Julius Erasmus: The District of Düren and its “representative for the care of the war grave sites Vossenack and Hürtgen as places of a democratic culture of remembrance and commemoration” (“Beauftragter für die Betreuung der Kriegsgräberstätten Vossenack und Hürtgen als Orten einer demokratischen Erinnerungs- und Gedenkkultur”) (Published on 16/11/2022)
I. The dispute about the “right” war commemoration in the Hürtgen Forest and its effects on the research on Julius Erasmus
Regular readers of this blog will remember that at the beginning of my research on Julius Erasmus I had contacted the Administrator (“Landrat”) of the District of Düren, Wolfgang Spelthahn, and asked him for support. He had rejected this in a condescending tone and referred me to the City and District Archives of Düren instead. He also offered to establish contact with “the representative for the care of the war grave sites of Vossenack and Hürtgen as places of a democratic culture of remembrance and commemoration”, Frank Möller, who had agreed to answer questions about Julius Erasmus. It remained unclear from the outset what competence Mr Möller has to answer questions about Julius Erasmus. The professional qualifications of the gentleman, who calls himself, among other things, a “Historiker” (“historian”) and a “Publizist” (“publicist”) on his website, remain unproven to this day.
At the time of my letter to District Administrator Spelthahn, my research had been going on for quite some time. During several conversations I had had with different knowledgeable people, there had been repeated critical references to Mr Möller and his activities, which were perceived as one-sided and narrow-minded. This even by people who are otherwise quite willing to critically question certain historically outdated narratives on a factual basis. When looking at the publicly accessible work of Mr Möller, I quickly got the impression of a not very tolerant egocentric who, under the guise of the so-called “commemorative culture” (“Gedenkkultur”), tries to indoctrinate people on the basis of bold to questionable theses about the way in which they should and should not commemorate the events of the war.
In the Hürtgen Forest area, Mr Möller is opposed by likewise little tolerant advocates of the traditional narrative from the immediate post-war period, which was partly produced by themselves, in particular in the local historical society, who try to avoid a fact-oriented discussion about this as much as possible.
II. The information provided by the District of Düren on the reasons for the creation of the position of “representative” and on its occupation
That the professional aptitude of Mr Möller is questionable and his methods are sometimes dubious has been vividly proven by his theses on Julius Erasmus published in the Dürener Zeitung on 28/01/2021, which have been shown to be a questionable attempt to reinterpret the existing narrative about Julius Erasmus into one better corresponding to Mr Möller’s ideas. The fact that the District of Düren hastily tried to distance themselves from his questionable claims about Julius Erasmus also speaks for itself.
Not only for this reason, the question arises as to why the District of Düren, under its Administrator Spelthahn, has appointed a strongly polarizing person like Mr Möller to a public function that calls for someone who, on the one hand, is familiar with the local situation and history, but who, on the other hand, is also intent on achieving a balance and is capable of moderating conflicting views.
Since the beginning of 2021, I repeatedly asked the District of Düren, based on the Freedom of Information Act of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia (“IFG NRW”), for information on the circumstances of the creation of the function of the “representative for the care of the war grave sites Vossenack and Hürtgen as places of a democratic culture of remembrance and commemoration” (hereinafter referred to as “representative”).
1. The requested information and the answer of the District of Düren
First, in spring of 2021 I requested access to all official information on the following questions (translation from German language):
“1. The body that passed the resolution on the appointment of Mr Möller as representative, when this was done and by what majority the decision was made;
2. The legal basis underlying the appointment of the representative;
3. The exact duties of the representative and the qualifications that enable Mr Möller to perform the same;
4. Which other candidates besides Mr Möller there were for the position of the representative and due to which circumstances the choice fell on Mr Möller;
5. The consideration(s) provided to Mr Möller for his work as representative and, if applicable, the amount of such consideration(s).”
The District of Düren initially answered as follows, with an informal letter dated 25/02/2021 (translation from German language):
“in recent years, the District of Düren has had to increasingly determine that the ‘Cemetery Rules’ [‘Friedhofsordnung’] of 23/06/2008 for the war grave sites in Vossenack and Hürtgen, issued by the District Council, are not being observed. For example, wreaths were laid and signs and symbols with right-wing extremist background were placed. The responsible cemetery warden is dependent on support here, especially when it comes to the interpretation and removal of laid wreaths and symbols that send right-wing extremist messages or come from right-wing groups.”
This letter also contains the aforementioned attempt of the District of Düren to distance itself from Mr Möller’s recent dubious theses of about Julius Erasmus (translation from German language):
“In the interview ‘This is a falsification of history’ of 28/01/2021, Mr Frank Möller spoke in the Dürener Zeitung/ the Dürener Nachrichten as a private person, but not as the District of Düren’s representative for the care of the war grave sites Vossenack and Hürtgen”. The information and quotes mentioned in the interview were not available to the District of Düren.”
In the subsequently issued notice of 21/04/2021, the District of Düren answered the five questions posed to it as follows (translation from German language):
“Item 1: ‘Body that passed a resolution on the appointment of Mr Möller as representative, when this was done and by what majority the decision was taken’.
In its 43rd meeting on 23/06/2020, the District Committee unanimously passed the resolution to appoint, until revocation, Mr Frank Möller as representative for the care of the war grave sites Vossenack and Hürtgen as places of a democratic culture of remembrance and commemoration. His appointment took place subsequently.
Item 2: ‘The legal basis underlying the appointment as representative.
Within the scope of its task fulfillment, the District is also entitled to transfer activities to volunteers. In this respect, the appointment of Mr Möller was made at the suggestion of the administration. With the public proposal to Drs.Nr. 200/20 the administration suggested to the District Committee to appoint a representative as a support for the cemetery warden.
Item 3: ‘The exact duties of the representative and the qualifications which enable Mr Möller to perform the same’.
In his function as representative, Mr Möller supports the District of Düren in control activities at the war grave sites in Vossenack and Hürtgen. Moreover, he acts as an advisor within the framework of the culture of remembrance and commemoration associated with the grave sites. Mr Möller is a historian, publicist and expert in the culture of remembrance and contemporary interpretation. He regularly conducts excursions to the war grave sites in Vossenack and Hürtgen and has already assisted the District of Düren in an advisory capacity in the past.
Item 4: ‘Which other candidates besides Mr Möller were there for the position of the representative and due to which circumstances the choice fell on Mr Möller’.
There were no other persons considered for the position of the representative besides Mr Möller.
Item 5: ‘Consideration(s) provided to Mr Möller for his activities as a representative and, if applicable, the amount thereof’.
Mr Möller performs his duties as representative on an honorary basis. He receives an expense allowance of €150.00 per month.
No further information on the questions you have asked is available here.”
In this regard, it is worth emphasizing the following:
The District of Düren has not yet been able to name a legal basis on which it bases the appointment of a representative. The statement that the appointment was made “at the suggestion of the administration” is not a legal basis, but presupposes such a basis. In a constitutional state, the existence of such a legal basis is a fundamental prerequisite for the legality of any state action. The fact that the District of Düren has not yet been able to name a legal basis speaks for itself.
Apart from Mr Möller, there were no other candidates for the position of the representative. Why is that, actually? Are there really no candidates, for instance in the District of Düren, who are considered suitable?
2. The documents subsequently made accessible by the District of Düren
After the information provided was obviously incomplete, legal proceedings ensued. There they finally presented at least an internal note of Mr Karl-Josef Mainz, head of the department of central facility management at the District of Düren, of 07/04/2020 about the creation of the position of the representative, the resolution of 23/06/2020 about the appointment of Mr Möller as well as the letter of appointment of 01/07/2020. Their contents are very informative.
a) Internal note titled “Kriegsgräberstätten Vossenack und Hürtgen; Beauftragter für Kriegsgräberpflege“ (“War grave sites Vossenack and Hürtgen; representrative for war graves care“) by Mr Karl-Josef Mainz of 07/04/2020
In the note of Mr Mainz of 07/04/2020 [German language] with the title “Kriegsgräberstätten Vossenack und Hürtgen; Beauftragter für Kriegsgräberpflege” (“War grave sites Vossenack and Hürtgen; representrative for war graves care”) it is explained in more detail why the appointment of a corresponding “representative” is, allegedly, required and why Mr Möller is considered qualified for this. It is explained therein, among other things (translation from German language, emphasis added):
“The war grave sites Vossenack and Hürtgen, which are owned by the District of Düren, are places of remembrance, commemoration and learning. The behavior on the war grave sites should be adapted according to those resting there. For this reason so-called ‘Cemetery Rules’ were adopted by the District Council.
The Cemetery Rules are often not respected, especially in Vossenack. Among other things, wreath-laying ceremonies are carried out and symbols and signs with right-wing extremist background are put down. The war grave sites have to be checked regularly, also on the weekends.
The cemetery warden, who lives in Hürtgen at the war grave site, is in need of support here, especially when it comes to the interpretation of deposited wreaths or bouquets that are to be removed.
The historian and publicist Frank Möller, who lives in Cologne, regularly conducts excursions to the war grave sites and has made a name for himself as an expert in the culture of remembrance and contemporary interpretation. Mr Möller has agreed to support the District of Düren in the above-mentioned control procedures on the war grave sites on a voluntary basis and, among other things, to remove deposited wreaths and bouquets. He thus takes care of the preservation and maintenance of the graves.
In order to provide Mr Möller with the power to act in the sense of the Cemetery Rules, he is to be appointed ‘representative for war graves care’ for the District of Düren. For the honorary activity as ‘representative for war graves care’ a monthly expense allowance in the amount of 68.85 euros is to be paid.”
First of all, it is noticeable that the District of Düren originally considered it to be Mr Möller’s task to take care of the preservation and maintenance of the graves located in the military cemeteries of Vossenack and Hürtgen. Furthermore, it is noticeable that the function designation was originally to be “representative for war graves care”, for the exercise of which a monthly expense allowance of EUR 68.85 was to be paid.
Below the note is the hand-written comment, apparently from District Administrator Spelthahn (“WS”), „Sehr guter Vorschlag“ (“Very good suggestion”).
b) Public proposal on printed matter 200/20 (“Öffentliche Vorlage zur Drs.Nr. 200/20“)
Against this background, it is interesting how the public proposal on printed matter 200/20 [German language] of 15/06/2020, on the basis of which the appointment of Mr Möller as “representative” was subsequently voted on in the District Committee, differs in content from the aforementioned Mainz note.
In this proposal, the function designation is no longer “representative for war graves care”, but “representative for the care of the war grave sites Vossenack and Hürtgen as places of a democratic culture of remembrance and commemoration”.
Also, the monthly expense allowance was suddenly more than doubled from initially EUR 68.85 to EUR 150.00.
c) Unanimous adoption of the proposal by the District Committee at the meeting on 23/06/2020
The proposal was voted on by the District Committee in its 43rd meeting on 23/06/2020 under item 22 of the agenda and adopted unanimously. The agenda and the persons involved can be found in the minutes of the meeting. All relevant information is also available in the Council Information System of the District of Düren [all in German language].
District Administrator Spelthahn appointed Mr Möller to his position as “representative” by letter dated 01/07/2020 [German language].
III. Frequent violations of the Cemetery Rules, especially in Vossenack?
After the District of Düren had explained, among other things, in the public proposal on printed matter 200/20 that the reason for the necessity of appointing a “representative” was that the Cemetery Rules were “often not respected, especially in Vossenack” and that “among other things, wreath-laying ceremonies are carried out and symbols and signs with right-wing extremist background are put down”, I requested from them, based on the IFG NRW, concrete figures from the on the extent of this problem which, according to its own information, occurs frequently.
It turned out that the District of Düren is aware of a whole three cases of corresponding “laying of wreaths” and one case of “depositing of symbols and signs” for the period from 2016 to 2021, which are considered to be motivated by right-wing extremism (cf. the notice from the District of Düren dated 21/02/2022 [German language]).
For the period before 2016, i.e. for the entire period from the opening of the military cemetery in Vossenack on 31/08/1952 to 31/12/2015, the District of Düren stated that it was aware of one case of a corresponding “wreath-laying ceremony” and two cases of the “deposition of symbols and signs”, which were considered to be motivated by right-wing extremism (cf. the notice from the District of Düren dated 07/06/2022 [German language]). Remarkably, it was additionally noted “A conclusive evaluation as regards the right-wing extremist background is not possible beyond doubt in all cases” (translation from German language), so the District of Düren itself obviously has doubts about the right-wing extremist nature of all reported cases.
In particular, it must be taken into account here that Cemetery Rules („Friedhofsordnung für die Ehrenfriedhöfe Hürtgen und Vossenack vom 23.06.2008“ [“Cemetery Rules for the cemeteries of honor in Hürtgen and Vossenack of 23/06/2008”], German language) have only been in force since 01/07/2008, so that “violations of the Cemetery Rules” are as such, obviously, only possible since this date. Even if one disregards this, the District of Düren has knowledge of four cases of wreath-laying and three cases of the placement of symbols and signs for the entire period since the opening of the military cemetery in Vossenack on 31/08/1952 until 07/06/2022, the date of their last notice with requested information, i.e. a total of seven cases in almost 70 years that are considered to be right-wing extremist motivated. This means, on average, one case per decade.
Do these figures really require the appointment of a “representative” by the District of Düren? Do they justify the assertion by the District of Düren, held to be decisive, that the Cemetery Rules are “often not respected, especially in Vossenack”?
IV. Criminal complaints with regard to cases known to the District of Düren considered to be right-wing extremist?
In addition, I requested from the District of Düren, based on the IFG NRW, copies of the criminal complaints and the associated final orders of the public prosecutor’s office that they had filed in relation to the seven cases it considered to be motivated by right-wing extremism; alternatively, I asked for the reasons for refraining from filing respective criminal complaints.
According to their own statement, the District of Düren has filed a criminal complaint only with regard to one of the seven incidents considered to be right-wing extremist. This was not even because of the symbols used, but because of threats to the cemetery warden. It was alleged that, at that time, criminal charges were filed “only in case of damage to property or threats to the cemetery staff” (cf. the notice from the District of Düren dated 26/08/2022 [German language]).
In summary: In about 70 years, the District of Düren has not filed a single criminal complaint in relation to a deposit of symbols considered to be right-wing extremist at the military cemetery in Vossenack. In addition to the rather marginal scope of the known cases, also this circumstance does not necessarily support the assumption of a particular urgency on the part of the District of Düren with regard to the problem that allegedly occurs so frequently.
V. Discrepancies in the function designation and compensation of the “representative”
In view of the above-mentioned differences in the function designation as well as the monthly expense allowance for the activity as “representative”, which more than doubled from originally EUR 68.85 to EUR 150.00, I asked the District of Düren, based on the IFG NRW, for information on the following questions (translated from German language):
“1. For what reason was the originally planned expense allowance of EUR 68.85 subsequently increased to EUR 150.00?
2. What is the legal basis for a) the payment of the expense allowance under Item 1. and b) its amount?
3. For what reason was the originally intended designation ‘representative for war graves care’ changed to ‘representative for the care of the war grave sites Vossenack and Hürtgen as places of a democratic culture of remembrance and commemoration’?
4. At whose instigation was the change in designation under item 3. made?”
The District of Düren flatly rejected the application, saying that information on all questions was – for unknown reasons – “not subject to the IFG NRW” (cf. the notice from the District of Düren dated 25/04/2022 [German language]).
VI. Assessment
It becomes clear that the need for the creation of the function of a “representative” claimed by the District of Düren under District Administrator Spelthahn due to allegedly frequent violations of the Cemetery Rules can hardly be justified by the facts. In any case, the reported seven cases in about 70 years are not an expression of a particularly urgent problem.
So what is the real reason for creating the function of the “representative”?
Why was Mr Möller apparently the only candidate that the District of Düren considered for this position, although his suitability appears questionable for several reasons?
Why and at whose instigation was the function designation originally intended by the District of Düren under District Administrator Spelthahn changed from “representative for war graves care” to the technocratic word monstrosity “representative for the care of the war grave sites Vossenack and Hürtgen as places of a democratic culture of remembrance and commemoration“? Already the obvious unwillingness expressed here to connect the function of the “representative” to the care for war graves even terminologically, speaks a clear language and once more raises the question what this is actually about and what the interest of the District of Düren is in creating such an objectively unnecessary function and apparently striving to install Mr Möller in it at all costs. Is this maybe supposed to provide his questionable theses with the impression of a increased legitimacy in public?
It is pointless to pick on Mr Möller, whose words and deeds speak for themselves. The responsibility for this matter lies with the protagonists at the District of Düren, above all District Administrator Spelthahn. Up to now, the District of Düren could not or did not want to name a legal basis neither for the creation of the function of the “representative” nor for the remuneration and remuneration level paid for it. A founded selection of the “representative” has apparently not taken place either.
This means that somebody is remunerated here to the extent of (tax-free) EUR 1,800.00 per year from state funds for an activity for which the District of Düren itself is able to substantiate, so far, neither an objective necessity nor a legal basis. The fact that the District of Düren has repeatedly refused to provide information on the content of the appointment of the “representative” with questionable justification fits into this picture only too well.
Those responsible at the District of Düren will have to provide answers very soon.
(Head picture: Military cemetery Vossenack, November 2022)
If you wish to support my work, you can do so here. Many thanks!