Research Question:
IBDP Extended Essay in History
To
What Extent Did The Revision of Paragraph 175 of the German Criminal Code Allow
for a Shift in Tolerance Towards Homosexual Behaviour from Hitler towards the
Nazi Party and German Society?
Word
Count: 3904
Abstract
Word Count: 273
The
persecution of homosexuals during the Holocaust is an issue that has not been
widely recognized until the rise of the gay and lesbian movement during the
1970s. One of the more prominent factors that contributed to the intensified
attack against the gay community was the 1935 revision of Paragraph 175 of the
German Criminal Code. To investigate an aspect that contributed to the
‘forgotten’ persecution of homosexuals during the Third Reich would shine more
light on a topic rarely talked about. Therefore I have chosen to investigate
the extent of the impact of the Paragraph 175’s revision on the shift in
tolerance towards homosexual behaviour from Hitler towards the Nazi party and
German society.
This
paper will explore the impact of the revision of Paragraph 175 in 1935 on the
intensification of the persecution of homosexuals within Nazi Germany, as well
as other factors that could contribute to the sudden change in toleration
displayed by Hitler towards the party and society. This will be achieved by
exploring a number of papers concerning the dissemination of sexuality, the
intolerance of homosexuality, and primary sources from victims of the
persecution to determine and analyze the overall impact of the article’s
revision on the strengthened campaign attacks against homosexuals.
Although
important in considering the intensified persecution of homosexuals, Paragraph
175 cannot be identified as the primary cause of a shift in tolerance displayed
by Hitler towards the Nazi Party and German society. However, it is considered
a tool that was essential in the maintenance and consolidation of power and
ideological policies for Hitler and might have affected the already intolerant
atmosphere in Germany towards homosexuals.
Introduction
In his pursuit to achieve the ‘Master Aryan Race’, Hitler pursued policies that persecuted citizens within the Third Reich that failed to meet the Fuhrer’s vision. The groups of persecuted citizens included the Jews, those with mental and physical disabilities, Gypsies, Soviet prisoners of war, and homosexuals[1]. Homosexuals belonged to a group of forgotten victims – those not widely acknowledged for many years[2]. It was not until the rise of the gay movement within the 1970s, that the persecution of homosexuals under the Third Reich was recognized. At the same time, historians acknowledged the sufferings and the vulgar nature of the vicious campaign waged against homosexuals.
The
sufferings of the gay community had not halted after the end of the war. During
the postwar period, members of the gay community experienced accusations that
linked the Nazi movement and its origins to homosexuality, claims that
connected homosexuality to the atrocities committed by the Nazis during the
Second World War,
as well as the consequences posed by the continuation of the implementation of
Paragraph 175. Even after the postwar period, the West German Supreme Court
upheld the revised version of Paragraph 175 of the German Criminal Code in
1975. The suffering of Germany’s homosexuals was largely caused by the Nazi
revision of Paragraph 175 within the German Criminal Code.
Before the Nazi Regime in 1871, Paragraph 175 within the German Criminal Code had stipulated that, “A male who indulges in criminally indecent activities with another male or who allows himself to participate in such activities will be punished with jail.”[4] During this time, Paragraph 175 concentrated mainly and specifically targeted sodomy and anal intercourse. However, in the early period of the 20th century, as the gay and lesbian movement within the country continued to prosper, Paragraph 175 was not highly acknowledged and even seemed likely to be abolished[5].
It was not until the rise of the Nazi Party,
that the law would be revised and strongly implemented in order to achieve
their goals of making way for the future Aryan race. In its time of revision,
Himmler argued that homosexuality did not only prove to be a crime, but also a
danger to the future of the Aryan race.
In 1935, the same year that the Nuremberg laws were implemented and issued, on
June 28, Paragraph 175 was revised and strengthened. In its revision, any
slight indication of possible homosexual behaviour would conclude in
justification or prove as grounds for a citizen’s arrest. These suggestions of
homosexual behaviour included acts that would appear intimate such as hugging or
kissing another man. Even simple gossip could leave a person to be suspected
and left for investigation under the grounds of homosexuality. With the
revision of Paragraph 175, it had been made clear that there would be no room
for homosexuals in the Nazi’s development of their ‘Master Aryan Race’.
Thus,
the revision of Paragraph 175 allowed for an intensified attack towards the
homosexual community but not necessarily a shift in tolerance towards their behaviour. Moreover, Hitler’s intolerance towards the homosexual community found
in both the Nazi Party and German Society was innate as it coherently fit with
Nazi ideology and his belief in Social Darwinist theories. Through the revision
of Paragraph 175, Hitler was able to demonstrate this imminent intolerance at
an intensified level.
Tolerance for Sexuality
and the Usefulness of Notable Leading Figures in the Nazi Party
Ernst Rohm, a leading and notable figure within the SA[7], was known to be an open homosexual. His influential status and position within the party provided a light of optimism for the gay community, posing as existing evidence for toleration of homosexuals to an extent. He was seen as a symbol to gays within Germany, hoping for protection. Rohm’s massacre during ‘The Night of the Long Knives’ in 1934 was seen as a major turning point in the tolerance that Hitler displayed for any figure/person within the homosexual community. Simultaneously, Rohm’s massacre can be used as an example of how Hitler’s tolerance for homosexual behaviour was only present during a period of necessity in his rise to power. However, it is most commonly noted that Rohm’s homosexuality was used as justification for the Night of the Long Knives[8]. With a consolidation of the power of the Nazi Party and the Fuhrer, Rohm and the SA only proved to exist as a threat, thus sparking their purge and elimination.
There
was a clear admiration for Rohm from the Fuhrer during the period of Hitler’s
rise to power, as Rohm proved to be a figure that was necessary for the
consolidation, maintenance, and rise of the Nazi Party. It is noted that the
Fuhrer’s need for Rohm proved to be so great that he steadily ignored reports
concerning Rohm and his homosexual activities.
Hitler’s admiration and necessity for Rohm was evident in his statement:
“Some
people expect SA commanders…to take decisions on these matters, which belong
purely to the private domain. I reject this presumption categorically…[The SA]
is not an institute for the moral education of genteel young ladies, but a
formation of seasoned fighters. The sole purpose of any inquiry must be to
ascertain whether or not the SA officer…is performing his official duties…His
private life cannot be an object of scrutiny unless it conflicts with the basic
principles of National Socialist ideology.”
It
was not until there was suspicion of Rohm’s motivations and an alleged plot to
kill Hitler, that the Fuhrer considered the notable SA leader a threat.
Existing to be simply a threat to the Fuhrer and the Nazi party, Rohm’s
necessity and importance to the regime no longer prevailed.
Rohm’s homosexuality was used as justification for his release and expulsion. His sexuality became an easy target for Hitler to use and manipulate, even after his massacre to ensure and reinforce the standards that were expected of the future Aryan race. It is stated that homosexuality within the SA was used by Hitler as a ploy so that he could pose as the moral leader of the Nazi Party and the Reich[11]. As an example of Hitler’s manipulation in order to reinforce Nazi ideology, Rohm was used as an example in Nazi propaganda to portray elements of what was considered to be morally degenerate.
Ernst Rohm is used as a popular example for Hitler’s degradation of the homosexuals within the Nazi Party. However, the persecution of homosexual leading figures within the party extends to just beyond the SA. Many of the leaders within the Hitler Youth, also SA officers, were known to be homosexuals[12]. Another admired figure noted to be influential yet homosexual within the party was Rossbach, a prominent hero of the nationalistic German youth. Homosexuality proved not only to be prevalent within the SA, but also within the Hitler Youth. Persecution and open intolerance for homosexual behaviour within the party was not as prominent or as common as it was after the elimination of Rohm in 1934. However, active persecution against the homosexuals was already put into practice by 1933 along with the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party.
Considering
that Rohm’s execution and the persecution of homosexuals within the SA occurred
during 1934, a year before the revision of Paragraph 175, it can be said that
the revision of the sodomy law had no effect on the determination of the fate
of the SA leader and his companions. Instead, it can be said that the execution
of Rohm and fellow homosexuals allowed for and inspired harsher treatment for
the gay community under the Third Reich. It can also be noted that the
treatment of homosexuals became harsher after the elimination of Rohm and the
Night of the Long Knives purge. The elimination of Rohm and his companions
triggered a period of heightened persecution for the gay community within the
country, including the revision of Paragraph 175 and the continuous arrests of
suspected homosexuals falling victim to the Nazi regime. This ultimately
demonstrates how Hitler’s intolerance towards the homosexual community fell
back on the promotion of Nazi ideology and his ultimate goal – to fulfill the
‘Master Aryan Race’.
Social Implications of
Paragraph 175 on the Gay Community
The level of persecution of the homosexuals including the police raids and mass arrests became increasingly common by the end of 1934, even before the revision of Paragraph 175. The arrest of a suspected homosexual would most likely lead to expulsion to the first established concentration camps. Throughout the course of the Nazi Regime, homosexuals were tortured and exterminated along with all other members of society that Hitler found to be unfit and posed a threat to the future Aryan race. Within this duration, there are an estimated number of 15,000 homosexuals killed due to overwork in these concentration camps[13].
The Nazi revision of Paragraph 175 included the lowering of the age of consent for homosexuals to eighteen[14]. Its revision broadened the range of ‘lewd and lascivious’ behaviour that could be constituted as homosexual behaviour, enough for charges and persecution. It is noted that throughout the Nazi Regime, Paragraph 175 was used as a tool to justify the regime’s internment of homosexual men[15]. Simultaneously, the arrest and persecution of the homosexuals fit well within Nazi ideology and Hitler’s Social Darwinist beliefs, hence justifying their elimination in order to rid of any threat that would disturb the success and fruition of the future Aryan race. Not only was Paragraph 175 a tool in Hitler’s social engineering policies, it was also an instrument in dealing with and disciplining political opponents. The Fuhrer and the party utilized this law in order to consolidate and maintain their power and positions. In this sense, the revision of Paragraph 175 during the Nazi era was essential, ideologically and politically. Moreover, the revision of Paragraph 175 proved the increasing intolerance towards homosexual behaviour to be an imminent political strategy, justified by Nazi ideology. Thus, with the revision of Paragraph 175 came a rapidly increasing number of arrests and raids[16].
Between the period of 1933 to 1944, before and after the revision of Paragraph 175, there are an estimated number of 50,000 to 63,000 men that were convicted under the charges of homosexuality. Out of these men, an estimated 10,000 to 12,000 homosexuals were imprisoned in concentration camps[17]. The torture and suffering of the homosexual community was displayed the most within concentration camps and the branding of the Pink Triangle.
The Pink Triangle became a symbol invented by the Nazis, concentrating on the homosexuals imprisoned in concentration camps. The symbol of the pink triangle triggered and meant harsher treatment within these camps. This icon also symbolized a continuum of legal persecution for the Nazi era to the eruption of the gay movement in the 1970s[18]. It is noted that gay men suffered a higher mortality rate in comparison to other small victim groups. There is a suggested pattern of specialized brutality during police raids towards these homosexuals who were simultaneously, Jewish[19]. The hatred brewed for the homosexuals at these concentration camps was intensified as the pursuit for the ‘Master Aryan Race’ continued and the extermination of those who threaten the future of the Aryan race. The attitude towards the homosexual community in the concentration camps was consistently harsh. As Himmler once said, “The homosexuals must be entirely eliminated.”[20] In order to maintain this attitude, soldiers and even fellow prisoners demonstrated and targeted a concentrated amount vulgarity and brutality towards the homosexual community within these concentration camps. Such brutality against the homosexual community was demonstrated during the Olympic games of 1936 where persecution had been stepped up in mass bar raids in order to present visiting athletes and journalists with a ‘morally clean’ Germany[21].
The
intensification of the persecution of homosexuals eventually led to an increase
in the population of homosexual concentration camp inmates. Persecution and
vulgarity against the homosexuals became more common, thus allowing sexual
repression to be loudly proclaimed and justifying the programs that exterminated
and punished the gay community.
The
increasing severity of discrimination towards the homosexual community could
seem like a shift towards growing intolerance for homosexual behaviour. However,
the intensification of the persecution of homosexuals demonstrated necessity to
rid those that threatened the authority and strength of the Aryan race and the
Nazi Party. In this sense, the increasing severity of discrimination towards
the homosexual community is a demonstration of Hitler’s approach towards
implementing policies that related to his Social Darwinist beliefs.
Simultaneously, it demonstrates the Fuhrer’s desire to fulfil Nazi Ideology.
Hitler’s desire to breed the superior Aryan race needed the strength, national
dedication and traditional outlook of men. As quoted by Alfred Rosenburg, the
chief ideologue of Nazism:
“The emancipation of women from the
women’s emancipation movement is the first demand of a female generation trying
to rescue nation and race, the eternally unconscious, the foundation of all
civilization, from decline…but one thing must be made clear: Only a man must be
and remain judge, soldier and politician.”
The
revision of Paragraph 175 was not only an illustration of clear intolerance for
homosexual behaviour due to the need for the traditional man, but was also a
representation of the Fuhrer’s rigid, narrow, and patriarchal sexual views. In
this sense, sexual emancipation remained an aspect that provoked fury and thus,
intolerance.
Its revision of Paragraph 175 represents a methodology that allowed for an intensification of policies in order to achieve Hitler’s preached ideological objectives. As Robert Plant[23], had concluded, the persecution and attempted extermination of homosexuals represents but one part of the exhaustive crusade the Nazis laughed…to create an Aryan elite that would dominate Europe, and, finally, the world.
In order to demonstrate the Nazi belief that was associated with sexual
conservatism and its connection to Nazi ideology the following has been stated
and suggested by Dagmar Herzog:
“So successful was this imposition of
sexual conservatism that the next generation saw it as much older than it was.
Linking sexual repression to fascism rather than to a post-war effort to come
to terms with it, student radicals considered sexual liberation necessary to
overcome the “fascistic” tendencies of their families of origin and West German
state and society.”
The
quote demonstrates the rebellion against sexual conservatism as if to overcome
the traditional fascistic ideals that were associated with the repression of
sexuality.
Simultaneously, homosexuality was seen as a disease or an infection that would spread amongst the youth of Germany. Hence, it was seen as logical to rid of the disease or the infection[26], along with all other elements that posed threatening towards the superiority and strength of the Aryan race.
The
connection between Hitler’s Social Darwinist beliefs and intolerance for
homosexuality was concentrated on the concept of weakness, emasculation, and
moral degeneration. Hitler’s National Socialist Party had said:
“…Anything that emasculates our people and
that makes us fair game for our enemies we reject…Therefore we reject all
immorality, especially love between men, because it deprives us of our last
chance to free our people from the chains of slavery which are keeping it
fettered today.”
Ultimately,
the revision of Paragraph 175 served as the justification necessary to
implement policies that were well connected with the conservatism of Nazi
ideology and the protection of the Aryan race as outlined in Hitler’s Social
Darwinist beliefs.
Nazi Ideology and the
Treatment of the Homosexual Community Post-1935
Nazi
Ideology greatly affected the treatment of the homosexual community, thus enhancing
the necessity and justification for the strengthened revision of Paragraph 175.
Aspects of Nazi ideology including policies affecting the role of women and the
definition of the Aryan man and woman in society, most particularly
concentrating on gender and reproductive politics.
The role of the woman within Nazi society was primarily associated with her
children, the kitchen, and the church (Kinder, Küche, Kirche). The traditional
views that defined an Aryan woman concerned fertility and the breeding of
strong Aryans for the strengthening of the nation. Homosexuality was seen to
interfere with the traditional roles and relationships associated with the
Aryan man and woman. The roles of the Aryan man and woman focused on serving
their country.
Historians have acknowledged that ‘social benefits helped to bind racially and politically approved Germans to the National Socialist state, whilst simultaneously recognizing that the welfare state developed along highly gendered lines, delineating benefits for (male) soldiers and workers on the one hand, dependents (women and children) on the other.’[28] Therefore there was an obvious need to maintain the social conservative nature of the Nazi Party making it necessary to tame sexual liberation, justifying the persecution of Germany’s homosexuals in order to further the nation’s development.
The
propagation and the promotion of these traditional ideals emphasized the need
to rid Germany of the homosexuals, thus allowing for the intensification of
their persecution and the justification necessary for the consequences and
arrests made due to the strengthening of the revised Paragraph 175. As ideology
and the party dictated, there was no room for tolerance of any aspect in
society that would prove detrimental to the success and superiority of the
Aryan race. In terms of gender and reproductive politics, homosexuality proved
to be a threatening element to the achievements of society.
In
such cases, to promote heterosexual behaviour and fertility, awards were given
to women who were capable of breeding many children such as the “German
Mother’s Cross of Honour”. These propaganda efforts illustrated the desire of
Hitler to outbreed the ‘inferior races’ and to provide soldiers for future Nazi
conquests. The constant promotion of the traditional
roles that the Aryan woman must take on left society with a mindset of no
tolerance for homosexual behaviour.
The
atmosphere created by the constant definition of what the Aryan man and woman
is, and what roles they must play within society perpetuated an attitude of
intolerance towards homosexual behaviour. Homophobia was encouraged as it was
seen to be detrimental to the successes of their society.
In
such a case, the revision of Paragraph 175 served as a tool that supported the
promotion of Nazi ideology in an atmosphere that already propagated intolerance
towards homosexual behaviour. The consequences of Paragraph 175 and the
intensified persecution of the gay community also promoted and maintained
intolerance towards homosexuals, as a promotion of the party’s sexual
conservatism and its policy of sexual repression. Thus, in this manner the
revision of Paragraph 175 to support the gender and reproductive policies that
reinforced Nazi ideology was a reflection of Hitler’s narrow, traditional, and
conservative views concerning sexuality.
Hitler’s adamant belief in Social Darwinist theories made intolerance towards the homosexual community imminent. Any shift or change in the Fuhrer’s demonstration of intolerance towards the gay community was indicative of a step towards implementing the party’s ideological policies, an attempt at furthering the success for a future Aryan race, or the prevention of any threat to his authority and the accomplishments of the Third Reich. As stated, the so-called Third Reich had no use for reason, compassion, or moderation[30]. In a similar manner, there is a reiteration that there is no room for tolerance towards any detrimental element to the party and a fruitful Aryan society.
Conclusion
The revision of Paragraph 175 of the German
Criminal Code allowed for the intensification and persistent persecution of
Germany’s homosexual community. The persecution of these citizens often and
mostly led to death in the concentration camps from over-work, maltreatment,
disease, and the gas chambers. This article did not only represent the death
and suffering of thousands of people – of whose persecution was not widely
acknowledged until the late 20th century – but also the intolerant
atmosphere that seemed imminent within the Nazi Party and German society during
the Nazi Regime. Simultaneously, Paragraph 175 was a tool in Hitler’s social
engineering policies and his pursuit to achieve and breed the superior Aryan
race. The lives of more than thousands of men and women were taken in order to
utilize this tool in order to illuminate Nazi ideology and the elements of
Hitler’s Social Darwinist beliefs that were being applied to German society in
order to outbreed other European races.
There is no question that the ramifications that resulted because of the
revision of Paragraph 175 under the Nazi regime were grand in scale and need
international acknowledgement as it took the lives of many who have been
forgotten. The question however lies in the role of Paragraph 175 and its
impact on the sudden intensification of attacks in the Nazi Party’s campaign
against homosexuals after the 1935 revision. Was the revision of the article
the trigger that shifted the level of tolerance that Hitler had for homosexual behaviour within the Nazi Party and German society? In considering this
question, one must also consider the role that the revision of Paragraph 175
played in the persecution of thousands of Germany’s citizens. Although the
persecution of homosexuals was already in practice by 1933, it was not until
the revision of Paragraph 175 in 1935 that strengthened and demonstrated true
dedication and commitment to pursuing the success of a future superior Aryan
race. Hitler was also capable of controlling and promoting ideological policies,
most specifically concerning gender and reproductive policies, in his attempt
to unite and consolidate the success of the future for the ‘Master Aryan Race’.
The revision of the article appeared to be a necessity in order to maintain and
consolidate authority over German society, the Nazi Party, and the Fuhrer’s
position. It remained a tool that was crucial in perpetuating party ideology.
Ultimately, it was through the alterations in the article that allowed Hitler
to demonstrate this imminent intolerance at such an intensified level, only to
accomplish what he deemed to be necessary and essential for the success of
German society and the Nazi party.
Thus, through an examination of policies pursued during the Nazi regime related
to a promotion of Nazi ideology within gender and reproductive politics, the
significance of the Rohm Affair, and the social implications and consequences
of its revision, Paragraph 175 allowed for an intensified attack towards the
homosexual community. However, intensification in the campaign against
Germany’s homosexuals does not necessarily call for a shift in the toleration
towards homosexual behaviour. An atmosphere of intolerance for homosexuality was
already and had always been present in German society. It is recognized that
the Nazis merely continued and intensified what had long been in practice.
The intensification in the intolerance for homosexual behaviour was not directly
triggered by the revision of Paragraph 175, neither did the article allow for
the intensification in the attack against the gay community. The revised
version of Paragraph 175 was simply a tool for Hitler to utilize in order to
promote party ideology and the importance of the superior Aryan race through
propaganda. Intolerance for homosexuality was based on the Fuhrer’s necessity
to propagate ideological policies and a need to protect the position of the
Fuhrer, the Party, the Aryan race, and the nation. Simultaneously, this
intolerance represented the conservative nature of party ideology and the Fuhrer’s
own outlook towards sexuality and the importance of sexual repression.
Furthermore, Hitler’s imminent intolerance towards the gay community as
illustrated through purges in the Nazi Party and policies condemning
homosexuality within German society proved to be innate as it coherently fit
with the ideologies preached by the Nazi Party as well as Hitler’s own beliefs
in Social Darwinist theories.
Works Cited
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/. (n.d.).
Retrieved from http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/
Heger, H. (1980). The men with the pink triangle. New York:
Alyson Books.
Jensen, E. N. (2002). The pink triangle and political
consciousness: Gays, lesbians, and the memory of Nazi persecution. Journal of
the History of Sexuality, Vol. 11, No. 1/2, Special Issue: Sexuality and German
Fascism (Jan. - Apr., 2002, 319-349. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3704560.
Plant, R. (1986). The pink triangle. New York: Henry Holt
and Company, LLC.
(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.gaynazis.com/
Holocaust teacher resource center. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.holocaust-trc.org/homosx.htm
Studds, G. E. (1993, April 21). Remembering gay victims of
the holocaust: willed arondeus--hero of the resistance . Retrieved from http://www.pink-triangle.org/ptps/studds.html
Rector Norton (Ed.), "One day they were simply
gone": The Nazi Persecution of Homosexuals. 21 Dec. 1999, updated 10
August 2010 .
Haeberle, E. J. (1981). Swastika, pink triangle and yellow
star: The destruction of sexology and the persecution of homosexuals in Nazi
Germany. The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 17, No. 3, History and Sexuality (Aug.,
1981), 270-287. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3812563.
1http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/. (n.d.).
Retrieved from http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/
[2] Heger, H.
(1980). The men with the pink triangle. New York: Alyson Books.
[3] Jensen, E. N. (2002).
The pink triangle and political consciousness: Gays, lesbians, and the memory
of Nazi persecution. Journal of the History of Sexuality, Vol. 11, No. 1/2,
Special Issue: Sexuality and German Fascism (Jan. - Apr., 2002, 319-349.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3704560 .
[4] Plant, R.
(1986). The pink triangle. New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC.
[5] Heger, H.
(1980). The men with the pink triangle. New York: Alyson Books.
[6] Ibid
[7] Paramilitary
organization of the Nazi Party. The SA was key in Hitler’s rise to power.
[8] Heger, H.
(1980). The men with the pink triangle. New York: Alyson Books.
[9] Plant, R.
(1986). The pink triangle. New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC.
[10] Ibid
[11] Ibid
[12] (n.d.).
Retrieved from http://www.gaynazis.com/
[13] Halsall, P.
(1997). People with a history: An online guide to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
trans* history. Retrieved from
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/pwh/index-eur2.asp
[14] Jensen, E. N.
(2002). The pink triangle and political consciousness: Gays, lesbians, and the
memory of Nazi persecution. Journal of the History of Sexuality, Vol. 11, No.
1/2, Special Issue: Sexuality and German Fascism (Jan. - Apr., 2002, 319-349.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3704560.
[15] Ibid
[16] Holocaust
teacher resource center. (2007). Retrieved from
http://www.holocaust-trc.org/homosx.htm
[17] Studds, G. E.
(1993, April 21). Remembering gay victims of the holocaust: willem
arondeus--hero of the resistance . Retrieved from http://www.pink-triangle.org/ptps/studds.html
[18] Jensen, E. N.
(2002). The pink triangle and political consciousness: Gays, lesbians, and the
memory of Nazi persecution. Journal of the History of Sexuality, Vol. 11, No.
1/2, Special Issue: Sexuality and German Fascism (Jan. - Apr., 2002, 319-349.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3704560 .
[19] Heger, H.
(1980). The men with the pink triangle. New York: Alyson Books.
[20] Rector Norton
(Ed.), "One day they were simply gone": The Nazi Persecution of
Homosexuals. 21 Dec. 1999, updated 10 August 2010 .
[21] Haeberle, E.
J. (1981). Swastika, pink triangle and yellow star: The destruction of sexology
and the persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany. The Journal of Sex
Research, Vol. 17, No. 3, History and Sexuality (Aug., 1981), 270-287.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3812563.
[22] Ibid
[23] Author of “The
Pink Triangle” – A book concerning the Nazi war against homosexuals
[24] Plant, R.
(1986). The pink triangle. New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC.
[25] Heineman, E.
(2005). Gender, sexuality, and coming to terms with the Nazi past. Central
European History, Vol. 38, No. 1 (2005), 41-74. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4547497.
[26] http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/.
(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/
[27] Haeberle, E.
J. (1981). Swastika, pink triangle and yellow star: The destruction of sexology
and the persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany. The Journal of Sex Research,
Vol. 17, No. 3, History and Sexuality (Aug., 1981), 270-287. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3812563.
[28] Heineman, E.
(2005). Gender, sexuality, and coming to terms with the Nazi past. Central
European History, Vol. 38, No. 1 (2005), 41-74. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4547497.
[29] Haeberle, E.
J. (1981). Swastika, pink triangle and yellow star: The destruction of sexology
and the persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany. The Journal of Sex
Research, Vol. 17, No. 3, History and Sexuality (Aug., 1981), 270-287.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3812563.
[30] Ibid
[31] Ibid
