Police Investigate German Historian for Hitler-Putin Meme(reason.com)
reason.com
Police Investigate German Historian for Hitler-Putin Meme
https://reason.com/2026/03/13/police-investigate-german-historian-for-hitler-putin-meme/
28 comments
Yeah the oppression of speech in Germany is depressing, you have to be careful of what you write online or you get one of the Meldestellen on your ass (government-funded NGOs) and they will want to destroy your life. There were a lot of high-profile cases in the last six years. Applauded by the media (because they "combat hate speech") and enabled by the EU (thanks to the DSA Trusted Flagger program).
German politicians know what they are doing, they deserve praise for standing their ground, especially in these times of nationalist propaganda coming from the two richest and most heavily armed countries in the world... which would love to see nationalism take hold in Germany and proceed to ruin it together with all of Europe all over again.
The meme in question will be seen as a praise of Putin by those who admire Hitler and love to see his mad face in the media.
The meme in question will be seen as a praise of Putin by those who admire Hitler and love to see his mad face in the media.
i don’t see it like that. he could have just crossed the swastika and it wouldn’t have been a problem. it is common knowledge in germany that you are not allowed to use any nazi symbols. wether some putin supporter reported him to a police Meldestellen website doesn’t matter because what he did is illegal in germany. and it’s illegal for a good reason. the symbols played their part in forming a volksgeist. just look at the maga hat. it’s straight up illegal because there was so much nazi symbolism left after the 2nd war that the us/uk/france had to radically clean it no questions asked and no exceptions made
also it’s not illegal if the image is for educational or informational purposes so maybe he just could have claimed that. no reason to should “censorship” when it’s literally just a swastica or nazi greeting you can’t do in public.
also it’s not illegal if the image is for educational or informational purposes so maybe he just could have claimed that. no reason to should “censorship” when it’s literally just a swastica or nazi greeting you can’t do in public.
crossed swastika would still be considered distribution of Nazi symbols. there was already a criminal case many years ago where (if I'm remembering it correctly) a student putting "no nazis"-stickers with a crossed swastika had to defend himself at the court.
but nevertheless - claiming to be victim of censorship is such a common trope nowadays, so maybe the author even reported himself to get some publicity. he is actually a pretty crappy - or let's say controversial - historian and is not really interesting enough for anyone to purposefully discredit him.
but nevertheless - claiming to be victim of censorship is such a common trope nowadays, so maybe the author even reported himself to get some publicity. he is actually a pretty crappy - or let's say controversial - historian and is not really interesting enough for anyone to purposefully discredit him.
interesting, i didn’t know about that case, but i understand the courts decision that it’s just illegal to show no matter the intent, if it’s not educational
[deleted]
Just a tad biased https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_Foundation
Unlike Wikipedia the arbiter of being unbiased while only allowing certain sources to cite?
Everyone is biased. If you don’t have a counterpoint then your comment not helpful.
Indeed, "Reason" is biased beyond any reason.
We're clearly in "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain" territory here- where God is the Holocaust, which Hitler represents.
Please don't troll
Not trolling, this is my opinion. There has been a sacralisation of the Holocaust, and blasphemy laws are a consequence of this. When you prosecute someone not for promoting or excusing Nazism but simply for evoking it without the due respect, you are repeating what religious authorities did for centuries.
You have no clue what you are talking about. Sincerely, a German.
The sacralisation of the Holocaust and consequent "blasphemy laws" have been pushed in the public discourse not only in Germany but throughout Europe. Germany happens for obvious reasons to be the country most receptive to it. Sincerely, a European.
If we cannot agree that nobody should chant Nazi songs ever again, we have a very different set of values. This has nothing to do with blasphemy, but respect for the millions senselessly killed not even a hundred years ago. Look around you: People are rediscovering fascism and nationalism as seducingly simple answers to complex questions. There's a reason we spent decades to think about ways to prevent this from happening again.
> If we cannot agree that nobody should chant Nazi songs ever again
This is a strawman, we agree on this and this discussion is about someone being investigated in Germany for using Hitler's picture to attack and criticise another dictator. (Though to be true, I am more concerned about people acting as nazis, whatever songs from whatever country they might be chanting).
> People are rediscovering fascism and nationalism as seducingly simple answers to complex questions
I agree, but I think that this is, also, the result of turning the memory of the past in a set of empty rituals that are used to secure the exact opposite of their stated goal: continued support for the oppressors of today and open, shameless contempt for their victims.
This is a strawman, we agree on this and this discussion is about someone being investigated in Germany for using Hitler's picture to attack and criticise another dictator. (Though to be true, I am more concerned about people acting as nazis, whatever songs from whatever country they might be chanting).
> People are rediscovering fascism and nationalism as seducingly simple answers to complex questions
I agree, but I think that this is, also, the result of turning the memory of the past in a set of empty rituals that are used to secure the exact opposite of their stated goal: continued support for the oppressors of today and open, shameless contempt for their victims.
> This is a strawman, we agree on this
I'm not sure we are, given that this specific thread is about some people claiming Holocaust remembrance (and German limits to free speech when it comes to that topic) is akin to a religion, which doubts it at best and mocks it at worst.
> someone being investigated in Germany for using Hitler's picture to attack and criticise another dictator.
That is not what happened though. The Swastika is a prohibited symbol in Germany for a reason. Also, this investigation is pretty much guaranteed to be dropped because it's obvious to any sane person that Mr. Zitelmann did nothing wrong.
But using this incident to drag down any and all nuance around the German way of remembering the Holocaust isn't appropriate either.
I'm not sure we are, given that this specific thread is about some people claiming Holocaust remembrance (and German limits to free speech when it comes to that topic) is akin to a religion, which doubts it at best and mocks it at worst.
> someone being investigated in Germany for using Hitler's picture to attack and criticise another dictator.
That is not what happened though. The Swastika is a prohibited symbol in Germany for a reason. Also, this investigation is pretty much guaranteed to be dropped because it's obvious to any sane person that Mr. Zitelmann did nothing wrong.
But using this incident to drag down any and all nuance around the German way of remembering the Holocaust isn't appropriate either.
It is being taught mandatory in schools a certain way with visits to museums and other historical sites that are being displayed and acted out like a theatrical play all payed by taxes, it is illegal to talk about it any other way, there are annual ceremonies and other events with political leaders paying there tribute.
tell me how that is different from any other religion with customs in staunch religious countries.
tell me how that is different from any other religion with customs in staunch religious countries.
Germany has seen one of the most atrocious crimes we know of; an industrialised genocide facilitated by the state, enabled by a whole society.
Everything you try to frame as some perversion of a religion here is an attempt of ensuring the memory of this is being kept alive, even after those responsible and their victims are gone. There is nothing to believe here, because in contrast to religions, this is about preservation of the actual past. It’s provable.
Everything you try to frame as some perversion of a religion here is an attempt of ensuring the memory of this is being kept alive, even after those responsible and their victims are gone. There is nothing to believe here, because in contrast to religions, this is about preservation of the actual past. It’s provable.
>because in contrast to religions, this is about preservation of the actual past
That is exactly the whole reason for the existence of religion. Passing down history, stories, events, social norms and opinions. I guess this kind of fanatical knee-jerk reaction is to be expected on here.
That is exactly the whole reason for the existence of religion. Passing down history, stories, events, social norms and opinions. I guess this kind of fanatical knee-jerk reaction is to be expected on here.
This is such a ridiculous contrarian take. Religion is rooted in faith, not empirical evidence. It makes metaphysical claims, whereas there are still a few living witnesses of the Third Reich; it answers existential questions, while Holocaust remembrance aims to prevent recurrence.
I do agree that there's a certain amount of ritualism around it, but that doesn't even remotely equate to a religion. Suggesting so also implies whether the Holocaust actually happened is up for debate, or merely indoctrination. Refuting this isn't a knee-jerk reaction, it's annoyance over a shallow dismissal by an edgy arm-chair expert.
I do agree that there's a certain amount of ritualism around it, but that doesn't even remotely equate to a religion. Suggesting so also implies whether the Holocaust actually happened is up for debate, or merely indoctrination. Refuting this isn't a knee-jerk reaction, it's annoyance over a shallow dismissal by an edgy arm-chair expert.
The Holocaust actually happened and was the systemic mass murder of millions of people.
What makes you think religion can only be about things that didn't happen?
Swastika not being allowed in Germany except in educational or historical context is not exactly a novel change. So, the article can stuff itself with that assumption.
And it can stuff mentioned free speech hero JD Vance who want Europe become fascist again too.
And it can stuff mentioned free speech hero JD Vance who want Europe become fascist again too.
>> "I now have to spend the entire day talking about Hitler."
… ironic result
… ironic result
German police are just a tool of the totalitarian regime to oppress any dissenters.