Jugendwerkhof

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Jugendwerkhof (JWH) was an institution in the system of special homes for youth welfare in the GDR . Adolescents of both sexes were admitted at the age of 14 and in individual cases up to 20 years of age who were considered difficult to understand in terms of GDR pedagogy , did not correspond to the state goal of educating a socialist personality or from the point of view of various state organs (school, companies, people's police, State Security , Commissions for Youth Welfare) did not fit into the image of society in the GDR. The task of the Jugendwerkhof was to re-educate "with the aim of training full members of the socialist society and conscious citizens of the German Democratic Republic."

The conditions in some of the facilities were inhumane. The inmates were de facto largely without rights and often exposed to violence, harassment and mistreatment. Many former inmates still suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder today .

history

The first youth work yards were established in the Soviet occupation zone after the end of the Second World War in order to spare juvenile offenders from imprisonment in a regular prison and to enable them to return to a normal life. Some youth workshops offered an unusually good craft training for the conditions shortly after the war in their own workshops. Other youth workshops resembled labor camps, in which heavy physical labor had to be performed for companies in industry and agriculture. In the 1950s, the youth workshops were unified and aligned with the collective education AS Makarenkos . The inmates were increasingly called upon to do heavy physical labor. A number of youth work centers were founded at the request of the industry. Since the mid-1950s, the Jugendwerkhöfe received a special task in pursuing the western-oriented youth cultures and alternative ways of life. In 1964, with the beginning of the restructuring of the home system, the closed youth work center was set up in Torgau.

A distinction introduced in 1965 between type I (short-term stay with a deterrent effect, similar to the “ warning shot arrest ” discussed today ) and type II (several years of residence with the aim of re-education) did not prevail. The Jugendwerkhöfe continued to be differentiated according to the school education offered ( polytechnic high school , auxiliary school ). In the mid-1980s, pilot projects were carried out in some youth work centers with the aim of moving away from the rigid penal system. From January 1990 the youth work centers were dissolved or converted into facilities according to Western standards.

Reasons for admission

Prison sentences for juveniles were carried out in youth centers . Convicted offenders were therefore usually not sent to youth work centers. However, in the case of lighter offenses, the court proceedings could be discontinued and a stay in the youth work center could be ordered as an educational measure. Statistics from the GDR Ministry of Education indicate “general discipline difficulties including strolling around work and school” as the main reasons for admission . This category also included young people who tried in different ways to escape the pressure to adapt to socialist upbringing. Other reasons were lighter crimes in the areas of theft, property damage, bodily harm and sexual offenses. A particular reason for girls was a diagnosed “instinctiveness” or “sexual neglect”.

Young people were still admitted

  • with suspended sentences
  • after serving the juvenile detention
  • after criminal offenses in the event of immaturity
  • in individual cases after a failed escape from the GDR
  • in individual cases illegal in the case of homosexuality.

Young people were also sentenced to imprisonment for political offenses. However, politically unruly young people, who could not be proven to have committed any criminal offense, were also admitted to youth work centers.

The lack of transparency in the induction process also led to youth workshops for highly gifted, behavioral or disabled young people. Sometimes parents - among them high-ranking officials - also applied for instruction for their children. Due to the bad reputation of these institutions, such admissions fell sharply in the 1980s.

Educational principles

The general guideline was Soviet education, including collective education according to AS Makarenko . It differed from group upbringing in that it had a strictly hierarchical structure, which in some cases went over to military manners. “The focus was on the concept of 'difficult to educate'. According to this, difficult-to-educate was understood as a disruption of the relationship between personality and society (...). ”A differentiation of the homes or the educational methods according to the causes that led to the“ difficult-to-educate ”, for example after neglect by the parents, psychological or other health reasons, crime , Overstrained with the family situation, violence or abuse experiences did not occur.

Tasks that home upbringing has to fulfill as a substitute for family upbringing were sometimes completely ignored. This included failing to impart practical life skills, such as housekeeping, dealing with money, implementing personal plans such as choosing a career, dealing with authorities and the like. v. a. If the facilities were not only intended for boys or only girls, contact between the sexes was largely prevented. Collective education also suppressed the development of personal responsibility, self-confidence and empathy; rather, it sometimes even worked in the opposite direction, for example through forced self-criticism or punishments in the home public. According to this method, the entire collective was made liable for misconduct by individuals (collective penalty). Other methods of re-education included:

  • permanent ideological training
  • Work education
  • Discipline education
  • the (often misunderstood) "explosion method" according to Makarenko,
  • a system of commendations and punishments.

The dormitory rules of 1968 also forbade defamatory punishments and corporal punishment in youth workshops. Warnings, reprimands or reprimands were allowed. Arrest was only allowed to be issued by the head of the facility in dangerous situations. Any temporary isolation had to be documented in the person's home file. Before the commencement of the sentence, the detainee had to be presented to a doctor. As the official penal system proved ineffective, semi-official and illegal penalties emerged:

  • Withdrawal from food or additional provisions
  • physical assault (pushing, hitting, throwing objects)
  • Exit and vacation lock
  • excessive forms of detention and isolation
  • Penal labor, penalty sports and military exercises to the point of physical exhaustion
  • Remaining in unnatural positions (standing still for hours, sitting)
  • Tolerance or encouragement of abuse of inmates among one another (self-education).

Young people, with whom educators of all types of homes had discipline difficulties or who had escaped from special homes several times, could be admitted to the closed youth work center Torgau , a penal institution in which they were to be broken by means of violence, harassment and humiliation.

Education, training, work

General education was limited to four subjects (German, civics , socialist law, sport). A maximum of 8th grade could be achieved regardless of the school leaving certificate. Since the end of the 1950s, training to become a part-time skilled worker has been offered regardless of educational ability, which in many cases did not go beyond instruction in simple auxiliary work. The young people were employed in production companies or in agriculture, and in some cases the heaviest physical work had to be performed (brick, cement, concrete, briquette factories, metal processing, track and road construction). In many cases, vocational school lessons were not given at all or only in a greatly reduced quality. The remuneration was based on a special tariff, from which the subsistence costs were covered.

Characteristic working and living conditions

building

The YWH were often housed in unsuitable buildings. So were z. For example, former castles or mansions such as in Hummelshain or Wolfersdorf were used, other facilities were in barracks or in a former monastery such as in Rühn. Even by the standards of the GDR, the minimum hygienic requirements were not always met.

Living rooms and bedrooms

There was little or no privacy or retreat in the home. There was no room for individuality and creativity. Some bedrooms were equipped with steel-frame bunk beds and lockers from the military sector and were always used several times.

Catering

The diet was sufficient, but one-sided and of inferior quality (e.g. bread slices with margarine and jam for breakfast every day for years). In 1964 the meal rate was 2.45 marks per day, in 1973 it was 3.30 marks per day. (For comparison: exemplary prices for groceries ). Even with the heavily subsidized food prices in the GDR, it was only possible to achieve a minimum level of catering.

personal hygiene

As of 1974, only 80 marks per year, i.e. 6.70 marks per month, were earmarked for funds, which were not paid out but used for purchases by the home. Make-up or hair coloring was forbidden, but with these financial resources, make-up would not have been possible either. There were only shared showers and washrooms, some of which did not meet minimal hygienic requirements.

Free time and freedom

The young people were constantly checked and tampered with, for example with bed, closet and cleanliness checks as well as post censorship, but also with absurd demands for order, bans on speaking, and dress codes. Services, especially cleaning services, were also used as harassment. The YWH were considered open, but there was a strict residence obligation. A stay outside the home was only permitted in the explicitly approved exit, often only in groups, or to work in companies. The daily routine was consistently organized, e.g. B. from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. bed rest. The remaining free time in addition to the various duties could not be designed according to one's own interests. Even working groups (semi-voluntary) dealt with topics that defined the day anyway, such as simple sport, military exercises ( GST ), civil defense ( DRK ), design of wall newspapers or maintenance of the outdoor facilities.

pocket money

The young people hardly had any money at their disposal. In 1988 the YWH Crimmitschau gave pocket money between 2.50 and 10 marks per week, the payment of which was linked to many conditions (work performance, order, behavior) and which could not be freely used, e.g. B. had to pay for stationery and the contribution to the FDJ and the DSF itself. The acquisition of personal items for a hobby (apart from the other framework conditions), magazines or books was not possible. The possession of radios and recorders was also prohibited. In some cases, fines were imposed by educators. Reduced pocket money was sometimes withheld by the educators instead of being made available to the general public of the group or the home.

The missing private

There was a permanent exchange of information between educators, work instructors and teachers. Misconduct in the area of ​​work, school and social work (FDJ) always led to consequences in the home area, so that there was in fact no demarcation between the areas of life and therefore no protected space. Educators performed many functions in personal union, e.g. B. Head of the FDJ group, military education. No evasion was possible for the young people, except for the flight, which, however, necessarily led to further punishments.

staff

After the Second World War, a decisive criterion for qualification as an educator in the Soviet zone of occupation was political and ideological attitudes, but not educational qualifications. In the course of time, the overall educational qualification improved, that is, the proportion of untrained educators decreased. B. training as a parenting assistant in 1968 on a five-month direct study course, which also showed considerable proportions of Marxism-Leninism and similar non-subject components. Until 1970 there were further training opportunities for former members of armed organs (the GDR), with whose help around 350 YWH educators were trained and thus made up a significant proportion of all educators. In 1981, 172 places were occupied in the JWH Rühn, which were looked after by 30 educators and youth welfare workers, 4 of them without training. Since care was to be ensured over 7 days a week from morning to evening, around half of the educators are likely to have been on duty at the same time, i.e. one educator for around 17 young people. For the development of a trusting pedagogical relationship between the young people and the educators, this was arithmetically far too low a personnel capacity. In order to be a family substitute, this would have had to be based on family dimensions.

statistics

Between 1963 and 1977, the number of decisions to be placed in a youth work center rose in absolute terms from around 1,700 to 2,500 per year. After that, they seem to be in decline. The figures have not yet been fully developed. As an average of the adolescents admitted from 1968 to 1977, a value of 1.8 per 1,000 adolescents appears realistic. Between 1945 and 1990 there was a stock of around 30 youth work yards each with around 3,300 places in the Soviet Zone and GDR. Due to closings and new openings, the list of youth work centers is considerably larger.

Work-up

A first scientific approach began in 1992 with the project “History, structure and functioning of GDR popular education” , which was started by the then Education Minister of the State of Brandenburg, Marianne Birthler , and continued by her successor Angelika Peter . A comprehensive study of all youth work centers was not carried out until 2011. Studies have been carried out on individual youth work centers.

The Torgau closed youth work center memorial was established in 1998 . A permanent exhibition in the lower rooms of the memorial shows everyday life in the GJWH using documents and contemporary witness reports. Can be visited u. a. the dark detention cells as well as the original inner courtyard and remains of the outer walls.

The known findings are summarized in three expert reports, which the Federal Government Commissioner for the New States presented to the public in March 2012. Under certain conditions, rehabilitation can be requested because of the introduction to a youth work center , to which social compensation payments are linked. Former inmates of the Jugendwerkhöfe are still exposed to the prejudice that they were criminals. Today, many of them suffer from post-traumatic stress disorders, physical and psychological consequential damage caused by black pedagogy and greatly reduced opportunities on the job market. Since July 1, 2012, they have been able to get help and advice from the counseling centers of the federal states for home children in the East. The offer of financial assistance for children in homes in the East (Fund “Home Education in the GDR”) ended on June 30, 2016 (West: December 31, 2014). There are also other independent counseling centers.

According to the current legal situation, the deadline for rehabilitation applications from victims by the GDR's arbitrariness expires on December 31, 2019 . Former children in care are also affected. a. Have experienced child sexual abuse in the facilities. The Federal Minister of Justice Katarina Barley ( SPD ) plans to facilitate compensation and to delete the application deadlines. The initiative is not currently legislative.

The final report of the Home Education Fund and the Federal Government's position paper will be published in August 2019. The goals of those who set up the funds were ambitious and in the conclusion of the Federal Government's statement it says: "The funds have not fully met these high requirements in every single case. But the broad satisfaction of those affected as a whole impressively shows that the financial The decisive factor for the success of the funds was, not least, the willingness of the constructors to break new ground with the representatives of those affected when implementing the funds, to try out possible solutions and to correct the decisions made if there were any In the sense of an affected-friendly practice was necessary. Thus it was possible to achieve the overarching goals of the funds and to make a contribution to social reappraisal and reconciliation with a dark chapter of recent German history. "

Historical propaganda images

  • Jugendwerkhof Königstein

  • Adolescent prisoner [pupil, inmate?] At a lathe (1950)

  • Young inmates eating together (1950)

  • Young inmates at work (1950)

  • Young inmates in their room (1950)

See also

literature

  • Manfred Haertel: Cursed, hated and deported - A youth in GDR homes ; Berlin: edition belletriste, 2002; ISBN 3-933664-13-6
  • Manfred Haertel: I'd like to spit in the sun ; Werkhof trilogy 2; Berlin: edition belletriste, 2004; ISBN 3-933664-23-3
  • Annett Reinboth: We children from the YWH ; Leipzig: Engelsdorfer, 2007; ISBN 3-86703-569-5
  • Grit Poppe : Locked up. Novel ; Hamburg: Dressler, 2009; ISBN 978-3-7915-1632-5
  • Grit Poppe: Run away. Novel; Hamburg: Dressler, 2012; ISBN 978-3-7915-1633-2
  • Heidemarie Puls: shadow children behind Torgau walls . Rinck Verlag, Rostock 2009, ISBN 978-3-9811262-3-5 .
  • Nicole Glocke : Upbringing behind bars - fates in homes and youth work yards in the GDR. With an afterword by the former civil rights activist and co-founder of the Eastern SPD Stephan Hilsberg. Mitteldeutscher Verlag, February 2011, ISBN 978-3-89812-782-0 .

Scientific investigations

  • Gerhard Jörns: The youth work center in the youth welfare system of the GDR Cuvillier Verlag, Göttingen 1995.
  • Dreier Anke, Laudien, Karsten, introduction. Home education in the GDR, Schwerin 2013.
  • Verena Zimmermann: Creating the new person. The re-education of difficult to educate and delinquent youth in the GDR (1945–1990) Munich 2000; Cologne, Weimar, Vienna: Böhlau 2004; ISBN 3-412-12303-X
  • Theresa Wiedemann: The Jugendwerkhöfe in the German Democratic Republic. Ed .: Thomasschule zu Leipzig, Leipzig 2006.
  • Ute Jahn: Jugendwerkhöfe in the GDR. Ed .: The State Commissioner of the Free State of Thuringia for the documents of the State Security Service of the former GDR, Weimar 2010, ISBN 978-3-205-78462-3 .
  • Karsten Laudien: Re-education and the image of man in GDR home education. In: Trauma and Violence, Volume 7, Issue 2, May 2013, pp. 134–142. ISSN 1863-7167.
  • Karsten Laudien: Educating and influencing. The education concept of the GDR youth welfare. In: Repression through youth welfare. Scientific perspectives on a phenomenon in East and West, Ed. J. Richter u. a., Munich 2014, pp. 97–112. ISBN 3-937461-94-9 .
  • Rahel Marie Vogel: On the way to becoming a new person: re-education to a “socialist personality” in the youth work yards Hummelshain and Wolfersdorf (1961–1989) , Lang, Frankfurt am Main / Berlin / Bern / Bruxelles / New York, NY / Oxford / Vienna 2010 , ISBN 978-3-631-60259-1 (= Europäische Hochschulschriften / European University Studies / Publications Universitaires Européennes , Volume 1075, History and its auxiliary sciences , Volume 1075, at the same time state examination paper at the Humboldt University of Berlin 2008 under the title: Re-education to “ socialist personality ”in the GDR youth work yards Hummelshain and Wolfersdorf (1961–1989) ).
  • Christian Sachse: The final touch. Youth welfare of the GDR in the service of disciplining children and young people (1949–1989); Ed .: The State Commissioner for Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania for the documents of the State Security Service of the former GDR, Schwerin 2011; ISBN 978-3-933255-35-8
  • Processing of home education in the GDR. Expertise Ed .: Federal Government Commissioner for the New Federal States, Berlin March 2012. Contains:
    • Friedrike Wapler: Legal issues of home education in the GDR ; Pp. 5-124.
    • Karsten Laudien, Christian Sachse: Educational ideas in home education in the GDR (pp. 125–298).
    • Martin Sack, Ruth Ebbinghaus: What helps former home children of the GDR in coping with their complex traumatisation? (Pp. 299-397).
  • Christian Sachse: aim of re-education. Special homes of the GDR youth welfare service 1945–1989 in Saxony. Leipziger Universitätsverlag, Leipzig 2013; ISBN 978-3-86583-787-5 .

Movies

Web links

Commons : Jugendwerkhof  - collection of pictures

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ § 2, paragraph 3 of the order on special youth welfare homes of April 22, 1965, in: Journal of the GDR II No. 53 of May 17, 1965, p. 368.
  2. ^ Order on special youth welfare homes dated April 22, 1965, in: Journal of the GDR II No. 53 dated May 17, 1965, p. 368.
  3. ↑ Karsten Laudien, Christian Sachse: Educational ideas in the home education of the GDR . In: Processing of home education in the GDR. Expertise. Ed .: Federal Government Commissioner for the New Federal States, Berlin March 2012, p. 263 ff.
  4. ↑ Christian Sachse: The final touch. Youth welfare / home education in the GDR as an instrument of discipline (1945–1989) . Ed .: The State Commissioner for Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania for the documents of the State Security Service of the former GDR, Schwerin 2011, p. 314 ff.
  5. ↑ Krause, Hans-Ulrich: Conclusion of a utopia. Home education in the GDR - a reconstruction , Lambertus, Freiburg 2004, p. 127 f.
  6. ↑ Christian Sachse: The final touch. Youth welfare / home education in the GDR as an instrument of discipline (1945–1989) . Ed .: The State Commissioner for Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania for the documents of the State Security Service of the former GDR, Schwerin 2011, pp. 86, 87 f.
  7. ↑ a b c Christian Sachse: The final touch. Youth welfare / home education in the GDR as an instrument of discipline (1945–1989) . Ed .: The State Commissioner for Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania for the documents of the State Security Service of the former GDR, Schwerin 2011, p. 246
  8. ^ Gerhard Jörns: The youth work center in the youth welfare system of the GDR , Cuvillier Verlag Göttingen, Göttingen 1995, p. 132
  9. ^ Order on educational work in the homes of youth welfare - home order - from September 1, 1969 (GBl. II / GDR No. 90 of November 17, 1969, pp. 555-562), In: Rudolf Bauer, Cord Bösenberg : Home education in the GDR . Campus Verlag, Frankfurt a. Main 1979, p. 160 f.
  10. ↑ Regulations on the temporary isolation of minors for disciplinary reasons in the special youth welfare homes of December 1, 1967 . In: BArch DR 2/12203.
  11. ↑ Karsten Laudien, Christian Sachse: Educational ideas in the home education of the GDR . In: Processing of home education in the GDR. Expertise . Ed .: Federal Government Commissioner for the New Federal States, Berlin March 2012, pp. 125–298.
  12. ↑ a b Christian Sachse: The final touch. Youth welfare / home education in the GDR as an instrument of discipline (1945–1989) . Ed .: The State Commissioner for Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania for the documents of the State Security Service of the former GDR, Schwerin 2011, p. 117
  13. ↑ Christian Sachse: The final touch. Youth welfare / home education in the GDR as an instrument of discipline (1945–1989) . Ed .: The State Commissioner for Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania for the documents of the State Security Service of the former GDR, Schwerin 2011, p. 116
  14. ↑ Internet source : Vera Lengsfeld, Die Freie Welt, http://www.freiewelt.net/blog/so-schoen-war-die-ddr-jugendwerkhof-gebesee-in-thueringen-10044678/ , from October 15, 2014, accessed on February 28, 2016
  15. ↑ Christian Sachse: The final touch. Youth welfare / home education in the GDR as an instrument of discipline (1945–1989) . Ed .: The State Commissioner for Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania for the documents of the State Security Service of the former GDR, Schwerin 2011, p. 115
  16. ↑ a b Christian Sachse: The final touch. Youth welfare / home education in the GDR as an instrument of discipline (1945–1989) . Ed .: The State Commissioner for Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania for the documents of the State Security Service of the former GDR, Schwerin 2011, p. 118
  17. ^ Gerhard Jörns: The youth work center in the youth welfare system of the GDR , Cuvillier Verlag Göttingen, Göttingen 1995, p. 187
  18. ↑ Christian Sachse: The final touch. Youth welfare / home education in the GDR as an instrument of discipline (1945–1989) . Ed .: The State Commissioner for Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania for the documents of the State Security Service of the former GDR, Schwerin 2011, p. 248
  19. ↑ Christian Sachse: The final touch. Youth welfare / home education in the GDR as an instrument of discipline (1945–1989) . Ed .: The State Commissioner for Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania for the documents of the State Security Service of the former GDR, Schwerin 2011, p. 247 f.
  20. ↑ a b Christian Sachse: The final touch. Youth welfare / home education in the GDR as an instrument of discipline (1945–1989) . Ed .: The State Commissioner for Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania for the documents of the State Security Service of the former GDR, Schwerin 2011, p. 242
  21. ↑ a b Christian Sachse: The final touch. Youth welfare / home education in the GDR as an instrument of discipline (1945–1989) . Ed .: The State Commissioner for Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania for the documents of the State Security Service of the former GDR, Schwerin 2011, p. 108
  22. ^ Gerhard Jörns: The youth work center in the youth welfare system of the GDR , Cuvillier Verlag Göttingen, Göttingen 1995, p. 145
  23. ^ Gerhard: The youth work center in the youth welfare system of the GDR , Cuvillier Verlag Göttingen, Göttingen 1995, p. 95
  24. ↑ Christian Sachse: The final touch. Youth welfare / home education in the GDR as an instrument of discipline (1945–1989) . Ed .: The State Commissioner for Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania for the documents of the State Security Service of the former GDR, Schwerin 2011, p. 241
  25. ↑ Karsten Laudien, Christian Sachse: Educational ideas in the home education of the GDR . In: Processing of home education in the GDR. Expertise . Ed .: Federal Government Commissioner for the New Federal States, Berlin March 2012, pp. 176, 179 and 280.
  26. ↑ Rahel Marie Vogel: On the way to new people. Re-education to “socialist personality” in the youth work yards Hummelshain and Wolfersdorf (1961–1989) . Peter Lang International Science Publishers, Frankfurt am Main 2010.
  27. ↑ Archived copy ( memento of the original dated November 29, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.fonds-heimerendung.de
  28. ↑ https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/demuetigung-nach-plan.724.de.html?dram:article_id=216870
  29. ↑ Martin Sack , Ruth Ebbinghaus: What helps former home children of the GDR in coping with their complex trauma? In: Processing of home education in the GDR. Expertise . Ed .: Federal Government Commissioner for the New Federal States, Berlin March 2012.
  30. ^ Official website of the Federal Government on the Home Fund East and West, accessed on August 8, 2012.
  31. ^ Official website of the Berlin counseling center Heimkinder Ost und West accessed on August 8, 2012.
  32. ↑ Barley wants to facilitate compensation for children in the GDR . Ostsee-Zeitung.de, March 15, 2019.
  33. ^ Final report of the Fund for Home Education and a statement by the Federal Government
  34. ↑ Excerpts from the film