Gay Berlin

by Robert Beachy

  After the press began publishing stories about the sexual scandals of prominent figures, would-be blackmailers gained even greater leverage over potential victims. The only way to hinder or discredit a blackmailer required criminal charges of either blackmail or libel. Either scenario required a trial, which might disclose even more sensitive personal information. The extortion and eventual suicide of the forty-year-old Berlin department store owner Hermann Israel illustrates precisely this risk. A leader in the Berlin Jewish community, Israel also bore the honorific title Kommerzienrat (commercial counsel), which signaled his standing with the imperial government. Israel was the victim of blackmail in 1904 when a former Prussian officer, Ernst Ohm, described as Israel’s “travel companion,” threatened to create “difficulties” if Israel failed to pay him a certain sum of money. Israel turned Ohm’s letters over to the public prosecutor in Berlin, and Ohm received a two-month jail sentence for blackmail.97

  In his trial testimony against Ohm, Israel, a bachelor, swore under oath that his “orientation” (Veranlagung) was not homosexual. This inspired Ohm—after completing his short jail term—to charge Israel with perjury. Forced to appear in court again but this time as a defendant accused of perjury, Israel faced a parade of boy prostitutes, all claiming to have had sexual relations with him. The credibility of most of these witnesses was compromised by police records, which included jail sentences for blackmail. Israel also argued that his sworn testimony in the original trial—his claim that he was not homosexual—was made in reference to Paragraph 175; technically he had never broken the law. Arguably, Israel was mistaken and had perjured himself: German discourse distinguished increasingly between a fixed homosexual “orientation” and same-sex erotic acts. A man (or woman) might be deemed “homosexual” without having violated Paragraph 175. The case was initially dismissed, but then was appealed by Ohm and reopened. When Israel learned that the perjury trial would continue, he shot himself in November 1905 on his yacht on the Rhine River, exactly three years (to the day) after the death of Krupp.98

  Israel’s legal travails were reported in the press, almost simultaneously with the unfolding scandals of two prominent public officials. In December 1904, August Hasse, a judge and director of the regional court in Breslau, traveled to Berlin, where he shot the man whom he had paid some forty thousand marks over the course of two years. In 1903 Hasse had responded to the sexual overtures of a nineteen-year-old who exposed himself to Hasse in a public toilet in Breslau. Hasse then became the victim of an orchestrated blackmail campaign conducted by two older ringleaders who manipulated him into a liaison with the attractive teenager. After he was no longer able to pay, Hasse arranged to meet one of the extortionists in a darkened churchyard in Berlin, apparently with the intention of killing him. After firing a small pistol, Hasse turned himself in to local officials, believing that the man lay dying. Hasse’s tormenter was only grazed, however, and sent another threatening letter a few days later from his home in Hamburg. This was intercepted by Hasse’s grown son, who managed to have the man arrested. The other two were quickly apprehended as well, and the three were tried in Berlin. The man Hasse attempted to kill was condemned to ten years imprisonment; the other two were sentenced to four and five years, respectively. Hasse himself was allowed to go free. As determined by the Berlin judge, Hasse did not contravene Paragraph 175, and he was deemed “not responsible for his actions” (Unzurechnungsfähig) at the point when he fired his gun.99

  Hasse’s real punishment, of course, was the loss of a substantial fortune and the public humiliation that ended his career and forced him into retirement. In this regard, his fate was similar to that of Dr. Paul Ackermann, a prominent fifty-five-year-old jurist and Saxon state official, who received a two-month prison sentence in March 1905 for violating Paragraph 175. Ackermann was released immediately following the trial, however, for time served during the four-month investigation. Once again, the villains were three male prostitutes cum extortionists, who acted in concert to blackmail Ackermann for several thousand marks. The main culprit was a twenty-three-year-old Berliner, Heinrich Wallmann, known in prostitution circles as “Revolver-Heini.” Ackermann had traveled to Berlin repeatedly in the summer and fall of 1904 for trysts with Wallmann in a Berlin hotel along Friedrichstraße near the train station.

  On one of these visits, in October 1904, Ackermann and Wallmann were “discovered” by Wallmann’s partner, the twenty-one-year-old barkeep Wilhelm Dupke. Together with a third accomplice, Wallmann and Dupke opened what the newspapers described as a “blackmail campaign” (Erpressungsfeldzug). After making two substantial payments, Ackermann balked. When the three hoodlums surprised him with a visit to his Dresden apartment, the frightened jurist turned to the Berlin police, who arrested his tormentors in early November. During the investigation that followed, Ackermann was committed to a psychiatric facility for six weeks of “observation.” The suspension of Ackermann’s two-month sentence for time served reflected a general sympathy for his “condition” and the exploitation he had suffered at the hands of the extortionists, who received prison sentences ranging from fifteen to thirty months. Like Judge Hasse, Ackermann’s real punishment was the disgrace of exposure and the blemish he brought to his family’s name. Although married and the father of one son, Ackermann, according to newspaper accounts, had been known in elite circles as someone with “punishable tendencies.”100

  The cases of Ackermann, Hasse, Israel, and Krupp were only the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The timing of these scandals and the publicity they garnered functioned as a catalyst, moreover, for the hundreds of blackmail cases that seemed to plague the city in the following decade. Berlin’s popular press not only increased the impact of blackmail on potential victims, it also spurred copycat extortionists, who recognized a lucrative and seemingly risk-free crime. These newspaper stories document the evolving practice of extortion, and they provide intriguing access to the otherwise invisible lives of the people who inhabited the seamy underbelly of Berlin’s homosexual milieu.

  The press published stories of egregious, brazen blackmail threats: after dark, men were accosted by adolescent hustlers, who would threaten to report solicitation to a nearby police officer unless paid a sum of money on the spot. One late-night reveler, “merchant K.,” was tailed by seventeen-year-old Reinhold Kroll while returning home through the Tiergarten. Kroll approached the man and demanded that he pay him or face arrest by a nearby police officer. The merchant managed to alert the officer himself, who arrested Kroll instead.101 Another near victim, a wine steward returning home from his place of employment, noticed that he had been followed into the public bathroom at the Lehrter train station, just north of the Tiergarten; twenty-one-year-old August Schäfer then demanded twenty marks. The wine steward managed to clobber the male prostitute, who fled on foot. With the help of a police officer, the man chased down and captured Schäfer, who had hidden between tombstones in a neighboring cemetery.102

  One common tactic for extorting money was to gain access to the apartment or hotel room of an intended victim. This gave the blackmailer’s account greater credence: private quarters afforded the opportunity for sex, and why else would two male strangers spend time together? One fellow, making his way home through the Tiergarten alone at night, innocently offered his lit cigar to a young man who requested a light for his own cigarette. When the hustler, Joseph Bieneck, suggested that they venture out for just one more beer, the cigar smoker assented. Hours later, Bieneck explained that his own building was locked by now and asked if he might spend the night. In the morning the hustler threatened to describe the sexual molestation he had been subjected to and demanded one hundred marks. The victim, badly hung over, paid the sum but then reported his experience to the police. With the help of the Verbrecheralbum, the blackmailer was identified as a prostitute and picked up within a few hours.103 A dentist from Charlottenburg had a similar experience returning home late through the Tiergarten. Upon meeting twenty-two-year-old Bru
no Müller, the dentist agreed to give the apparently homeless young man temporary lodging. In the morning the dentist faced a blackmail threat and also agreed to pay the hush money demanded of him. But he then enlisted help from the police, who intercepted Müller soon after, when he returned to the dentist’s apartment to demand yet more money.104

  Of course, extortion attempts more often involved letter writing than face-to-face confrontation. Over and over again, apparently innocent men turned to the police after receiving threatening letters from complete strangers. The young factory worker Karl Rieloff received a three-year prison sentence for sending threatening letters to a man whom he had never even met.105 The unemployed “worker” Ernst Nentuez sent letters to a Prussian aristocrat who lived outside of Berlin demanding one hundred marks. According to the newspaper report, the aristocrat had never had any interaction at all with his would-be blackmailer. Nentuez admitted his deception and received a one-year prison sentence.106

  That homosexual blackmail had come to be considered a lucrative specialization among a class of convicted criminals is clear from some of the schemes that came to light. Indeed, time spent in prison often led to new “opportunities.” While serving a five-year sentence for extortion, Gustav Rohde solicited information from fellow inmates to compile a list of suspected homosexuals, and upon his release in Berlin in 1905, he sent a series of letters demanding hush money (Schweigegeld). Rohde confused names and addresses, and his misidentified targets submitted the threatening letters to the police. Soon after, Rohde was arrested at the post office as he collected his mail, and at trial he received a six-year sentence.107 Similarly, restaurant waiter Heinrich Schön learned the name and identity of a wealthy German aristocrat—“Freiherr von D.”—from a fellow inmate while serving a three-year sentence for homosexual extortion. After his release for the initial charge, Schön was arrested again for the attempted blackmail and given an even longer sentence.108 The prostitute Willi Scheib, after serving a six-month sentence for blackmail, trolled for victims in the corridors of the police headquarters at Alexanderplatz, where he presented himself as a private detective and offered to investigate blackmail threats. Instead of helping his “clients” to exonerate themselves, however, Scheib used the information he could glean to engage in his own blackmail, at least until he was arrested again and brought to trial.109

  Although any man who seemed to be wealthy was a potential target, tourists appear to have been especially vulnerable. Several Americans were featured in press stories on homosexual extortion. One man, staying with his father-in-law in one of the city’s nicest hotels, met several youths in Café Kranzler at the corner of Friedrichstraße and Unter den Linden, a location notorious for its various prostitutions. The American escaped extortion, though he was relieved of his pearl chest pin and a thousand marks. He never recovered his property, and his story made the morning paper.110 Another more fortunate American—likewise “unfamiliar with local conditions”—brought home a hustler whom he had met at the symphony. In his hotel room, the tourist was forced to hand over his valuables and cash. The American reported the theft to the police and identified his blackmailer in the Verbrecheralbum. The hustler was quickly apprehended, and the watch and chain were returned to the owner before he left the city.111

  Out-of-town Germans were also frequent victims. One visitor from western Germany, described as a “big industrialist,” came to Berlin for a family celebration, but wound up in a dive motel after bar hopping in the Friedrichstaße. In the morning, unable to recall details of his evening, the man simply reported his wallet and cigarette case missing. Soon after returning home, the industrialist received a visitor who claimed to be the cousin of the young man who had not only accompanied the out-of-towner on that Berlin evening but had also had sex with him. In return for his silence, the visitor demanded six thousand marks. The industrialist notified Berlin officials, who monitored a scheduled meeting between the industrialist and his blackmailer in a Berlin café. Ultimately, four members of an extortion racket were arrested.112 In a similar case, a group of eight “youthful” blackmailers successfully targeted affluent visitors, including a university professor and an out-of-town military officer.113 While seriously inebriated, another visitor to the capital was approached by twenty-year-old Kurt Ostberg, who accompanied him to his hotel, threatened him with blackmail, and then stole his wallet. With the help of local officials, the man identified Ostberg the very next day prowling Unter den Linden.114

  As American sociologist Abraham Flexner acknowledged, Berlin gained a reputation for male prostitution well before the First World War. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that the city had begun to attract male tourists seeking assignations with other men; Dr. Ackermann and Krupp—visitors to the capital—were not the only ones. Like Ackermann, Austrian merchant “Georg M.” was stalked at home—in this case Vienna, not Dresden—by blackmailers he had encountered in Berlin. In December 1906, the Austrian paid male prostitute Heinrich Hampe for sex, but continued to pay when Hampe and his accomplice Marcus Katellaper extorted first one hundred marks and then additional sums. Once “Georg M.” alerted the Berlin police, the two were quickly arrested. Nineteen-year-old Berlin prostitute Hans Schwaiger met an aristocrat from the Rhineland on Friedrichstraße in the autumn of 1904. Schwaiger was able to extort a cool two thousand marks before his john departed Berlin. Following in pursuit, Schwaiger secured another eight hundred marks, and demanded still more. “Georg M.” finally turned to Berlin officials, who were able to identify, track down, and arrest Schwaiger within a period of days.115 The case of the young ophthalmologist Dr. Gumprich, a professor at the University of Halle, was especially tragic. The unmarried twenty-eight-year-old doctor had a reputation for hard work and withdrawn modesty. Berlin’s male prostitutes were his apparent vice and ultimately his downfall. When Berlin police arrested a twenty-year-old named Kurach loitering along Friedrichstraße in April 1908, they discovered Gumprich’s business card in the young man’s possession. Initially, Kurach denied any connection to the doctor, but eventually he admitted to a sexual tryst with him in a Berlin hotel over the Christmas holidays. During the investigation, Gumprich denied committing acts that violated Paragraph 175, but the judge brought charges all the same. After receiving the court summons, Gumprich grew despondent, and finally fled to Amsterdam, where he committed suicide.116

  From many reports, however, blackmail victims clearly intended to pay for sex. “Merchant G.,” for example, only reported his tormenter after months of harassment. In this case, the blackmailer, Paul Lemke, was a well-known rent boy who plied his trade in the Tiergarten and on Friedrichstraße and went by the nickname “Schmus-Anna” (“sweet-talk Anna”). Whether “merchant G.” was punished is unclear, but “Schmus-Anna,” for his crime, received two and a half years in prison. The young “worker” Willi Haß similarly accompanied “merchant R.” to his apartment, and then returned several times throughout the following week—always demanding more money—until “merchant R.” finally found the courage to call the police.117 One older fellow was threatened and robbed by a new acquaintance brought home from Friedrichstraße. Upon arriving in the apartment, the blackmailer had demanded payment and promptly left with the old man’s cash. The sorry victim admitted that his understood purpose was a sexual assignation with the young man, but he denied—improbably—that the sex involved a monetary exchange.118

  Some cases of homosexual blackmail appeared to spring from ongoing sexual relationships, animated perhaps by genuine affection. In 1912 an employee of the American Express office in Berlin managed to embezzle 100,000 marks. As it turned out, the money was a “nest-egg” for fleeing Berlin and settling overseas with the rent boy and heterosexual pimp Alex Thomas, know in prostitution circles as “Matrosen-Alex” (“Sailor Alex”). Whether “Sailor Alex” shared the dreams of his “friend” is unclear; he had successfully blackmailed the American Express employee for an extended period and regularly “garnered” half of his wages.119 In another
case, the merchant “Kasparin K.” invited the nineteen-year-old Max Minuth to his “elegantly appointed bachelor’s apartment,” initially just for the night. Minuth was allowed to stay, however, and soon began to steal his patron’s possessions. Periodically “Kasparin K.” would pay local pawnbrokers to recover his things. After Minuth sold all of the household furnishings to an estate agent, the police were finally notified, although this was only because “Kasparin K.” thought that his apartment had been burgled. In the resulting criminal trial, Minuth received a two-year sentence, while “Kasparin K.” was jailed for one month on Paragraph 175 charges.120 Another remarkable story involved “Dr. B.” in Wilmersdorf, who faced blackmail after firing his manservant and masseur, “Franz N.” When “Dr. B.” refused to pay his former employee a ten-thousand-mark “settlement,” “Franz N.” barricaded himself in the apartment. After police finally “liberated” the domicile, “Franz N.” was arrested and then sentenced to eight months in prison.121 Another wealthy merchant, based in Kassel, allowed nineteen-year-old Ewald Schäfer to move in, but fled to Berlin after the young man began to steal from him. Schäfer located his erstwhile lover in Berlin and began to harass him with blackmail threats. The merchant finally reported Schäfer, who was arrested and brought to trial. After the judge imposed a fourteen-month prison sentence, however, the merchant pleaded for clemency for his former lover and tormenter and asked that the charges be dropped.122