Julius Erasmus. A search for traces.

Julius Erasmus. A search for traces.

“Modern culture of remembrance” in the District of Düren: District denies “flower ban” on Military Cemeteries in Hürtgen Forest to press and media (Published 13/05/2023)


I. The administration of the District of Düren

When dealing with the administration of the District of Düren – as already reported – one is not infrequently confronted with strange views that probably correspond to the worldview of the protagonists there, but are often hardly or not at all compatible with applicable law.

A new chapter in this apparently endless story concerns the ban on the placement of “signs of mourning” for the Military Cemeteries in Hürtgen and Vossenack issued by the District of Düren, which has been reported on this blog. As is known, the legal admissibility of this ban is currently also the subject of legal proceedings in which the District of Düren (so far) strictly adheres to its position that the placement of such “signs of mourning” in the said cemeteries is only permissible after a corresponding “special permit” has been issued.

I have also drawn the attention of several channels of the press and media to the matter and suggested reporting on it, including the editorial team of the public West German Broadcasting company (“Westdeutscher Rundfunk”, “WDR”) program “Lokalzeit Aachen” and the “Epoch Times”.

Both then contacted the press office of the District of Düren (link to archive) to ask them about this. The answers from the District of Düren district were remarkable.

 

II. The statements of the District of Düren press office to WDR

The representative of “Lokalzeit Aachen” informed me by e-mail that the press office of the District of Düren had explained the following to him in response to his inquiry about the flower ban (translation from German language):

“the District of Düren told me that it was allowed to lay flowers after all. The cemetery gardeners knew about it. The prohibition was pronounced at that time, because corresponding visitors had ‘decorated’ the graves of the soldiers of the Wehrmacht in particular. However, the permission to lay flowers had not yet been written into the new rules. So it is nevertheless no longer an issue for us.”

 

WDR apparently did not consider it necessary to review this obviously absurd statement, which would have to cause astonishment even with minimal legal knowledge, but which can, in any case, be easily refuted on the basis of publicly available information. In view of the press office’s statement, reporting was “no longer an issue” for WDR.

Somewhat incredulously, I asked the District of Düren about the content of the statements made by its press office to WDR and received the following reply (translation from German language):

“Mr […] received an oral answer from the press office at the time. Since there was no written documentation, the exact wording is no longer known and can only be reproduced from memory. The core message of the answer was that it is permitted to lay flower decorations if there is no recognizable right-wing motivation behind it, even if this was not explicitly stated in the cemetery rules.”

 

This statement is surprising, since it is diametrically opposed to sec. 4 no. 4. a) of the District of Düren’s new cemetery rules and not least to its presentation in the court proceedings and the prohibition defended there of the placement of any grave decoration that was not previously permitted by a ”special permit”.

The assertion of the District of Düren, according to which “it is permitted to lay flower decorations if there is no recognizable right-wing motivation behind it”, can nowhere be inferred from the cemetery rules – irrespective of the once again recognizable lack of definiteness of the terms used. It also remains open when there is a “right-wing motivation” behind a grave decoration and who actually decides on this. Apparently, the District of Düren would like to be able to decide at its own discretion and beyond all legal requirements, even those of its own cemetery rules, when and to whom a grave decoration is allowed to be placed on the said Military Cemeteries.

Such behavior is called arbitrary. It is a characteristic of totalitarian dictatorships and in a constitutional state, in which the clear determination and determinability of legally permissible behavior is an elementary basic requirement, it necessarily causes the corresponding measure to be unlawful. This should actually have gotten around to the administration of the District of Düren.

 

III. The statements of the District of Düren press office to “Epoch Times”

Interestingly, the statements made by the District of Düren press office to WDR are not an isolated case either. They answered an inquiry of the journalist Erik Rusch of “Epoch Times” in a similar way.

When he asked why the cemetery rules had been changed, the press office told him (translation from German language):

“The cemetery rules were newly adopted by the district council on 13/09/2022. However, nothing in the content of the previous cemetery rules was changed. The term ‘cemetery of honor’ was merely replaced with the term ‘war gravesite’.”

 

This answer is surprising. It corresponds to the fairy tale that had been spread before the vote in the district council on the new version of the cemetery rules and that presumably only made its unanimous adoption possible. Apparently the press office did not even notice that the answers to all further questions of Mr Rusch include contextual changes in the cemetery rules, refuting their own statement that “nothing in the content of the previous cemetery rules was changed”. A typical example for the tangible nonsense that the administration of the District of Düren frequently produces, apparently without noticing it.

In response to Mr Rusch’s question as to why the laying of “flowers, vases or other signs of mourning” in the Military Cemeteries in Hürtgen and Vossenack is now prohibited and requires a special permit, the press office informed him (translation from German language):

“During the year, especially on Memorial Day, relatives or acquaintances of the buried place wreaths, arrangements, flowers, grave lights, photos of the deceased, etc. on the graves. The District of Düren has determined that these signs of mourning by relatives and from the circle of acquaintances fall under the exemption and do not require prior approval. Generally, expressions of mourning with right-wing messages or photos in Wehrmacht or SS uniforms are not permitted.”

 

Where the District of Düren has made the claimed “determination” of who and what allegedly falls under the exemption remains open again. There is nothing in the cemetery rules about this. Interesting is also the information that a deposit of photos in uniform is “generally not allowed” in the cemeteries. There is nothing in the cemetery rules on this either, so that once again the question arises as to the legal basis, which, as is well known, is a basic prerequisite for the legality of any state measure.

Mr Rusch also asked for the reason why in the new version, in which according to the press office “nothing in the content was changed“, the wording in sec. 2 of the previous cemetery rules, which is based on sec. 1 (1) of the Federal Graves Act, according to which both Military Cemeteries are “dedicated to the special memory of the victims of war and tyranny”, was removed. The answer of the press office once again gives a deep insight (translation from German language):

“The specifically German formula of the ‘victim of war and tyranny’ has become controversial and needs to be changed. The reason is that it indiscriminately unites Jews who were killed, victims of mass murder by the Wehrmacht and the SS in villages and towns of the Soviet Union, as well as fallen soldiers of the Wehrmacht and members of the Waffen-SS to those ‘victims of war and tyranny’. If one follows this formula, then there were only victims in the Second World War – and no perpetrators.”

 

Due to which circumstances it is allegedly a “specifically German formula” and is allegedly “disputed” remains open. Apparently, the District of Düren is of the opinion that dead German soldiers per se cannot (or may not) be “victims of war and tyranny” and rather prefers to remove the dedication of the commemoration of the victims of war and tyranny for both cemeteries, where also numerous civilian war victims are buried, than to recognize that even only one of the German soldiers buried there could be a victim of war and tyranny.

That a soldier killed in the Second World War should not be a “victim of war” is astonishing and shows the twisted worldview of the protagonists at the District of Düren administration. It is in the nature of war that all soldiers are perpetrators and victims. For political reasons they hurt and kill other people and take the risk of being hurt and killed by them. A differentiation between “good” and “bad” dead is political in nature. It is neither appropriate from a human perspective, nor is it compatible with respect for human dignity as one of the basic premises of a liberal democratic state. For if human dignity is inviolable and it is the duty of all state authority to respect and protect it (e.g. Article 1 (1) of the Basic Law), a commemoration of the dead must also be guaranteed that respects and protects the human dignity of each individual dead person. A differentiation of the kind that the District of Düren apparently seeks to adopt, is incompatible with the state’s obligation to protect human dignity. It is mindless ideological agitation, fed above all by ignorance and a lack of understanding, contradicting fundamental moral and ethical standards.

 

IV. WDR versus “Epoch Times” or What is professional journalism?

The different reactions of the addressees to the obviously questionable statements of the District of Düren press office are also remarkable.

While WDR, regardless of the obvious frictions, apparently assumed the truth of the communication of the District of Düren and declared a reporting to be expendable on this basis – possibly they were just looking for a pretext of some kind –, Mr Rusch of “Epoch Times” investigated the clear contradictions and sought a discussion. What is true and what is not quickly became clear.

The article by Erik Rusch titled „Blumenverbot für Kriegsgräberstätten? – Anwalt sieht ‚grundlegende Rechtsverletzung‘“ (“Flower ban for war gravesites? – Lawyer sees ‘fundamental violation of rights’”) was published in “Epoch Times” on 04/02/2023.

WDR’s behavior is unworthy and incompatible with fundamental journalistic standards and its self-imposed program mandate. Such a medium is irrelevant and easily dispensable.

 

(Head picture: German military cemetery Bensheim-Auerbach/Bergstraße, April 2022)

 

Further articles on the topic “‘Modern culture of remembrance’ in the District of Düren”:

 

If you wish to support my work on Julius Erasmus, you can do so here. Many thanks!

Archive