54.
  9. ^ Wolfgang Benz: Hohmann Affair. In the S. (Ed.): Handbook of Antisemitism. Hostility to Jews in the past and present . Vol. 4. Events, decrees, controversies . W. de Gruyter, Berlin 2011, pp. 169f.
  10. ↑ Norbert Blech: Martin Hohmann warns of “perverse” and “anti-Christian” gender “ideology” . www.queer.de, October 17, 2019
  11. ^ Hohmann's exclusion from the party is legally binding ( Memento of December 18, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
  12. ↑ CDU country chief: "I am glad that common sense has prevailed": Junge Union invites Hohmann in - and out again . ( handelsblatt.com [accessed on March 21, 2018]).
  13. ^ The "Hohmann Case" in context. (Berlin, August 31, 2004) ( Memento of October 6, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
  14. ↑ Martin Dietzsch , Alfred Schobert (ed.): A "Jewish David Irving"? Norman G. Finkelstein in the Discourse of the Right - Defense Against Memory and Anti-Zionism.
  15. ↑ CDU politician Hohmann obtains an injunction against "Stern". In: RP Online. March 12, 2004 (accessed: September 28, 2016)
  16. ↑ Anyone who accuses MP HOHMANN of “perpetrators” claims pays to “mothers in need”. In: Osthessen News. February 11, 2005 (accessed: September 28, 2016)
  17. ↑ Jennifer Stange: Ex-CDU-MdB fails in court: He can be called an anti-Semite in the Jüdische Allgemeine from July 1, 2016; Retrieved September 26, 2016