Dealing with right-wing violence since 1990

This stop is an intermediate station in close proximity to the former location of Kassablanca at Villengang 2a (today a retirement home). Here, we will address the handling of right-wing violence in the early 1990s.

As outlined at Eichplatz square, the right-wing violence of the 1990s had a prehistory in the GDR. From 1990 onwards, however, right-wing extremist attacks in the former GDR became more frequent and more violent. 

For Jena in 1990, several attacks on safe spaces for young people who saw themselves as left-wing have been documented. The Young Community ( JG Stadtmitte), the Autonomous Youth Centre in Karl-Liebknecht-Strasse and the Kassablanca sociocultural centre, then still at Villengang 2a, were attacked several times, the rooms vandalised, and the furniture destroyed.

However, people who looked like the enemy according to a right-wing extremist worldview were also the target of attacks. Numerous incidents are documented for 1991 alone, including an armed right-wing-motivated attack on a Vietnamese man in broad daylight at Jena's marketplace. 

The police were unable to cope with the steep incline in violence. In October 1991, a Jena police department employee complained that staffing levels were insufficient and employees undergoing further training were missing for duty.^* Victims of right-wing violence report that in the early 1990s there was little trust in the police and they had to provide their own protection.

The police handling of right-wing radicalism in the course of the transformation in 1989/90

In the early 1990s, the police often ignored the political aspect of right-wing extremist assaults. A statistic from the Jena police records a fivefold increase in assaults in Jena between 1989 and 1991, but does not name any political motivation.

As the Thüringische Landeszeitung (TLZ) observed in April 1990, the police made a point of stating that they „basically do not make any political differentiations, but [...] provide order and security for the citizens.“ As late as May 1990, the police cited the criminal offence „rowdyism“, which masked the political motivation of right-wing extremist violence.

The equation of right-wing and left-wing violence and the accompanying depoliticisation and trivialisation of right-wing radical attitudes and actions were reproduced in part by the regional media. In an article in the TLZ in June 1990, the author stated: „In our society today, it is possible, with good will, to accept and tolerate fringe groups. But in order to counter an escalation between the 'right' and 'left', a lot of patience is needed from all sides.“

Demanding social spaces

In the course of the early 1990s, right-wing youths in Jena also became increasingly self-confident. In a filmed group discussion in 1993, right-wing youths from the youth centre Treffpunkt in Lobeda Ost demanded that they be given their own rooms, analogous to the Autonomous Youth Centre in Karl-Liebknecht-Straße.^*

The openly demanding attitude of the young people from Treffpunkt reflected on the one hand their feeling that a significant part of society was behind them or shared their attitudes. Racist pogrom-like riots such as those in Hoyerswerda and Rostock-Lichtenhagen, which were openly supported by parts of the local population, had contributed to this.^*

However, media coverage had also contributed to this by presenting abuse of the asylum system as a danger and stoking racist resentment. One example is the front page of the 9 September 1991 issue of Spiegel, which used the metaphor of  the „the boat is full“, eight days before the pogrom-like riots began in Hoyerswerda.^*

The „Action Program against Aggression and Violence“

In the early 1990s, youth policy debates about right-wing radicalism were shaped by concern for the 'uprooted' youth in the new federal states. Nationalism, racism and the resulting violence were played down as symptoms of the „disintegration“ of young people due to the consequences of the transformation.^* Understanding for the supposedly insecure young people, who were willing to resort to violence, led to a disregard of the political motivation and thus to the depoliticisation of radical right-wing violence.

Within the framework of youth welfare measures, general practice demanded that the focus should not be on repressing radical right-wing orientations, but rather on supporting young people in coping with life. This guideline was found in the policies of „accepting youth work.“

The approach was developed in the Federal Republic of Germany in the 1970s when dealing with violent, and later drug-addicted, youths. In the late 1980s, educators working with Franz-Josef Krafeld at the University of Applied Sciences in Bremen applied it to working with „young people in right-wing youth groups.“

At the beginning of the nineties, the approach reached the new federal states, among other places through further training. The idea was to avoid „lecturing“, „mediating“ oder „enlightening“ the young target group^* - also with regard to political attitudes.

Under the direction of Dr. Angela Merkel, the Federal Ministry for Women and Youth developed a programme in 1991 based on the basic principles of „accepting youth work“: The „Action Program against Aggression and Violence“ (AgAG). Beginning in 1992, the ministry used the programme to provide targeted funding for projects involving young people with a propensity for violence and violent behaviour in „hotspot regions“ in the eastern German states. In December 1991, the federal government announced the provision of 20 million Deutschmarks for „target group-oriented funding“ to counter „young people’s extremist, xenophobic and violent riots.“^*

In Thuringia, projects in Eisenach, Erfurt, Jena, Nordhausen and Weimar were funded by the Action Program. The projects in Jena were attached to three institutions: to the Winzerclub in Winzerla and to the youth centre Treffpunkt in East Lobeda, both maintained by the government office for youth welfare, and to the Young Community Centre.^*

In Winzerla and Lobeda, community social workers worked with right-wing-oriented youths, but also with radical right-wing youths. A few months after the opening of Winzerclub, the then manager reported at the end of 1991 that there was an „increase in problems of violence at and in the club,“, that „more and more skinheads“  were coming to the club as regulars, and that 'normal' youths were being pushed out. Social workers would accompany the „problematic“ youths.^*

Beginning in 1992, AgAG-funding intensified this problem by focusing on the target group of right-wing youths. For many other youths who were not violent or held radical right-wing attitudes, the youth centers Winzerclub and Treffpunkt became fear zones. Even passing by could take a lot of effort and lead to attacks.

The situation at Treffpunkt in East Lobeda, which was visited by Angela Merkel in 1992, was similar to at Winzerclub. At the end of 1992, the TLZ quoted the director at the time as saying that it was a „rumour“, that Treffpunkt was a „right-wing“ club and off bounds to „non-right-wingers“.^* However, Treffpunkt was an important base for community social work with right-wing and radical right-wing youth. The staff member in charge had his office there, and the club's rooms could be used by radical right-wing youths as a place to stay and meet.

Contemporary criticism of the „Action program“

Shortly after the action program was announced, the focus on right-wing perpetrators of violence led to accusations of neglect of other young people, especially migrants, and others potentially affected by right-wing violence. Contemporary criticism also pointed to the fact that the program actually encouraged violence, since the young people received attention when they behaved violently.

The policy’s treatment of right-wing radicalism as purely a youth problem was also addressed. It was argued that this trivialised the problem, pushing it into the realm of youth work, and thus distracted from overall societal and institutional causes of right-wing radicalism.^*

The „accepting“ approach – breeding ground for the emergence of the NSU complex

The „accepting“ approach, which accepted the formation of gangs and provided social spaces, enabled right-wing youths to network with like-minded people. In Jena, it meant that the later right-wing terrorists of the NSU and their comrades-in-arms were initially able to meet and network unhindered in the youth centres Winzerclub and Treffpunkt.

The social workers accepted the right-wing youths, even though they themselves rejected right-wing radicalism and violence. They wanted to build trust with them so that they could then bring about changes in their attitudes and behaviour. They were concerned - analogous to the approach of  „accepting“ youth work - with helping young people to work through their problems together. The problems they caused for others took a back seat to this.^*

The goal of achieving change was based on the assumed premise that youths were responsive to social pedagogical interventions. In this sense, the social workers saw themselves as „socialisation helpers.“^* ​​​​​ They assumed that right-wing youths could be reintegrated into society if alternative worldviews and ways of acting were modelled for them.

Right-wing attitudes were perceived as symptoms of what were believed to be underlying social and economic problems among young people.

To this day, the controversy over who bears what responsibility in the area of youth policy and youth work continues to reverberate. Especially community social workers who were directly confronted with right-wing extremist youths are heavily criticised. However, they themselves often assume, also here in Jena, that they were able to prevent other followers and sympathisers from entering the right-wing scene.

Ultimately, „accepting youth work“ must be assessed as jointly responsible for the emergence of the NSU complex. However, the focus on the responsibility of youth policy and social work must not lead to the dismissal of other social factors of origin and responsibilities.

Text: Katharina Kempken

Further reading: 

• Bruns, Lucia: Der NSU-Komplex und die akzeptierende Jugendarbeit: Perspektiven aus der sozialen Arbeit, Oldenburg 2019, http://oops.uni-oldenburg.de/4676/1/2381-0__CMC%20Bruns__NSU-Komplex.pdf . 
• Quent, Matthias: Rassismus, Radikalisierung, Rechtsterrorismus. Wie der NSU-Komplex entstand und was er über die Gesellschaft verrät, Weinheim/Basel 2016.