Conclusions
205
Nazi occupation, and even assigning responsibility for them to the Poles. Criminal liability for committing the offence provided for in Article 55 of the INR-CPCPN Act applies when the perpetrator acted wilfully and publicly, and the context of their statement indicates the intention of denying German crimes. The lack of such intention, however, does not repeal the illegality of statements which constitute a breach of the legally protected code of memory. 6. Different communities have different sensitivities to the use of DCMs and to the assessment of their social effects. Sometimes they even show a special selectivity in this respect, which also determines the selective functioning of social mechanisms of suppressing these codes. This is the case with society in the Federal Republic of Germany, where – at least to the extent reflected in mass media discourse – there is a significant degree of selectivity when it comes to forming memory (both individual and collective) of the narrative (including interpretation) about the most serious crimes committed by the Germans during World War Two. This selectivity sometimes also results in shifting responsibility for Nazi crimes onto other entities – especially the victims of these crimes. DCMs are used particularly extensively by revisionist circles, where Nazi crimes in occupied Poland are openly denied. 7. Due to relatively low sensitivity levels to DCMs in a number of countries, these codes appear quite frequently in the mass media. Studies of German press reveal that DCMs do not follow a single model; accordingly, no single model can explain why DCMs are used, though certain behavioural trends are noticeable in this respect (also resulting from increasing ignorance, and negligent preparation of media materials). These patterns of behaviour could lead the existing correct historical narrative to be recoded into a narrative that reverses the moral order of this narrative, and thus also assigning the role of the victim to the executioner and vice versa. This of course calls for suppressive measures against the false narratives where DCMs are an important constituent of communication. Studies of German media (press and online content created in Germany) point to considerable differences in this respect. With regard to the press, suppressive reactions are neither so socially strong nor so dispersed as on the Internet. A clear and sharp critical reaction by German readers is noticeable in the wake of Barack Obama’s remarks on 29 May 2012, in which he used DCMs. In their online comments, German readers tried to highlight the true picture of the historical reality that the US President referred to in his statement.