Lesbian women during the Nazi era were not subject to the same legal regulations everywhere. In the German Reich, there was no direct equivalent to Paragraph 175 for relationships between women. In Austria, however, same-sex acts between women were also subject to criminal law.
The lack of uniform categories did not mean protection. The regime destroyed meeting places and networks, while authorities could use sexuality, along with other characteristics, to target women. The story of Henny Schermann shows why this persecution cannot be reduced to a single cause.
Lesbian women in the Nazi era lost their spaces
iksHaus | KI-generiert nach redaktioneller Konzeption, 2026
After 1933, authorities closed lesbian and gay bars, dissolved associations, and banned magazines. Women’s clubs, dance events, and nightclubs had created spaces for relationships, friendships, work, and political connections during the Weimar Republic.
With these places disappeared a unique public sphere. Known addresses could be monitored, membership lists or former magazines could be found during searches. Some women broke off contact because every connection could leave a trace.
The loss also affected everyday life. Dance evenings, editorial offices, and club meetings enabled a life outside the expectations of marriage and family. After their closure, encounters shifted to apartments, secret meetings, and carefully controlled friendships.
Camouflage did not offer complete security
iksHaus | KI-generiert nach redaktioneller Konzeption, 2026
Some women changed their place of residence or their social circle. Some destroyed letters and photographs. Others entered into marriages, sometimes with homosexual men, in order to conform to societal expectations. Such relationships could offer mutual protection, but also create new dependencies.
Opportunities were unevenly distributed. Financial independence, a supportive family, or a less monitored environment could make it easier to conceal a relationship. Female workers, homeless women, and individuals already registered with authorities were more vulnerable to control and denunciation.
Maintaining a facade required constant vigilance. The regime did not necessarily have to bring relationships to court in order to fundamentally change the lives of many women.
In Austria, a different legal situation applied
iksHaus | KI-generiert nach redaktioneller Konzeption, 2026
Austrian criminal law criminalized same-sex acts between both men and women. This provision existed before the Nazi regime and remained relevant during the regime.
After the annexation, Austrian and German legal systems converged. Therefore, the situation in Vienna and Austria cannot simply be derived from the legal situation in the German Reich. Women could also be prosecuted under criminal law for same-sex relationships, although such proceedings were less common than proceedings against men.
The differences show that the Nazi regime encompassed areas with different laws and local persecution practices.
The absence of a specific prohibition did not mean protection
Paragraph 175 in German criminal law targeted men. Nazi legal experts considered explicitly criminalizing relationships between women, but ultimately decided against it. This was not based on tolerance. The regime primarily viewed women in terms of their intended role in marriage, household, and reproduction.
Lesbian desire was considered undesirable. However, authorities believed they could control it through social pressure, economic dependence, or marriage. When women were persecuted, authorities often used other categories. These included political opposition, Jewish heritage, or being classified as so-called “asocials.”
Henny Schermann’s file shows several reasons for persecution
Henny Schermann worked as a saleswoman in Frankfurt. She was Jewish and lesbian. On the back of a photograph, a Nazi doctor noted her Jewish heritage, her visits to lesbian establishments, and her resistance to state regulations.
In the Ravensbrück concentration camp, Schermann was examined, categorized, and selected for death. Her sexuality was not the only, and probably not the decisive, reason for her murder. However, the note indicates that she was perceived by the persecutors and used against her.
Other lesbian women were also imprisoned due to political activities or other official classifications. Therefore, the extent of the persecution cannot be reliably quantified with a single number.
The black triangle was not a lesbian symbol
There was no official marking for lesbian prisoners in the concentration camps. The black triangle identified prisoners who were classified by the Nazis as so-called “asocials.”
Individual lesbian women could be assigned to this category. Others wore markings for political prisoners or were persecuted as Jews. Their sexuality could be known without having a specific symbol on their clothing.
The lack of a uniform marking explains why many biographies are difficult to find. Clues are often only found in marginal notes, insults, or medical assessments.
This invisibility continued after 1945
After the end of the war, many women did not return to a visibly open life. Relationships often appeared as friendships in family histories. Photographs did not explain what two women meant to each other. Letters were destroyed, and shared households were not always recognized as romantic relationships later on.
Research also long sought clear categories of victims. Where a specific paragraph of law, a uniform prisoner identification mark, and a central registry were lacking, it initially seemed that less history existed. In reality, it was documented differently.
Henny Schermanns’ photograph makes these gaps visible. The notes of the perpetrators do not define their lives. However, they show how Jewish heritage, female independence, and lesbian life were collectively evaluated by a violent system.