The remarks of the German Federal President reflecting on the events of a late August week in Rostock captured the gravity of a painful chapter in the country’s history. Thousands took to the streets, and neo-Nazi groups carried out days of violence and intimidation against foreigners and asylum seekers. The images broadcast across a recently reunified Germany resembled scenes from darker eras and prompted a national reckoning with xenophobia and antisemitism that had no place in modern society.
From August 22 to 26, 1992, Rostock-Lichtenhagen, a district known for its high-rise housing blocks inherited from the former East Germany, became the stage for xenophobic riots. Molotov cocktails were hurled at the homes of foreign residents and refugees. Those who did not actively strike attacked the dignity of the victims with shouts of contempt. Vietnamese workers, who had arrived in the country in the latter years of the GDR, stood as a stark reminder of the complex migration story Germany was facing in the wake of reunification. The assembly tiled with alcohol and chants of I hate foreigners spoke loudly of a current in the country that many hoped had already passed. The refrain, Foxlike in its simplicity, echoed: Germans for Germans, foreigners out.
Severe 90
The 1990s ushered in a surge of nationalism and xenophobia, particularly in eastern Germany, where the economic transition after reunification brought widespread unemployment and social stress. The privatization drive and shifting fortunes intensified fear and resentment, which in turn fed a wave of xenophobic violence that the nation had to confront anew. The Rostock incident did not stand alone. In the years that followed, hundreds of thousands left Germany seeking safety elsewhere, including many Romani and other persecuted groups from the Yugoslav wars. The national mood was unsettled, and the country wrestled with how to balance openness with security and belonging.
Images from the riots lingered in public memory, a reminder that history can cast a long shadow over the present. They were repeatedly shown on television to illustrate the vulnerability of democratic institutions when fear and hatred go unchecked. A clear moral emerged: defending democracy requires constant vigilance and an honest confrontation with past failures. The then president, while visiting Rostock, underscored that the duty to safeguard democratic values is learned not only from the distant past but from more recent events as well. Parts of the attacked building were later recognized as part of Germany’s national heritage and placed under protection, a symbolic act of remembrance and a pledge to prevent such hatred from taking root again.
Miraculously, the Rostock-Lichtenhagen riots did not result in fatalities. Some residents managed to escape through upper floors as flames engulfed parts of the building, while local officials who witnessed the crisis at the last moment pressed for police intervention. The decision to deploy riot control measures and withdraw certain areas to ensure safety remains a point of historical inquiry and discussion. In the years since, many have questioned how such decisions were made under pressure and what lessons they hold for safeguarding human dignity during civil unrest.