Soldiers are murderers
The statement "Soldiers are murderers" comes from the gloss The guarded theater of war, which Kurt Tucholsky published in 1931 in the magazine Die Weltbühne . Under the pseudonym Ignaz Wrobel he wrote:
“There were square miles of land for four years where murder was compulsory, while half an hour away it was just as strictly forbidden. Did I say: murder? Murder, of course. Soldiers are murderers. "
The editor responsible, Carl von Ossietzky , was then charged in 1932 with "insulting the Reichswehr ", but acquitted on the grounds that no specific persons were meant and that an indefinite number of people could not be insulted. In the decades that followed, the phrase became a slogan for pacifists and anti-militarists .
In the history of the Federal Republic of Germany, too, the statement “soldiers are murderers” - especially in connection with an attitude directed against the Bundeswehr - was the reason for various legal proceedings up to and including the Federal Constitutional Court . This last decided in 1995 in the sense of a constitutionally compliant admissibility of the use of quotations.
prehistory
Long before Tucholsky's time, not only war itself, but also the military profession in particular, was repeatedly criticized as unethical and killing in war was placed on the same level as murder. Thus wrote Cyprian of Carthage (* around 200) in a letter:
“Murder is a crime when committed by an individual; but it is honored as virtue and bravery when many commit it! So it is no longer innocence that guarantees impunity, but the size of the crime! "
Other representatives of the early Church made similar statements . Several writers of the 18th and 19th centuries described the soldier's trade as murder, including Voltaire ("murder burner"), Heinrich Heine ("standing armies of hundreds of thousands of murderers") and Georg Büchner ("legal murderers"). The enlightener and linguist Joachim Heinrich Campe tried in vain to introduce the term “human butcher” into the German language instead of “soldiers”.
At the beginning of the 20th century it was not only Tucholsky, but also Ernst Friedrich (“Soldiers' craft is murder craft!”; War against war ) and Rosa Luxemburg (“murder weapons”) who brought killing in the vicinity of the Murder advanced. However, none of these statements led to such strong social reactions or lawsuits as Tucholsky's sentence.
Tucholsky's testimony and reactions
Kurt Tucholsky, who himself was a soldier in the First World War and co-founded the Peace Association of War Participants in 1919 , wrote the gloss in the peace edition of the Weltbühne of August 4, 1931, at the center of which was a corrected translation of the exhortation against the war by Benedict XV. was standing. In the exhortation of July 28, 1915, the Pope described the First World War as a “terribly useless slaughter” that “dishonors Europe”. In large parts of the glossary The Guarded Theater of War, Tucholsky criticized the field gendarmerie , which kept a safe distance from the combat area to ensure that “people died right in front” and murdered deserters.
The view that “soldiers are murderers”, which is only the subject of a relatively short section of the glossary, was already publicly advocated by Tucholsky several times before 1931. He spoke of “professional murderers” and “murdered murderers” without, however, provoking strong public reactions. After publication in Weltbühne edition No. 31 on August 4, 1931, Reichswehr Minister Wilhelm Groener sued the editor in charge, Carl von Ossietzky, who was already imprisoned at the time of the trial because of his conviction in the Weltbühne trial . Tucholsky was not charged because he had been in Sweden for political reasons since 1929 and was therefore inaccessible to the German judiciary. Although he considered coming to Germany voluntarily to help his friend Ossietzky, he decided against it for fear of an attack by the National Socialists . This decision caused Tucholsky to have a conflict of conscience shortly before his death. He provided Ossietzky's defenders with material consisting of quotations in which famous personalities described soldiers as murderers. In his closing remarks, the defendant Ossietzky summarized his position as follows:
“But it is wrong to assume that the 'Weltbühne' article is about defaming a class; it is about the defamation of the war. "
The Berlin lay judge acquitted Ossietzky on July 1, 1932, on the grounds that the general sentence “soldiers are murderers” does not target specific people and is therefore not an insult. A revision request from the public prosecutor's office was not admitted by the higher court .
In response to the acquittal, in December 1932 the Reich President's emergency decree stipulated a special “protection of honor for soldiers” through a new law (Section 134a) in the Criminal Code. Accordingly, anyone “who insults the German Wehrmacht or makes malicious and deliberate contempt” should be punished with imprisonment. The legal situation of the Ossietzky trial should not have been significantly changed by this, however, since the reasoning of the Berlin jury was precisely that Tucholsky's sentence did not specifically target members of the Reichswehr .
Section 134a of the Criminal Code was abolished in 1946 by the Allied Control Council , together with Section 134b of the Criminal Code, which was added during the National Socialist era and which contained special protection of honor for the NSDAP .
Disputes about the quote in the Federal Republic of Germany
The court hearing made the phrase “soldiers are murderers” popular as a slogan for peace activists and anti-militarists. Especially from 1984 onwards, German courts had to deal with Tucholsky's testimony again and again. But statements of a similar character were also made beforehand.
The physicist Max Born wrote in an essay:
“In war, the characteristics of the ideal soldier were strength and courage, generosity towards the inferior enemy and compassion towards the defenseless. None of it is left. Modern weapons of mass destruction leave no room for any morally justified restrictions and degrade the soldier to a technical murderer. "
On January 25, 1959, Martin Niemöller claimed in his Kassel speech that training soldiers in the atomic age was training for mass murder, whereupon the then Defense Minister Franz Josef Strauss filed a criminal complaint for insulting the Bundeswehr . However, the prosecution did not bring charges. An excerpt from Niemöller's speech:
“Because they know what they're doing! War is against the will of God. Well, that's said a lot and done nothing. Murder is also against God's will. But by noting that and not preventing murders, I haven't done anything. And so today the training to become a soldier is the high school for professional criminals. Mothers and fathers should know what to do when they let their son become a soldier. They train him to be a criminal. "
Even against Lorenz Knorr , who in 1961 described several former Wehrmacht generals as mass murderers, Strauss, among others, brought criminal charges. In the public discussion of the legal disputes, which were only discontinued in 1974 after several convictions for minor guilt, the focus was not on the abstract role of soldiers, but on the concrete role of the Wehrmacht in World War II .
There have been a greater number of trials of similar statements that have remained lesser known or where the verdict has not been published. For example, it came on 6 October 1970 at the regional court in Karlsruhe to acquittal in a process in which it comes to the representation of a bayonet went tanged babies with the subtext "Go to the Bundeswehr, learn slaughter".
In 1981 the regional court of Limburg pronounced an acquittal on the basis of the following quotation:
"Every soldier is a professionally trained murderer, every instructor an instigator of murder, every air force pilot a professional bomb thrower, every army is a gang of terrorists."
Frankfurt soldiers' judgments
A heated public debate about the Tucholsky sentence broke out in the context of the so-called “soldiers' judgments” by the Frankfurt courts. At a panel discussion that took place on August 31, 1984 in the Friedrich-Ebert-Schule in Frankfurt , an IPPNW doctor and former medical officer candidate had made the following statements to a youth officer who was present :
"Every soldier is a potential murderer - you too, Mr. W. There is a drill to murder in the Bundeswehr."
Long judicial disputes followed on charges of sedition. At the hearing before the Frankfurt Regional Court, the defense and experts, the peace researchers Hanne-Margret Birckenbach and Erich Schmidt-Eenboom and the psychiatrist and military medicine researcher Peter Riedesser , presented the consequences of using A weapons and the methods and consequences of military drills The public prosecutor's office, with the help of experts provided by the Bundeswehr, a general and a senior ministerial official, took the view that the Bundeswehr alone had to pursue the task of deterrence and direct national defense, but would never wage war outside the Federal Republic. When asked by the Chairman what they would do if deterrence failed, they said they would resign immediately. After a total of five different judgments by the Frankfurt am Main Local Court, the Frankfurt Regional Court and the Higher Regional Court , the legal dispute only ended in 1992 with a suspension on account of minor guilt, after the Federal Constitutional Court in a parallel procedure meanwhile accepted the Tucholsky words as a result of Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law ( Freedom of expression ) covered.
There was particularly violent public protest against the acquittals of 1987 and 1989. Federal President von Weizsäcker , Chancellor Kohl , Foreign Minister Genscher , Defense Minister Stoltenberg and Justice Minister Kinkel publicly criticized the decisions. The two presiding judges of the regional court, each of which had recognized an acquittal, received death threats in writing and by telephone, and the lawyers' office was destroyed by an arson attack. The Bundestag debated in a current hour and calls for an honor protection law for soldiers were loud. In the course of the public debate, statements were also made that led to further litigation. In contrast, soldiers of the " Darmstadt Signal " publicly welcomed the acquittals and lawyers from the Republican Lawyers' Association publicly backed the statement. While the Bundeswehr took disciplinary action against the soldiers (including Helmuth Prieß ), but failed at the Federal Constitutional Court, which overturned the disciplinary judgments of the Federal Administrative Court , the lawyers' declaration had no legal consequences.
Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court in 1994 and 1995
As early as 1992, the Federal Constitutional Court had to deal with a modification of the Tucholsky quote. It overturned an earlier judgment against the satirical magazine Titanic , which added the name of a disabled reserve officer with the addition "geb. Murderer ”had provided.
The decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court of August 25, 1994 and October 10, 1995 caused a much greater response.
In 1994 the Federal Constitutional Court ruled in the case of a pacifist who had put three stickers on his car during the Second Gulf War , including one with the Tucholsky quote. It overturned a ruling by the Krefeld District Court that had sentenced the defendant to a fine. Among other things, the Federal Constitutional Court argued that “murderer” did not have to be understood in its legal definition, that the overall context of the stickers had not been adequately appreciated and that there was no special reference to the Bundeswehr.
In the judgment of 1995, in which four similar constitutional complaints were decided - including the wrong translation " A soldier is a murder " (German: "A soldier is a murder") instead of " A soldier is a murderer " - the Federal Constitutional Court ruled , which was in the center of public discussion in the same year because of the crucifix resolution , again passed judgments against pacifists. One of the reasons was again that the courts had unjustifiably seen a specific insult to the Bundeswehr in the more general statement.
Similar to the Frankfurt soldiers' verdicts, there was sharp criticism of the verdict from politicians, sometimes even before the reasons for the verdict were known. After anonymous death threats, the judges were even temporarily placed under police protection. After both judgments, a debate was held in newspaper articles and letters to the editor in the months that followed, in which it was not only about the judgment, but also about the factual question of the circumstances under which it could be justified to call soldiers as murderers. There was also some sharp criticism of the judgments from legal circles. The Federal Constitutional Court has been accused, among other things, on several occasions of having acted as a super-revision body .
Honor protection for soldiers and the end of the debate
The public discussions about the various court judgments in which the use of the Tucholsky sentence remained unpunished resulted in a further popularization of the quote. In 1995, for example, demonstrators tried to disrupt various vows and tattoos on the occasion of the 40th birthday of the Bundeswehr by shouting “Murderers” and “Tucholsky!”. As a reaction to the rulings of the Federal Constitutional Court and to these events, the ruling parties CDU / CSU and FDP demanded that special protection of honor for Bundeswehr soldiers be anchored in law. Specifically, a section 109b of the Criminal Code should read after the first reading in March 1996:
"Anyone who publicly, in a meeting or by distributing writings (Section 11 Paragraph 3) denigrates soldiers in relation to their service in a way that is likely to degrade the reputation of the Bundeswehr or its soldiers in public opinion, is sentenced to imprisonment punished for up to three years or with a fine. "
The press reacted largely negatively to the draft law. It was particularly critical that a fundamental right - the right to freedom of expression according to Article 5 of the Basic Law - should be touched in order to curb criticism of a minority of an institution in the Federal Republic of Germany. The governing parties did not bring the draft law to the final reading in 1996, so that it was initially forgotten.
In June 1999, the CDU / CSU revived the draft law against the background of planned combat missions by Bundeswehr soldiers within the framework of KFOR . While the FDP agreed, the SPD , Greens and PDS rejected the change. The majority in the Bundestag had changed with the 1998 Bundestag election , and the new government coalition followed the recommendation of the lead legal committee and rejected the change in the law. The Bundestag gave the reason:
"In the opinion of the majority of the House, special protection of honor under criminal law is neither justified nor necessary for the Bundeswehr, nor is this desired by the armed forces themselves."
However, the public debate had largely subsided by the end of 1996 to the beginning of 1997.
Disputes 2010
In 2010, the debate about the quote was revived when the public prosecutor opened a case against the journalist and left-wing politician Thies Gleiss. He was finally sentenced to a fine by a Berlin district court, but acquitted in the next instance. Gleiss had written in a comment in the Junge Welt , alluding to the air raid on Kunduz ordered by Colonel Georg Klein :
"136 people died violently at the Berlin Wall, which is inhuman and criminal, but murder soldiers sent by the SPD and the Greens have already killed significantly more people in Afghanistan."
Satirical reception
The public and judicial disputes were accompanied by satirical and cabaret contributions, the authors of which were almost without exception on the side of freedom of expression. A motif that is often used here is the alienation of the quotation, which should not be used in its original form. Wiglaf Droste asks, in the form of a poem, “Are soldiers fax machines?” To end with “Murderers should be called murderers”. From the program of the cabaret artist Matthias Deutschmann comes the sentence: "Soldiers are martens and drive leopards ."
Dieter Hildebrandt asked in the windshield wiper of November 2, 1989:
“What if all soldiers weren't potential ... but potential deserters? What would Bonn say about that? "
In the first episode of the cabaret show Neues aus der Anstalt on January 23, 2007, Georg Schramm entered the stage as a fictional character Lieutenant Colonel Sanftleben , with a button on his lapel that read "Soldiers are murderers" and asks Jochen Malmsheimer , who is also on the stage, about his Opinion on what he replies:
"Would you mind if it said 'butchers are butchers'?"
Linguistic, legal and content-related discussion of the statement
The statement “soldiers are murderers” has been analyzed from both a linguistic and a legal perspective. In addition, parallel to the debate about the criminality of specific statements, there was always a discussion about whether the sentence was correct or incorrect in terms of content.
Linguistic analysis
The meaning of the sentence “soldiers are murderers” is ambiguous, as both the subject (soldiers) and the predicative (nominative object , equating nominative) of the sentence (murderer) can be understood in different ways.
"Murder" has a clearly defined meaning in legal jargon: According to Section 211 of the Criminal Code, a murderer is
"Anyone who kills a person out of lust for murder, to satisfy the sexual instinct, out of greed or otherwise for low motives, insidious or cruel or by means that are dangerous to the public or to make another crime possible or to cover up."
Proponents of the quote in the age of weapons of mass destruction see the means by which soldiers kill as dangerous to the public. Most commentators, however, see no base motivation, since soldiers kill on orders and not out of maliciousness.
Kurt Tucholsky, however, did not know this definition, because Section 211 of the Criminal Code was not changed to the current wording until 1941 by the National Socialists (with the exception of the sentence, which was changed to life imprisonment in 1953). Previously, Section 211 of the Criminal Code was called:
"Anyone who deliberately kills a person will be punished with death for murder if he has carried out the killing deliberately."
In a similar way, murder is still defined today, for example in British criminal law.
In everyday language, the term “murder” is used in a more general sense. Often no distinction is made between murder and manslaughter, or murder is understood as "any killing of a person [...] that is judged to be unjustified and therefore frowned upon" or simply as "killing (of people)".
The extension of the subject “soldiers” is also ambiguous because of the null article . Understood as “some soldiers are murderers”, the sentence becomes less explosive because it is not clear which subset of soldiers is meant. The phrase “All soldiers are murderers” is seldom meant, because even in times of war there were soldiers who were not involved in combat and who did not kill. Also in the context of Tucholsky's original statement it is about soldiers who kill in war. Later, the phrase was therefore used several times in the modified form “(All) soldiers are potential murderers”, which maintains the controversy of the statement. The modified statement should say that killing in war is murder and that soldiers who are trained to kill are thereby potential murderers.
Legal background
If the statement “soldiers are murderers” is understood as a value judgment , it cannot be classified into the categories true / false. It is therefore an opinion, the expression of which is protected by Article 5 (1) of the Basic Law. This protection is limited by Art. 5 Para. 2 (general laws), which includes in particular the “provisions of general laws” and the “right to personal honor ”. Courts must therefore always strike a balance between the fundamental rights of freedom of expression and personal honor. The principle of practical concordance , which aims for a balance that takes both fundamental rights into account, helps here . Since the result of such a weighing depends heavily on the circumstances under which the statement was made in each individual case, both convictions and acquittals have occurred in the past, so that for many observers no uniform jurisprudence was discernible.
Whether using the killer quote the offense of sedition ( § 130 can satisfy para. 1 of the Criminal Code) is controversial. In some cases, judgments were made on the basis of Section 130 of the Criminal Code, some of which, however, were overturned by higher authorities. Since the criminal offense of incitement to hatred, compared with that of insult , requires higher requirements, i.e. a particularly serious attack, in practice it takes a back seat to the latter.
In most cases, the starting point is therefore the offense of insulting ( Section 185 of the Criminal Code). It is undisputed that individual people can be insulted (“Soldier X is a murderer”). It is also recognized that natural persons such as soldiers can also be insulted under a collective name if the perpetrator designates a group of people who are numerically manageable and, due to certain characteristics, are so clearly defined that they stand out clearly from the general public. In such cases, the insult is aimed at every member of the group of people. According to the prevailing opinion, the total number of Bundeswehr soldiers can be insulted because it is large, but manageable and definable. However, this does not apply to the total number of soldiers in the world, so that a central question in many of the trials surrounding the Tucholsky quote was whether the soldiers of the Reichswehr or the Bundeswehr were specifically meant. This must be distinguished from the fact that organizations themselves can be insulted as long as they fulfill a legally recognized social task and can form a uniform will. According to this, the Bundeswehr could also be insulted as an organization.
The principle of safeguarding legitimate interests ( Section 193 of the Criminal Code), which regulates the proportionality of Section 185 of the Criminal Code, is used as a justification for the users of the Tucholskysatz . By § 193 of the Criminal Code, the possibility is protected to be able to express criticism in offensive form, and to be able to uncover about abuses without being prevented by a one-sided patronage. In the Frankfurt soldiers' judgment of 1989, for example, the judges relied on Section 193 of the Criminal Code and decided that, given the circumstances in which the statement was made (he warned of the consequences of a nuclear war in a panel discussion), the defendant was defending legitimate interests.
The Federal Constitutional Court consistently advocates the doctrine of interaction , which states that laws which limit fundamental rights (here: the right to freedom of expression) must in turn be seen and interpreted in the light of the meaning of this fundamental right. This doctrine, founded in the Lüth judgment , leads to a strengthening of the right to freedom of expression in relation to the offense of insult. In connection with the theory of interaction, the presumption formula is another principle that the constitutional judges refer to. According to this, a basic “presumption in favor of freedom of speech” applies to a “contribution to the formation of public opinion”, so that exceptions require separate justification.
In the judgment of October 10, 1995, the Federal Constitutional Court emphasized that opinions on public controversies are almost a constituent feature of the free democratic basic order .
In addition, the Federal Constitutional Court warned that the courts have to move away from the mere wording of the statement when determining the defendant's intention to make a statement. It is particularly crucial that the statement “soldiers are murderers” does not necessarily mean that soldiers have committed themselves to be criminally liable for murder within the meaning of Section 211 of the Criminal Code. Rather, it should be examined what the holder of fundamental rights meant by the term “murderer”. This is obvious because the word “murderer” is used in a completely different slang than it is defined in the legal context. In this context, it can be left completely open whether and under what conditions soldiers can be murderers in the criminal sense.
Content debate
Even if the media and politicians often presented this differently, it was usually not the task of the courts to clarify the question of the correctness of the statement. In court, therefore, it was only ever decided whether it was permissible in the respective situation within the framework of freedom of expression to utter Tucholsky's sentence. Since 1931, on the other hand, there has always been a parallel public debate about whether the sentence is correct or incorrect.
One of the counter-arguments is that killing in war can be classified as murder, but the soldiers are not murderers. So wrote Francis Mary Stratmann , who belonged to the Catholic peace movement in 1932 that soldiers would not kill at will, but a "passive instrument" had their commanders. Therefore, it is not the soldiers but the “states and peoples” who are the real murderers. The pacifist Kurt Hiller made a similar statement, emphasizing in 1932 that a soldier should not only be ready to kill innocent people, but also to be killed innocently. A murderer can therefore at most be called the commanders, i.e. generals, ministers and presidents. The view that the real murderers were not the common soldiers was also frequently taken in later discussions:
"Why are only the millions of executors named murderers who have been allowed to die a million times over, while the war planners, propagandists and commanders rise to become 'historical figures'?"
The argument that it is wrong to call soldiers in general as murderers, because it would include soldiers from special armies who fight for a good cause, aims in a different direction. Kurt Hiller took this argument and meant the communist soldiers in the Russian Civil War ; Later commentators named the Allied soldiers who liberated the world from Hitler or the soldiers of the Bundeswehr who were deployed for humanitarian goals and peacekeeping. The advocates of this argument usually do not deny the admissibility of calling soldiers from other armies as murderers.
With reference to soldiers in the Bundeswehr in particular, most of the politicians who commented on the quote consider killing in war to be justified. The then defense policy spokesman for the SPD, Walter Kolbow , summarized this view in 1994 as follows:
“[...] Armed forces are a constitutive element of defensive democracy. This justifies the killing that a soldier has to carry out in the event of a defense. "
Many commentators emphasized the constitutional mandate of the Bundeswehr for defense and the fact that Bundeswehr soldiers have not been involved in any armed conflicts to date. The Catholic military bishop Johannes Dyba considered the users of the quote to be "not peacemakers, but poisoners" and emphasized that the soldiers' mission is precisely to prevent injustice such as mass murder.
However, there were also voices who argued behind the content of the quote: Bundeswehr soldiers from the Darmstädter Signal working group justified the statement "All soldiers are potential murderers" with the special situation of soldiers in the age of weapons of mass destruction:
“[…] On the other hand, we consider the statement 'all soldiers are potential murderers' to be correct in terms of content. The strategy of atomic deterrence, which is still in force, brings us into trouble of conscience, because if it fails it forces us to kill on a massive scale without distinction. "
Seven board members of the Republican Lawyers' Association also publicly defended the designation "potential murderers". They argued that history was riddled with crimes against civilians perpetrated by soldiers.
literature
- Gerhard Zwerenz : "Soldiers are murderers." The Germans and the war . Knesebeck & Schuler, Munich 1988, ISBN 3-926901-06-3 .
- Armin Burkhardt: The quote in court. Linguistic remarks on the reception of a memorable sentence by Kurt Tucholsky. In: Karin Böke, Matthias Jung, Martin Wengeler (eds.): Public language use. Practical, theoretical and historical perspectives. Dedicated to Georg Stötzel on the occasion of his 60th birthday . Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen 1996, ISBN 3-531-12851-5 , pp. 138-173.
- Michael Hepp, Viktor Otto (ed.): Soldiers are murderers. Documentation of a debate . Ch. Links, Berlin 1996, ISBN 3-86153-115-1 .
- Tade Matthias Spranger: BVerfGE 93, 266 ff. - Soldiers are murderers. On the importance of freedom of expression for the criminal conviction for the statement "soldiers are murderers". In: Jörg Menzel (Ed.): Constitutional Law. Hundreds of decisions by the Federal Constitutional Court in retrospect . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2000, ISBN 3-16-147315-9 , pp. 592-598.
- Tilmann Perger: Honor protection of soldiers in Germany and other countries. Dissertation at the University of the Federal Armed Forces Munich 2002 ( PDF file, 222 pages, 1.6 MB ).
Web links
- Till Müller-Heidelberg: Tucholsky and the Federal Constitutional Court. In: Till Müller-Heidelberg, Ulrich Finckh et al. (Ed.): Fundamental Rights Report 1997. On the situation of civil and human rights in Germany. Rowohlt, Reinbek bei Hamburg 1997, pp. 71-75.
- Michael Hepp: Tucholsky and the honor of soldiers. On the historical prehistory of the planned honor protection law
Individual evidence
- ↑ Kurt Tucholsky: The guarded theater of war . textlog.de, full text (first published in Die Weltbühne on August 4, 1931)
- ^ Cyprian of Carthage: Ad Donatum . Chapter 6
- ↑ Peter Bürger: Early Church Pacifism and “Just War” . Forum Pazifismus 07/2005 ( online ( memento of the original from June 9, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this note .; PDF)
- ↑ Michael Hepp, Viktor Otto (ed.): Soldiers are murderers. Documentation of a debate . Ch. Links, Berlin 1996, ISBN 3-86153-115-1 . P. 6 and p. 94.
- ↑ Benedict XV .: The war is a terrible slaughter! on Wikisource
- ↑ Michael Hepp, Viktor Otto (ed.): Soldiers are murderers. Documentation of a debate . P. 14.
- ↑ Kurt Tucholsky: Letters. Selection 1913–1935 . Berlin 1983, p. 325 ff.
- ↑ Michael Hepp, Viktor Otto (ed.): Soldiers are murderers. Documentation of a debate . P. 18.
- ↑ quoted from Michael Hepp, Viktor Otto (ed.): Soldiers are murderers. Documentation of a debate . P. 72.
- ^ Tilmann Perger: Honor protection of soldiers in Germany and other countries . Dissertation, Universität der Bundeswehr, Munich 2002, p. 164. ( online version; PDF)
- ↑ Michael Hepp, Viktor Otto (ed.): Soldiers are murderers. Documentation of a debate . P. 25.
- ↑ Max Born: The destruction of ethics by the natural sciences. Considerations of a physicist. In: AA. Guha, S. Papcke (ed.): Unleashed research - the consequences of a science without ethics. , Fischer, Frankfurt am Main 1988
- ↑ Niemöller's biography at the Martin Niemöller Foundation
- ↑ Stattzeitung für Südbaden : Lorenz Knorr - early on in the footsteps of the Wehrmacht and Bundeswehr ( memento of the original from August 15, 2017 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . Issue 41, November 1999
- ↑ Compilation in Ralf Cüppers: One should call a murderer a murderer . Brochure, German Peace Society - United War Resisters , January 2000.
- ↑ a b Andreas Speck: 100 Days of Prison, Oldenburger Stachel No. 10, 1994.
- ^ Tilmann Perger: Honor protection of soldiers in Germany and other countries . P. 123.
- ^ Tilmann Perger: Honor protection of soldiers in Germany and other countries . P. 125.
- ^ Judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court BVerfGE 86, 1, judgment text
- ^ Tilmann Perger: Honor protection of soldiers in Germany and other countries . P. 142.
- ↑ a b Judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court 1 BvR 1423/92, text of the judgment
- ↑ a b Judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court BVerfGE 93, 266, text of the judgment
- ↑ Michael Hepp, Viktor Otto (ed.): Soldiers are murderers. Documentation of a debate . P. 125.
- ↑ Michael Hepp, Viktor Otto (ed.): Soldiers are murderers. Documentation of a debate . Chapter “Soldiers and Judges” and “Judges are Potential Troublemakers”.
- ↑ Walter Grasnick: Comment on the decision of the 3rd Chamber of the 1st Senate of the BVerfG v. August 25, 1994 - 1 BvR 1423/92. In: Legal review . 1995, pp. 160-165.
- ^ Tilmann Perger: Honor protection of soldiers in Germany and other countries . P. 148 ff.
- ↑ U. Steuten: The great tattoo . Duisburg Contributions to Sociological Research 2/1999 ( online version ( Memento of the original from June 21, 2007 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice . ; PDF)
- ↑ BT-Drs. 13/3971 (PDF; 227 kB)
- ↑ Michael Hepp, Viktor Otto (ed.): Soldiers are murderers. Documentation of a debate . P. 293 ff.
- ^ German Bundestag, 14th electoral term, 45th session on June 17, 1999 ( PDF (PDF))
- ↑ BT-Drs. 14/1632 (PDF; 123 kB)
- ↑ Focus on the Bundestag, October 1999
- ↑ Junge Welt , April 9, 2011, http://www.jungewelt.de/2011/04-09/008.php
- ↑ Junge Welt, November 26, 2011, http://www.jungewelt.de/2011/11-26/019.php
- ^ Advice on humility . In: Junge Welt , May 20, 2010
- ↑ Wiglaf Droste: Are soldiers fax machines?
- ↑ after Michael Hepp, Viktor Otto (ed.): Soldiers are murderers. Documentation of a debate . P. 375.
- ↑ Dieter Hildebrandt: windshield wiper, November 2, 1989. Quoted from Dirk Heinrichs: Dishonoring the war: are soldiers potential murderers? . 1996, p. 29.
- ^ "News from the institution" from January 23, 2007, recording on YouTube
- ↑ Michael Hepp, Viktor Otto (ed.): Soldiers are murderers. Documentation of a debate . P. 268 and p. 315.
- ↑ Sections 211, 212 of the Reich Criminal Code
- ↑ Armin Burkhardt: The quote in front of the court. Linguistic remarks on the reception of a memorable sentence by Kurt Tucholsky. In: Karin Böke, Matthias Jung, Martin Wengeler (eds.): Public language use. Practical, theoretical and historical perspectives. Dedicated to Georg Stötzel on the occasion of his 60th birthday . Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen 1996, ISBN 3-531-12851-5 , p. 150.
- ↑ Armin Burkhardt: The quote in front of the court. Linguistic remarks on the reception of a memorable sentence by Kurt Tucholsky . P. 144 ff.
- ↑ Armin Burkhardt: The quote in front of the court. Linguistic remarks on the reception of a memorable sentence by Kurt Tucholsky . P. 152.
- ↑ Armin Burkhardt: The quote in front of the court. Linguistic remarks on the reception of a memorable sentence by Kurt Tucholsky . P. 145.
- ↑ The offended Bundeswehr. Interview with Peter Augst in: Are soldiers murderers? Analyzes and documents on the "soldier's judgment". IPPNW, 1990.
- ^ Tilmann Perger: Honor protection of soldiers in Germany and other countries . P. 75.
- ↑ Michael Hepp, Viktor Otto (ed.): Soldiers are murderers. Documentation of a debate . P. 102.
- ^ Tilmann Perger: Honor protection of soldiers in Germany and other countries . P. 154 ff.
- ↑ BGHSt 36, 83.
- ↑ OLG Hamm NZWehrr 1977, BGHSt 36, 83
- ↑ BGHSt 6, 186; negative RGSt 3, 246; RGSt 68, 120.
- ^ Tilmann Perger: Honor protection of soldiers in Germany and other countries. P. 71.
- ^ Judgment of the Frankfurt Regional Court of October 20, 2989, printed in Are Soldiers Murderers? Analyzes and documents on the "soldier's judgment". IPPNW, 1990.
- ↑ Judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court BVerfGE 93 266 judgment text
- ^ Franziskus Maria Stratmann: Signs of the times. Soldiers are called murderers . The peace fighter, June 1932.
- ↑ Kurt Hiller: Are soldiers murderers? The Peace Watch, 1932.
- ↑ Frankenpost of September 30, 1994, quoted from soldiers are murderers, p. 181 (see literature).
- ↑ Michael Hepp, Viktor Otto (ed.): Soldiers are murderers. Documentation of a debate . P. 164.
- ↑ Berliner Zeitung of September 20, 1994. Quoted from Michael Hepp, Viktor Otto (ed.): Soldiers are murderers. Documentation of a debate . P. 139.
- ↑ Michael Hepp, Viktor Otto (ed.): Soldiers are murderers. Documentation of a debate . P. 180.
- ↑ Press release of the Darmstädter Signal working group , quoted from: Are soldiers murderers? Analyzes and documents on the soldier's judgment, p. 61.
- ↑ Michael Hepp, Viktor Otto (ed.): Soldiers are murderers. Documentation of a debate . P. 114.
