Published on 12, July, 2020
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/19/hans-asperger-aided-and-supported-nazi-programme-study-says
I have to say that since I first read Steve Silbermann's book 'Neurotribes' about a year plus ago, I have been wondering if it was entirely the case that Asperger tried to keep his subjects away from the Nazi euthanasia programme. This morning's headline is thus no great surprise. And as Sachs-Cohen and Silbermann have already indicated their belief in the emerging facts, I'm not about to get too emotive about it. Regardless of DSM-5, my diagnostician decided it was still a valid term for an older adult who had lived for some years with some knowledge of that label. And I'm not about to avoid that label, myself. I suppose I might as well be the first person on the forum to ask what happens next, because I would guess that not everyone will be quite so philosophical about it as me. I have to admit, I have never really taken very kindly to 'aspie'. I find it a bit patronising; but I'm now wondering if some of that discomfort is down to the fact that I have sort of half expected that the hero thing was not quite the full story. And Kanner, for all his input, wasn't beyond criticism either.
''Carol Povey, director at the National Autistic Society in the UK’s Centre for Autism, said: “We expect these findings to spark a big conversation among autistic people and their family members, particularly those who identify with the term ‘Asperger’. Obviously no one with a diagnosis of Asperger syndrome should feel in any way tainted by this very troubling history.”
I have read quite a lot of the journal article, and there really is no more than speculation about Asperger's political inclinations. The main argument for Asperger being sympathetic to the prevailing regime at the time (the National Socialist party) seems to be that his writings and speeches gained approval from certain prominent figures in that regime. The author of the paper says that Asperger had an "ambivalent" attitude toward the ideology of the National Socialist party. He was apparently a member of a Catholic organisation which had its own ideas about eugenics but was opposed to the overall ideals of the National Socialist party. In 1945, after the war had ended, Asperger was the only one among his colleagues who wasn't fired for being a member of that party, so obviously they had some information available back then to support the conclusion that he wasn't working for the party.
The argument is also made that Asperger's early career benefitted from the fact that his Jewish colleagues lost their jobs. Certainly, he was an ambitious person and wanted to build his career, but there is no evidence that he had anything to do with the misfortune his Jewish colleagues suffered, and, after all, there wasn't really anything he could do, given that he held a very junior position when it happened. I suppose one could say that he should have resigned in protest, but how many people would really do that, and what good would it have done? He had no idea how long the political situation would last, and it's all nice and good for us to be looking back with 20/20 hindsight saying what he should and shouldn't have done. The political climate of the time was his reality, and he wanted to conduct his research within that framework. He did everything he could to keep the National Socialist party off his back while rejecting the inhuman aspects of the regime.
There is evidence that Asperger treated his Jewish patients the same as any of his other patients, and he tried to advocate for them as much as he could. He also used his language to try to protect children with mental incapacities from forced sterilisation, while seeming, with the wording he used, to fall in line with the ideology of the National Socialist party (the latter of which he is now being criticised for).
Something Asperger is criticised for in the paper is his voluntary participation in a program to screen residents of a children's home to select those suitable for being euthanised. The paper says that 35 out of 200 children were selected for euthanasia. There is no detail of the specifics of Asperger's participation in that program, but it is very clear that he was only one of several people involved in the screening. It could very well be that more of the children would have been selected if Asperger had not been involved. Just because he was involved in this horrific exercise does not mean that he agreed with it, so I think it is unfair to make assumptions without all the details.
We have to remember that the political climate of the time was very dangerous, and also that it was nearly a century ago. Some of the language used by Asperger himself was in line with the language typically used at the time, and that type of language would be considered quite unpalatable to people of today, even if there was no specifically racist or otherwise negative attitude behind it. He is said to have used harsher language than others about some of his patients, but he also clearly opposed having them classified with a genetic condition which would result in forced sterilisation or worse.
Pretty much anyone who lived in that part of the world in that time and came out of it unscathed could be accused of all sorts of things, but how far would most "good" people go against a very dangerous political regime? Think about what is happeneing in the world today. There are still dictators and otherwise really nasty people in political office now, and why is that allowed to happen? Because people who know that what's happening is wrong are afraid to lose their power, their careers, their political credibility, or even their lives. That fear was a very real part of everyday life back then as well.
I think we should be very careful before we condemn a person who is no longer around, because he has no way to defend himself against the accusations. I'm not saying that he definitely was or wasn't a sympathiser, and I have no personal reason for wanting it to be one way or the other, but I don't think a reliable conclusion can be drawn from the available evidence. I especially think that we as Aspies don't need anything more for others to think we should feel ashamed about, just because someone happened to conduct research on our condition in the time and place that he did.
Well I believe that Hans Asperger did co-operate with the *** otherwise he would not have been allowed to continue with his clinic. He should have after Hitler marched in to Austria try to escape to the USA or the UK and continue his work there. If he were alive nothing he would say would be very convincing. At the Nuremburg trials they went by documents not very much what the defendants said. No we should not feel ashamed that it would be better not to use the term. I might try and contact the NAS about it as I do not that the powers that be read the E Mails.
I don't know if you still care, because you said this about 5 years ago, but he might not have been able to. His co-workers openly supported the *** and it's a very difficult decision to just pick up and leave, Especially because he had patients to take care of. Not to mention if he got caught, he might have faced a horrible outcome, himself.
If Hans Asperger really did co-operate with the ***, then:
1. Why did he not appear at the Nuremberg Trials?
2. Why was he not hunted down by Mossad for assassination like some *** who fled to South America after WW2?
His Wikipedia page has been updated recently and now he is listed under the category of Austrian ***.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Asperger
Many references are lifted from the mainstream media which is not a reliable source of information.
Do any officials from the NAS update this Wikipedia page?