German neo-nazis’ anti-refugee violence


German anti-refugee demonstrators with flag from Emperor Wilhelm and Adolf Hitler days, photo by DPA

This photo shows anti-refugee demonstrators near Dresden, Germany, with a black-white-red German national flag from Emperor Wilhelm II‘s and Adolf Hitler‘s days. It was replaced just after World War I and after World War II with another, black-red-gold coloured German flag. The black-white-red flag shows nostalgia for dictatorship.

From daily The Independent in Britain:

Dresden riots: Protesters in Germany attack refugee buses shouting ‘foreigners out

Shehab Kahn

Saturday 22 August 2015

Up to 1,000 protesters have clashed with police in eastern Germany in riots reportedly sparked by the arrival of 250 migrants.

Police said protesters shouting “foreigners out” and carrying banners against the “asylum flood” threw bottles and stones at busloads of asylum seekers arriving in Heidenau, near Dresden.

At least 31 officers were hurt in violent scuffles as police used tear gas to disperse crowds. …

The protest was hijacked by a group of far-right radicals, many belonging to the militant National Democratic Party (NPD), considered a neo-Nazi organisation. …

Chancellor Angela Merkel has said the influx of asylum seekers is the biggest problem Europe currently faces.

The European Union’s migrant ‘emergency’ is entirely of its own making, by
Ruben Andersson. We could treat asylum and labour mobility as questions of justice or opportunity, as some European states did in the postwar era: here.

Sparrows against mouse, rat video


This video shows house sparrows, trying to drive a mouse away from a garden.

Later, a rat turns up, attacking a sparrow.

Liselotte from Germany made this video.

Whistleblowing German bloggers, traitors? Historical context


This video shows an 1 August 2015 demonstration in Berlin, Germany, for press freedom, against Internet spying and censorship and against governmental attempts to prosecute the blog Netzpolitik.org as ‘traitors’.

By Andreas Kunstmann in Germany:

Background to the government attack on Netzpolitik.org

German court in 1992 upheld 1931 treason conviction of Carl von Ossietzky

8 August 2015

The legal investigation into the blog Netzpolitik.org for treason has provoked strong opposition and a wave of anger. It recalls the darkest chapter in German history, with the rise of the Nazis.

The most well known and notorious treason conviction in Germany was in 1931, against the editor of the Weltbühne magazine, Carl von Ossietzky.

It is less well known that this criminal trial was reviewed by a court in the Federal Republic of Germany. Between 1988 and 1992, Germany’s Federal Supreme Court (BGH) reconsidered the journalist’s conviction and refused to overturn the judgement.

The basis for the conviction in November 1931 was the publication of an article entitled “Shady Dealings in the Air” (“Windiges aus der Luftfahrt”) in the Weltbühne of 12 March 1929. Carl von Ossietzky was the magazine’s publisher and editor in charge.

The article dealt with events at the Johannesthal Adlershof airfield that proved Germany was pursuing a rearmament programme in violation of the terms of the Versailles Treaty agreed to at the end of World War I, and systematically covering the program up.

In the initial trial, a report authored by the Reich prosecutor (predecessor of the Federal Prosecutor) played an important role in preparing the treason charge. At the time, the charge was demanded by the Defence Ministry, which disputed that the facts detailed in the article were “already known to all interested parties at home and abroad.”

The charge followed only a few weeks after the completion of the report. The Reichsgericht (predecessor of the BGH) sentenced Carl von Ossietzky to one year and six months imprisonment. A pardon was demanded in a petition signed by 43,600 people, but rejected by Reich President Paul von Hindenburg.

Carl von Ossietzky subsequently spent 227 days in prison and was then sent to a concentration camp by the Nazis, where he died on 4 May 1938.

Fifty years later, Rosalinda von Ossietzky-Palm, Ossietzky’s daughter, commissioned lawyer Heinrich Hannover, Bremen civil servant Ingo Müller and Berlin Judge Eckart Rotka to reopen the case. The request was filed at the Berlin appeals court on 1 March 1988. It was justified on the basis of new evidence.

For example, it was proven that the facts in the article were already known to the French army, meaning they were not secrets. It was also argued that the rearmament program “endangered the security of the Reich, and not the fact that these activities were published.”

Among the appeals court judges was one who was jointly responsible for the acquittal in 1968 of Hans-Joachim Rehse, who had been a judge at the Volksgericht (People’s Court) in Nazi Germany. The Berlin district court had cleared Rehse at the time because the presentation of cases by the People’s Court “took place within the framework of technical considerations.”

On 11 July 1991, the application to reopen the Ossietzky case was thrown out by the Berlin court. No new evidence or facts had allegedly been presented that would have been sufficient to justify overturning the original conviction.

The ruling stated, “… the application for a retrial is based on conditions which the court fully evaluated and arrived at an opposing conclusion after a review of the evidence in both instances referred to. A fact [rejected by the previous ruling] is not new evidence.”

An appeal challenging this decision was filed with the Federal Supreme Court, which rejected the suit for a retrial on 3 December 1992. This was justified on the basis that no new evidence had been provided to show that “precisely” the information contained in the article had previously been known. It was, according to the BGH, not a question of whether the rearmament program as a whole was already known about.

The court said the new evidence, which, according to experts, showed the publication had not endangered the “security of the Reich,” was not new evidence according to law, and would thus not result in a retrial.

Heinrich Hannover, citing the BGH ruling, wrote: “For the judges in Karlsruhe, the Third Reich and the Second World War with its 50 million deaths never took place. They are holding on to principles that rely on a lack of critical awareness of history and guarantee the acquittal of their judicial colleagues in the Third Reich who sympathised with Adolf Hitler.”

Hannover quoted from the BGH ruling: “The reference to subsequent historical developments is irrelevant for a retrial. Within the framework of determining admissibility, the retrial court must determine the suitability of the retrial application, taking into account the standpoint and legal opinion of the court that convicted the defendant.”

Thus the BGH judges in 1992 made the decisive factor the standpoint and legal opinion of those judges who later became supporters of the Nazi state. Using similar arguments, the post-war German judiciary acquitted almost all judges and state prosecutors from the Nazi regime.

**

All citations are from: Heinrich Hannover, Die Republik vor Gericht, 1975-1995, Erinnerungen eines unbequemen Rechtsanwalts; Chapter 19: Carl von Ossietzkys Landesverratein Wiederaufnahmeverfahren (1988-1992); Pp. 371-410.

See also: Elisabeth Hannover-Drück/Heinrich Hannover, Politische Justiz 1918-1933.

German army propaganda at heavy metal concert


This music video is the nazi German propaganda song Bomben auf Engeland (Bombs on England). The video features war criminal Field Marshal Hermann Goering, commander of the Luftwaffe, Adolf Hitler’s air force. The Luftwaffe bombing of England killed mainly civilians; as it did in Rotterdam in the Netherlands, and elsewhere. Like in Poland: originally, the song, then called Bomben auf Polenland, glorified Goering’s bombing of Poland in 1939.

The composer of this bloodthirsty song was nazi party member Norbert Schultze, nicknamed ‘Bomben-Schultze’. He also wrote much other nazi propaganda music. After Hitler had lost the war, Norbert Schultze got just a slap on the wrist: a 3,000 DM fine. In the new Federal Republic (West Germany) he continued to be a ‘respected’ composer; even the chairman of the composers’ league.

The aim of songs like Bomben auf Engeland was to hoodwink the German people into supporting Hitler’s war of aggression, to whitewash the horrors of war, to make bloodshed look glamorous. What an abuse of music.

By Gustav Kemper in Germany:

German army peddles propaganda at heavy metal concert

6 August 2015

Approximately 70,000 heavy metal fans who had gathered for an open air festival in Wacken last week experienced a world premiere when the Bundeswehr’s (German army) musical choir appeared on stage.

Together with the popular heavy metal band U.D.O. the Bundeswehr choir performed under the direction of Lieutenant Colonel Scheibling. The German army is facing such a crisis in its recruitment campaign that it is now searching for new, out of the ordinary methods to influence young people.

The contrast between the exuberance of the heavy metal fans and their party mood, and the dull drill of the Bundeswehr could hardly have been greater. After heavy rain the festival had been turned into a mud bath. There is a major difference, however, between young people organising a friendly mud fight and crawling through the mud in army uniform carrying a backpack under the command of a junior officer.

While the heavy metal fans were more interested in their favourite bands and had little interest in the military propaganda, the media was effusive in its praise for the Bundeswehr’s musical performance in Wacken. “At the Wacken rock festival, thousands of music fans celebrated the musicians of the Siegburg soldiers,” enthused the Rhein-Sieg Rundschau a day later. “The premiere by the Bundeswehr’s choir at the world’s biggest heavy metal festival…was a success and great advertising for the Bundeswehr,” the newspaper went on.

German Admiral Michael Busse, who is also the regional commander at the armed forces commando base in Bonn, indicated that he was “extremely excited,” and hoped that the previous rehearsals involving U.D.O. and the choir in Siegburg “send an unmistakable signal from the event here in Wacken.”

In an interview on ZDF’s “Drehscheibe” TV programme Udo Dirkschneider, the U.D.O. frontman, who goes by the stage name “German Tank,” said he thought it was “very good to show that the German army is open minded.” This was “also very good for the German army.” He had no problems with working with the army and regarded the joint performance as “a good public signal.”

Dirkschneider has long-standing connections to the army and soldiers. But when he speaks about a “good signal” he is speaking for himself and not for the fans of his band. Already in the 1970s, Dirkschneider was playing concerts for American soldiers with his band at the time, Accept. Last year, his band filmed a music video on a German navy frigate and in February 2014 they played a joint concert with the German navy’s North Sea musical choir.

“I think we are presenting something to the public which the world has not yet seen,” stated the musical director and conductor of the choir, First Lieutenant [no; Lieutenant Colonel] Scheibling to ZDF. It was “an entry in the history books, in very private, personal terms, but also for music,” he continued.

With his “entry in the history books” Scheibling is drawing directly on the speech given by German President Joachim Gauck at the Bundeswehr’s leadership academy in June 2012, when he delivered the order, “Generals! Officers! Bundeswehr Soldiers! Back to the heart of our society!”

The WSWS wrote at the time that Gauck wanted to quickly and energetically overcome the opposition to the return of militarism, preparations for war and a more aggressive domestic and foreign policy.

Since then, the German army has intensified its strivings to reach the heart of society. According to Bundeswehr’s website, on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the Bundeswehr, the army opened “the doors to their barracks and encouraged visitors with an attractive programme of experiences.”

The intervention in Wacken was to have been another “attractive experience.” The resounding heavy metal rock, however, with it shrill guitar riffs, steady drum beats and the staccato of rhythm guitars which emerged in the 1970s from hard rock and psychedelic rock, is an expression of rebellious youth.

If the army’s commanders believe they can exploit young people’s desire for action, in a society which offers only unemployment and the lack of any perspective, then they are seriously underestimating the political intelligence of many young people.

The crimes of the German army in the first and second world wars are well known, and the return of German militarism stands directly in this tradition. Colonel Klein who gave the order to bombard civilians in the Afghan village of Kunduz, is not seen as a hero, but a war criminal.

Despite the propaganda offensive which includes many new information centres and careers advisers, opposition to the German army among the general population is growing. This is why NATO has made the improvement of “strategic communication” the main subject of the air and space power conference, organised by the Join Air Power Competence Centre (JAPCC) to be held from 23 to 25 November in Essen.

In the invitation to the conference, the capabilities of the air force are praised and the winning of public opinion is declared to be a strategic goal. According to the statement the opponents of NATO are attempting to combat the overwhelming strength of the air force by influencing public opinion. In turn, NATO is dependent on the support of the population to be able to implement its military goals.

In one discussion at the conference, experts from politics, academia, the military and media will search for solutions to make better use of a range of information for the promotion of military goals. “This panel will bring together journalists and public relations experts from NATO to explore their understanding of the relationship between the media and military, as well as identifying methods with which the media and military power can reduce the impact of ‘disinformation’ (originating from the enemy) with a stronger, joint approach.” it states on the JAPCC’s web site.

A special topic of the conference will be how Russia uses important media campaigns to undermine and discredit NATO. The goal of this agenda is to directly target any critical reporting about the machinations of the ruling elite, their intelligence agencies and military forces. The recent investigation by the federal prosecutor in to the Netzpolitik.org blog on charges of treason must be seen in this light.

Internet censorship and spying in Germany


This German video is about a demonstration in Berlin on 1 August 2015, pro free press, against Internet censorship and spying, and against the prosecution of bloggers for ‘treason’.

By Ulrich Rippert in Germany:

German government fires prosecutor over treason charge against Internet blog

5 August 2015

On Tuesday evening, the German government fired the chief federal prosecutor, Attorney General Harald Range, for his unprecedented defiance of the government in bringing treason charges against an Internet blog that exposed plans for mass spying by the federal intelligence agencies. Justice Minister Heiko Maas (SPD) consigned Range to retirement on the grounds that his trust in Range’s administration had been “permanently damaged.”

The firing came only hours after Range openly attacked the government, and Maas in particular, at a hastily convened press conference. He spoke of “intolerable interference” by politicians into the independence of the justice system because he had been compelled to drop the investigation of the Netzpolitik.org blog for treason charges.

“To influence an investigation because its possible outcome does not appear politically opportune” is unacceptable, Range said. While the freedom of the press and of expression are of great value, he continued, “these freedoms do not apply without limit on the Internet. It does not exempt journalists from observing the law.” To watch over this was not the task of politicians, but of the justice system, he maintained.

Such an attack by the most senior criminal prosecutor (Range) on the justice minister is unprecedented in the history of post-World War II Germany. The justice minister is the employer of the attorney general and is authorized to issue instructions to him.

The investigation for treason directed against journalists from the Netzpolitik.org blog by the German attorney general has met fierce public opposition. In Berlin on Saturday, 3,000 people demonstrated against this attack on press freedom. In other cities such as Frankfurt, Munich, Cologne and Karlsruhe there were also protests against press intimidation.

Many in the media have also criticized the actions of the secret service and the attorney general and sharp conflicts have broken out inside the state apparatus itself. It is increasingly clear that the intelligence services act as a state within the state, accountable to no one. The situation is reminiscent of the last years of the Weimar Republic in the early 1930s, when the security agencies and Reichswehr (Army) acted largely independently and contributed significantly to helping the semi-dictatorship of Papen and Schleicher to power, which was followed by the Nazis.

From what is known so far, the attack on the Netzpolitik.org journalists was initiated by the president of the Federal Office for Protection of the Constitution (as the secret service is called), Hans-Georg Maassen. He had long complained that the intelligence community was being repeatedly criticized publicly over the neo-Nazi National Socialist Underground (NSU) and spying by the US National Security Agency (NSA).

It is now known that the domestic secret service has been closely involved with the NSU, which is accused of committing 10 racist murders, two terrorist attacks and numerous bank robberies; and that the Foreign Intelligence Service (BND) is working closely with the NSA in spying on politicians, companies and broad sections of the population in Europe and Germany.

To try and put a stop to the revelations and intimidate journalists, Maassen leveled charges in March against Netzpolitik.org for publishing two documents classified by the secret service. The charges were forwarded to the attorney general in Karlsruhe, who had the secret service confirm that the documents published involved “state secrets,” and who then opened a criminal investigation on May 13 on charges of treason against those responsible for the online blog.

As became known last weekend, the government had known about the investigation for some time. According to Spiegel Online, the attorney general had informed the Justice Ministry on May 27 about launching the proceedings.

The Justice Ministry confirmed this information, but claimed that Maas had subsequently made clear at all levels of the attorney general’s office that he considered such an approach to be “too tricky, too explosive and hopeless” ( Spiegel Online ).The attorney general’s office reacted promptly and let it be known that there had not been any such clear opposition from the Justice Ministry at any time.

Maassen, who is subordinate to the Interior Ministry and the Chancellery, had already responded to the public criticism with another attack against the media and indirectly the government on Sunday. It had been necessary to proceed legally “against the publication of documents classified as confidential or secret,” he told Bild am Sonntag. It was a matter of ensuring the “viability of his service in the fight against extremism and terrorism.”

The government could have prevented the investigation against Netzpolitik.org from the outset, he said. But they evidently did not want to do so. They only responded when disclosure of the proceedings met with fierce protests.

At a press conference on Monday, a journalist asked the spokesman for the justice minister why he had not used his authority to issue appropriate instructions if he did not agree with the approach of the attorney general’s office. An instruction from the Justice Ministry would have sufficed to stop the investigation into the journalists.

As long as a state prosecutor was not behaving illegally, there was no room for an instruction, was the curt reply by the spokesman.

The Interior Ministry responded similarly evasively. Its communication, said Minister Thomas de Maiziere (CDU), did not know about the proceedings in advance. Only his State Secretary Emily Haber and the department head involved had been informed by the secret service about the charges against Netzpolitik.org. However, the talk had been of charges for the betrayal of official secrets and not state secrets.

The Chancellery Office also said that German Chancellor Angela Merkel had only learned about the proceedings through the media. However, it was revealed on Friday that in the autumn of last year, Chancellery Minister Peter Altmaier (CDU) had complained to the chairman of the NSA Committee of Inquiry, Patrick Sensburg (CDU), that the secret service internal documents before the committee had been leaked and had threatened legal consequences. At that time, Netzpolitik.org had published the content of Altmaier’s letter to Sensburg.

While many media outlets have criticized the attack on Netzpolitik.org, they oppose any weakening of the secret services, let alone their abolition. Rather, they demand that these and the attorney general’s office increasingly focus their attention on the machinations of the US intelligence agencies and more aggressively defend Germany’s national interests.

For example, Heribert Prantl, the lead domestic commentator for the Süddeutsche Zeitung, begins a comment by accusing Range of not having “the independence one expects from an attorney general.” This had been shown in the criminal matters “affecting the German relationship with the US; Range had not dared look into this.”

The Left Party also argues along these lines, demanding the attorney general “take his hat home”—not because of the attack on press freedom, but because of the failure to crack down on the NSA. He has to go, demands Left Party Chairman Bernd Riexinger in Handelsblatt, “before more happened, or rather didn’t happen.”

The attacks by the secret service and the attorney general on the freedom of the press, which is largely being supported by the government, are inextricably linked to Germany’s return to a more aggressive foreign policy. Great power politics and militarism go hand in hand with the establishment of a police state and the suppression of all internal opposition. As always in German history, the secret services and the striving of the security apparatus to become a state within the state play an important role.

The events that led to the dismissal of the German Attorney General Harald Range show the true extent of the preparations to erect an authoritarian state in which freedom of speech and basic democratic rights are suppressed: here.

Will German army deal with refugees?


This video says about itself:

Lomazy, Poland: 1942 massacre of all 1800 Jewish residents

Lomazy, east Poland.

On 18 August 1942 Wehrmacht Battalion 101 together with its Ukrainian Auxiliary Company and local Polish collaborators executed 1,800 women, men, children, elderly people, the entire village Jewish population and refugees.

The massacre took place into pits in the nearby ‘Haly Forest’.

This was merely one of many genocide atrocities committed against European Jews.

This is the short 15m version of the 1h10m film.

Film was taken by Meir Garbarz Gover in 2005 depicting the last surviving Polish eyewitness to the massacre. He was aged 13 in 1942 and lived in the farm next to the massacre forest location.

Gover’s own great uncle and his family were among the 1,800 victims.

By Martin Kreikenbaum in Germany:

Calls for deployment of German army to deal with refugees

4 August 2015

Refugees in Germany face miserable living conditions, with many forced to reside in hastily and poorly built tent camps. In Bavaria, the first emergency camps for Balkan refugees have opened, and calls are growing for the deployment of the German army. The emergency situation created by the authorities is aimed at deterring refugees from seeking protection in Germany and preparing the way for a dramatic restriction of the right to asylum.

Although the increase in refugees has been predicted for several months, neither the federal government nor any state government made any serious preparations for the immigrants’ accommodation. Factories, schools and empty army barracks are being hurriedly turned into reception centres. There are neither sufficient sanitary facilities nor the possibility for private areas of any kind for the frequently traumatised refugees at these locations.

Terrible conditions exist in the temporary tent camps established in Hamburg, Eisenhüttenstadt (Brandenburg), Neuenstadt (Baden-Württemberg) and numerous other places. Up to 1,300 refugees have been crammed in together at these locations.

Conditions are particularly disastrous in the refugee camp in Dresden. When the first refugees were due to move into the camp established by the German Red Cross 10 days ago, a right-wing mob gathered in front of the camp and began attacking volunteers with bottles and stones. Police did nothing to protect the refugees or their helpers.

A few days later, the refugees protested the catastrophic conditions with a blockade. The tents at the Dresden site are jammed together side by side, sanitary facilities are totally inadequate and medical care and rubbish disposal facilities are virtually non-existent. It only took a few days for the first illnesses caused by the miserable conditions to make their appearance.

Authorities in Berlin have gone a step further and are leaving refugees homeless. According to the Berlin Council for Refugees, the state department for health care and social welfare is only giving out hostel vouchers to refugees, although just a third of the refugees find accommodation in hostels. Most hostels are filled with tourists or refuse to accept refugees, because the city of Berlin has failed to pay outstanding bills.

Refugees are compelled to sleep in parks or at the main train station in the open air. In violation of the law, they are given only €6 [$US6.56] per day, half the standard social security rate, to support themselves. If refugees then try to take action to help themselves, they are bullied. According to the Berlin state senate, begging in subways, on streets and in squares is “out of control”, resulting in its plan to ban begging by children.

In Ingolstadt, Bavaria, the Max Immelmann barracks are being refurbished to serve as a refugee camp for migrants from the Balkans. Up to 1,500 refugees will be accommodated there. Under the Bavarian government’s plan, a sped-up asylum procedure will see the applications processed within four weeks and the rejected refugees immediately deported. The Bavarian Refugee Council strongly criticised the planned reception centre and correctly described it as an “emergency camp with its own deportation airport”.

At the same time, calls are growing for the deployment of the army to intervene. German law excludes such a deployment in principle, because in the 20th century the Reichswehr—the army under the Weimar Republic—and the Wehrmacht—the armed forces under the Nazis—were used to brutalize the population. But this ban has been repeatedly watered down in recent years.

The German army was not only called on to assist during such natural disasters as the Elbe River flooding in 2002, but also at the G8 conference in Heiligendamm in 2007, when fighter jets and tanks were deployed to intimidate and suppress protests.

Now, the chairman of the committee on internal affairs in Saxony’s state parliament, Mario Pecher (Social Democratic Party, SPD), has called for the army to operate refugee reception centres. Saxony’s state premier Holger Stahlknecht (Christian Democratic Union, CDU) went even further, describing the number of refugees in Germany as an “international crisis resulting in conditions resembling the migration of entire peoples”. On this reactionary, hysterical basis, Stahlknecht raised the demand for “the current restriction of the German army to foreign deployments and disaster response” to be reconsidered.

Soldiers guarding camps of refugees from the Balkans recalls the Nazi concentration camps. In 1935, the Hitler government declared that Sinti and Roma were enemies of the Reich. More than 25,000 were registered in the German Reich and deported. In total, 500,000 fell victim to the Nazi butchery throughout Europe.

Today, relatives of the Roma make up the majority of the refugees from the Balkans. According to figures from the German government, 90 percent of asylum seekers from Serbia are Roma, 72 percent from Macedonia, 60 percent from Bosnia and 42 percent from Montenegro.

These refugees, in particular, are the target of scurrilous propaganda from the German media and politicians. Bavarian state premier Horst Seehofer (Christian Social Union, CSU) has denounced them as “mass abusers of asylum”, while Hamburg Mayor Olaf Scholz (SPD) sounded a similar note by contemptuously saying that the immigrants were “refugees without any perspective of staying”.

Scholz also appealed for special reception centres to “arrive at quicker, non-bureaucratic decisions”. This means nothing less than the illegal curtailing of the asylum process and the swift deportation of refugees. Markus Ulbig (CDU) has also demanded the legal restriction of the right to asylum. He has begun reviewing “whether there is the possibility of curtailing the rights of obviously groundless asylum applications by reforming the basic law”.

Baden-Württemberg’s state premier Winfried Kretschmann (Greens) also called for additional anti-immigrant measures, including the cutting of the pocket money of €143 per month and the more decisive deportation of refugees. He also supports demands from SPD and CDU figures to declare Serbia, Kosovo, Albania and Montenegro “secure” countries of origin, so asylum applications can be more quickly rejected and refugees more swiftly deported.

Roma in the Balkans, who already suffer from high unemployment and lack of prospects, are often discriminated against. They have virtually no chance of getting work, housing or education. Their settlements are regularly cleared by bulldozers and residents left homeless. Where settlements are tolerated, they are often located on or near rubbish dumps without electricity or water supply.

The German government is, in large part, responsible for the disastrous conditions in which the Roma live. In the early 1990s, Germany played a key role in the break-up of the former Yugoslavia and the subsequent brutal civil war. In 1999, it actively intervened to devastate the Balkans with its participation in the war against Serbia. At that time, an estimated 100,000 Roma were forced to flee their homes and many remain homeless and stateless to this day.

Last year, a journalist described the situation of the Roma in Serbia for the Federal Agency for Civic Education: “They live in slums, which do not exist, in streets, which do not exist, in huts that have no numbers outside. Their children do not effectively exist because they were born in a place that does not exist, and this place does not exist, because it is not listed in any land registry office and officially does not exist.”

ProAsyl cites a legal opinion arguing that the inhumane conditions under which the Roma live in the Balkans, constitutes a “cumulative persecution” within the meaning of the right to asylum, which means that the Roma should be granted protection status.

Instead, the Roma in Germany are denounced as “social state spongers”, incarcerated in special camps, which are then guarded by German soldiers. This can only be described as cynical, racist policies. The official stigmatization of Roma as “social parasites” creates the climate for incitement and racist attacks against refugee facilities.