The debate about the Nazi past of “Stern” founder Henri Nannen is entering a new round. The Nannen family has sent media lawyer Christian Schertz on the trail. A letter that is available to the Tagesspiegel and addressed to NDR director Jochen Knuth essentially addresses the question of whether Nannen was involved in the production of anti-Semitic leaflets as a member of a propaganda unit. The title of the incriminated NDR report on “Zapp” and “Strg F” was entitled: “Henri Nannen: Anti-Semitic Propaganda in the Second World War”.
In his letter, Schertz first emphasizes that Henri Nannen “never made a secret of his misconduct as a Wehrmacht soldier”. Which is also true: “In fact, to this day there is not a single piece of evidence that Henri Nannen participated in the design or distribution of the anti-Semitic leaflets shown in the article. However, the article does not indicate this. On the contrary: it will be a Alleged evidence is cited, which is misrepresented after studying the original source and does not provide the claimed evidence. In this respect, the specific reporting referred to here is simply to be regarded as a false factual claim.”
In addition, Henri Nannen was neither a member of the SS nor formally the head of the SS unit in question. Lawyer Schertz calls on the NDR to take the title “Nannen: His role as head of an SS propaganda unit” with the picture of Henri Nannen offline.
In the meantime, the NDR explained to the branch service kress.de: “We clearly reject this simple assertion. The NDR contributions are based on our own legally examined and extensively documented research.” The NDR is currently examining how it will deal with the request. In general, the ARD broadcaster states on its reporting in the case: “Henri Nannen’s responsibility for the propaganda work of ‘Südstern’ is undisputed. Even ‘Stern’ wrote in 2014: “‘Sir Henri was the boss’. Other sources confirm the.”
According to the lawyer, if the broadcaster does not comply with the request to take the post offline, there will be a legal dispute. In this it would become clear that “there is no evidence for the core claim of the contribution”.
