Bombed, Broken Berlin:
Crime in a Devastated City
Germany was severely destroyed during the Second World War. The Nazis were defeated and the nation was occupied by the Allies, who divided Germany and Berlin into four zones.
The complete collapse of the Nazi regime left a country with broken infrastructure, and no systems. The first few days, weeks, and months after the collapse of Nazi Germany influenced how the East and the West would understand crime and the incidence of youth crime.
Berlin played a pivotal role given the Cold War that resulted from growing tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. Thus, examining the conditions in post-war Berlin offers insight into the development of theories on crime and its underlying factors.
Berlin Zero Hour
The situation in post-war Berlin was dire and the events that immediately followed would shape the city’s history. In the immediate aftermath of the war, Berliners resorted to crime to allay hunger, combat malnutrition, and survive (Evans, 309).
The city was thoroughly destroyed and with the collapse of the Nazi government, the justice system and the police force fell. This situation made it harder for the Soviet Union and the Allies to establish law and order. This challenge contributed to an environment where chaos and crime reigned.
The problem of youth crime started at this time because young people, often from households with an absent father and a hungry mother, formed gangs to fend off hunger (Fenemore, 45). Rather than immediately trying to establish law and order in Berlin, Soviet commanders allowed crimes to be committed by both Soviet soldiers and Germans (Fenemore, 23).
Soviet soldiers stole, pilfered, and raped with impunity (Anonymous). A German journalist lamented, “we have no rights; we’re nothing but booty, dirty.” (Anonymous, 79). Soviet policy left Berliners at the mercy of their conquerors.
Soviet leaders made some short-sighted decisions which worsened the conditions in Germany. Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin turned many of these acts into State policy when his forces began to dismantle much of what was valuable in occupied Germany as reparations for the war (Anonymous).
Thus, putting the captive population at work to send resources, materials, and infrastructure to the Soviet Union, rather than rebuilding Germany. The occupying power also ignored the concerns and accusations of the occupied.
For example, Soviet officials laughed off reports of rape and abuse. In one instance, a German woman was told by an officer, “I’m sure they didn’t really hurt you. Our men are all healthy.”
Soviet officials and officials dismissed complaints and protected their soldiers from prosecution. These rapes would result in the birth of many children to newly single mothers, known as Russian Babies. It is estimated that between 95.000 to 130.000 women have been assaulted by Soviet soldiers.
The Soviet decision to let their soldiers do as they please contributed to the linkage between crime, abuse, chaos and Soviet occupation. To make matters worse, there was no active police force to enforce laws, protect people, or pursue criminals (Fenemore, 22). Soviet crimes, German crimes, and youth crime would go unpunished. The other Allied forces (US, UK, France) would not arrive in Berlin for another two months.(Fenemore, 21)
The Other Allies Arrive
Despite the eagerness of many Berliners for the arrival of the rest of the Allies, their coming exacerbated the short-term prospects for peace and order (Anonymous).
As Nazi Germany was being invaded, Germans in Berlin thought that those in the West “got it good. For them it’s over and done with” (Anonymous, 2). The common view was that invading armies from the West did not create as much devastation as those coming from the East. These hopes notwithstanding, the impact of the Allies would, at first, negatively affect everyday Berliners.
Soviet soldiers remained in American zones for several weeks and continued to loot (Fenemore, 31). There were even a few episodes where American and Soviet troops fired at each other contributing to an atmosphere without law and order (Fenemore, 31).
It is further known that the other allies also raped with impunity. Lawlessness and the immunity of occupying forces made life harder for ordinary Berliners. This new normal was one where crimes went unpunished, and where they were, at least for some Germans, necessary to survive.
The initial policies of the United States aggravated the long-term prospects for a prosperous Berlin. The arrival of American troops was a missed opportunity to forge good relations and try to fix the problems Germany faced. American troops arrived at Berlin and took the best housing for themselves, in an often “cruel and brutal” fashion (Fenemore, 62)).
Understandably, the occupying forces needed places to stay in and to operate from; however, the way they took property, damaged Germans. Expropriation left some Berliners without a home and in need of food.
Similar expropriations in Haltern would make the city administrator complain that “formerly well cared-for houses and streets are now completely filthy.” (Barch) The impact on those who “got it good” does not seem to have been that splendid. Many young Germans would form or join gangs to survive (Evans, 390; Barch) .
Berliners had suffered at the hands of the Soviets and now had to acquiesce to the demands of the Americans. Like Soviet officers, US commanders often ignored reports of abuse (Fenemore, 61–2). Moreover, politics placed the interests of the occupying force above those of the occupied. Thus they soured relations between Berliners and the Allies.
US policy worsened relations between American forces and ordinary Germans. As part of their training American soldiers were warned about Germans and encouraged to treat them harshly (Fenemore, 33). US Supreme Commander General Dwight D. Eisenhower had warned Americans against fraternizing with Germans (Fenemore, 63).
Another US officer, a colonel, said that Germans should be seen as “dirt under their feet” (Fenemore, 62). These attitudes did not help Americans get a hold of the situation in Berlin and they did not help ordinary Germans.
Richard von Weizsäcker, who would later become President of West Germany, reflected on the fall of Nazi Germany, and while he recognized that many people were now safe, he also noted that, “for countless people the suffering only began with the end of the war.”
An Emerging Black Market
When the other Allies arrived, Berliners faced a scarcity of basic food which would result in the formation of a black market. German women were key in keeping their families alive by interacting with this market.
Rather than trying to alleviate the struggles of everyday Berliners, American soldiers often exploited scarcity by selling parts of their rations (e.g. chocolate, cigarettes, food) at a handsome profit (Fenemore, 68). Some women in Berlin used sex as a way to gain soldier rations and thus sustain their families.
General Lucius Clay, the chief US military adminstrator, said that only “the lowest type of girl, the tramp, would meet with US soldiers in dark alleys.” (Fenemore, 64) Clay’s statement ignores the fact that many of these women were in need or had families that relied on them to get food and instead portrayed those women as tramps.
Initially, American attitudes towards Germans and Berliners created an environment in which it would be more challenging to establish a well-functioning society. It is only through contact with Berliners and changing geopolitical realities that Americans came to see them as victims (Eisenhuth & Krause).
The increasing significance of Germany and Berlin raised the stakes for the Soviets and the Americans as tensions between them increased. The chaotic situation in Berlin became untenable and the occupying powers eventually decided that they needed to change this challenging situation to guarantee the authority of each of areas (Poiger, 99).
East Germany was under management of the Socialist Unity Party which described it as the “worst preconditions imaginable” to begin anew (Verner). This implied a long term Communist project. One of the big difficulties was that Berlin, like all of Germany, was experiencing a rise in crime. Berlin’s crime rate was higher in 1946 than in either 1943 or 1944 (Heller).
This made guaranteeing safety and establishing a new regime challenging. The occupying powers agreed that those conditions were undesirable and that they needed to fix Berlin. After all, the city had even gained a reputation as “as the world’s foremost crime capital” (Fenemore, 44).
Fixing Berlin
One of the first acts the occupying powers had made was to start a process of deNazification. The Allies issued a deNazification proclamation which established that former Nazis would be removed from any positions of power and prevented from serving in any such position.
A directive also established possible punishments for Germans depending on their degree of participation in Nazi crimes. All adult Germans were required to appear before tribunals which would categorize them as major offenders, offenders, lesser offenders, followers, or exonerated people (Council Directive №38, October 12, 1946).
Importantly, no German could be categorized as a victim! By 1950 the US High Commissioner sought to use these rulings to get Germans to confront their recent history and identify lesser offenders who could be reintegrated into society (Present Status of Denazification).
Later, the American government insisted on a system whereby monetary reparations would be given to victims of National Socialism, but explicitly excluded criminals even if they had been interned in camps (Heller). This different treatment of criminals further suggests that from the very beginning of the occupation Americans and Soviets were thinking about criminals as being different from regular people.
In 1948 in the West, the Allies sought to reduce crime in their occupation zones and introduced a new currency in the West which angered the Soviets (Evans; Taylor). The new currency was very helpful and reduced the number of starving West Germans. Suddenly, shops were filled with goods (Taylor, 52–55).
Stalin was livid and decided to Block West Berlin from the rest of Western Germany. This would become the Berlin Blockade. The Soviet response to the introduction of a new currency dramatically raised the stakes. The Allies dropped food and resources from the air. Berlin became increasingly more important in the symbolic conflict between capitalism and Communism.
Conclusions
The rising tensions between Soviets and Americans would heighten the significance of the fate of their occupation zones. These zones were administered by different powers and thus to an extent would be seen to reflect the socio-political systems that administered them.
The American leaders would also come to see Berlin as an exhibition for the fruits of capitalism while the Soviets sought to demonstrate Communism was more valuable through highlighting the differences between East and West Berlin. It is within this environment that new understandings of crime and criminology are developed.
This post heavily draws from an essay Christian wrote for a class on the history of everyday life in Cold War Berlin. Christian would like to express his gratitude to Briana and Caroline for an exciting course, their help and support. Lucas and Christian have worked on a substantial revision of Christian’s original work.
Authros: Christian Orlic and Lucas Heili
Sources
Anonymous. A Woman in Berlin.
BArch, Z. 40/468 copy: reprinted in in Udo Wengst and Hans Günter Hockerts, Gesichicgte Der Sozialpolitik in Deutschland, Bd. 2/2: 1945–1949: Die Zeit der Besatzungszonen. Sozialpolitik zwischen Kriegsende und der Gründung zweier deutscher Staaten. Dokumente. [The History of Social Policy in Germany since 1945, Vol. 2/2: 1945–1949. The Era of the Occupation Zones. Social Policy between the End of the War and the Founding of the twoGerman States. Documents]. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2001, pp.229–31. Translated by Thomas Dunlap. In: German History in Documents and Images: Vol.8 Occupation and the Emergence of Two States, 1945–1961.
Control Council Directive №38 (October 12, 1946), in Official Gazette of the Control Council for Germany, №11, October 31, 1946, p. 184; reprinted in Beata Ruhm von Oppen. ed., Documents on Germany under Occupation, 1945–1954. London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1955, pp. 168–79.
Evans, Jennifer. V. Rehabilitation: Crime, Morality, and Delinquency in Berlin-Brandenburg, 1945–1958. In Crime and Criminal Justice in Modern Germany edited by RichardWetzell, 185–206. Berghann Books, 2018.
Fenemore, Mark. Dismembered Policing in Postwar Belin: The Limits of Four-Power Government. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. 2023.
Heller, Ernst. “Gutmachung nationalsozialistischen Unrechts” [Restitution for National Socialist Injustice”], Die Neue Zietung, March 19, 1949; reprinted in Udo Wengst, Geschichte der
Sozialpolitik in Deutschland, Bd. 2/2: 1945–1949: Diet Zeit der Besatzungszonen. Sozialpolitik zwischen Kriegsende und der Gründung zweier deutscher Staaten. Dokumente. [The History of Social Policy in Germany, vol 2/2: 1945–1949. The Er oaf the Occupation Zones. Social policy between the End of the War and the Founding of Two Germans States. Documents]. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2001, no. 253, pp. 571–73. Translated by Thomas Dunlap. In: German History in Documents and Images: Vol.8 Occupation and the Emergence of Two States, 1945–1961.
John J. McCloy, ―Present Status of Denazification,‖ in Office of the U.S. High Commissioner for Germany, 5th Quarterly Report on Germany. October 1 — December 31, 1950, pp. 46–55.
Poiger, Uta. Jazz Rock and Rebels: Cold War Politics and American Culture in a Divided German (The Wild Ones: The 1956 Youth Riots and German Masculinity). University of California Press. 2000.
Taylor, R. The Berlin Wall: A World Divided 1961–1989. Harper Collins, 2006.
Verner, Paul. “Probleme der jungen Generation” [“Problems of the Young Generation”], Einheit no. 1 (September 1946), p. 240ff; reprinted in Christoph KleBmann and Georg Wagner, Das gespaltkene Land. Leben in Deutschland 1945–1990. Texte und Dokumente zur Sozialgeschichte [The Divided Land. Life in Germany, 1945–1990. Texts and Documents on Social History]. Munich: C.H: Beck, 1993, pp.126–128. German History in Documents and Images: Vol.8 Occupation and the Emergence of Two States, 1945–1961.
