Young German Criminals: Weimar Germany and Nazi Germany 1918–1945
German explanations for why people commit crimes changed drastically after the defeat of the Nazis.
Those explanations largely reflect geopolitical interests and an effort to mark a distinction with the recent Nazi past. Both Soviets and Americans weaponized these explanations as proxies in the Cold War. How did Weimar Germans and the Nazis explain criminal tendencies?
Crime Has Many Causes Yet Biological Criminality Rises
Nazi and Weimar criminology is often described as deterministic and based in biology; however these were not the only theories around. At the time, debates considered both biological and social causes of crimes (Siemens).
They were also interested in whether there were differences between victims and non-victims (Sace). Sometimes criminals were portrayed as depraved whereas others depicted them as capable. As in every case, ideas about the causes of crime affect the kinds of policies states develop to combat crime.
Richard Wetzell, a historian, argued that while many recognized that social factors were important in driving people to commit crimes, these factors were largely ignored for they were too challenging to change. Weimar German sociologists were not as interested in crime as psychiatrists and thus social causes and possible solutions remained unexplored (Wetzell, 421).
In Weimar Germany, the view that there is a biological impulse towards crime became dominant, despite discussions about crime being caused by social factors. Thus, Weimar criminologists and especially their Nazi counterparts did attempt to reduce crime to biology by finding biological explanations for crime (Liang, 426).
This connection between biology and undesired behaviors was made throughout the Western world (Seidman; Friedlander). This view implied that certain individuals had a predisposition to crime and thus raised questions about what to do with them. Many scientists and policy makers argued that the best way to improve society was through the sterilization of those who carried undesirable traits (Friedlander).
In some cases, politicians like Oklahoma’s Governor, advocated for the sterilization of criminals. Weimar rhetoric often linked criminality to physical traits allowing cultural ideas to be imprinted into physiology (Liang, 407). Despite the dominance of deterministic and biological understandings of crime, some jurists in both the Weimar and Nazi periods opposed the sterilization of criminals (Wetzell, 422).
Biological Criminology Gains Prominence
At the time, psychiatry was rife with a hereditarian bias and enthusiasm for eugenics was common which helped the biological paradigm come out ahead (Wetzell, 419; Poiger, 2009).
While this Weimar view claimed biology played a key role in determining a person’s criminal impulses, it maintained the integrity of individual autonomy which allowed the system to be mostly retributive (Finder 290; Godecke 271). In contrast, Nazi leaders professed a more stringent biological causation of crime, even if some professionals at the time also identified social causes of crime (Wetzell, 411).
Thus, Nazi Germany implemented a system of justice that sought to prevent crime, and hence stop criminals from reoffending, thereby deterring would-be criminals (Godecke). For instance, they introduced the castration of sex offenders to prevent them from committing further crimes (Godecke, 271).
This measure was removed by the Allies. Nazi efforts to reduce crime also affected their thinking about youth crime. The calls to sterilize certain kinds of people also included younger adults and discussions were had about sterilizing the youth.
Youth Crime, Nazis, and World Wars
The Second World War affected how the Nazis treated young criminals and how they dealt with other criminals. During the Weimar period, German courts treated youth who committed crimes differently than adults (Waite, 263).
In 1933, when the Nazi regime passed a sterilization law, the Minister of Justice blocked efforts to include criminals. Nevertheless, some criminals were sterilized because they were classified as feebleminded to circumvent the law (Wetzell, 415).
As the war got on, Nazi leaders made an effort to portray young criminals as incorrigible (Waite, 264). This change started a series of modifications into how youth crime was understood. By 1939, the Nazis also changed the law regarding youth who committed crimes and decreed they would be tried as if they were adults (Waite, 264).
Debates about who to include under such bills and whether criminals committed crimes because of biological or socio-economic factors became moot once the Nazi regime moved to mass murder (Wetzell, 423).
The T-4 program sought to eliminate such life (Burleigh). The Nazis would kill thousands as part of the T-4 program and hundreds of thousands in the efforts to purify Germany and allegedly eliminate unwanted people, health conditions, and behaviors.
Aftermath
The defeat of the Nazis left German criminology and the justice system in disarray because of the enthusiastic involvement of criminologists, judges, and others in the Nazi regime (Godecke, 272).
After the war, a jurist called Radbruch argued that legal positivism had pushed those in his profession to support the Nazis (Godecke, 273). While modern experts repudiate this explanation, it was taken seriously at that time. This view placed responsibility on theory and allowed for the individual exoneration of those that took part (Godecke. 273).
In 1946 a Criminal Law Professor called for a thorough reform rooted in new ground (Godecke, 276). German jurisprudence was in chaos and further affected by the situation in Germany. Radbruch called for a new understanding of law based on natural law as a means to deNazify the legal system (Godecke, 275).
The law profession faced other challenges such as the closure of law programs in some Universities in both East and West Germany, the exodus of Jewish scholars also meant that their views regarding reform were gone (Godecke, 274). Despite this disorder and other challenges, concerns about crime and the question of why young people committed crimes would continue to fascinate German criminologists for two decades (Evans, 313).
Conclusion
During the Weimar and Nazi periods, criminologists considered both biological and social explanations for why people commit crimes. In general, these explanations highlighted biological factors.
At first, Nazi policies distinguished between adults and young people and they sought to sterilize people who were classified as feebleminded, but not criminals. They classified some criminals as sick so they could be sterilized.
As the Nazi power grew and as the war progressed, they became emboldened and started sterilizing or killing more people including children. The understanding of youth crime in post-war Germany was drastically influenced by the defeat of Nazi Germany and the challenges it presented.
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.
Authors: Christian Orlic and Lucas Heili
