In 2017, a German individual named Marco encountered an item in a Berlin newspaper including a photograph of a professor he recognised from his youth. The initial observation he made was the man’s lips. They were slender, nearly imperceptible, a characteristic that Marco had consistently deemed distasteful. He was astonished to discover that Professor Helmut Kentler had been one of the most prominent sexologists in Germany. The article detailed a recent research report examining the “Kentler experiment,” which commenced in the late 1960s, wherein Kentler assigned neglected children to foster homes operated by paedophiles. The experiment received authorisation and financial backing from the Berlin Senate. In a report presented to the Senate in 1988, Kentler defined it as a “complete success.”
Marco was raised in foster care, and his foster father often brought him to Kentler’s residence. At thirty-four years of age, he had a one-year-old daughter whose meals and naps dictated the organisation of his days. Upon reading the item, he remarked, “I merely set it aside.” I did not exhibit an emotional response. I engaged in my daily routine: essentially, nothing. I remained seated in front of the computer.
Marco resembles a film star—he possesses a sun-kissed complexion, a chiselled jawline, dense dark hair, and an elongated, symmetrical visage. In adulthood, he has wept only once. “If an individual were to perish before me, I would certainly wish to assist them, yet it would not impact me emotionally,” he stated. “I possess a barrier, and emotions merely collide with it.” He cohabited with his girlfriend, a hairdresser, but they never broached the subject of his childhood. He was without employment. He once attempted to work as a mailman, but after a few days he resigned, as any unfamiliar facial expression reminiscent of his foster father, an engineer named Fritz Henkel, induced a sensation of nonexistence, as if his heart had ceased to beat and the vibrancy of the world had faded. When he attempted to articulate, it seemed as though his voice was not his own.
Several months subsequent to perusing the paper, Marco sought the contact information for Teresa Nentwig, a young political scientist at the University of Göttingen Institute for Democracy Research, who authored the research on Kentler. He had a duality of curiosity and shame. Upon answering the phone, he introduced himself as “an affected person.” He informed her that his foster father had conversed with Kentler weekly via telephone. In manners that Marco had never comprehended, Kentler, a psychologist and professor of social education at the University of Hannover, appeared profoundly engaged in his development.
Nentwig presumed that Kentler’s experiment concluded in the 1970s. Marco informed her that he resided in his foster home until 2003, at the age of twenty-one. “I was utterly astonished,” she stated. She recalls Marco stating again, “You are the first individual I’ve confided in—this is the inaugural occasion I’ve recounted my narrative.” In his youth, he assumed that the manner in which he was treated was customary. “Such occurrences transpire,” he reassured himself. “The world operates on a principle of predation.” However, he remarked, “I have come to understand that the state has been observing.”
Several weeks later, Marco contacted one of his foster brothers, whom he refers to as Sven. They resided together in Henkel’s residence for thirteen years. He appreciated Sven, however saw minimal affinity for him. They had never engaged in a substantive discourse. He informed Sven that he had discovered they were participants in an experiment. However, Sven appeared incapable of assimilating the information. “After all those years, we had ceased to engage in critical thought,” Marco stated.
In his youth, Marco enjoyed imagining himself as a member of the Templars, a chivalric organisation that safeguarded pilgrims travelling to the Holy Land. He was an exuberant child who occasionally roamed his Berlin neighbourhood unsupervised. At the age of five, in 1988, he traversed the street unaccompanied and was struck by a vehicle. Although he sustained no major injuries, the incident garnered the attention of the Schöneberg youth welfare office, administered by the Berlin state government. Caseworkers at the office noted that Marco’s mother appeared “incapable of providing him with the requisite emotional support.” She was employed at a sausage stand and was grappling with the challenges of single parenthood. Marco’s father, a Palestinian refugee, had divorced him. She dispatched Marco and his elder brother to creche in soiled attire and left them there for eleven hours. Caseworkers advised that Marco be placed in a foster home characterised by a “family-like atmosphere.” One caseworker regarded him as an appealing youngster who was unruly yet “very easy to influence.”
Marco was placed with Henkel, a forty-seven-year-old bachelor who augmented his income as a foster parent by repairing jukeboxes and other electronic devices. Marco was Henkel’s ninth foster son in a span of sixteen years. In 1973, when Henkel commenced fostering children, a teacher remarked that he consistently sought interaction with males. Six years later, a caseworker noted that Henkel seemed to be engaged in a “homosexual relationship” with one of his foster sons. When a public prosecutor initiated an inquiry, Helmut Kentler, who referred to himself as Henkel’s “permanent adviser,” interfered on Henkel’s behalf—a recurring pattern seen across almost eight hundred pages of case files concerning Henkel’s residence. Kentler was a prominent professor, the author of multiple works on sex education and parenting, frequently cited in Germany’s major newspapers and television programs. The newspaper Die Zeit characterised him as the “nation’s foremost authority on sexual education.” On university letterhead, Kentler provided what he termed a “expert opinion,” stating that he had become acquainted with Henkel through a “research project.” He praised Henkel’s parenting abilities and criticised a psychologist who intruded upon his privacy, making “extravagant interpretations.” Kentler asserted that, at times, an aeroplane is not a phallic symbol—it is merely an aircraft The criminal investigation has been halted.
Marco was captivated by Henkel’s residence. The property featured five bedrooms and was situated on the third story of a historic building located on a principal commercial avenue in Friedenau, an affluent district favoured by politicians and authors. Two further foster boys resided there, a sixteen-year-old and a twenty-four-year-old, neither of whom exhibited any particular amiability towards Marco. He was pleased to find an armoire in the hallway containing a cage with two rabbits that he could interact with and nourish. In a report to the youth welfare office, Henkel observed that Marco was “enthusiastic about nearly all opportunities presented to him.”
Every few months, Henkel travelled around two hundred kilometres with his foster children to visit Kentler in Hannover, where he was an educator. The visits provided Kentler with the opportunity to observe the children: to “listen to their narratives regarding their past; their aspirations and anxieties; to comprehend their desires and expectations, and to witness their individual development and emotional states,” Henkel documented. A snapshot captured on one of their meetings depicts Kentler in a white button-up shirt with a pen in the pocket, while Marco sits at a dining room table opposite him, appearing bored and dazed.
Marco had resided with Henkel for a year and a half when Sven took up residence. The cops discovered him in a Berlin tube station, afflicted with hepatitis. At the age of seven, he solicited funds, claiming to have originated from Romania. Observing that Sven had “probably never encountered a constructive parent-child relationship,” the youth welfare agency sought a foster home in Berlin. “Mister.” According to physicians from a clinic at the Free University of Berlin, Henkel appears to be exceptionally qualified for this challenging endeavour.
The two boys assumed distinct responsibilities inside their new household. Sven was the exemplary son, compliant and affectionate. Marco exhibited greater defiance; but, at night, when Henkel entered his room seeking to snuggle or patiently awaited him during his teeth brushing routine, he was compelled to acquiesce. “I accepted it out of loyalty, as I was unaware of any alternatives,” Marco said me. “I did not perceive the situation as beneficial, yet I considered it to be normal.” I perceived it somewhat akin to sustenance. Individuals possess varying preferences in cuisine, akin to their diverse inclinations in sexuality. If Sven’s bedroom door was ajar and he was absent, Marco understood the situation, although the two boys never discussed the actions of Henkel towards them. “It was an entirely prohibited topic,” Marco stated.
One evening, Marco retrieved a knife from the kitchen and concealed it beneath his pillow while he slept. Upon seeing the blade beside his bed, Henkel retreated swiftly, contacted Helmut Kentler, and subsequently passed the phone to Marco. “A devil resides behind my wall,” Marco attempted to articulate. Kentler possessed a soothing, paternal demeanour. He told Marco that devils did not exist, and Marco consented to relinquish the knife.
Marco’s mother and brother were permitted to visit approximately once a month; however, Henkel frequently cancelled these visits at the last moment or truncated them, claiming they were disruptive. Subsequently, Marco occasionally urinated in his bed or exhibited a lack of concentration in school, transcribing numbers and letters in reverse order. “It appeared as though he intended to convey: there is no purpose in anything,” Henkel articulated. Kentler cautioned the juvenile welfare office that Marco’s “educational achievements are compromised by a few hours spent with his mother.” Marco’s father was prohibited from seeing him entirely, as Henkel reported that Marco claimed his father had physically abused him. According to Henkel, Marco was so intimidated by his father that he experienced “fearful fantasies” while encountering anyone of Arab descent in public.
Marco’s educators advised him to consult a child therapist, who was scheduled to meet with him for two hours weekly. The therapist indicated that Henkel was keeping Marco “imprisoned,” since Henkel consistently positioned himself nearby, in a contiguous room. Marco recalls an incident when he abruptly entered the room during a session, unbeknownst to Henkel, and struck the therapist in the face. According to records, when a school psychologist referred Sven for counselling, Henkel prohibited him from undergoing any psychiatric assessments. “Not in my presence!”He exclaimed. “If you wish to pursue a ‘case’ against [Sven], then do so in my absence.” (Sven appeared distressed by the remark, enquiring of Henkel, “Does that imply you intend to abandon me?”)
Kentler informed the youth-welfare office in a letter that he would conduct the psychological assessment if required. “Anticipation of insights beyond my findings is unwarranted,” he stated. He recognised that Henkel would seem “harsh and hurtful,” nevertheless he urged, “I ask you to consider that a man who interacts with such profoundly damaged children is not a ‘simple person,’” he said in another correspondence. “Mr. Henkel requires trust and protection from the authorities.”
At the age of nine, Marco’s mother requested a district judge in Berlin to grant her increased visitation time with him. Marco’s father informed the youth-welfare agency that he did not comprehend why Marco was being raised in a “unconventional family,” lacking an Arabic education. A caseworker noted that he “levied significant allegations regarding the foster father’s conduct.” However, Marco’s mother had executed an agreement affirming that she would “consistently be guided by the best interests of my child,” with that assessment being made by the youth welfare office.
A hearing occurred in March 1992, one month prior to Marco’s tenth birthday. The judge requested a private conversation with Marco; however, Henkel positioned himself right outside the room and stated, “If you are in danger, call out!”Marco seems to have been instructed. He informed the judge that his foster father, whom he referred to as Papa, loved him, although his biological family did not. When the judge enquired whether he desired his mother to come, he said, “Not often.” He stated that an annual visit would be preferable and asserted that “Papa should be present.” He elaborated that he feared his biological father, but now that he was with Papa, he no longer had fear. “Occasionally during the night,” he remarked.
Subsequent to the hearing, Kentler dispatched a letter to the judge, asserting, “In the best interests of the child, I deem it imperative that all contact with the family of origin—including the mother—be entirely terminated for the next two years.” Kentler further underscored the necessity for Marco to maintain distance from the male relatives, as they exemplified detrimental behaviour. He stated that Marco’s demeanour shifted when he discussed his father. Kentler, while never having encountered Marco’s father, depicted him as autocratic, abusive, and excessively masculine. He also expressed disapproval of Marco’s fifteen-year-old brother, who was six feet four inches tall and weighed two hundred twenty-five pounds. Kentler noted that the youngster “conveys a deceptive impression of strength and superiority” and was already emulating his father’s persona; he was “addicted to assuming the role of the dominant figure.”
Kentler’s career was shaped by his conviction on the harm inflicted by authoritarian fathers. A vivid recollection involves traversing the woodland on a spring day while striving to keep pace with his father. “I possessed a singular desire: for him to grasp my hand and retain it within his,” Kentler articulated in a parenting publication in 1983. However, his father, a lieutenant during the First World War, subscribed to a “rod and baton pedagogy,” as articulated by Kentler. Kentler’s parents adhered to the doctrines of Daniel Gottlob Moritz Schreber, a prominent German figure in child care, often characterised as a “spiritual precursor of Nazism.” Schreber delineated child-rearing principles aimed at cultivating a more robust race, eliminating cowardice, lethargy, and undesirable manifestations of vulnerability and desire. “Repress all aspects of the child,” Schreber said in 1858. When Kentler exhibited misconduct, his father threatened to procure a device devised by Schreber to enhance children’s posture and obedience: shoulder straps to avert slouching; a belt to secure their chest during sleep; and an iron bar applied to their collarbone to ensure they maintained an upright position at the table. When Kentler spoke out of turn, his father struck the table with his fist and exclaimed, “When the father speaks, the children must remain silent!””
Kentler was ten years old during Kristallnacht in 1938, when Nazi Storm Troopers attacked Jewish synagogues, businesses, and residences. Kentler’s family resided in Düsseldorf, and Kentler was roused by the sound of breaking glass. He exited his bedroom and observed his father in a nightdress, holding the phone. “In his commanding voice, my father summoned police assistance due to a break-in at our building,” Kentler wrote in “Borrowed Fathers, Children Need Fathers,” a 1989 treatise on parenthood. “The conversation extended, during which my father grew increasingly silent, ultimately hesitantly terminating the call. He stood motionless, resembling a collapse, and quietly remarked to my mother, who had been beside him for a while: ‘They’re targeting the Jews!’’ ”
The doorbell soon rang. A Jewish family, consisting of a mother, father, and three children, resided in the flat below and stood at the door. Their apartment had been obliterated, and they enquired whether they may reside with the Kentlers for the night. “No, that will indeed not be feasible here,” Kentler’s father stated. He closed the door. Kentler observed his father’s nightshirt rising slightly beyond his knee, exposing his delicate bare legs. “My entire father abruptly appeared comical to me,” he wrote.
Subsequently, Kentler’s father was recalled to active military. He attained the rank of colonel and relocated his family to Berlin, where he served at the High Command of the Nazi German army. “My father’s authority stemmed not from his personal achievements, but from the prominent institutions he infiltrated, which conferred prestige upon him,” Kentler wrote. At the age of seventeen, he witnessed the defeat of the Nazis and his father’s return, described by Kentler as “a broken man.” “I ceased to comply with him and experienced profound solitude.”
The postwar era in West Germany was characterised by a fervent focus on sexual propriety, as though decorum could rectify the nation’s moral problem and absolve it of guilt. German poet Olav Münzberg stated, “One’s own offspring did penance for Auschwitz,” with ethics and morality forcibly imposed upon them. Women’s reproductive rights faced significant limitations, and the surveillance of homosexual interactions, characteristic of Nazism, continued; in the two decades following the war, approximately one hundred thousand men were prosecuted for this offence. Kentler was drawn to males and perceived that he “always had one leg in prison” due to the dangers associated with fulfilling his impulses. He discovered comfort in the book “Corydon” by André Gide, which has a series of Socratic dialogues addressing the inherent nature of gay love. In a 1985 essay titled “Our Homosexuality,” he expressed, “This book alleviated my fear of failure and rejection, of being a detrimental biological variant.” However, his relationship with his parents remained irreparable. “They had ceased to love me,” he wrote.
In 1960, Kentler obtained a degree in psychology, a discipline that enabled him to function as an engineer in the domain of the. .”manipulable soul,” he stated during a lecture. He engaged in the student movement and, during a meeting of the Republican Club, a collective formed by leftist intellectuals, he openly declared his homosexuality for the first time. Shortly thereafter, he resolved to transform “my passions into a profession (which also benefits the passions: they are regulated).” He obtained a doctorate in social education from the University of Hannover, publishing his dissertation, a manual titled “Parents Learn Sex Education,” in 1975. He drew inspiration from the Marxist psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich, who contended that the unrestricted circulation of sexual energy was crucial for the establishment of a new societal framework. Kentler’s dissertation advocated for parents to instruct their children to never feel shame regarding their wants. “Once initial feelings of shame arise, they proliferate effortlessly and permeate all aspects of life,” he stated.
Similar to other contemporaries, Kentler concluded that sexual repression was fundamental to comprehending the Fascist psyche. In 1977, sociologist Klaus Theweleit released “Male Fantasies,” a two-volume work that analysed the diaries of German paramilitary combatants and determined that their repressed impulses, along with an aversion to anything viscous, effusive, or odorous, had been redirected towards destruction. Upon reading “Male Fantasies,” Kentler observed Schreber, the child-care author whose ideals his parents adhered to, “operating ubiquitously,” he said. Kentler contended that concepts similar to Schreber’s, which had achieved significant readership with one book undergoing forty editions, had corrupted three generations of Germans, fostering “authoritarian personalities who must align with a ‘great man’ to experience a sense of greatness.” Kentler aimed to formulate a child-rearing philosophy for a novel archetype of German manhood. He asserted that sexual liberty was the most effective means to “prevent another Auschwitz.”
The trials of twenty-two former Auschwitz officers disclosed a prevalent personality archetype: conventional, conservative, sexually repressed, and fixated on bourgeois morality. German law expert Herbert Jäger stated, “I believe that in a society with greater sexual freedom, Auschwitz could not have occurred.” Sexual freedom was essential to student organisations across Western Europe, but the appeals were more fervent in Germany, where the recollection of genocide had been inextricably—if not entirely accurately—associated with sexual propriety. In “Sex After Fascism,” historian Dagmar Herzog elucidates that, in Germany, disputes regarding sexual ethics emerged as a significant arena for addressing the legacy of Nazism. However, she also notes that this served to divert moral discourse from the issue of complicity in mass murder, focussing instead on a limited understanding of morality centred exclusively on sexuality.
It seems that all relationship frameworks could—and should—be restructured to foster a generation less impaired than its predecessor. In the late 1960s, educators in over thirty German cities initiated the establishment of experimental day-care centres, where children were permitted to be unclothed and to explore one other’s bodies. Herzog asserts, “They were undoubtedly attempting, in a desperate form of neo-Rousseauian authoritarian antiauthoritarianism, to reconstruct German and human nature.” Kentler engaged with a movement that was fervently attempting to dismantle the sexual legacy of Fascism while grappling with the complexities of many taboos. In 1976, the publication Das Blatt contended that illicit sexual desire, particularly towards minors, constituted a “revolutionary event that upends our quotidian existence, unleashing emotions and dismantling the foundations of our cognition.” Subsequently, Germany’s nascent Green Party, which united antiwar demonstrators, environmental advocates, and former student movement participants, sought to confront the “suppression of children’s sexuality.” Party members championed the elimination of the age of consent for sexual relations between minors and adults.
In this environment—characterized by a psychoanalyst as one of “denial and manic ‘self-reparation’ ”—Kentler was prominent. He was appointed to head the department of social education at the Pedagogical Centre, an international research organisation in Berlin, whose planning committee featured Willy Brandt, who later became the Chancellor of Germany and received the Nobel Peace Prize, and James B. Conant, the inaugural U.S. Ambassador to Germany. Ambassador to West Germany and President of Harvard. Established in 1965 and funded by the Berlin Senate, the centre aimed to position Berlin as a global leader in educational reform. Kentler addressed the issues of runaways, heroin addicts, and young prostitutes, many of whom congregated in the archways of Zoo Station, the primary transportation centre in West Berlin. The environment was immortalised in “Christiane F.,” a seminal drug film from the eighties, depicting adolescents, acutely cognisant of the vacuity of contemporary society, engaging in self-destruction, accompanied by a music from David Bowie.
Kentler formed a friendship with a thirteen-year-old named Ulrich, whom he characterised as “one of the most sought-after prostitutes in the station scene.” When Kentler enquired about Ulrich’s preferred overnight accommodations, Ulrich mentioned a man he referred to as Mother Winter, who provided sustenance and laundry services for boys from the Zoo Station. In return, they engaged in sexual relations with him. “I reasoned that if the prostitutes referred to this man as ‘mother,’ he could not be malevolent,” Kentler articulated. Subsequently, he remarked that “Ulrich’s advantage lay in his attractiveness and his enjoyment of sex; thus, he could reciprocate to the pedophilic men who cared for him.”
Kentler institutionalised Ulrich’s agreement. “I successfully obtained approval from the Senate officer in charge,” he stated in “Borrowed Fathers, Children Need Fathers.” Kentler identified many additional paedophiles residing in proximity and assisted them in establishing foster homes as well. The Berlin Senate, which administers the city—one of the sixteen states in Germany—was keen to discover innovative answers to the “life problems of our society,” in order to “affirm and uphold Berlin’s status as a bastion of freedom and humanity,” Kentler stated.
In 1981, Kentler was invited to address the German parliament regarding the decriminalisation of homosexuality, which did not occur for another thirteen years; however, he unsolicitedly diverged into a discourse on his experiment. “We managed and provided counsel for these relationships with great intensity,” he stated. He conducted meetings with the foster fathers and their sons, many of whom had been so neglected that they had never acquired literacy skills. “These individuals tolerate these intellectually deficient boys solely due to their romantic affection for them,” he said the legislators. His summary seems to elicit no worries. The politicians may have been amenable due to the project’s contrast with the Nazis’ reproductive studies, which rigidly prioritised specific family structures, or they may have been indifferent, believing the boys were irretrievably lost. During the 1960s and 1970s, the political elite began to show interest in the lower class; yet, their ability to empathise appeared to be constrained.
If any documentation in the city’s archives recorded the approval process of Kentler’s initiative or the methods he employed to identify the men who acted as foster fathers, they have been lost or obliterated. During his public discourse on the experiment, Kentler provided information regarding merely three foster homes. In a 2020 report commissioned by the Berlin Senate, researchers from the University of Hildesheim determined that “the Senate also operated foster homes or shared accommodations for young Berliners with pedophilic men in other regions of West Germany.” The fifty-eight-page report was preliminary and ambiguous; the authors indicated that approximately one thousand unorganised files in a government building’s basement remained unread. The identities of individuals were not disclosed; however, the authors indicated that “these foster homes were managed by occasionally influential men who resided alone and were empowered by academic institutions, research organisations, and other educational settings that endorsed, facilitated, or even embodied pedophilic ideologies.” The report determined that certain “senate actors” were “involved in this network,” while others merely acquiesced to the foster homes “due to the endorsement of ‘icons’ of educational reform policies.”
Marco recalls Kentler and his foster father engaging in lengthy telephone conversations over politics. The fervour of their discussions astonished him, as Henkel was terse at home, hardly articulating complete phrases. Marco and Sven also refrained from conversing with one another. Marco devoted all of his leisure time in his room, utilising an Amiga computer to play SimCity and Mega-Lo-Mania. Both boys maintained closed doors. On one occasion, when the neighbours played loud music, disrupting the tranquilly of their flat, Henkel informed the boys of his intention to perforate two microwave ovens and thereafter direct the emitted radioactive waves towards one another at an optimal angle, with the purpose of inducing a heart attack in the neighbours.
Marco’s mother was denied her request for increased access to her kid. She was permitted visits every few weeks at the youth welfare office, but the meetings deteriorated progressively. In the initial visit following the court hearing, Marco informed his mother that he did not wish to see her, as she was incompatible with his foster father. A social worker noted, “He did not make eye contact with his mother while stating this.” During the subsequent visit, three weeks later, he declined to accept his mother’s present of pens and a pad of paper, as well as to respond to her enquiries. He persistently requested to depart, till his mother acquiesced with reluctance. The social worker noted that she was “clearly distressed and weeping.” “She is uncertain about her next steps.” The following day, Henkel contacted the youth-welfare agency and expressed his intention to assist Marco “in manifesting his repudiation of his mother.”
After a year and a half, Marco’s father notified the youth welfare office of his relocation to Syria and expressed a desire to bid farewell to his son. No records exist of any responses. Marco’s perception of his parents was tainted by the derogatory remarks he had received from Henkel and Kentler. He envisioned his mother as an indolent housewife who squandered her days consuming sausages, and his father as a belligerent patriarch. It was not until twenty years later that he understood his parents had endeavoured to establish a relationship with him.
On certain evenings, while dining with Sven and Henkel, Marco experienced the feeling of being in the company of strangers. “Who are you individuals?”He enquired once. Henkel said, “It is I—your father.”
At the age of eleven, Marco welcomed a new foster brother, Marcel Kramer, into his home. Kramer was a diminutive boy with dimples, misaligned teeth, and a charming, candid smile. He was six months younger than Marco and suffered from spastic quadriplegia, a congenital ailment that rendered him incapable of walking, speaking, or eating independently. Marco and Sven assumed the role of caretakers for Kramer, administering strawberry-flavored milk via spoon and extracting mucus from his lungs using a suction apparatus. During their visit to Henkel’s residence in Brandenburg, west of Berlin, Marco exerted pressure on Kramer for many hours while on a tyre swing. Kramer was the first individual in years for whom Marco experienced affection.
Marco lacked intimate bonds in school. Henkel incentivised his misconduct by offering computer games as rewards for spitting, speaking out of turn, or overturning chairs. He absented himself from class and infrequently completed his assignments. He ultimately transferred schools seven times, which he now feels was Henkel’s strategy.
For years, Marco endured Henkel; however, when he entered puberty, he expressed, “I began to despise him.” He dedicated an hour daily to weightlifting to ensure he was sufficiently robust to protect himself. One evening, when Henkel attempted to caress him, Marco struck his hand. Henkel appeared taken aback but remained silent. He simply departed.
Henkel ceased attempts to sexually assault Marco, however he grew retaliatory. He secured the kitchen door at night to prevent Marco from accessing food. Henkel once remarked on his conspicuous appetite while eating. He also struck Marco. “Proceed, release some tension,” Marco occasionally remarked, provoking Henkel. “He claimed he was not striking me—he was striking the devil within me,” Marco informed me.
Upon reaching the age of eighteen, Marco was legally permitted to vacate Henkel’s residence; yet, the thought of departing did not cross his mind. “It is quite challenging to articulate, but I was never nurtured to engage in critical thinking,” he stated. “My mind was devoid of thoughts.”
One day, Kramer contracted influenza. Over a span of forty-eight hours, his respiration grew progressively more arduous. For years, Marco had monitored Kramer multiple times each night to ensure he was breathing. He was so anxious that he lay in bed next to him. Henkel consistently refrained from contacting physicians for the youngsters. By the time he acquiesced, Kramer was beyond resuscitation. “It occurred before my eyes,” Marco stated. “I gazed into his eyes as he passed away.”
The foster-care records include merely a succinct notice regarding Kramer’s demise. “Mr. Henkel reported that Marcel passed away unexpectedly last night,” an employee at the youth welfare office documented in September 2001. “Initially, there were no indications of an infection.” A later note states that Henkel, aged sixty, was seeking to adopt another kid.
Following Teresa Nentwig’s 2016 article on Kentler, she intended to compose her habilitation thesis, a prerequisite for an academic career, focussing on Kentler’s life and contributions. However, numerous obstacles were encountered. Files pertinent to the city archives of Berlin were absent, disorganised, or sealed. Acquaintances and associates of Kentler, who passed away in 2008, informed Nentwig that they preferred not to comment. Nentwig stated, “Some assert that Kentler is an exemplary individual who has exclusively engaged in virtuous actions.”
Nentwig appears to be a systematic and unembellished scholar, the kind that consistently meets deadlines. During the summer of 2020, when we initially conversed, she remarked, “I have no prospects at the university, as achieving success in this field is exceedingly challenging.” I am critiquing the academic realm. I presumed that, as is common among ambitious individuals, she was galvanising herself through a dread of adverse outcomes. However, during our subsequent conversation this spring, she had accepted a position with a regional State Office for the Protection of the Constitution, a German intelligence organisation tasked with monitoring anti-democratic dangers. Her university contract was not extended, and she attributed the abrupt conclusion of her academic career partially to her choice to investigate Kentler. “I am a political scientist,” she stated, “and individuals frequently enquired, ‘What is the political aspect of this topic?’”’ ”
Nentwig and her previous institution are now sharing the expense, approximately six thousand euros, for a German academic press to publish her thesis. In the forthcoming book, set for release in September, she discloses that Kentler, a single father of three adopted sons and multiple foster children, seemed to be executing his own informal iteration of the experiment sanctioned by the Berlin Senate. Karin Désirat, co-author of the book “Sex—Lust and Life,” informed Nentwig that two of Kentler’s foster sons sought her therapeutic assistance and revealed that Kentler had sexually assaulted them. Désirat claimed that she “owed much to Kentler,” as he had assisted her in securing her initial teaching role, and she preferred to remain uninvolved. She directed the boys to an other therapist. The boys opted to maintain the confidentiality of their maltreatment, as she stated, because they “didn’t want to forfeit the benefits of Kentler’s care—that they had sufficient food and were adequately cared for, among other things.” Kentler’s experiment appeared to be predicated on the notion that certain children are inherently inferior, their prospects so diminished that any form of affection is perceived as a boon, a premise that his colleagues seemingly endorsed as well. Désirat stated that she ultimately severed ties with Kentler, determining that his conduct was “creepy.”
Gunter Schmidt, a former president of the International Academy of Sex Research, which draws the foremost scholars in the subject, maintained a friendship with Kentler for over twenty years. “I genuinely held it in high regard,” he informed Nentwig on the experiment. “I believed these individuals are exceptionally young and are facing dire circumstances.” They likely possess a tumultuous history, endured difficult childhoods, and are under someone’s care. “If Kentler is present, everything will be satisfactory,” he remarked. He further noted, “The Berlin Senate is also in attendance.” At the age of fifty-seven, Kentler composed a letter to Schmidt elucidating the reasons for his contented ageing, as opposed to succumbing to loneliness and resignation: he and his twenty-six-year-old son were “engaged in a profoundly fulfilling love story” that had endured for thirteen years and remained invigorating. Kentler asserted that to comprehend his mental state, his companion must be aware of his secret.
Throughout a significant portion of his career, Kentler characterised paedophiles as benefactors. In 1980, he informed Der Spiegel that they provided neglected youngsters with “an opportunity for therapy.” In 1988, when the Berlin Senate tasked him with producing an expert report on “Homosexuals as carers and educators,” he asserted that concerns regarding potential harm to children from sexual contact with carers were unfounded, provided the interaction was not “forced.” He noted that the outcomes could be “very positive, particularly when the sexual relationship is defined as mutual love.”
However, in 1991, he appeared to reevaluate his stance following the suicide of his youngest adopted son, whom he had lauded in his correspondence to Schmidt. He subsequently read the article “Confusion of the Tongues Between Adults and the Child (The Language of Tenderness and of Passion)” authored by Sándor Ferenczi, a Hungarian psychiatrist and Freud’s protégé. The research elucidates that sexualised connections between adults and children are invariably unequal, exploitative, and detrimental. Ferenczi cautions that providing children with “excessive affection or a different form of love” than what they desire will have as detrimental effects as withholding love. He notes that children’s “personalities are not sufficiently developed to effectively protest.” They will “subordinate themselves like automatons.” They become unaware of their own demands and “identify with the aggressor.”
In a 1992 interview with a German historian, Kentler expressed his sorrow for his adopted son, stating, “Unfortunately, I only read the Ferenczi essay after his death.” He did not admit to torturing his kid; rather, he claimed that the boy had been sexually molested by his biological mother. “He committed suicide as a result of that,” he informed the historian. “I have encountered it profoundly and intimately, and I acknowledge my partial culpability.” He lamented that prior to the Ferenczi paper, he had not engaged with literature regarding the emotional repercussions of sexual assault and was unaware of how to assist his son in processing the trauma. He failed to comprehend that a child recuperating from sexual assault experiences a dichotomy, as Ferenczi articulates: the child is “innocent and culpable simultaneously—and his trust in the veracity of his own perceptions is shattered.” “I was too foolish,” Kentler remarked.
By the late 1990s, Kentler ceased his interactions with Henkel’s foster sons and withdrew from their upbringing. In what was presumably his final public statement regarding paedophilia, during a 1999 interview, he characterised it as a “sexual disorder” and suggested the difficulty of an adult and a youngster comprehending sexual intercourse mutually. He stated that the issue lies in the adult’s perpetual “monopoly on definition.”
Upon initiating correspondence with Marco in the summer of 2020, our connection was facilitated by an individual named Christoph Schweer, who identified himself as Marco’s “friend.” At first, I presumed he was Marco’s attorney. I subsequently researched him online and discovered that he obtained a Ph.D. in philosophy, authoring a dissertation titled “Homesickness, Heroes, Cheerfulness: Nietzsche’s Path to Becoming a Superhero.” He served as an adviser for education and cultural policy for the Alternative for Germany (AfD), a right-wing political party in Germany. The Party was recently scrutinised by Germany’s internal intelligence service for subverting democracy, including downplaying the crimes of the Nazis. The Party’s co-leader has characterised the Nazi era as “merely a speck of bird excrement in over 1,000 years of prosperous German history.”
In August, Marco, Schweer, and Thomas Rogers, a Berlin journalist and translator, convened in a hotel adjacent to Berlin’s international airport, the one location deemed adequately private. I conversed with them using Zoom. Marco and Schweer occupied chairs adjacent to the bed, and they seemed to lack a notably intimate rapport. Marco donned a floral button-up Hawaiian shirt and had not shaved for several days. Schweer, attired for the workplace, exhibited a formal, professional demeanour. Similar to an agent assisting a celebrity client, he appeared somewhat disinterested in our dialogue yet intermittently interjected, encouraging Marco to divulge crucial details.
“Upon first encountering him, you remarked, What a distorted mouth he possesses,” Schweer stated, alluding to Henkel.
“He possessed no lips,” Marco elucidated. He elucidated that Kentler also possessed this characteristic. Schweer illustrated this by compressing his lips, revealing only a narrow strip of his upper and lower lip.
“Are you acquainted with individuals who lack lips?”“Marco stated.” “They consistently exhibit egotism and malice—I observed that.”
In early 2018, Schweer initiated communication with Marco after perusing an article in Der Spiegel regarding Kentler’s experiment, whereby Marco expressed his disillusionment with the Berlin Senate. Following the release of Nentwig’s report, Marco corresponded with the Senate seeking further clarification regarding his situation; however, he perceived the Senate’s response as inadequate.
Marco informed me that Schweer had “proffered assistance from the AfD.” I promptly responded, “Not for political reasons, solely because I seek assistance.”
From the viewpoint of an AfD politician, Marco’s narrative was pragmatic, illustrating how the German left had mismanaged sexual politics. During sessions of the German parliament, members of the AfD, which secured over twelve percent of the vote in the most recent national election, thus becoming Germany’s third-largest party, coalesced around the Kentler case to compel left-wing politicians to confront historical narratives unfavourable to their parties, while simultaneously serving as a veiled means to disparage homosexuality. An advocacy organisation associated with the AfD conducted protests titled “Stop Kentler’s Sex Education” to contest the existing approach to sexuality teaching in German schools. A leaflet published by the organisation stated, “Kentler’s criminal pedophilic ethos persists unabated in contemporary sex education.”
History appeared to be recurring. Right-wing politicians advocated for a resurgence of the “extremely perilous upbringing” that Kentler had opposed. The AfD’s party manifesto asserts its dedication to the “traditional family as a guiding principle,” a concept it links to the preservation of Germany’s cultural identity and strength. To mitigate the influx of immigrants to Germany, the AfD program asserts that “the sole mid- and long-term solution” is to achieve a higher birth rate among the native population.
During a hearing in February 2018, AfD representative Thorsten Weiß expressed dissatisfaction that the Senate had not acknowledged its accountability for Kentler’s offences. “This matter holds political significance and necessitates political intervention,” he stated. “The Senate is betraying the victims, which constitutes a scandal.”
During a subsequent session, seven months later, Weiß admonished the Senate for its sluggishness in acquiring additional information regarding Kentler’s experiment. “We will not permit government-sanctioned pederasty to be concealed,” he stated.
Two Green Party MPs, advocates for sexual minority rights, accused the AfD of exploiting the victims. A spokesman stated, “The AfD’s attempt to exploit this crime for its own agenda is unacceptable.”
Schweer, the AfD consultant, sought to locate an attorney capable of representing Marco in a civil litigation. “I advocate for a friend, the victim of the alleged Kentler experiment,” he stated in an email to a prominent Berlin law firm. Marco had already submitted a criminal complaint; however, the inquiry was constrained due to Henkel’s death in 2015. The primary caseworker, who retired after over forty years of service, invoked his right to remain silent when approached by the police. The public prosecutor, Norbert Winkler, determined that Henkel committed “serious sexual assaults including regular anal intercourse,” yet he found no evidence of complicity from anyone at the workplace. He informed me that the quandary was that anytime concerns emerged, the office personnel “depended on the assertions of Mr. Kentler, who was then a highly esteemed individual.”
Marco and Sven attempted to initiate civil actions against the state of Berlin and the Tempelhof-Schöneberg district, where the youth welfare office is situated, for dereliction of official obligations. However, under civil law, an excessive amount of time had elapsed. The AfD requested an expert to evaluate the applicability of the statute of limitations in this matter. Sandra Scheeres, Berlin’s education senator and a member of the Social Democratic Party, sought to determine whether Marco and Sven would accept a compensation package instead of pursuing a seemingly futile lawsuit. She contended that the AfD was providing detrimental counsel, unduly extending their efforts to secure funding. She remarked, “I found it rather peculiar how the AfD collaborated with the victims—how intimate their relationship was, and that they provided legal counsel to them.” Certainly, it is acceptable. While the AfD highlights injustices, the occurrence in question was atypical. “I have never encountered anything akin to it.” (Weiß, the AfD representative, remarked, “I would have been astonished had she expressed any favourable sentiments towards us.” He asserts that a paedophile network persists in Germany, and that individuals affiliated with it “exert their political influence to ensure the network remains concealed.”)
Marco visited one of Henkel’s foster boys from the “first generation” to ascertain his interest in joining the legal endeavours of himself and Sven. The son, whom I shall refer to as Samir, resided in Henkel’s residence in Brandenburg, where the boys had enjoyed summer holidays. The single-room house, constructed from beige bricks, appeared to have been assembled haphazardly, with uneven blobs of cement filling each crevice. Photographs from the 1990s depict a disordered scene: a plastic bag and a partially consumed loaf of bread are situated on the table; outside the residence, an antiquated toaster oven, accompanied by a badminton shuttlecock, stands atop a deteriorating dresser.
Samir, aged fifty-seven and half Algerian, has not communicated with his biological family for over forty years. He altered his surname to Henkel and adopted a new German given name. His half-sister, residing in Algeria, informed me that she and her sibling had made numerous attempts to contact him, all without success. He was the foster boy whose engagements with Henkel initiated a criminal probe in 1979, at the age of fifteen. During that period, a psychologist administered a personality assessment to Samir, who depicted himself as a winter fruit tree devoid of connection to the sustaining soil. The psychologist also interviewed Henkel, noting his difficulty in restraining his significant aggressive urges and his attempts, through his foster sons, to compensate for deficiencies in his own history.
Marco navigated to Henkel’s former estate and approached the residence. It was now encircled by five-foot hedges. The windows were obscured by blankets. Marco expressed, “I intended to provide him the chance to resolve matters as I had with Sven, but upon observing that—no, no, no.” Another foster brother, the initial resident of Henkel’s household, was a few miles away; nonetheless, Marco concluded that visiting him was futile as well. He returned to his vehicle and drove home.
Winkler, the prosecutor, dispatched investigators to Samir’s residence, characterising it as a “garbage heap.” The property lacked running water and electricity. There was scarcely any unobstructed area to traverse. However, one corner of the house seemed organised and intentional. It had been transformed into a form of altar. An urn containing Henkel’s ashes was encircled by fresh flowers.
Henkel operated his foster home for three decades. Marco was twenty-one when he ultimately ceased operations in 2003, having not been allocated a new foster child. He was homeless. He spent three nights resting on benches in the park. With the assistance of a charity supporting homeless youth, he ultimately relocated to a subsidised flat. He occasionally pilfered from supermarket establishments. “I was unaware of how the world operated,” he informed me. “I was oblivious to the necessity of paying for the electricity that emanates from a socket.” He awakened multiple times during the night, a remnant of his experience caring for Marcel Kramer. Rather than entering his foster brother’s chamber, he examined his own body to ascertain, as he stated, “if everything remains in its rightful place and that I continue to exist.” His prolonged solitude hindered his ability to formulate coherent remarks.
Sven resided independently in a modest flat in Berlin; but, in contrast to Marco, he maintained communication with Henkel. “I have consistently believed that I owed the man a debt,” he stated to Der Spiegel in 2017. Marco and Sven continued to live as they had during their adolescence: they occupied their days with computer use or television viewing, seldom engaging in conversation with others. Sven, who has endured episodes of profound sadness since childhood, continues to reside in what he refers to as a “fortress of solitude,” and he is reluctant to discuss his background. “I lack any further strength,” he stated. “However, I can assure you that everything my brother conveyed regarding our experience in the foster home is entirely accurate.”
Marco had likewise been in a state of hibernation. However, after five years, he perceived himself as transforming into a “monster,” he stated. “While it did not escalate to criminal behaviour, there was a sense of destructiveness and a deficiency of empathy.” At the age of twenty-six, he observed three men gazing at him while on a train in Berlin. Unintentionally, Marco engaged in physically assaulting them. “I ought to have remarked, ‘What are you observing?’He stated. “However, I promptly opposed them.” I realised I genuinely desired to kill them.” One of the men ultimately required emergency medical attention. Marco recognised the extent to which his conduct mirrored that of his foster father. “It was a Henkel reaction,” he stated. I was an object. I was transforming into the creation he had devised.
During that period, he was traversing the street when a female photographer praised his appearance and enquired if he would be interested in what Marco referred to as “hobby modelling.” He acquiesced and posed for a sequence of photographs, assuming diverse stances: in certain images, he resembles a sculpted attorney en route to work; in others, he appears windswept and stylish. The images did not result in employment, yet he started socialising with the photographer and her acquaintances. He likened the experience to that of a foreigner in an unusual nation who ultimately encounters those eager to instruct him in the language. “I acquired conventional methods of interaction,” he stated.
Construction worker instructing crane operator to position tea bag in their mug.
The modelling work motivated him to obtain a haircut, and at the salon, a stunning woman with a lively and pleasant demeanour, whom I shall refer to as Emma, styled his hair. Marco attributes the significant occurrences in his life to his appearance: he contends that his looks influenced Henkel’s decision to select him—given that many of Henkel’s sons possessed dark hair and eyes—and, two decades later, he cites this as the rationale for his initial serious relationship. “I was attractive, and she did not depart,” he informed me regarding Emma. He remarked, only somewhat in jest, “Some women are simply attracted to abrasive personalities, and I was one of those abrasive individuals.”
Initially, he was averse to a relationship, but with time he became convinced by Emma’s dedication. On multiple occasions, she slumbered outside his flat door. “I observed that she genuinely loves me, and that in life, there is likely only one individual who will truly advocate for you,” he stated. He endeavoured to mitigate his antisocial tendencies by recalling that they were not intrinsic but rather conditioned by his upbringing. “I essentially reprogrammed myself,” he stated. “I attempted to elevate myself again.”
During my visit to Marco in May, he and Emma had recently relocated from Berlin to a new development on the city’s periphery, which he requested I not name nor describe, as he wished to keep his background concealed from his neighbours. He currently has two children, and they were playing with Emma in their vast backyard. Inside, Marco listened to contemplative lounge music while drinking water from the largest coffee mug I have ever encountered. I perceived that, had Marco experienced a different childhood, he might have matured into a really jovial middle-aged individual. He was whimsical and sincere, articulating his perspective on the afterlife in a poetic manner. He conveyed his children’s growth milestones with sophistication and pride. In a moment of hospitality, he enquired whether I desired Emma to cut my hair, then apologising excessively and asserting that my hair appeared satisfactory.
Shortly prior to my visit, the Berlin Senate announced its intention to contract professors from the University of Hildesheim, who had released the preliminary report in 2020, to conduct a follow-up investigation regarding pedophile-operated foster homes in other regions of Germany. Sandra Scheeres, the education senator, apologised to Marco and Sven, and the Senate proposed compensation over fifty thousand euros—this sum was regarded as substantial in Germany, since damage compensation is considerably lower than in the United States.
Christoph Schweer, the AfD advisor, had implored Marco and Sven to persist in their efforts, however Marco was perplexed by the rationale. “We have achieved our objectives, so there is no reason to continue aggravating or dominating the Senate,” he informed me. However, Marco stated that Schweer continued to exert pressure on him. Schweer refutes this. “Subsequently, I began to harbour suspicions.” I pondered, What other desires should I have? At that moment, I sensed that the AfD merely intends to exploit me for their own purposes. I expressed that I do not wish to be utilised as a political instrument. “I wish to avoid involvement in an election campaign.” He withdrew his complaint and accepted the Senate’s proposal. His sole remaining objective is for the forthcoming report to disclose the identities of all individuals involved in executing Kentler’s experiment. Schweer stated that he had been endorsing Marco as an individual, not for the AfD. He also remarked, “I have new ideas, but for [Marco], it is finished.”
Marco and Emma were to be wed at the month’s conclusion, and he wished to avoid contemplating his history. “I merely wished to conclude the entire matter, to finalise this chapter,” he stated. He intended to adopt Emma’s surname. He had not communicated with his biological parents or his sibling since the age of eleven, and now he would become virtually untraceable. He had attempted to search for his brother online, but he deemed the notion of a reunion to be an imprudent expenditure of emotional energy better allocated to his children. “It would not yield any benefit for me, regardless,” he stated. “The phase of maternal influence has concluded.”
Upon concluding my visit, Marco’s wedding ring was delivered by mail. Emma exclaimed in delight, while Marco, holding the ring nonchalantly, quipped that he had to marry eventually, so he might as well do it now. He concealed his evident affection for her with a facade of indifference that Emma seemingly recognised as insincere. “These are merely the deficiencies I possess,” he stated, alluding to the absence of emotion. “I will persevere.” It is inconsequential.
Three weeks later, on the eve of his wedding, he sent me an email. “In an hour, around 10 a.m.” He stated, “We will proceed to the registry office.” “Symbolically, a new existence commences.”
Following his departure from Henkel’s residence, Marco communicated with him on only two occasions. During Marco’s mid-twenties, Henkel unexpectedly made a phone call. He seems to have developed a form of dementia. He enquired whether Marco had recalled to feed their bunnies.
The subsequent occasion occurred in 2015, when Emma was expecting their first child. Marco travelled to a facility in Brandenburg, having learnt that Henkel was in hospice, succumbing to cancer. Marco entered Henkel’s room. He observed Henkel reclined in bed, moaning in agony. He wore an elongated, wizardly beard and appeared to Marco as though he were possessed. Marco saw him for only five seconds, sufficient to ascertain that he was indeed dead. He subsequently turned, shut the door, and exited the facility.
Upon Marco’s return home, the kitchen radio was playing, however he had no recollection of activating it. A vocalist reiterated the sentence “I apologise.” He sensed that Henkel was attempting to communicate with him. “I became somewhat unhinged,” he confided. “I believed Henkel was a spectre pursuing me, tormenting me.” It was absolutely him: he was attempting to express remorse.
Henkel passed away the following day. Marco experienced a profound and vast grief, leading him to weep for the first time for the demise of his foster brother, Marcel Kramer. He remained in bed with Kramer for an hour following his death, maintaining a vigil; subsequently, he severed one of Kramer’s curls to retain a memento. However, he had never adequately mourned him. He stated that “the blockage vanished” abruptly. He understood the reason he had not departed from Henkel’s residence upon reaching eighteen. “I was tethered to the family by Marcel Kramer,” he stated. “I would never have abandoned him.”
Several weeks following Henkel’s demise, the feeling of being haunted started to diminish. “The freedom arrived gradually,” Marco said me. “It resembled an insatiable hunger that intensifies progressively.” This was the first occasion I realised I am living a life filled with a myriad of options. I could have become anything. My inner voice intensified, affirming that I need not adhere to his teachings and that I may continue my journey alone.
If you or anyone you know have been affected by the people highlighted in this article, then please report those individuals to the Police on 101 (999 if an emergency) or visit their online resources for further details of the options for reporting a crime. You can also make a report at Crimestoppers should you wish to be completely anonymous. There is help available on our support links page.