Does the federal government react differently if the victims of an attack are not German citizens? Are foreign citizens treated “better”? A sharepic compares the attacks in Breitscheidplatz and Hanau.

The summary of the fact check about the comparison between Breitscheidplatz and Hanau:

A sharepic compares various aspects between the attacks on Breitscheidplatz and in Hanau. The Sharepic deliberately makes allegations that put Chancellor Merkel and the federal government in a bad light.

It is a balancing of victims and two attacks, as well as the insinuation that German citizens are less important to the federal government: A sharepic makes three claims each about the Breitscheidplatz attacks in Berlin ( December 2016 ) and the attack in Hanau.

[mk_ad]

As is usual on Sharepics, unfortunately there are no sources from which the claims arose. This is annoying in two respects, because on the one hand you have to understand what is meant and on the other hand the claims want to legitimize themselves without providing any proof. As part of a fact check, we take a look at the theses put forward.

But first the Sharepic as a whole. It is the following picture:

Sharepic Breitscheidplatz Hanau
Sharepic Breitscheidplatz Hanau

The individual claims

In our fact check we look at all of the three theses.

Support

Breitscheidplatz claim: In an official letter, the relatives are informed that the travel costs to the memorial service will only be partially reimbursed.

This claim is only partially correct. It was about the type of transport. First class tickets and/or taxi fares were not refunded. It was also about the memorial service one year AFTER the attack ( see here ). Nevertheless, there was criticism, which is entirely legitimate, that the relatives were given a cheap ride. More on this in this fact check on the topic of “open letters”.

[mk_ad]

Hanau claim: The Federal Government's Victims' Commissioner awards all relatives emergency aid of €30,000.

Yes that is correct. First-degree relatives should receive immediate aid from the fund for hardship benefits for victims of terrorist crimes in an uncomplicated and unbureaucratic manner. However, the relatives of the victims also received a benefit from Breitscheidplatz, although it could be that it was even lower at the time. NTV's reporting states :

“According to the federal government, victims of the terrorist attack have so far received a good 1.6 million euros in support. Originally, 700,000 euros were put into the fund, but the pot has now been increased to up to 3.1 million euros.”

30,000 euros are earmarked for spouses, children and parents of those killed, and 15,000 euros for siblings ( see ZEIT.de ). Federal Office of Justice provides further information .

Merkel

Breitscheidplatz claim: In an open letter, the survivors criticize the fact that even a year after the attack, the Chancellor did not condole with them personally or in writing.

There is this open letter. You can read it, for example, on the website Tagesspiegel.de . It generally complains that the memorial service a year later was inappropriate in the eyes of the relatives.

 “They just wanted to save money, everything was very cold. They didn't try to listen to us or understand our needs. The authorities’ behavior added to our pain.”

However, Angela Merkel's behavior should not be portrayed as apathetic, as the sharepic suggests. In general, one must also see that Merkel was at the crime scene the day after the attack in Berlin, laid flowers and also gave a speech ( compare ).

“In these hours, I think first and foremost of these people: of the dead and the injured, and of their families, relatives and friends. I want them to know: All of us, an entire country, is united with you in deep sorrow.”

Hanau claim: 14 hours after the crime, the Chancellor expressed her condolences to the relatives. To get a better picture, she also canceled all appointments for the day.

Here too, the sharepic compares the memorial service a year later with the current situation immediately after the murders in Hanau. In principle, however, it is true that Merkel reacted quickly and more personally. This may have been the result of a learning process, as an article in ZEIT from December 2017 about this very commemoration shows:

Chancellor Angela Merkel has admitted failures in connection with the attack on Breitscheidplatz. “Today is a day of mourning, but also a day of the will to do better what didn’t go well,” said Merkel after the memorial event to mark the first anniversary of the attack.

An article from NTV presents a very similar story, which talks about Merkel confronting the Breitscheidplatz victims. This can and should be seen as a reaction to the open letter from the relatives and also as an admission that there were too few reactions from the Chancellor.

In this respect, the quick reaction to current events is very welcome.

First reactions

Breitscheidplatz claim: Many politicians warn against “drawing hasty conclusions”. In addition, now is “not the hour to assign blame.”

Basically, this reaction is always the right reaction. Even if users on social media are now expecting a victim's origin and motive like a hungry mob, one should always act prudently.

Politicians made these statements specifically based on statements that came from the right-wing populist camp. Both the WELT and the FAZ have discussed the provocative statements.

[…] posted on Facebook on Tuesday morning a picture of Merkel's “diamond” hands with blood spatters on them. “Ms Merkel, there is blood on your hands,” the picture says. “Stand back!” (from: WELT, The AfD’s disgusting provocations follow a script)

Hanau claim: Politicians from all parties blame the AfD within 24 hours. The AfD provides “the basis for such perpetrators” and the act is “proof that there should be no cooperation with the AfD”.

Aside from the fact that this claim is debunking for the entire sharepic, there are a number of reactions from various politicians in their first reactions (those reactions in which the hashtag “ # Hanau ” was used for the first time and on the 20th or 21st . were published) did not assign blame.

Basically, the majority of politicians speak out explicitly against fascism and terror on social media, showing photos of human chains and tweeting compassionate words and solidarity.

On the same day of the attack, others spread hoaxes and conspiracy myths on social media. Note: The perpetrator's father is not a Green Party politician ( see here ).

Conclusion

The Sharepic is correct in some statements, but is biased and deliberately leaves out information in order to create a one-sided factual situation. In some parts the sharepic seems like an AfD apology.

Furthermore, the Sharepic plays two groups of victims against each other and thus deliberately divides. This instrumentalization in particular creates a rather dubious character, which can already be recognized by the suggestion that foreign citizens are more important than German citizens and promotes a typical narrative.


If you enjoyed this post and value the importance of well-founded information, become part of the exclusive Mimikama Club! Support our work and help us promote awareness and combat misinformation. As a club member you receive:

📬 Special Weekly Newsletter: Get exclusive content straight to your inbox.
🎥 Exclusive video* “Fact Checker Basic Course”: Learn from Andre Wolf how to recognize and combat misinformation.
📅 Early access to in-depth articles and fact checks: always be one step ahead.
📄 Bonus articles, just for you: Discover content you won't find anywhere else.
📝 Participation in webinars and workshops : Join us live or watch the recordings.
✔️ Quality exchange: Discuss safely in our comment function without trolls and bots.

Join us and become part of a community that stands for truth and clarity. Together we can make the world a little better!

* In this special course, Andre Wolf will teach you how to recognize and effectively combat misinformation. After completing the video, you have the opportunity to join our research team and actively participate in the education - an opportunity that is exclusively reserved for our club members!


Notes:
1) This content reflects the current state of affairs at the time of publication. The reproduction of individual images, screenshots, embeds or video sequences serves to discuss the topic. 2) Individual contributions were created through the use of machine assistance and were carefully checked by the Mimikama editorial team before publication. ( Reason )