| Revision as of 17:20, 19 January 2017 editSir Joseph (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,854 editsm Reverted 1 edit by Nishidani (talk) to last revision by Bradv. (TW)← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:28, 11 January 2025 edit undoAltenmann (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers219,178 edits belongs to Kin punishment | ||
| (134 intermediate revisions by 71 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{about|the German tradition and practice|similar practices in other countries or cultures|Kin punishment}} | |||
| '''''Sippenhaft''''' or '''''Sippenhaftung''''' ({{IPA-de|ˈzɪpənˌhaft(ʊŋ)|lang}}, ''kin liability''<ref>The German term '']''—although one meaning is "imprisonment"—does not necessarily imply a prison sentence, but can refer to any form of punishment ''or'' enforcement of a civil liability.</ref>) refers to the principle of a family sharing the responsibility for a crime committed by one of its members, a form of guilt by association. A relative of the perpetrator could thus be punished in place of or in addition to the perpetrator, depending on the circumstances. | |||
| {{short description|German term for shared family responsibility}} | |||
| {{italic title}} | |||
| '''''Sippenhaft''''' or '''''Sippenhaftung''''' ({{IPA|de|ˈzɪpənˌhaft(ʊŋ)|lang}}, ''kin liability'') is a German term for the idea that a family or clan shares the responsibility for a crime or act committed by one of its members, justifying ].<ref>{{cite book|author1=Black, Harry|author2=Cirullies, Horst|author3=Marquard, Günter Marquard|title=Polec: dictionary of politics and economics = dictionnaire de politique et d'économie = Lexikon für Politik und Wirtschaft|date=1967|publisher=] |location=Berlin|isbn=9783110008920|page=786|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vT5agE7b_CsC&pg=PA786|quote=Usual practice in totalitarian states ... to prosecute the innocent dependents of a person being prosecuted, condemned or escaped.|oclc= 815964978}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Pine|first=Lisa|date=2013-06-01|title=Family Punishment in Nazi Germany: Sippenhaft, Terror and Myth|url=https://academic.oup.com/gh/article/31/2/272/652083|journal=German History|language=en|volume=31|issue=2|pages=272–273|doi=10.1093/gerhis/ghs131|issn=0266-3554}}</ref> As a legal principle, it was derived from ] in the ], usually in the form of fines and compensations. It was adopted by ] to justify the punishment of kin (relatives, spouse) for the offence of a family member. Punishment often involved imprisonment and execution, and was applied to relatives of the conspirators of ]. | |||
| ==Origins== | |||
| As a legal principle, it is derived from ] in the ], there usually in the form of fines and compensations. The same principle is historically found in many pre-Christian European cultures, and in non-Western cultures such as that of China and Japan. In the modern era kin guilt is rarely given legal basis, though it remains common in clan-based societies. In exceptional cases, Sippenhaft-like punishments are used as a deterrent against terrorism, such as in the ]. | |||
| Prior to the adoption of ] and ], ''Sippenhaft'' was a common legal principle among Germanic peoples, including ] and ]ns.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=u4I2DwAAQBAJ&dq=sippenhaft+germanic+tribe&pg=PA593|title=The Holocaust: An Encyclopedia and Document Collection |last1=Bartrop|first1=Paul R.|last2=Dickerman|first2=Michael|date=2017-09-15|publisher=ABC-CLIO|isbn=9781440840845|language=en}}</ref> Germanic laws distinguished between two forms of justice for severe crimes such as murder: ], or ]; and ], pecuniary restitution or fines in lieu of revenge, based on the '']'' or "man price" determined by the victim's wealth and social status.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=paeQBAAAQBAJ&dq=blood+money+and+blood+revenge+germanic&pg=PA35|title=Lawyers and Savages: Ancient History and Legal Realism in the Making of Legal Anthropology|last=Tuori|first=Kaius|date=2014-09-19|publisher=Routledge|isbn=9781317815990|language=en}}</ref> The principle of ''Sippenhaft'' meant that the family or clan of an offender, as well as the offender, could be subject to revenge or could be liable to pay restitution.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.uni-trier.de/fileadmin/fb5/inst/IRP/Rechtspolitisches_Forum/68_Krey_EBook_gesch%C3%BCtzt.pdf|title=Interrogational Torture in Criminal Proceedings|publisher=Institut für Rechtspolitik|access-date=27 September 2018|archive-date=2 April 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160402185954/http://www.uni-trier.de/fileadmin/fb5/inst/IRP/Rechtspolitisches_Forum/68_Krey_EBook_gesch%C3%BCtzt.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> Similar principles were common to ], ], and ].<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=90G8t-DQBBQC&q=medieval+celtic+blood+revenge|title=An Introduction to Homicide in India Ancient and Early Medieval Period|last=Thakur|first=Upendra|date=2003-06-01|publisher=Abhinav Publications|isbn=9788170170747|language=en}}</ref> | |||
| ⚫ | ==Nazi Germany== | ||
| Another form of Sippenhaft distinct from traditional kin liability is the practice of kin punishment, often used in ] as a form of extortion or harassment, most associated with ] towards the end of ], but also used by the ] communist regime e.g. in the form of imprisonment, and by many other authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. Contemporary examples of this form of Sippenhaft include ].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/10/AR2008121003855.html |title="Escapee Tells of Horrors in North Korean Prison Camp", Washington Post, December 11, 2008 |work=The Washington Post |date= December 11, 2008|accessdate=August 23, 2010}}</ref> | |||
| ⚫ | In Nazi Germany, the term was revived to justify the punishment of kin (relatives, spouse) for the offence of a family member. In that form of ''Sippenhaft'', the relatives of persons accused of crimes against the state were held to share the responsibility for those crimes and subject to arrest and sometimes execution. | ||
| === 1943–45: for desertion and treason === | |||
| ⚫ | ==Germany== | ||
| ]'' of two of the Leiss family in ], punished due to the desertion of Wenzeslaus Leiss.]] | |||
| ⚫ | Examples of ''Sippenhaft'' being used as a threat exist within the '']'' from around 1943. Soldiers accused of having "blood impurities" or soldiers conscripted from outside of Germany also began to have their families threatened and punished with ''Sippenhaft''. An example is the case of '']'' Wenzeslaus Leiss, who was accused of desertion on the ] in December 1942. After the ] ] discovered supposed Polish links in the Leiss family, in February 1943 his wife, two-year-old daughter, two brothers, sister and brother-in-law were arrested and executed at ]. By 1944, several general and individual directives were ordered within divisions and corps, threatening troops with consequences against their families. | ||
| ===Medieval=== | |||
| In traditional Germanic law, the law of ] before the widespread adoption of Roman canon law, it was accepted that the clan of a criminal was liable for offenses committed by one of its members. The law of Germanic (including ] and ]n) peoples distinguished between two forms of justice for severe crimes such as murder: ], the right to extrajudicially kill a Germanic free-man in the context of clan feuds,<ref>,</ref> and blood money, called the '']'', the obligatory pecuniary restitution given to the kin of the victim in accordance with the nature of the crime and the social status of those affected. In adherence to the principle of ''Sippenhaft'' (kin liability) the kin of the offender was liable to pay the weregild in addition to or in substitution for the member that committed the crime. Similar laws were also implemented by Celtic peoples. | |||
| === |
===Families of 20 July plotters=== | ||
| ] | |||
| ⚫ | In Nazi Germany, the term was |
||
| ] | |||
| Many people who had committed no crimes were arrested and punished under ''Sippenhaft'' decrees introduced after the failed ] to assassinate ] in July 1944.<ref name=":0">{{cite book|last=Loeffel|first=Robert|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YxHxaq6sMroC&q=Sippenhaft|title=Family Punishment in Nazi Germany, Sippenhaft, Terror and Myth|publisher=Palgrave|year=2012|isbn=9780230343054}}</ref>{{rp|121–166}}After the failure of the 20 July plot, the ] chief ] told a meeting of '']'' in ] that he would "introduce absolute responsibility of kin ... a very old custom practiced among our forefathers". According to Himmler, this practice had existed among the ancient ]. "When they placed a family under the ban and declared it outlawed or when there was a ] in the family, they were utterly consistent. ... This man has committed treason; his blood is bad; there is traitor's blood in him; that must be wiped out. And in the blood feud the entire clan was wiped out down to the last member. And so, too, will ]'s family be wiped out down to the last member."<ref>{{cite book |first=Joachim |last=Fest |title=Plotting Hitler's Death |year=1996 |location=New York |publisher=Henry Holt |page= |isbn=0080504213 |url=https://archive.org/details/plottinghitlersd00joac/page/303 }}</ref> Accordingly, the members of the family of von Stauffenberg (the officer who had planted the bomb that failed to kill Hitler) were all under suspicion. His wife, ], was sent to ] (she survived and lived until 2006). His brother ], who knew nothing of the plot and was serving with the ], was also sent to a concentration camp. Similar punishments were meted out to the relatives of ], ], ] and many other conspirators. ] opted to commit suicide, rather than being tried for his suspected role in the plot, in part because he knew that his wife and children would suffer well before his own all-but-certain conviction and execution. | |||
| === 1944–45: Soviet POW "League of German Officers" === | |||
| ⚫ | Examples of Sippenhaft being used as a threat exist within the ] from around 1943. Soldiers accused of having |
||
| ⚫ | After the 20 July plot, numerous families connected to the Soviet-sponsored ] made up of German prisoners of war, such as those of ] and ], were also arrested. Unlike a number of the 20 July conspirators families, those arrested for connection to the League were not released after a few months but remained in prison until the end of the war. Younger children of arrested plotters were not jailed but sent to orphanages under new names. Stauffenberg's children were renamed "Meister".<ref>{{cite journal |first=Robert |last=Loeffel |title=Sippenhaft, Terror and Fear in Nazi Germany: Examining One Facet of Terror in the Aftermath of the Plot of 20 July 1944 |journal=Contemporary European History |volume=16 |issue=1 |year=2007 |pages=51–69 |doi=10.1017/S0960777306003626 |s2cid=161527461 }}</ref> | ||
| === 1944–45: for "cowardice" === | |||
| After the failure of the 20 July plot, the ] chief ] told a meeting of ]s in ] that he would "introduce absolute responsibility of kin... a very old custom practiced among our forefathers." According to Himmler, this practice had existed among the ancient ]. "When they placed a family under the ban and declared it outlawed or when there was a ] in the family, they were utterly consistent.... This man has committed treason; his blood is bad; there is traitor's blood in him; that must be wiped out. And in the blood feud the entire clan was wiped out down to the last member. And so, too, will ]'s family be wiped out down to the last member."<ref>{{cite book |first=Joachim |last=Fest |title=Plotting Hitler's Death |year=1996 |location=New York |publisher=Henry Holt |page=303 |isbn=0080504213 }}</ref> | |||
| After 20 July 1944 these threats were extended to include all German troops, in particular, German commanders. A decree of February 1945 threatened death to the relatives of military commanders who showed what Hitler regarded as cowardice or defeatism in the face of the enemy. After ] to the Soviets in April 1945, the family of the German commander General ] were arrested. These arrests were publicized in the '']''.<ref name=":0" />{{rp|53–88}} | |||
| == Present legal status== | |||
| Accordingly, the members of the family of Stauffenberg (the one who had planted the bomb that failed to kill Hitler) were all under suspicion. His wife, ], was sent to ] (she survived and lived until 2006). His brother Alexander, who knew nothing of the plot and was serving with the ], was also sent to a concentration camp. Similar punishments were meted out to the relatives of ], ], ] and many other conspirators. ] opted to commit suicide rather than be tried for his suspected role in the plot in part because he knew that his wife and children would suffer well before his own all-but-certain conviction and execution. | |||
| ⚫ | The principle of ''Sippenhaftung'' is considered incompatible with ], and therefore has no legal definition.{{Cn|date=February 2021}} | ||
| ⚫ | After the 20 July plot, numerous families connected to the Soviet |
||
| Sippenhoft as implemented in Nazi Germany (and later in other authoritarian regimes such as North Korea) is distinguished from the medieval Sippenhaft. | |||
| ===Federal Republic of Germany=== | |||
| ⚫ | The principle of Sippenhaftung is considered incompatible with ], and therefore has no legal definition. |
||
| ==Other examples of ''Sippenhaft''== | |||
| ===Traditional examples=== | |||
| * Traditional Irish law required the payment of a tribute ('']'') in reparation for murder or other major crimes. In the case of homicide, if the attacker fled, the fine had to be paid by the tribe to which he belonged.<ref></ref> | |||
| * An analogous concept to Germanic Sippenhaft is found in medieval Welsh law where the kin of an offender was liable to make compensation for his wrongful act. This penalty (called '']'') was generally limited to murder.<ref></ref> | |||
| * The medieval Polish ] fine functioned similarly to the Anglo-Saxon and ] weregild. | |||
| * Traditional Arab society, which is ], strongly adheres to the concept of collective responsibility. ]s recognize two main forms of penalty for a crime against a member. These are blood revenge, referred to as '']'' (قصا, "revenge") and blood money, '']'' (دية, "blood money"/"ransom"). In cases of severe crimes such as murder and rape, blood revenge is the proscribed punishment. If a murder occurs, clansmen of the victim have the right to kill the murderer or one of his male clansmen with impunity. Certain crimes are liable for multiple acts of revenge, for example, the murder of women and children is avenged fourfold. Crimes considered treacherous, such as the murder of a guest, are also avenged fourfold. Alternatively, a crime punishable by blood revenge can be commuted to a severe fine if the family of the offended party agrees to it. Blood money is paid jointly by the clan of the offending member to the clan of the victimized member. ]s differentiate between crimes in which the group must pay as a standing obligation without reimbursement from the perpetrator of the offense, and crimes where the latter must reimburse them. Crimes where the clan is obligated to pay a joint fee without any reimbursement are murder, violent assault, or insults and other offenses committed during a violent conflict. The collective payment of fines for such crimes is viewed as a justified contribution to the welfare of the injured party, rather than a penalty to the perpetrator. Other offenses given a blood-price are crimes against property and crimes against honor.<ref></ref> Concepts based on the Arabian laws of blood revenge and blood money are found in Islamic ] law, and are thus variously adhered to in Islamic states. | |||
| * China historically adhered to the concept of liability among blood relatives, called ''luzuo'' (緑座). During the Qin and Han dynasties, families were subject to various punishments according to the punishment of the offending member. When the offense was punishable by death by severing the body at the waist, the offender's parents, siblings, spouse, and child were executed, when the offense was punishable by death and public display of the body, the offender's family was subject to imprisonment with hard labor, when the offender's sentence was exile, their kin was exiled along with them.<ref></ref> The most severe punishment, given for capital offenses, was the ], implemented by tyrannical rulers. This punishment entailed the execution of all the close and extended kin of the individual, categorized into nine groups: four generations of the paternal line, three from the maternal line, and two from the wife's. In the case of ] scholar ], his students and peers were uniquely included as a tenth group. | |||
| ===Authoritarian regimes=== | |||
| * During ]'s 1930s ], many thousands of people were arrested and executed or sent to labour camps as "relatives of the enemies of the people", using the ] clause as a basis. One well-known example was ], the wife of ], who was imprisoned after her husband was accused of treason. ] soldiers, particularly before brutal battles such as the one at ], were told that relatives of soldiers who surrendered would be killed. The ], signed in 1938, rolled back some of the more extreme measures, as such that only spouses who were informed of their partner's political activities were arrested. | |||
| * Similar practices took place in the ] during the ] of the 1960s. A prominent example is ], who was arrested and tortured by the ] when his father, ], was ]d by ]. | |||
| * In ], political prisoners are sent to the ] concentration camps along with their relatives without any fair trial.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/10/AR2008121003855.html |title="Escapee Tells of Horrors in North Korean Prison Camp", Washington Post, December 11, 2008 |work=The Washington Post |date= December 11, 2008|accessdate=August 23, 2010}}</ref> North Korean citizens convicted of more serious political crimes are sentenced to life imprisonment, and the summary two generations of their family (children and grandchildren) will be born in the camps as part of the "3 generations of punishment" policy instigated by state founder ] in 1948.<ref>]</ref> | |||
| ===Sippenhaft and contemporary Russia=== | |||
| In November 2013 the Russian Federation legalized Sippenhaft-like punishments against the family of an individual convicted or suspected of committing terrorist acts. These laws were passed under ] in advance of the ] in Sochi, located in the embattled Caucasus region. Under these laws property can be seized even under the mere suspicion that a relative was involved in terrorism.<ref> {{de icon}}</ref> | |||
| ===Sippenhaft and Israel=== | |||
| ] has implemented collective punishment policies against ]<ref>Eitan Alimi, | |||
| Routledge, 2007 p.131</ref><ref>], Rebecca L. Stein Stanford University Press, 2006 p.346</ref> | |||
| <ref>Ilan Peleg, Syracuse University Press, 1995 pp.66-72.</ref> and, on the occasion of the ], the ] in mid-2002 accepted the legality of deporting family members of terrorists from the West Bank to the Gaza Strip based. The justification was based on the idea that family members also represented a security threat and were aware of their kin's activities. This was reported in the German press as an example of sippenhaft.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/naher-osten-israels-gerichtshof-erlaubt-sippenhaft-173783.html |title="Israels Gerichtshof erlaubt Sippenhaft", Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, September 3, 2002 |work=] |date= September 30, 2002|accessdate=January 6, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/04/world/court-says-israel-can-expel-2-of-militant-s-kin-to-gaza.html |title="Court Says Israel Can Expel 2 of Militant's Kin to Gaza", New York Times, September 4, 2002 |work=] |date= September 4, 2002|accessdate=February 23, 2016}}</ref> In addition family members of Palestinian terrorists may be detained, and the house of the terrorist may be destroyed despite others living in it.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/nahostkonflikt-beide-seiten-fachen-die-flammen-an-1.2227435-2 |title="Oppression wird um Sippenhaft angereichert", Süddeutsche Zeitung, November 20, 2014 |work=Süddeutsche Zeitung |date= November 20, 2014|accessdate=January 6, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=79877&page=1 |title="Israel Destroys Homes to Deter Terrorists", ABC News, January 6, 2006 |work=ABC News |date= September 30, 2002|accessdate=February 23, 2016}}</ref><ref>] University of California Press, 2008 p.174.</ref> The court limited the use of expulsion to cases where "that person, by his own deeds, constitutes a danger to security of the state." | |||
| ⚫ | ==Further reading |
||
| ⚫ | * Dagmar Albrecht: ''Mit meinem Schicksal kann ich nicht hadern. Sippenhaft in der Familie ].'' Dietz, Berlin 2001, ISBN |
||
| ⚫ | * Harald Maihold: ''Die Sippenhaft: Begründete Zweifel an einem Grundsatz des „deutschen Rechts“.'' In: ''Mediaevistik.'' Band 18, 2005, S. 99–126 () | ||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
| {{Portal| |
{{Portal|Law|Germany}} | ||
| * {{Wiktionary-inline|Sippenhaft}} | |||
| * ] | |||
| * |
*] | ||
| * |
*] | ||
| *] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * |
*] – kin punishment practiced in Soviet Russia | ||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] (zú zhū (族誅), literally "family execution", and miè zú (灭族/滅族)) – kin punishment in ancient China | |||
| ==References== | ==References== | ||
| {{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
| ⚫ | ==Further reading== | ||
| ⚫ | * Dagmar Albrecht: ''Mit meinem Schicksal kann ich nicht hadern. Sippenhaft in der Familie ].'' Dietz, Berlin 2001, {{ISBN|3-320-02018-8}}. {{in lang|de}} | ||
| ⚫ | * Harald Maihold: ''Die Sippenhaft: Begründete Zweifel an einem Grundsatz des „deutschen Rechts“.'' In: ''Mediaevistik.'' Band 18, 2005, S. 99–126 () {{in lang|de}} | ||
| {{Germanic peoples}} | |||
| ⚫ | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ⚫ | ] | ||
Latest revision as of 18:28, 11 January 2025
This article is about the German tradition and practice. For similar practices in other countries or cultures, see Kin punishment. German term for shared family responsibilitySippenhaft or Sippenhaftung (German: [ˈzɪpənˌhaft(ʊŋ)], kin liability) is a German term for the idea that a family or clan shares the responsibility for a crime or act committed by one of its members, justifying collective punishment. As a legal principle, it was derived from Germanic law in the Middle Ages, usually in the form of fines and compensations. It was adopted by Nazi Germany to justify the punishment of kin (relatives, spouse) for the offence of a family member. Punishment often involved imprisonment and execution, and was applied to relatives of the conspirators of the failed 1944 bomb plot to assassinate Hitler.
Origins
Prior to the adoption of Roman law and Christianity, Sippenhaft was a common legal principle among Germanic peoples, including Anglo-Saxons and Scandinavians. Germanic laws distinguished between two forms of justice for severe crimes such as murder: blood revenge, or extrajudicial killing; and blood money, pecuniary restitution or fines in lieu of revenge, based on the weregild or "man price" determined by the victim's wealth and social status. The principle of Sippenhaft meant that the family or clan of an offender, as well as the offender, could be subject to revenge or could be liable to pay restitution. Similar principles were common to Celts, Teutons, and Slavs.
Nazi Germany
In Nazi Germany, the term was revived to justify the punishment of kin (relatives, spouse) for the offence of a family member. In that form of Sippenhaft, the relatives of persons accused of crimes against the state were held to share the responsibility for those crimes and subject to arrest and sometimes execution.
1943–45: for desertion and treason
Examples of Sippenhaft being used as a threat exist within the Wehrmacht from around 1943. Soldiers accused of having "blood impurities" or soldiers conscripted from outside of Germany also began to have their families threatened and punished with Sippenhaft. An example is the case of Panzergrenadier Wenzeslaus Leiss, who was accused of desertion on the Eastern Front in December 1942. After the Düsseldorf Gestapo discovered supposed Polish links in the Leiss family, in February 1943 his wife, two-year-old daughter, two brothers, sister and brother-in-law were arrested and executed at Sachsenhausen concentration camp. By 1944, several general and individual directives were ordered within divisions and corps, threatening troops with consequences against their families.
Families of 20 July plotters
.jpg)
Many people who had committed no crimes were arrested and punished under Sippenhaft decrees introduced after the failed 20 July plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler in July 1944.After the failure of the 20 July plot, the SS chief Heinrich Himmler told a meeting of Gauleiters in Posen that he would "introduce absolute responsibility of kin ... a very old custom practiced among our forefathers". According to Himmler, this practice had existed among the ancient Teutons. "When they placed a family under the ban and declared it outlawed or when there was a blood feud in the family, they were utterly consistent. ... This man has committed treason; his blood is bad; there is traitor's blood in him; that must be wiped out. And in the blood feud the entire clan was wiped out down to the last member. And so, too, will Count Stauffenberg's family be wiped out down to the last member." Accordingly, the members of the family of von Stauffenberg (the officer who had planted the bomb that failed to kill Hitler) were all under suspicion. His wife, Nina Schenk Gräfin von Stauffenberg, was sent to Ravensbrück concentration camp (she survived and lived until 2006). His brother Alexander, who knew nothing of the plot and was serving with the Wehrmacht in Greece, was also sent to a concentration camp. Similar punishments were meted out to the relatives of Carl Goerdeler, Henning von Tresckow, Adam von Trott zu Solz and many other conspirators. Erwin Rommel opted to commit suicide, rather than being tried for his suspected role in the plot, in part because he knew that his wife and children would suffer well before his own all-but-certain conviction and execution.
1944–45: Soviet POW "League of German Officers"
After the 20 July plot, numerous families connected to the Soviet-sponsored League of German Officers made up of German prisoners of war, such as those of Walther von Seydlitz-Kurzbach and Friedrich Paulus, were also arrested. Unlike a number of the 20 July conspirators families, those arrested for connection to the League were not released after a few months but remained in prison until the end of the war. Younger children of arrested plotters were not jailed but sent to orphanages under new names. Stauffenberg's children were renamed "Meister".
1944–45: for "cowardice"
After 20 July 1944 these threats were extended to include all German troops, in particular, German commanders. A decree of February 1945 threatened death to the relatives of military commanders who showed what Hitler regarded as cowardice or defeatism in the face of the enemy. After the surrender of Königsberg to the Soviets in April 1945, the family of the German commander General Otto Lasch were arrested. These arrests were publicized in the Völkischer Beobachter.
Present legal status
The principle of Sippenhaftung is considered incompatible with German Basic Law, and therefore has no legal definition.
See also
The dictionary definition of Sippenhaft at Wiktionary- Ancestral sin
- Bloodline theory
- German collective guilt
- Family members of traitors to the Motherland – kin punishment practiced in Soviet Russia
- Gjakmarrja
- Glossary of Nazi Germany
- Guilt by association
- Kin punishment
- Lidice massacre
- Nine familial exterminations (zú zhū (族誅), literally "family execution", and miè zú (灭族/滅族)) – kin punishment in ancient China
References
- Black, Harry; Cirullies, Horst; Marquard, Günter Marquard (1967). Polec: dictionary of politics and economics = dictionnaire de politique et d'économie = Lexikon für Politik und Wirtschaft. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. p. 786. ISBN 9783110008920. OCLC 815964978.
Usual practice in totalitarian states ... to prosecute the innocent dependents of a person being prosecuted, condemned or escaped.
- Pine, Lisa (2013-06-01). "Family Punishment in Nazi Germany: Sippenhaft, Terror and Myth". German History. 31 (2): 272–273. doi:10.1093/gerhis/ghs131. ISSN 0266-3554.
- Bartrop, Paul R.; Dickerman, Michael (2017-09-15). The Holocaust: An Encyclopedia and Document Collection [4 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781440840845.
- Tuori, Kaius (2014-09-19). Lawyers and Savages: Ancient History and Legal Realism in the Making of Legal Anthropology. Routledge. ISBN 9781317815990.
- "Interrogational Torture in Criminal Proceedings" (PDF). Institut für Rechtspolitik. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 April 2016. Retrieved 27 September 2018.
- Thakur, Upendra (2003-06-01). An Introduction to Homicide in India Ancient and Early Medieval Period. Abhinav Publications. ISBN 9788170170747.
- ^ Loeffel, Robert (2012). Family Punishment in Nazi Germany, Sippenhaft, Terror and Myth. Palgrave. ISBN 9780230343054.
- Fest, Joachim (1996). Plotting Hitler's Death. New York: Henry Holt. p. 303. ISBN 0080504213.
- Loeffel, Robert (2007). "Sippenhaft, Terror and Fear in Nazi Germany: Examining One Facet of Terror in the Aftermath of the Plot of 20 July 1944". Contemporary European History. 16 (1): 51–69. doi:10.1017/S0960777306003626. S2CID 161527461.
Further reading
- Dagmar Albrecht: Mit meinem Schicksal kann ich nicht hadern. Sippenhaft in der Familie Albrecht von Hagen. Dietz, Berlin 2001, ISBN 3-320-02018-8. (in German)
- Harald Maihold: Die Sippenhaft: Begründete Zweifel an einem Grundsatz des „deutschen Rechts“. In: Mediaevistik. Band 18, 2005, S. 99–126 (PDF; 152 KB) (in German)
