Asperger Nazi eugenics program

[Moogwizard]

Article if anybody is interested-

New evidence ties Hans Asperger to Nazi eugenics program

The Austrian doctor Hans Asperger cooperated extensively with the Nazi regime and may have sent dozens of children to their deaths.

www.spectrumnews.org

Also a very good book I must warn some parts maybe hard for one to read .

 

[Mr. Stevens]

^ Thank you. I find it interesting that Autistic people never talk about the Holocaust as part of our legacy. They discuss Asperger and his role in it, but the Holocaust is never mentioned in all our human rights campaigns.

 

[Moogwizard]

@Mr. Stevens

You’re welcome . I agree

 

[SusanLR]

At the very least, others say, keeping the name may help us remember the lessons of this dark past.

Agree with this quote from the article.
History happened. No need to re-write it.

 

[Moogwizard]

At the very least, others say, keeping the name may help us remember the lessons of this dark past.

Agree with this quote from the article.
History happened. No need to re-write it.

I suspect that is only important if people want to learn about the past and come to terms with it .

If not I suppose the lesson is lost .

 

[Hypnalis]

I have a question about the actual content of the book.
This is because I've looked a couple of times (though not too hard) for information about Asperger, and didn't find anything "interesting". I'm not a fan of "guilt by opportunity", nor of marketing books by using fake scandals

Is there any actual evidence of bad behavior (see below) by Asperger in it?

Note that "cooperating with the Government of your native country" and "cooperating with the Nazis" were exactly the same thing in Nazi Austria.

So records that show someone worked in a healthcare system that practiced eugenics due to Government policy actually apply to every single healthcare worker in Austria at the time.

On the other hand, there were more opportunities for "Nazi-style" bad behavior at that time than before or after.
But opportunity isn't evidence, and "means, motive, opportunity" is a technique for criminal investigations, not for conviction in a court of law.


Note: I understand the nature and scope of "Nazi-style bad behavior" better than most here. But it's common knowledge, and I'm not going to turn this post into a horror story. If you want details, there's plenty of material in wikipedia.

 

[Moogwizard]

I have a question about the actual content of the book.
This is because I've looked a couple of times (though not too hard) for information about Asperger, and didn't find anything "interesting". I'm not a fan of "guilt by opportunity", nor of marketing books by using fake scandals

There is nothing in the book that pertains to scandals . Everything that is written is pertaining to actual documents found @ Spiegelgrund. The information in this book is a more in depth study of Asperger and the origins of autism diagnosis in Vienna. Records within are from Aspergers own lectures,documents and family interviews .Also his own profiles and medical records of patients.
There are also letters written by autistic children to family members from Spiegelgrund

If don’t find it interesting why reply to this thread ?

Is there any actual evidence of bad behavior (see below) by Asperger in it?

Yes that is what the book is about It also depends on what your definition of bad behavior is ?If killing autistic children is bad consider it bad behavior .

Note that "cooperating with the Government of your native country" and "cooperating with the Nazis" were exactly the same thing in Nazi Austria.

Who is debating that ?

So records that show someone worked in a healthcare system that practiced eugenics due to Government policy actually apply to every single healthcare worker in Austria at the time.

That is not what the book is about.It does include information by the “Doctors” which is derived from their studies of autistic children which was fundamental in shaping the policy at the the time .

On the other hand, there were more opportunities for "Nazi-style" bad behavior at that time than before or after.
But opportunity isn't evidence, and "means, motive, opportunity" is a technique for criminal investigations, not for conviction in a court of law.

Nobody is putting Asperger on trial . He died October 21 1980

Note: I understand the nature and scope of "Nazi-style bad behavior" better than most here. But it's common knowledge, and I'm not going to turn this post into a horror story. If you want details, there's plenty of material in wikipedia.

The actions @Spiegelgrund is not common knowledge. Which is why the book is a historical study of such . I don’t need Wikipedia in this regard , I read the book . It has 95% more information compared to Wikipedia.

 

[Hypnalis]

@Moogwizard

The first two sentences at the link you posted (i.e. not your text) are:
"The Austrian doctor Hans Asperger cooperated extensively with the Nazi regime and may have sent dozens of children to their deaths."
Horrific details of his involvement were revealed yesterday in the journal Molecular Autism and will be detailed in a forthcoming book called “Asperger’s Children: The Origins of Autism in Nazi Vienna.”

This is a good example of a "scandal" spin. if it's not demonstrably accurate, it's a deliberate lie by the hack that wrote that article.

Note that I'm not claiming you're part of that process. You just posted a link - the text was included by the forum software. (you're automatically "off the hook" via the same argument I used above

So my question still stands:
The information about that link strongly indicated the book is not worth reading. It makes no sense to read it in order to test whether the fault lies with the hack who wrote that article, or with the book.
But I'm open to input from someone who's read it.

Note that I wouldn't read a book about Am Spiegelgrund clinic. Looking at those times in finer and finer detail might be interesting for historians, but there are no new lessons there.

.
.
BTW -. please don't "fisk" my posts (that slice and dice" technique).
They are written to be processed as a whole, and can't be usefully responded to one sentence at a time.

 

[Moogwizard]

@Hypnalis

You specified questions about the book. Not the article.


I did read the book .

 

[Crossbreed]

This is a back-and-forth issue in autism circles. Dr. Tony Attwood, an autism expert in Australia, has come out in defense of Asperger's wartime record.

*Trigger Warning!*: Who was Hans Asperger?

Whenever Aspergers comes up, a common response among Autistic people is to claim that Hans Asperger was an evil Nazi eugenic scientist and demand that people stop identifying as Aspies; @Aspie_With_Attitude did a video on this. Needless to say this kind of treatment really turns me off from any...

www.autismforums.com

 

[Hypnalis]

@Moogwizard

The post starts:
"I have a question about the actual content of the book."

There is exactly one question in that post.
"Is there any actual evidence of bad behavior (see below) by Asperger in it?"

I suggest we just let this go: we're both Aspies, so we've both had plenty of practice with small misunderstandings

 

[Rodafina]

Note: I understand the nature and scope of "Nazi-style bad behavior" better than most here.

What is your evidence that this is true? What makes you think you know more about this than “most here.”

 

[Moogwizard]

Note: The author of the book

Edith Sheffer ,she is a Historian. And also has an autistic child .

 

[Hypnalis]

@Rodafina

Your question is far out of scope.

I wrote the paragraph from which that text was quoted in the hope of avoiding a range of pointless and potentially unpleasant discussions about those times. As such it's been a failure, but it was never very important.

I will not, under any circumstances, participate in discussions regarding details of such things in this forum.

The only answer I'll provide:
"Better than most" is a claim to 51% or more. That's exactly what I intended to say.
If I'd wanted to say e.g. "some", 60%, 95% or whatever ("some" being a less precise claim, the numbers more precise) I'd have done so.
Obviously none of them can possibility be quantified, so they are implicitly a "best effort" guesstimate.

 

[Rodafina]

@Rodafina

Your question is far out of scope.

I wrote the paragraph from which that text was quoted in the hope of avoiding a range of pointless and potentially unpleasant discussions about those times. As such it's been a failure, but it was never very important.

I will not, under any circumstances, participate in discussions regarding details of such things in this forum.

The only answer I'll provide:
"Better than most" is a claim to 51% or more. That's exactly what I intended to say.
If I'd wanted to say e.g. "some", 60%, 95% or whatever ("some" being a less precise claim, the numbers more precise) I'd have done so.
Obviously none of them can possibility be quantified, so they are implicitly a "best effort" guesstimate.

I just noticed that it is your habit to suggest that you know more than anyone else on several different topics without qualifying that in anyway. As if we cannot question what you say. So I was just wondering if you had any evidence to support that.

 

[Forest Cat]

@Rodafina

Your question is far out of scope.

I wrote the paragraph from which that text was quoted in the hope of avoiding a range of pointless and potentially unpleasant discussions about those times. As such it's been a failure, but it was never very important.

I will not, under any circumstances, participate in discussions regarding details of such things in this forum.

The only answer I'll provide:
"Better than most" is a claim to 51% or more. That's exactly what I intended to say.
If I'd wanted to say e.g. "some", 60%, 95% or whatever ("some" being a less precise claim, the numbers more precise) I'd have done so.
Obviously none of them can possibility be quantified, so they are implicitly a "best effort" guesstimate.

I think people just get curious when you write that you understand the nature and scope of "Nazi-style bad behavior" better than most here. I also wonder what that means, since WW2 and nazis is such a big part of history that we teach kids about it and people have read about it for 70 years. So people wonder why you understand better or more. Especially since you refuse to explain why. It's unusual so it makes people curious.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

Read the book.

It would seem that a few would rather "stir up the pot" before actually reading it. History, one may think "it is what it is", but it might not be. There are the concrete facts, however, there are the perceptions of those facts that can be significantly influenced by cognitive biases that can twist and morph those facts into some sort of "narrative". As such, it may be helpful to not only read this book, but others on the same topic.

We have to be very careful with judging a person's actions during the Third Reich based upon our cultural value systems in 2023, especially if we happen to live in a "free society". In authoritarian societies, especially when it is held in place by a military, as a citizen, you are not given personal choice when you're literally under the threat of death. Authoritarian regimes are not about freedom of choice. When you are under that sort of stress and fear, you comply, you lie, or you die.

How Hans Asperger was able to navigate all of that is an interesting story, for sure.

I am vehemently against "cancel culture". People should know about people in history, the good, the bad, and the ugly, but we have to judge them based upon their circumstances, not ours.

 

[Hypnalis]

@Rodafina @Forest Cat

You're engaging on something that has no relevance to the topic.

A couple of purely rhetorical questions for you:
* Where are you trying to go with this?
* Why would it interest me?

 

[Raggamuffin]

I remember in history in school it was all about scrutinising material. Primary sources convey first-hand experience of the event or time period you're studying. Secondary sources convey the experiences of others, or “second-hand” information; they often synthesize a collection of primary sources. But of course, secondary source will leave it open to the potential bias of the author in question.

I guess, that unless you could read first hand German archive documentation about what he did and didn't do - you might get a clearer picture. Even then, you could argue that was he 100% honest in said documentation? As Hypnalis advised - he was complying with the rules/regulations of the time. A product of his time so to speak. Now, this obvious calls into question morality - and then you have to ask would that increase the likelihood that some documentation might not be 100% accurate, if you were partaking in events which made you question your own morals? Who knows.

Of course, this is all just conjecture. But I am reminded of the importance of primary and secondary source material. The book mentioned above was written 75 years after the events transpired.

Ed

 

[Rodafina]

A couple of purely rhetorical questions for you:

It seems as though you prefer to say things instead of hear other people’s input.

Even though they are rhetorical, you posted them in a public forum, so I will answer them.

* Where are you trying to go with this?

I am not trying to go anywhere. I am simply curious what makes you think you know more than most forum members on this topic.

* Why would it interest me?

Because it is a question posed directly to you, about you.