“SHE MAKES A SENSUAL IMPRESSION”:
THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN
Other scholars have examined the
abuse of children by German soldiers; however, they have not examined in detail the
ways in which male and female children were conceived of by the German military and
Nazi regime, nor have they analyzed the ways in which abusers were discussed.32
Although the law against the sexual abuse of children, §176 section 3,329 gives the
age of consent as 14, which means all sexual contact with a child under that age was to be
legally punished, what the documents indicate is if the judges or accused believed the
child looked over 14, charges of child abuse were not lodged, or could be dismissed.
Furthermore, the judges believed female children could entice soldiers into sexual
activity; they were held responsible for the sexual abuse, although that belief was counter
to the law. Moreover, determinations of punishment were not based on whether a
standard of evidence had been met, on whether the soldier had sexually abused a minor,
but rather on the perceived effect of that abuse. Mitigating circumstances could be
offered if the judge believed the girl to be un-traumatized by the abuse and if the judge
believed the girl had not been morally damaged; there is never an explanation of how a
female child should have behaved to demonstrate trauma, nor is there an explanation of
how moral damage was gauged.330
...
By contrast, those men believed to be good soldiers, to have
adhered to norms of military, German, and Nazi masculinity were often favored with
excuses that could result in a lesser punishment. In cases of child abuse, parallel
mitigating factors were available for men who abused female children and female
children were subject to gendered evaluations of behavior. If female children were found
to have acted in some way contrary to expectations, or if they were physically developed
beyond their age, according to the judge, they were frequently blamed for having
instigated the sexual contact; the judges also believed that they were, as sexually
experienced individuals, less traumatized by sexual violence
...
Rape was not a concern for the Nazi party, nor
was the prosecution of incest, and after an initial spike in rates of criminality for the
abuse of children, there was a decline in the late 1930s. The decline in prosecution of
cases in which women and children were the primary victims—rape, incest, and
violations of §176 section 3—suggest to Dickinson, that “[d]espite their rhetoric, the
Nazis were not in truth terribly committed to the family.”3
+++++Page 183, to 197 for MULTIPLE EXAMPLES+++++
....
In 1940, two men, Soldat Georg E. and Schütze Richard L. were charged with, but
tried separately for having sexual contact with two underage German girls.336
Georg E.
was accused of, over several days, kissing a girl, reaching under her skirt and touching
...
The accused could guess in good faith, that witness W. was already 14 years old.”
He continued: “According to the circumstances, [the girls] sought out the contact with the
accused. The court therefore is of the belief that both the girls did not object to the
immoral efforts of the accused.” Richard L. was acquitted because W. appeared older
than she was; she appeared to be fourteen years old, and thus Richard L. could not be
charged with violating the law against sexual contact with a minor under the age of
fourteen
...
In his sentencing
opinion, the judge said that “without question, [she] is developed far beyond her age, and
makes a considerably older impression than 13 years.” The victim stated in her
testimony that she told the accused how old she was, but the judge dismissed her
statement in the following way:
Even if [she] should have given the accused her exact age, it does not seem
impossible that the accused thought that this statement of age, as it often happens
with females, was not fact but flirting, because the condition of [her] body which
was developed far beyond her actual age and her experience and cavalier attitude
in sexual matters seem to speak too clearly against [her being thirteen]
...
He had placed a seven year-old German girl on his lap, “played with
her in peculiar ways,” and touched her on the buttocks. One month later, he touched her
on her stomach, just above her genitals. According to the court, the girl was the daughter
of a father who had been sterilized, and a mother whose morals were questionable. The
judge believed that what the defendant had done was “not of a very severe nature,” and
questioned the role of the victim by saying that she was “not entirely morally pure,” and
that she had “very much accommodated the efforts and propensities of the accused.”
....
Unteroffizier Peter G. was accused of abusing a ten year-old girl, but was charged
with drunkenness rather than child abuse.352
The judge harshly criticized the accused
because the crime could damage the reputation of the Wehrmacht in the occupied
territories, and because “as an Unteroffizier, [he] was supposed to behave flawlessly and
to always keep a grip on [himself], also after drinking alcohol.” The judge believed the
accused deserved a “considerable” punishment because he “violated the reputation and honor of the Unteroffizierkorps in severe ways,” and because the crime was “damnable.”
“SHE MAKES A SENSUAL IMPRESSION”: THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN
Other scholars have examined the abuse of children by German soldiers; however, they have not examined in detail the ways in which male and female children were conceived of by the German military and Nazi regime, nor have they analyzed the ways in which abusers were discussed.32
Although the law against the sexual abuse of children, §176 section 3,329 gives the age of consent as 14, which means all sexual contact with a child under that age was to be legally punished, what the documents indicate is if the judges or accused believed the child looked over 14, charges of child abuse were not lodged, or could be dismissed. Furthermore, the judges believed female children could entice soldiers into sexual activity; they were held responsible for the sexual abuse, although that belief was counter to the law. Moreover, determinations of punishment were not based on whether a standard of evidence had been met, on whether the soldier had sexually abused a minor, but rather on the perceived effect of that abuse. Mitigating circumstances could be offered if the judge believed the girl to be un-traumatized by the abuse and if the judge believed the girl had not been morally damaged; there is never an explanation of how a female child should have behaved to demonstrate trauma, nor is there an explanation of how moral damage was gauged.330
...
By contrast, those men believed to be good soldiers, to have adhered to norms of military, German, and Nazi masculinity were often favored with excuses that could result in a lesser punishment. In cases of child abuse, parallel mitigating factors were available for men who abused female children and female children were subject to gendered evaluations of behavior. If female children were found to have acted in some way contrary to expectations, or if they were physically developed beyond their age, according to the judge, they were frequently blamed for having instigated the sexual contact; the judges also believed that they were, as sexually experienced individuals, less traumatized by sexual violence
...
Rape was not a concern for the Nazi party, nor was the prosecution of incest, and after an initial spike in rates of criminality for the abuse of children, there was a decline in the late 1930s. The decline in prosecution of cases in which women and children were the primary victims—rape, incest, and violations of §176 section 3—suggest to Dickinson, that “[d]espite their rhetoric, the Nazis were not in truth terribly committed to the family.”3
+++++Page 183, to 197 for MULTIPLE EXAMPLES+++++ ....
In 1940, two men, Soldat Georg E. and Schütze Richard L. were charged with, but tried separately for having sexual contact with two underage German girls.336 Georg E. was accused of, over several days, kissing a girl, reaching under her skirt and touching
...
The accused could guess in good faith, that witness W. was already 14 years old.” He continued: “According to the circumstances, [the girls] sought out the contact with the accused. The court therefore is of the belief that both the girls did not object to the immoral efforts of the accused.” Richard L. was acquitted because W. appeared older than she was; she appeared to be fourteen years old, and thus Richard L. could not be charged with violating the law against sexual contact with a minor under the age of fourteen
...
In his sentencing opinion, the judge said that “without question, [she] is developed far beyond her age, and makes a considerably older impression than 13 years.” The victim stated in her testimony that she told the accused how old she was, but the judge dismissed her statement in the following way: Even if [she] should have given the accused her exact age, it does not seem impossible that the accused thought that this statement of age, as it often happens with females, was not fact but flirting, because the condition of [her] body which was developed far beyond her actual age and her experience and cavalier attitude in sexual matters seem to speak too clearly against [her being thirteen]
...
He had placed a seven year-old German girl on his lap, “played with her in peculiar ways,” and touched her on the buttocks. One month later, he touched her on her stomach, just above her genitals. According to the court, the girl was the daughter of a father who had been sterilized, and a mother whose morals were questionable. The judge believed that what the defendant had done was “not of a very severe nature,” and questioned the role of the victim by saying that she was “not entirely morally pure,” and that she had “very much accommodated the efforts and propensities of the accused.”
....
Unteroffizier Peter G. was accused of abusing a ten year-old girl, but was charged with drunkenness rather than child abuse.352 The judge harshly criticized the accused because the crime could damage the reputation of the Wehrmacht in the occupied territories, and because “as an Unteroffizier, [he] was supposed to behave flawlessly and to always keep a grip on [himself], also after drinking alcohol.” The judge believed the accused deserved a “considerable” punishment because he “violated the reputation and honor of the Unteroffizierkorps in severe ways,” and because the crime was “damnable.”
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=kent1258726022&disposition=inline