How Paragraph 175 turned private intimacy into evidence

Paragraph 175 originated in the German Empire and criminalized sexual acts between men. It remained in force during the Weimar Republic, although an organized reform movement demanded its abolition.

After the Nazi seizure of power, establishments were closed, magazines were banned, and organizations were dissolved. The tightening of the law in 1935 subsequently significantly expanded the scope of action of the authorities. A conviction no longer required proof of the same specific sexual act as before.

Courts could infer a sexual intent from touches, gestures, and statements. A letter could be read as a confession, an overnight stay could raise suspicion. As a result, not only actions, but also language, clothing, and personal relationships came under the scrutiny of investigators.

The police and Gestapo were not only looking for individual suspects, but also for their connections. During raids and arrests, letters, photographs, and address books were seized. During interrogations, officials demanded further names. A statement could thus trigger a chain of new investigations.

Police authorities had already collected information about men who were believed to have homosexual contacts before the Nazi era. The regime increasingly and systematically centralized and used this data. The files, which were later often referred to as “pink lists,” could reactivate rumors, previous proceedings, and social connections.

People from the personal environment could also file reports. The original text mentions ideological conviction, revenge, jealousy, and personal gain as motives. Even an acquittal or a dismissed case could not fully undo the damage to work, housing, and family relationships.

The persecution was not solely a secret operation of the Gestapo. Regular courts issued rulings based on the stricter laws. Judges and prosecutors transferred Nazi moral concepts into legal decisions, thereby giving violence the appearance of an orderly procedure.

Many convicted individuals were initially sent to prisons or labor camps. A conviction did not automatically lead to a concentration camp. For some men, however, the persecution did not end with the served sentence. The police and Gestapo could continue to monitor them, re-arrest them, or place them in so-called “protective custody.”

Some men were pressured to consent to castration. Others were subjected to medical procedures or psychiatric evaluations. The report by Friedrich Paul von Groszheim shows why consent cannot be a free choice when a decision is made under the threat of further violence.

Paragraph 175 transformed personal details into state-controlled material. Letters were used as evidence, and names from address books were entered into files. Statements made under duress could be used against a person years later.

The files remained effective beyond a single legal proceeding. A served sentence did not necessarily mean freedom, as authorities could always reopen previous investigations.

Robert T. Odeman had performed as a pianist on European stages before an injury ended his concert career. Later, he worked as an author and cabaret artist, and opened his own establishment in Hamburg. After it was closed by the Nazis, he moved to Berlin and began a relationship with a man.

His partner was pressured to denounce him to the Gestapo. Odeman was arrested and convicted. Even after his release, he remained under surveillance. His letters were now part of a state legal process, which interpreted personal intimacy as suspicion.

The preserved records are important historical sources. At the same time, they use the language of the police, medicine, and the legal system. They often reduce people to an alleged crime and primarily reflect the perspective of the persecuting institutions.

Robert Odeman was not just the subject of a file. He was a musician, author, and partner. The particular violence of the law also lay in declaring a part of his life as a permanent state identity.