Talk:Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

I just wrote up the Modern day references section. I hope that this is appropriate for this page- but if not then please remove, but I'd like to hear of any other pages this would be suitable for. Thanks Christianjb 07:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone? I really would like to here your views on this. You can also contact me on my user talk page. Thanks Christianjb 03:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I am still not sure that this text belongs here. I also included it on the Answers in Genesis page- using substantially more detail. I was contacted by one user (see my talk page) who accused me of bellittling the suffering of others during the Holocaust. If anyone has any comments I am more than willing to discuss this. Thanks, Christian

I have sent the following email to glbtjews.org

Dear Sir/Madam,

I've got some tough questions regarding an encyclopedia article I am helping to edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis

This article in part covers a page by creationist organization "Answers in Genesis" in which the neologisms "homonazi" and "sodomofascist" are used. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2005/0218.asp)

These are the questions (and I'm sorry for putting them so bluntly).

Would the neologisms "homonazi" and "sodomofascist" be offensive to most homosexuals? Would they be considered particularly offensive because of the documented persecution in the Holocaust?

Could it be considered offensive for an encyclopedia article to point out the connection between these neologisms and the possible connection with the Holocaust? For instance, would the Jewish community in general feel that it diminishes their suffering for each group to claim they were persecuted- when it was one particular group, the Jews that suffered the worst destruction?

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. I personally consider the neologisms to be offensive, but as this has been the subject of some dispute with other editors I would like your input.

I want to be accountable for this email, so my full address is: (removed)

Christianjb 10:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the section. I don't see how it has anything to do with this article. You might consider writing an article called

10:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is the text I removed:

Modern day references

The prominent creationist organization Answers in Genesis has used the term homonazi and sodomofascist [[1]] in the following context

"Homosexuals are now a politically protected victim group, about which it is verboten to say anything negative. And certain homonazis want Christians punished if they quote from the Bible against homosexual behavior. Indeed, 63-year-old Pastor Åke Green was jailed in Sweden for just that, because they have such a sodomofascist law restricting Christian freedom." Jonathan Sarfati Feb 2005 [2].

The photograph of Erwin Schimitzek refers to his death in Auschwitz in 1932. I don't know where he was actually killed, but since Germany did not invade Poland until 1939, and since Hitler did not come to power until 1933, there is a problem here. Could someone please edit this portion? Thanks. Eddieuny 18:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Changed to 1941-42. Wuzzy 19:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added sources for the numbers of gays arrested under Section 175 and the numbers of those imprisoned, as well as the sources on castration. I cannot find direct support for the statement that gays were placed in mental hospitals (I am not saying they weren't--I just can't source it.) As for Mein Kampf criticising Jewish owners of gay cabarets, I cannot find that either. There are a number of references to Jews being responsible for prostitution in Vienna and prostitution and syphillis causing the degeneration of the German people, but the sentence in Paragraph 1 is not supported in Mein Kampf and I will remove it. Having added sources and deleted what seems unsupportable, this article now is fully sourced, so I will remove the category for sources needed.Argos'Dad 04:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt this assertion, that experiments were conducted to isolate the gay gene. DNA was not known to be the hereditary material until after the war, and proven by the Hershey-Chase experiment. Whether or not they knew of heritability, the above quote "That is a quote from the USHMM site. Gay men had two choices. A) change sexual orientation (which medical science now states impossible) B) get sent to concentration camps" conflicts with their suspicion of a cure. The idea of a gay gene (I think) is relatively new, as opposed to the -in some circles- more common belief that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. 139.57.180.249 01:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, genes were known long before DNA, and the Nazis were very much into eugenics. FilipeS 22:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be sourced. If does not make sense that the Nazis would simultaneously fear a gay gene contamination and give gay men the option of changing their sexual orientation.139.57.40.63 20:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the article says that the Nazis gave "gay men the option of changing their sexual orientation". FilipeS 22:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Genes were known to exist back then, but were still abstract entities. No-one knew what a gene actually was, how a gene might work, or how to look for one. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene#History it explains that it was only discovered in 1944 that genes were actually part of the DNA. So the idea that Nazis were actually "looking for genes" for certain traits isn't really possible. (60.230.101.148 11:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

I just want to know how anyone thought gays would contaminate the gene pool if in vitro wasn't around back then. Who, exactly, were we passing our "gay gene" on to? I understand why Hitler wanted to eliminate gays who were consuming resources and not reproducing, but what's this about gene contamination? Did they really fear this? (Edengoth (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC))

I moved this page from "History of homosexual people..." to "History of gay men...", on the grounds that gay women are given virtually no weight at all in this entire article. If there is to be an article about what gay men suffered, that's fine, but there shouldn't be lip service in the title about it encompassing all "homosexual people", when, clearly, it does no such thing. If the old title is to be reinstated, then this article needs a serious amount of work: an equal amount of weight must be given to the abuses suffered by the other half of the homosexual people: homosexual women. Photouploaded (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

See notes above about use of term "gay". If you only want it to cover males, then "homosexual men" would be most appropriate; better would be to do some research into the current citations, if you can't turn up anything concerning homosexual activity amongst women in the 20C German Holocaust then that in itself is noteworthy - I'd leave the title and mention that little is recorded about NSDAP attitudes to homosexual activity amongst women, this is a valuable counterpoint if it's true. It appears that as "Paragraph 175" applied only to men few women interned for homosexuality are mentioned, there may only have been a few. Pink triangles it seems were not applied to women (but red[political] or green[antisocial] instead). A potential POV source is "Days of masquerade - Life stories of lesbians during the Third Reich: An Introduction, Claudia Schoppmann, Columbia University Press, 1996, translated by Allison Brown". Apparently very few women were arrested for lesbianism, of those that were several appear to have been sent to Ravensbrook concentration camp. FWIW I'd call it "Homosexuals in Nazi Germany ..." Pbhj (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of comparison, I added in the phrase that onanism was also considered harmful to the Reich. In fact, I rememebre reading about an episode from SS/SD internal quarrels that one official was filmed while he was onanized, withe the goal of discrediting, but it missed the target: the verdict was to find him a wife, a Party member in good standing. Does anyone remember this? mikka (t) 16:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you don't want to look it up mikkalai means [male?] masturbation [to orgasm]. Onan is falsely purported to have been put to death for masturbation, instead as Genesis reports he was put to death by God for failing to adhere to his duties as a husband to his brothers widow - that is he practised coitus interruptus (withdrawing the penis at point of orgasm to avoid conception). I don't think "onanized" is an English language word either. So, if it is mentioned can we be please not use that term. Pbhj (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not all those accused of homosexuality were homosexuals. Shouldn't we recognize this?

Please sign your posts by adding -~~~~ at the end.

As far as your suggestion, do you have any references and specific names of people who were accused of being homosexual who, in fact, weren't? -Seth Mahoney June 30, 2005 04:40 (UTC)

First, I would be somewhat careful about using the word "accuse" -- it has an implication of wrongdoing. However, in the spirit in which I'm sure you intended it, not all who were "accused" of being Jewish, or Communist were. There is no reason to suspect (unless you have some sources I've not seen) that the incidence of misidentification was greater among homosexuals than other persecuted minorities.Jliberty July 1, 2005 20:15 (UTC)

You're right about 'accuse' - sloppy wording on my part. And, of course, you're also right that we have little if any reason to suspect that everyone who was "accused" of homosexuality was, in fact, homosexual. However, references are always a good idea, especially when making statements that people will likely find arguable or controversial (which some likely will, given the especially sensitive natures of both sexuality and the holocaust). I would insert the bit about careful wording here, too, but it seems like you've already got a good grasp of that. -Seth Mahoney July 1, 2005 21:25 (UTC)

Accused is the correct term here, they were accused of wrongdoing under the law of Germany at the time (Para 175, IIRC).

I doubt either side will find a reference neither of those accused of homosexual activity who actually committed it nor of those accused who did not. Instead a measure of the manner of proof required would be enlightening - were prisoners interned on the basis of a single witness in court (in which case false accusation is almost inevitable), did they require multiple witnesses (false accusation still likely), did they require a confession (very unlikely to be falsely interned), etc..

If court records from the time exist these things could be established. Pbhj (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The title of this article should be “History of gay men in Nazi Germany and during the Holocaust,” not “History of gay men in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.” — Jättiläinen (talk) 06:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Or merging with other suggestions "history of homosexuals during the holocaust in Nazi Germany", presumably it also applies to occupied territories too? Then we get "Homosexuals during the holocaust in Nazi occupied territories" or just "Homosexuals during The Holocaust" which sounds better. Incidentally it's probably sloppy but it's quite common to use in instead of during for time periods. Pbhj (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have heard that in the early days of the Nazi movement, homosexual relations were initially supported as a continuation of the Spartan legacy however as Hitler rose to power in the Nazi movement this changed dramaticly. Can anyone tell me if there is any truth to this story?

No, their early propoganda did indeed have a good deal of homoerotic imagery but as far as I am aware this was accidental or unintentional. -Revamp

• • No, there were many prominent homosexuals among the early Nazi movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.66.94 (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The unverified claim of 1.4m homosexual men seems extremely high. The pre-war population was about 70m in 1939, of which substantially less than half would have been men; perhaps 33m. As only about 2.5% of any western population today is predominately homosexual in sexuality, this would equate to about, at the very most, 825,000 homosexual men (if my maths is correct!). Moreover, many men with homosexual tendencies would probably not have expressed them (or wanted to do so), so the true figure of actual verifiable homosexuals would surely have been far lower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilipT-K (talk • contribs) 01:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is problematic. It has a compromised POV and keeps inserting terms like LGBT to describe the homosexuellebewegung of the post first WW era. The article needs some work. The name is off too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.66.94 (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

First off, it is undeniable that there is controversy over whether there was a "gay holocaust" in the way the term "holocaust" is commonly understood, and no, the erecting of monuments does not throw this claim into doubt. There is a monument to confederate soldiers in Helena, Montana, but this has not ended the controversy over whether there actually were any confederate soldiers from Montana. The idea that groups besides Jews can be counted as having undergone a "holocaust" is very controversial to this day.

I said the idea "emerged" in the 1970s, not that it was "created" in the 1970s, and there is a difference. Your quote from the USHMM site does not back up your claims that gay men suferred "unusually" harsh treatment in the camps.

It's true about Helena: [3]! Hyacinth 20:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust is an accepted term for Nazi Germany's persecution and extermination of numerous ethnic and social groups. If you were talking about exclusivley Jewish persecution and extermination the proper term would be shoah. -92.9.150.152 (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It's anachronistic to call these homosexuals "gay". Gay is a social/political/historic movement that began long after the 2nd WW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.208.218 (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Using modern vernacular is perfectly acceptaable otherwise all articles on Ancient Rome would be in Latin and the article on African American History would be quite offensive. -92.9.150.152 (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of paragraphs in the present article make mention of the so-called notable presence of gay men in the ranks of the Nazi party, and mention by name four men with alleged homosexual tendencies, who were either close with Hitler or were in a notable position within the party, with no referenced documentation to endorse either of the allegations (two of those men, according to the text, "were said" -- by whom? -- "to be homosexual/bisexual").

We are further informed that such details are suppressed -- by whom? -- in order to spare gay men from being recriminated due to the war crimes with which they were disproportionally involved, and that not all homosexuals are evil, since some of them were targeted for persecution by the Nazis. I am fairly familiarized with this sort of innuendo, and, in virtue of their literary effect, combined with their utterly sourceless status, I will be removing such excerpts without bothering to establish a deadline until which they be corroborated. Those who are interested in the paragraphs continuity may restore them by searching them out in the the article's history after they provide sufficient and acceptable documentation.

It is quite clear to me that, if men such as Hitler and Göring, about both of whom there is an enourmous quantity of literary biographical data, were in effect homosexual, there would be few difficulties in producing proofs in this respect.

• See The Hidden Hitler. I believe the entire book is available online via amazon and in any case you can read substantial parts via google books. Machtan claims that his evidence is sufficient. Others disagree. IMHO the problem is not Machtan's evidence so much (he does have evidence), but the way he presents it, sometimes soft-pedaling contrary explanations.

• Actually, surprisingly little of AH's early personal life is known. This is often remarked by H historians and biographers. He also endeavored to keep it secret, sometimes by misdirection in Mein Kampf. But after all, it is not as if he were a Kennedy: he was a virtual nobody before 1919, living for a while in a Vienna flophouse and a men's dormitory. He never had a real job until WWI (25 years old in 1914). During the lowest period of his Vienna years, virtually nothing is known except that he lived (at least some) on the streets as a homeless person. And according to Machtan he took steps to cover up his sexual preferences and assignations.

• Also, some sources are highly questionable because they only were created after he became famous, thus creating the "I was Hitler's toothbrush" kind of source. Kubizek suffers from this but he is a mild case relatively. SixBlueFish (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

In the race to Chancellor of Germany, as is common in political campaigns, details of Hitler's life were brought to light in order to publicly descredit his campaign -- but, as far I as know, the accusations involved only charges that he wasn't an efficient soldier at the German army (probably an unjust accusation).

• The most famous single incident was the "Heil Shicklgruber" headline of course.

• The most troublesome (for AH) story was that his paternal grandfather was Jewish. This story was gossiped around in Munich early on and made its way into the mainstream press before the 1932 Reichstag elections. (NB Chancellor was an appointive, not an elective, office in Weimar Republic). It's of course related to the (true) Shicklgruber-Hitler-name-change story and had several variants, from the notion that "Hitler" is a Jewish name and there was evidence from Romanian cemeteries, to the rather fabulous story that Maria had relations with a Rothschild in Vienna and Alois was born as a result.

• There really was no criticism of his war record. Had there been, Hitler would just show his Iron Crosses (1st and 2d class), his Wound Badge (wounded twice, and after the first one he begged his commander to allow him to return to the combat zone, claiming he was well enough) and his other service awards. The only way he fell short was never getting promoted so much. But Hitler's story for that was, that he didn't want to leave his unit and that would have occurred if he became an under-officer. Criticizing his war record as a campaign tactic was just asking to get punched in the face: There were many men who were in similar boats in 1930s Germany and Hitler's record could be easily established.SixBlueFish (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

To make clear the sensacionalistic and speculative character of the allegations, it must be pointed out that the only 'indication' of Göring's homosexuality is the "fact" that he enjoyed cross-dressing. This behavior, even if confirmed in respect to Göring, does not evidence homosexuality of his, or of anyone who engage in it. For starters,

) 06:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a tick: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Homosexuals_and_the_Third_Reich.html

This presents some interesting points, which are well-documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.156.217 (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Germany is a city?

'Before the beginning of World War II, Germany had a reputation as the one of the most liberal, gay-friendly cities in the world.'

--Joffeloff 02:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That I think should refer to Berlin (many reference to gay/trans/bi/drag during Wiemar Republic Berlin) - Typified by the work of Otto Dix &c.--94.195.193.43 (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There are many citations on the German Wikipedia page for this topic that reference numerous, credible, academic resources. While it is true that European Jews were the primary targets of extermination and forced labor in Nazi Germany, the camps served many other purposes than ethnic cleansing. There is ample evidence on public display at several museums, especially in Berlin, including hand-written letters from German civilians to SS officers 'telling on' their neighbors for being suspected homosexuals.There has been an enormous body of work done in German academia since the 1960's, some of the best scholarly work on culture in the world, done on the topic of the Holocaust. It is at this point a historically settled fact that terror, murder, labor, incarceration, starvation, extermination, and threats of extermination were used on all people who stood in Hitler's way, or who deviated from the very narrow standards he wanted to enforce for the German people. This included the genocide against the Jews, the Roma, homosexuals, political dissidents, foreigners, the poor, the disabled, and those who resisted. There are detailed catalogs, letters, and several lists of homosexuals, both from within Germany and from the Vichy French [who turned over to the Nazis lists of all of their undesirables (Jews, homosexuals, communists) as an act of appeasement] along with countless other pieces of evidence that support the fact that homosexuals were an open target of the Nazi regime. Any claim to the contrary is really quite contrary to basically every single piece of non-biased evidence that exists on the subject of the Holocaust. For an excellent and thorough list of sources, see the German page for this topic (if you can read German), or visit either of the Holocaust Museum websites. The Holocaust Museum archives are clear, as are the academic citations.

Those of you on this page who deny there were certain groups in the camps out of some kind of perverse need to 'own' the Holocaust for a specific group, are not only vain, but ill-informed. And those of you on this page who choose to use it as a platform for gay-bashing are no better than Nazis yourselves. That the two are one in the same is no coincidence. And as far as making numerical comparisons about what percentage of the total population was of what group, or who suffered more, or whether one persecution is more significant than another, I would like to simply say that such a reduction of human life to mere numerics is despicable, and has no place on a page such as this. Eduardo Lerro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.170.116 (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The use of the term 'homosexual' should probably be replaced by either 'gay people' or 'gay persons' to be in accordance with

) 02:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sentance needs deletion

"he idea of homosexuals as specific targets of Hitler’s final solution was however not salient with Zionist notions of victimhood "

Seems to me someone is using this article to make a cheap political pot-shot. I wanted to add a "citation needed" but the article is protected. Someone should do so, or better yet, delete the whole thing. The idea of Holocaust victimhood being essential to Zionism is probably a misunderstanding (considering Zionism predates the holocaust) but at the very least is controversial. The idea of this victimhood obsession, even if it exists, leading to homophobia is absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.137.146 (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Homosexual concentration camp prisoners were not acknowledged as victims of Nazi persecution." Certainly true in West Germany. I don't believe that is accurate for East Germany, though. Does someone have a copy of the Burleigh and Wipperman book (I don't) and see if they have perhaps been somewhat misleadingly cited on this? Similarly for much of what follows.

"…the Nazi anti-gay law was not repealed until 1994…": possibly true in a very technical sense, but misleading. Paragraph 175 was, indeed, not repealed until 1994. However, it long predated the Nazis (it dated from 1871). West Germany did, indeed, keep the Nazi version of this law until 1969; the Bundesverfassungsgericht specifically upheld it in 1957. 1969 is still a long way before 1994. As for East Germany, after initially different decisions in different states, they reverted in 1950 (one year after being reconstituted as the DDR) to the pre-Nazi form of the statute, and made revisions as early as 1957 that effectively legalized sex between "consenting adults".

All of this is in the Paragraph 175 article, with quite a bit of detail. I don't think it should be rehashed at great length here, but I do believe the summary here should be re-written to reflect what I'm pretty confident is the better-researched treatment of this period in that article. Sadly, that article (an old one) lacks good inline citations. I translated it from the German Wikipedia several years ago. You might want to contact de:Benutzer:Lysis, the primary author, if you have questions. He's not too active on Wikipedia these days, but his user page encourages people to email him if they want to contact him. - Jmabel | Talk 05:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuals were not recognized as victims in East Germany either. In 1948, the Vereinigung der Verfolgten des Naziregimes did not recognize homosexuals as victims of the Nazis, as they "never were in principle opposed to the regime". A year later they rejected a pink triangle prisoner into their organisation. Later no homosexual organisations or activities were allowed, as homosexuality was illegal until 1957. (Source: Herrn, Rainer (1999) Anders bewegt. 100 Jahre Schwulenbewegung in Deutschland, Hamburg: MännerschwarmSkript Verlag.

ISBN 3-828983-78-4 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum.) --Ecelan (talk

) 19:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Pierre seel3.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Pierre seel3.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot -- talk ) 11:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Why C-class?

Why is this article only rated with class C? (I am asking because the corresponding Swedish article is suggested for "very good" rating.) Mange01 (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

RJ Rummel says on his website that 220,000 homosexuals were killed by Nazi Germany. That's much higher than the numbers in the article. Should it be added?

You might think that Rummel's estimate is an anomaly and should be ignored. However, all Rummel's estimates are taken from other scholars. Given his methodology, there must've been other scholars (probably now forgotten) who made these estimates who he's used as sources. Unfortunately the sources for Nazi Germany are about the only ones that are not publicly available on Rummel's website. He gives a strange story about the file being destroyed during an attempt to upload. Does anyone happen to own a copy of his book Democide: Nazi Germany and Mass Murder? If so, the appendix should give the his sources for the 220,000 figure. Would you post them here please? Epa101 (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Its unfair to the people this article discusses to be described by the label put upon them by the Nazis. Some or many of the people accused and imprisoned by the Nazis did and would not identify as "homosexual". It is especially unfair to the straight people imprisoned or killed because they were either erroneously suspected by the Nazis or, as the article discusses, fictional same-sex attraction or sexual activity was a politically convenient excuse to remove people from society. However, what should the new title be? Hyacinth 03:30, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but think it's misplaced. Yes, the Nazis imprisoned men for homosexual behavior when in fact no such behavior had taken place. They also executed Christian "Jews" who were not "self-identified" as Jews. The unfairness was the Nazi's, not Wikipedia's. The Nazis were interested in eliminating Jews and homosexuals from their society, and the title's fine. - Outerlimits 03:41, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The article opens with a description of Berlin's open gay culture. This is factually true, and I don't object to the terminology, but the Nazis would have and it is not part of the Nazis viewpoint. If this article where to discuss only the Nazis view on "homosexuals in Germany" the title would be accurate but POV, but as it does and should discuss reality outside of that view, I think it should change. See:

self identification." Hyacinth

03:54, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You're applying 2004 terminology. Gay men in Nazi era Germany would not have objected to "homosexual": it was a term introduced in furtherance of gay rights. - Outerlimits 04:11, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think that point is irrelevant: this article is contemporary and was not written during the 1930's. --Axon 10:31, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am moving page to "History of Gays during the Holocaust". Apollomelos 07:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Having just read

Samuel Wantman

09:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I personally would find "GLBT History in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust" much more appropriate. --normalphobia 02:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

LGBT is the acronym used on most of the other related articles on Wikipedia. That said, there wasn't a strong L or T (and probably B) population in the camps (as with nearly everywhere else, the negative focus was primarily on male homosexuality), which is the main focus of this article. -Smahoney 06:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Now its nearly 7 years later decided to restart the thread

I would suggest changing the title to "Persecution of the LGBT community in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust" Would recognise in the title that which is recognised in the body text that bisexuals were also persecuted, Whilst the wider transgender community being more visible were the intial targets For example the most of used record of Nazi book burning is actually Hirschfelds Libary being burnt and in the process a signicant loss of transgender history.

It is important to recognise that where we see diffreneces betweeen the LGBT communities in other times their wasn't this seperation being all lumped together. For example what was then called "congenital invert" and now called

X-mass (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Since their are strong links in racial science to sexology, the idea the "congenital invert" now called

belived that Jews were intrinsically more hermaphrodite with Jewish men being feminine whilst Jewish women were masculine since the strong man/weak woman idea was challenged by Strong Jewish women and more interlectual i.e. soft Jewish men

I would do it but all by books are currently packed away and it is important that it is correctly cited X-mass (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

This section is incredibly long and redundant. Is it really necessary to have seven paragraphs on the Civil Rights movement, each discussing "appropriation" and "revisionism" with only the former having any examples detailed, in an article about the Nazi crackdown on homosexuality? Most of the parts pertinent to the section's purpose are citing a single article by Arlene Stein, which is actually cited a total seven times in two separate references - references 20 and 22, which appear to be using the same source. The other two sources cited (21 and 23) are a book on the persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany (which does not appear to discuss any revisionism) and a book on the political demonizing of victimhood respectively. The latter is used to prop up the seventh paragraph, which doesn't appear to actually have much of anything to do with this Wiki article, and simply discusses the nature of victim status. It's my opinion that this section should either be shortened greatly (how significant, exactly, are minor tidbits from a few decades of later American political discourse to the subject of this article?) or constitute a separate article entirely. --Albert Mond (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

→===What a very homophobic assertion=== First of all, yes Hitler had relations with Eva Braun, and the claim that 'Hitler was gay' seems like it was made by a very right-wing scum. Let me explain, thousands of gays and lesbians were brutally murdered under Hitler's reign. They were the subjects of the regime's cruel experiments. Hitler hated gay people and was very homophobic. Hitler banned gay rights organizations and persecuted gay and lesbian activists. Your claim that 'hitler was gay' is as insane as if you were to claim 'hitler was a devout jew'.

• • • There have been whole books written about Hitler's sexuality and the possibility that he was a homosexual. Eva Braun was Hitler's companion when Hitler was already in his 40's. there's no record of other women.

You seem to completely ignore the possibility that Hitler was in denial. I'm in no position to comment his possible homosexuality as I have really no reliable info on the subject, but venting the frustration and denial of one's own sexuality on acts of violence doesn't seem too far-fetched from a psychological point of view. I personally hold it well-founded that homophobia stems from unresolved issues with one's sexuality. Is it not possible that Hitler's fervent hatred of homosexuals was rooted in his own sexuality? Quirk 17:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. One could easily claim Hitler was an alien advancing similar evidence as proof. 85.210.145.41 Anonymous Coward, 17/12/05

Before coming to terms with my own gay identity (high school in the 1970's), I was the first to point the finger at someone else and call them gay or other less polite names. The fact that Hitler murdered gay people does not mean he was not gay, but IMHO seems to point to the fact that he might have unresolved problems with his own sexual identity.71.139.25.73 02:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)jbish

85.210.145.41 makes a fine point, this is bunkum. The trollish response of "your homophobic because your gay" is always levelled against anyone who opposes any aspect of the homosexual lifestyle. If you can turn up a couple of primary sources that state they saw Hitler involved in homosexual activity then I'll accept that he was bisexual. Even if he entertained the idea of a homosexual liason - that doesn't change a thing. One doesn't become a cook by liking cookery, but by doing it. (This bit is probably untrue, but serves for illustration): Hitler never made furniture, but he was definitely a cabinet-maker, he was just in denial, so shall I add that he was a cabinet-maker to the article?. Humans rise above their base desires and follow their philosphical ideals and it is these ideals (for better or worse) that define us. Pbhj (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Was Hitler Gay?

Recently, a new hypothesis, explaining Hitler's behavior, has emerged. This makes the clame that Hitler was himself a homosexual. This claim hinges on a number of things. The claim first arose from an interview with a former squadmate conducted in the 1950's. Here he mentions that Hitler was very detached and showed effeminate behavior. Also, he expressed more intreast in art then women. The squadmate also makes the claim that Hitler was cought having sex with another member of his squad. These claims were initally debunked since the man who made them was a career criminal. However, being gay would explain some of his behavior. It is notable that Hitler seemed uncomfortable around women. Also it is belived that Hitler did not have a sexual relationship with Eva Braun. Hitler's maids said that they checked the beadsheats for evidence of sex, however, they never found any. Hitler's neice, the only other woman he had a relationship with, commited suicide, presumibly due to the fact that he was molesting her.

So what do you guys think?

See

05:49, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hitler in the Trenches. Despite the fact that he had 2 Iron Crosses he remained a lowly Corporal, its thought this was because he was disliked by his immediate superiors, because, they had evidence of, or had heard, that he took part in clandestine meetings in which homosexual activity, or group masturbation took place between several men. Hitler was called by one other a Pippelle - meaning a young participant. When he assumed power Hitler had his military file traced and destroyed. Why? He then associated with a Rohm a blatant homosexual and others. The Night of the Long Knives, 80 dead, revealed what was going on in Rohms SA Outfit when they raided the hotels to arrest the SA leaders, many were found sharing beds. The best way to describe Hitler is that he was a potential Rent Boy who went straight after being awarded 2 x Iron Crosses. A liar, a deceiver, and "bad news throughout his unhappy life".

Although Hitler may not have been gay himself, many Nazi men were. In his memoir Night Elie Wiesel mentions a Nazi fool who, "Like the head of the camp, he liked children...(In fact, this affection was not entirely altruistic; there existed here a veritable traffic fo children among homosexuals, I learned later.)" So while he many not be gay he was pro-gay--69.234.200.106 (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If they were trafficking children for sex then they were paedophiles, and therefore not gay. Only a homophobic bigot would not know the difference. If Hitler was "pro-gay" then his persecution of gay men and women would be rather strange for any objective observer, though of course homophobic bigots are never objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.148.255 (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Elie Wiesel also mentions a Nazi who had an affair with a girl. My guess is Hitler favored all forms of sexual liberalization, not just homosexuality.--69.234.208.72 (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Using the terms homophobic and gay (unless discussing those terms) is POV, ie the former is a subjective view (usually used in ad-hominem attacks) the later is at best vague and at worst a corruption of language ("gay" is now used in British English slang to mean objectionable/worthless) if you mean someone who practices homosexuality, call them a homosexual. You don't call Muslims's "the Faithful" or those that commit Zoophilia while dressed up "fuzzies" in pertinent articles. Pbhj (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Hidden Hitler posits that Hitler was a homosexual, that should figure somewhere in this article. Also, there were several very prominent homosexual Nazis notably Ernst Röhm

I changed the article quite extensively, to bring the information here into line with the Holocaust Memorial Museum site. I am not a "gay holocaust denier," but the article was previously written in an extravagant style that seemed to exagerrate the claims it made and opened the article to pov concerns; plus, it seemed to deviate from factual claims made on the Museum's site. The stuff about concentration camps as tools for rehabilitation and re-assimilation into Aryan society, or alternately as tools for deterring deviations from state morality, seem wildly implausible, especially considering that Nazis had no intention of "rehabilitating" or "deterring" Jews and other minority groups, even in a theoretical sense, and intended to systematically murder them from the outset. The rewrite acknowledges a "gay holocaust" but I think does so in a more truthful and ultimately more powerful way.

Nazi Germany did not seek to kill all homosexuals. Nevertheless, the Nazi state, through active persecution, attempted to terrorize German homosexuals into sexual and social conformity, leaving thousands dead and shattering the lives of many more.

That is a quote from the USHMM site. Gay men had two choices. A) change sexual orientation (which medical science now states impossible) B) get sent to concentration camps.

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Where did you get that information? I have never heard of a study that has concluded science states sexual orientation changes impossible, aside from the pro-gay community. All the pro-gays say it's impossible, all the pro-marriage people say it's possible. We'd need to find an unbiased group to do research in order to draw a conclusion on whether it is in fact possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.226.128 (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the American Psychiatric Association unbiased enough for you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.150.152 (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I consider the APA a fraudulent organization, especially in its decision to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses on purely political and social grounds, without any scientific merit. This being Wikipedia, though, it is not unusual for articles to contain contradicting sources. Wikipedia doesn't claim to find the truth, only to report what is published by "reliable sources," whatever those are. Pooua (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Well since you are disagreeing with the APA, how about every major behavioural and social sciences and the health and mental health professions globally having the same consensus that homosexuality is not a condition?

I'm guessing this won't help either, as people who want to deny gay rights tend not to trouble too much with facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.148.255 (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is very well written with reliable sources, however the title appears to be too long. Perhaps it should be renamed to something like, "Anti-homosexual movement in Nazi Germany" or "Anti-homosexual laws in Nazi Germany".

) 16:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I've considered changing it to "Anti-LGBT persecution in Nazi Germany," as that appears to be what the article is about. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 16:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

A quote about Judaism being a focus in the Holocaust near the bottom of the article should probably be attributed to Elie Weisel, Holocaust survivor, author of Night. I would've fixed it myself, but I'm only a casual reader and I have no idea how to do so. Just wanted to let somebody know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.46.134 (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Checked out the reference to Lost Intimacies and could not find Weisel anywhere in there. Need to revise reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.11.218 (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Not surprising no-one can find it - his name is Elie Wiesel, not Elie (let alone the female Ellie) Weisel, as anyone with a little historical knowledge should surely realise. This article has a lot of such typos.213.127.210.95 (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shrier claims that "so many of the early Nazis" including

were homosexuals. From what little I've read, this book seems to have a good reputation as a historical source. I'm somewhat confused.

Yes, there were homosexual Nazis, as several sources have attested. It is odd that this Wikipedia page doesn't mention this fact at all. Pooua (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

this is a side effect of Godwin's law where no one wants to admit that X group were also Nazi's as this reduces their victim status, for example the existance of Jewish fighting units within the SS is barely mentioned but is documented X-mass (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ernst Roehm in particular is mentioned in the 'see more' section, of course almost all of the of the SA were openly gay as well. Important figures within the Nazis already have their own pages which would generally mention their sexuality and homosexuality in soldiers is it's own topic.174.7.172.27 (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

There is ample evidence that Rudolf Hess, Hitler´s deputy in the Nazi party, was gay. Hitler forced him to marry. The British Secret Service knew about this. In Hitler´s chancellery he was called Miss Hess. Some called him the First Lady of the Third Reich. Ontologix (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

This article pushes the opinion that lesbians were treated less severely under Nazi Germany, while pointing out their widespread rape by the Nazis, for example:

Lesbians were not widely persecuted under Nazi anti-gay laws, as it was considered easier to persuade or force them to comply with accepted heterosexual behavior.

This sentence does two things: it points out the widespread rape of lesbians ("it was considered easier to persuade or force them to comply with accepted heterosexual behavior"), and advances the opinion that this does not constitute anything severe or serious. It might be better to only point out the differences in methods of persecution rather than push an opinion about it. Jan sewi (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on

for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119045626/http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/ to http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090903125329/http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/homosexuals/ to http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/homosexuals/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

According to The Wikipedia

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Between 1933 and 1945, an estimated 100,000 men were arrested as homosexuals, of whom some 50,000 were officially sentenced.[1] Most of these men served time in regular prisons, and an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 of those sentenced were incarcerated in Nazi concentration camps.[1] It is unclear how many of the 5,000 to 15,000 eventually perished in the camps, but leading scholar Rüdiger Lautmann believes that the death rate of homosexuals in concentration camps may have been as high as 60%. +++++++++++++

100,000 were arrested, 50,000 sentenced, so what happened to those not sentenced?

50,000 sentenced and reading the article further it states they were sent to serve prison where and what happened to them?

Why were only a small percentage of these 5,000 to 15,000 sent to camps, what made this group special???

60% death rate would mean between 3,000 to 10,000 death.

Finally, I suspect that some were charged as homosexuals, and they probably were but the reason they were arrested is for something else e.g. the SA.

Any thoughts on this? BernardZ (talk)

The 50,000 who weren't sentenced were most likely released? I'd say that the arrests were usually made when the police raided nightclubs frequented by gays or parks and other "cruising" areas. If you weren't literally caught "with your pants down", the authorities just turned a blind eye and gave you a warning, especially if you appeared to be a "regular tax payer" and had wife and kids. That's how things worked out in most European countries in the early 20th century, not just in Nazi Germany.

I also guess that the persons who went to the concentration camps were those who were not that discreet with their homosexuality. They were major figures in gay circles, gay rights activists, people who traded in or produced pornography and homosexual literature, lived in homosexual relationships very openly, owned businesses catering to gay customers etc. JJohannes (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

This article must be renamed, because referring to people as "homosexuals" is commonly accepted as offensive. The title therefore violates NPOV.

The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post restrict use of the term "homosexual".

Source: The GLAAD Media Reference Guide http://www.glaad.org/reference/offensive David Merrill (talk) 09:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

"When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources; if it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses."

) 10:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:David Merrill. Wikipedia widely uses the term "gay" for a reason. It's nonsensical to only have this article call gay people "homosexuals," a usage with a long history of offensive use and also a term that is antiquated. Jan sewi (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the term "gay" really a euphemism? The term "homosexual" on the other hand seems to be more precise, technical and scientific, being the opposite of "heterosexual". It simply means "one whose sexual drive is directed towards the same (gender)", from the Greek word homos, "the same". Vis-a-vis, heterosexual means "one whose sexual drive is directed towards the other (gender)", from the Greek word héteros, "the other". What's so offensive about that?

If someone was called "gay" instead, wouldn't that contain some hidden implications? Are all homosexuals happy and joyful and live hedonistic and "gay" life? I think that the term "gay" is far more prone to being insulting. JJohannes (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I support the title change. "Gay" is not a euphemism in modern English usage, it's simply the term a set of people generally use to refer to themselves with, as our MOS guidelines indicate. --joe decker^talk 17:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Should Lautmann be mentioned in the lede, given the controversy regarding his writings? (86.133.85.189 (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC))