Was Hans Asperger Complicit in the Nazi Child Euthanasia by Participating in the Gugging Commission?
An Assessment
Abstract
Abstract:Objective: In 2018, Herwig Czech (2018, 2020) and Edith Sheffer (2018) accused Hans Asperger of complicity in the Nazi child euthanasia program also because of his participation in the Gugging Commission. Method: We reviewed all documents related to the Commission to clarify Asperger’s role. Results: The Commission consisted of officials from Vienna and Lower Danube and had the primary task of determining which children admitted to Gugging could attend an auxiliary school. As part of the investigations, a group of children was also diagnosed as incapable of learning and developing normally based on a list prepared by Gugging’s Director. According to two documents prepared for the Commission, these children were to be assigned to the “Aktion Jekelius”. The two authors imply that “Aktion Jekelius” was a cover term for the murder of these children and was known as such. However, this designation was communicated only within the Reich Governor’s Office in Lower Danube. Conclusion: According to the available documents, there is no indication that Hans Asperger, as a member of the Vienna delegation, knew about “Aktion Jekelius” and its hidden murderous intentions. He therefore had no reason to refuse to participate in the Commission. Analysis of the subsequent transfers of children to Spiegelgrund showed no direct connection with the Commission’s activities.
Zusammenfassung:Fragestellung: 2018 warfen Herwig Czech (2018, 2020) und Edith Sheffer (2018) Asperger wegen seiner Teilnahme an der Gugging Kommission eine Komplizenschaft beim NS-Kindereuthanasieprogramm vor. Methode: Wir überprüften alle in Zusammenhang mit der Kommission stehenden Dokumente, um die Rolle Aspergers darin aufzuklären. Ergebnisse: Die aus Beamten von Wien und Niederdonau gemischt zusammengesetzte Kommission hatte primär die Aufgabe festzustellen, welche in Gugging aufgenommenen Kinder fähig wären, eine Hilfsschule zu besuchen. Im Rahmen der Untersuchungen wurde auf Grund einer vom Direktor von Gugging vorbereiteten Liste auch eine Gruppe von Kindern als lern- und förderunfähig diagnostiziert. Diese sollten entsprechend zweier Dokumente zur Vorbereitung der Kommission der „Aktion Jekelius“ zugeführt werden. Beide Autoren implizieren, der Ausdruck sei ein Tarnausdruck für die Ermordung der Kinder und wäre als solcher allgemein bekannt gewesen. Der Ausdruck meinte aber lediglich den Transfer der Kinder und wurde ausschließlich im Bereich der Reichsstatthalterei Niederdonau verwendet. Schlussfolgerung: Nach den vorliegenden Unterlagen gab es keinen Hinweis darauf, dass Hans Asperger als Mitglied der Wiener Delegation von der „Aktion Jekelius“ und deren versteckten mörderischen Absichten wusste. Er hatte daher keinen Grund, die Teilnahme an der Kommission zu verweigern. Die Analyse der darauffolgenden Überweisungen von Kindern an den Spiegelgrund zeigte keinerlei direkten Zusammenhang mit der Tätigkeit der Kommission.
Introduction
In their respective papers, Herwig Czech (2018, 2020) and Edith Sheffer (2018)1 accuse Hans Asperger of collaborating with a Nazi child euthanasia program. Their reasoning relies on Asperger’s recommendation to transfer two disabled children to Spiegelgrund and his participation in a Commission at the Heil- und Pflegeanstalt Gugging (Gugging), which, in their opinion, resulted in the transfer of children to the Fürsorgeanstalt “Am Spiegelgrund” (hereinafter Spiegelgrund), where the children were subsequently murdered. They imply that Asperger had prior knowledge of this intention. The publications were met with worldwide media attention (Waldhauser et al., 2020) and is the subject of an ongoing controversy (Falk, 2020; Lechner C. et al., 2020; Schepker et al., 2023; Tatzer et al., 2023). This paper deals exclusively with the allegations relating to Asperger´s participation in the Gugging Commission. The accusation is based largely on the mention of “Aktion Jekelius” that appears twice in documents written in preparation for the Commission’s meeting (see Table 1 and Figure 1).
The Historical and Administrative Background
The Gugging Sanatorium and Nursing Home (Heil- und Pfegeanstalt Gugging)
Gugging was a large psychiatric hospital located in Klosterneuburg in Lower Austria which included a special children’s ward. The founding of “Greater Vienna” by the NS Administration on 15 October 1938 incorporated 97 smaller communities adjacent to Vienna into the municipal area of Vienna2. Among them was Klosterneuburg. As a result, two administrative bodies were now responsible for the institution: The Reich Governor’s Office in Lower Danube was the authority responsible for managing the institution, and the Reich Governor’s Office in Vienna was the supervisory body – in this specific case, it served as the School Inspectorate.
Youth Welfare Institution of the City of Vienna “Am Spiegelgrund” (Jugendfürsorgeanstalt der Stadt Wien “Am Spiegelgrund”)
Spiegelgrund was established in July 1940 on the premises of a large psychiatric hospital in Vienna (Heil- und Pflegeanstalt Steinhof). The transfer and murder of approximately 3,000 patients in Hartheim as part of Action T4 created space for the new institution. The Infant and Small Children Department (Säuglings- und Kleinkinderabteilung) was established in one of the nine pavilions of this institution (WStL 1) (Czech, 2014; Malina, 2007; Neugebauer, 1996). From its beginning, this department was involved in the Child Euthanasia Program and carried out the orders of the Reich Committee. This meant that disabled children were first examined there, and those found “unworthy to live” were then reported to the Reich Committee for the Registration of Severe Genetic and Hereditary Disorders (Reichsausschuß zur wissenschaftlichen Erfassung von erb- und anlagebedingten schweren Leiden, hereinafter Reich Committee)3 in Berlin. If the Reich Committee confirmed the findings, the children were put to death (Dahl, 2004).
In Vienna, the entire program was treated with the highest level of secrecy, partly because of the local outrage at and resistance by relatives against the euthanasia of disabled inpatients (“Aktion T4”)4. At the beginning of the Child Euthanasia Program, probably only a dozen individuals5 were informed, involved, and bound by personal oaths (Dahl, 2000, 2004, pp. 39–44) (see also Ertl, 2012: trial questioning of Jekelius [DÖW WN 514019] and Katschenka [DÖW – WN 19542/1]; Tatzer et al., 2023)
Method
For this article, we consulted all available documents on the Gugging Commission and “Aktion Jekelius” and examined why and how the Commission came into being and how it acted as well as which authorities and persons were involved in this matter. In the following, rather than providing a continuous account, we present and interpret the documents that provide information about the Commission of 16 February 1942 and the “Aktion Jekelius.” By carefully compiling these documents, which can be regarded as circumstantial evidence (Fangerau, 2020), we strove to provide a historical reconstruction of the events. We also investigated the fate of the children involved.
Results
Documents Concerning the “Aktion Jekelius” and the Establishment of the Gugging Commission
The files of the Reich Governor’s Office of Lower Danube include a letter from Dr. Schicker, the Director of Gugging, dated 30 October 1941, addressed to the supervising administration at the Reich Governor’s Office in Lower Danube Department III b-36. In the letter, Dr. Schicker reports “that in the foreseeable future [he] must follow an order to transfer feeble-minded children from the children’s pavilion in Gugging to Spiegelgrund.” Further transfer orders were forthcoming, and he did not know the “regulations concerning the daily cost of board at Spiegelgrund” (NÖLA 1, see also EMS 1 and EMS 2.). The basis for this report was a request by Dr. Jekelius, the Head of Spiegelgrund, dated 23 October 1941, demanding the transfer of 22 patients according to the “Decree of the Reich Minister of the Interior of 18 June 1940”7 “for their assessment” (Figure 1; NÖLA 2). No list bearing the names of these patients could be found.
The subsequent documents on this issue focused on schooling questions at Gugging and organizing the Commission; “Aktion Jekelius” was mentioned only twice:
- •Dr. Axmann5 issued an invitation to a meeting to be held in his office on 20 November 1941, regarding the matter of school-age children admitted to Gugging8 (NÖLA 4). A handwritten note by Dr. Fritz5 on the back of the invitation summarizes the outcome of this meeting: “At the meeting, it was decided that the Vienna School Board would reach an agreement with the Gugging Children’s Institution regarding which children are capable of attending an auxiliary school and [will] be released from the institution. Only those children capable of education within the Children’s Institution will remain in the Gugging Children’s Institution; the remaining children will be transferred to the “Aktion Dr. Jekelius – Vienna, 20 November” (Figure 2; NÖLA 5). It named no addressees. However, Fritz’s superior, Department Head Axmann, must have been aware of “Aktion Jekelius,” because he uses the term “Aktion Dr. Jekelius” again in his file of the facts.
- •In a document of 9 December 1941 (NÖLA 8), Axmann states that the Reich School Law9 was not being fulfilled in Gugging, so he gave the order: “A commission shall examine the children currently in custody for their educational ability.” The children were to be categorized into three groups: 1) Children who were “still capable of further education” [besides school] in a mental institution would remain at Gugging. 2) Children who were “capable of education in an auxiliary school” would be placed in an institution equipped with such a school. 3) Children who were “neither educable in an auxiliary school nor in a mental institution would be sent to Aktion Dr. Jekelius as soon as possible.“
The document also contains the draft of a letter to the School Board (Subsection IIa) of the Reich Governor’s Office in Vienna suggesting setting up a committee to examine the children concerned. Its explicit aim was to identify children who could attend an auxiliary school.
Further documentation deals with information on the procedure concerning school exemption provided by the Vienna City School Board (NÖLA 6), which contains a reference to Asperger10 and a summary of the regulations and the school conditions concerning the children admitted to Gugging (NÖLA 7). Additional correspondence refers only to organizational matters (e. g., the number of children admitted at Gugging: “218 pupils, including those on leave”) by Dr. Schicker (NÖLA 9), the possible date for a board examination, and a proposal of suitable members for the Commission (NÖLA 3,10,11,12, 13). The following members were appointed to the Commission: Dr. Wanecek5, Dr. Machacek5, Dr. Kummert5, and Dr. Schicker for the Reich Governor’s Office in Lower Danube; Dir. Schötta (Auxiliary School Director), Dir. Fritz Bauer (Head of the Department for Auxiliary Schools of the NSLB11 and Auxiliary School Director) for the Reich Governor’s Office in Vienna and Dr. Asperger.
The Activity of the Gugging Commission
The Commission met at Gugging for only one afternoon, on 16 February 1942, during which they carried out the examination “… based on a preassessment summarized in a list by the Director of the institution on 16 February 1942” (NÖLA 13, 14, 15). Of the 210 children listed, the Commission examined 157. Its assessments coincided with those of the Directorate in 133 cases and differed in 24 cases (Table 2). No details about the Commission’s work procedure are known.
Detailed Results Based on the Existing Lists
List I (children of school age incapable of education, development, or employment): 35 (26 males, 9 females). The Commission examined them and found that “no significant educational success will be achieved under any circumstances.” No names are given.
List II (children of school age but unable to attend auxiliary school, yet still eligible for support in the institution): 50 (22 males, 28 females). “Detailed examinations” revealed that 18 of these children (11 males, 7 females) were capable of attending auxiliary school (6 for a trial period); 2 others were bedridden, which is why they were to remain in the institution12. The 18 children capable of attending an auxiliary school are listed by name.
List III and List IIIa (children of school age but “capable of auxiliary schooling, whose placement in the institution resulted from a complicating condition – epilepsy, paralysis, difficult to educate, etc.)”: 37. 12 children (List IIIa: 9 males, 3 females) “who were no longer eligible for school enrollment because of their advanced age” (i. e., they had a maximum of 2 years of compulsory schooling left) are listed by name.
Of the remaining 25 children (List III), the examination confirmed that 19 (named) children were eligible for auxiliary school education (14 males, 5 females). No information is available concerning the remaining 6 children in List III.
List IV (children of school age, incapable of education but “able to learn” now or later): 35 (23 males, 12 females). The examination confirmed that none of these children were eligible for auxiliary school.
The Commission did not examine List V (children not yet of school age): 17 (12 males, 5 females) and List VI (children no longer of school age): 36 (15 males, 21 females) (NÖLA 15).
In summary, the Gugging Commission named 49 children eligible for auxiliary schooling, 12 more than the 37 (List III and IIIa) the Gugging Directorate had originally proposed.
The report mentioned above, together with two further documents – a note (NÖLA 14) and a letter from Dr. Axmann to the Gugging administration (NÖLA 16) – summarize the outcome of the Commission’ work. It includes the order to contact the school authorities in Vienna to grant exemptions to all children incapable of auxiliary education. None of these three documents contained any references to “Aktion Jekelius.” See the electronic supplementary material (ESM 1) regarding the further fate of the children.
On 15 September 1942, the office of the Reich Governor, Department III b – Axmann (Langer, 2008; NÖLA 22), inquired regarding the circumstances under which Gugging could take in children corresponding to the Reich decree of 18 August 1939. Because of the Directorate’s counterarguments (NÖLA 23), the final determination was that Spiegelgrund should also be responsible for these children from Lower Danube by 6 December 1942 (NÖLA 24).
The names of children in List I (uneducable children) are unknown, so we cannot ascertain what happened to them. Nevertheless, we can assume that Schicker included some of those murdered in List I. The medical reports of the children to be transferred to Spiegelgrund contain no reference to the Commission. Of the 45 children transferred after the Commission’s visit in 1942, 15 were undoubtedly not examined by the Commission: Three were admitted after the Commission’s visit, nine were of preschool age, and three were of postschool age. Conversely, the list of transfers on 15 July 1942 included a boy named Divoky, who was considered suitable for auxiliary schooling by the Commission and should have remained in the institution because he was bedridden (for details, see ESM 1).
Discussion
Asperger’s role in this matter was raised only by Czech (2014, 2018, 2020) and Sheffer (2018). No further historical or personal statements (especially by Asperger himself) exist. Consequently, any verification or rejection of their accusations can be achieved only by careful research, review, and interpretation of the existing documents related to the subject.
Reich School Law and the “Aktion Jekelius”
By the decree of 25 July 1938, the German Reich School Law7 also became valid for Austria (Ostgau). In § 6, this law made schooling compulsory for mentally and physically handicapped children as well. Through an inquiry about the children in Gugging, including the question of their ability to attend school, the Reich Governor’s Office in Lower Danube should have known that Gugging did not fulfill this requirement (Danbauer, 2012). An amendment to the law on 16 May 1941 gave the circumstance new actuality because now the legal guardians (and, thus, the Gugging administration) were made responsible for ensuring that the children attended the appropriate school. A fine of 150 RM was threatened in cases of violation.
Because of the chronological correlation, it seems likely that the head of the department, Dr Axman, used Schicker’s report as a means of simultaneously disposing of two problems he had with Gugging: the illegal school situation and Jekelius’s current request, which explicitly referred to the regulations of the Reich Committee.
Only 2 weeks after Axman got knowledge of Jekelius’s demand to transfer 22 children, he called for a meeting about the problem of the unschooled children. On the back of the invitation, we find the handwritten note from Dr. Fritz (Figure 2) concerning the outcome of the meeting, as quoted above. This is how the term “Aktion Jekelius” found its way into the internal communications of the Reich Governor’s Office in Lower Danube.
Knowledge About the “Aktion Jekelius” and the Commission’s Mandate
In his paper, Czech (2018) states, “This formulation13 implies that the recipients of the document would know who Dr. Jekelius was and that the children found ‘uneducable’ by the committee should be killed.” However, Czech (2018) fails to point out the background of this term. In his articles (2018, 2020), Czech does not name the author (Axman), the specific nature of the letter (file note for the Reichstatthalterei Niederdonau), or the reason why Jekelius demanded the transfer (examination of the children). Of course, apart from the documents we examined, it cannot be ruled out that the persons concerned were aware of the murderous operation (Czech 2020, FN 34). But not even Czech claims that Asperger was a recipient of this letter.
Two departments of the Reich Governor’s Office in Lower Danube and one department of the Reich Governor’s Office in Vienna were involved in implementing the Gugging Commission. A total of 17 persons, including the members of the Commission, are mentioned in the documents. The term “Aktion Jekelius” appears twice in the documents of the Reich Governor’s Office in Lower Danube concerning the Commission. The two departments of the Reich Governor’s Office in Lower Danube involved in the affair (see Figure 3) were Department II (Education, etc.), headed by Kampas, and Department III (People’s Care), headed by Eisenmenger.
The term “Aktion Jekelius” or “Aktion Dr. Jekelius” is found only on memos for internal use, and certain knowledge of these memos can be proven only for four persons: Dr. Axmann, Dr. Fritz, Dr. Kummert, and Dr. Wanecek. Dr. Fritz (Department III), who was responsible for Gugging within the Governor´s Office of Lower Danube, was, of course, required to report to his department Head, Dr. Axmann, who obviously decided independently in this matter. The only information provided to his department Head, Eisenmenger, whose deputy he was, appears in the information about the invitation to the first meeting. Dr. Wanecek (Department II) in turn was obliged to report to his department Head, Dr. Kampas, who decided on the educational aspects of the matter. Kampas signed the official report of the Commission, including the resulting consequences. But the extent to which Wanecek informed him by about the intentions of the “Action Jekelius” is not documented.
For these reasons, “Aktion Jekelius” cannot be regarded as a general code for the murder of the children. Furthermore, except in the two file notes of the Governor’s Office of Lower Danube, it is not mentioned, and it can only be understood as dealing with two problems at hand: school eligibility and Jekelius’s request to transfer children from Gugging. Fritz, who was the main person responsible for solving these two problems, created the term.
Our research shows no indication of communication about this occurring at all with the governor’s office in Vienna. We thus think it is unlikely that Asperger was aware of “Aktion Jekelius.“
Asperger’s Role and the Other Members of the Commission
The responsibility of the Governor’s Office of Vienna for school matters meant that the authorities of the Governor’s Office of Lower Danube had to involve them in this matter. An agreement was reached to form a joint commission to check which children in Gugging were eligible for auxiliary schooling. Dr. Hobinka, the Head of the Reich Governor’s Office in Vienna Department IIa (responsible for special and auxiliary schools and school doctors [Anonymous]) nominated Asperger to the Commission.
Czech (2018) attributed the role of the Commission’s mastermind to Asperger and accused him of not refusing to participate in the Commission. Even though Czech later (2020, p. 171) softens this accusation and confirms Asperger’s “limited scope for action”, two pages later, he reiterates his accusation that Asperger deliberately sent children to their deaths (Czech, 2020, p. 173).
Asperger was one of seven members. In his paper, Czech counted only two physicians within the Commission and overlooked the fact that the “auxiliary school physician Machacek” (Figure 3) was a third doctor and not a lawyer, as he cited (Czech, 2020). Another member was Dr. Ottokar Wanecek (1891–1978), whom Czech also identified as a lawyer but who was an expert in education for the blind. Wanecek had been appointed to the School Board of Lower Austria in 1934, long before the Nazis took over power (Radl, 1961).
The Commission worked using a list compiled by Dr. Schicker, who grouped the 210 children according to their degrees of disability and age. The Commission presumably obtained Schicker’s list only upon arrival at Gugging, and they concentrated mainly on identifying those children capable of attending auxiliary school. The fact that the assessment of 145 children took place in a single afternoon also supports this assumption. In addition, the Commission was pressed for time, as the report documents (NÖLA 15). Ultimately, a large part of the examinations by the Commission resulted in confirming the assessments made by the Gugging Directorate – except for corrections in favor of auxiliary schooling for 18 children and against another 6. This significantly improved the chances of these 18 children having a better future.
The report was written by the order of Kampas on behalf of the Reich Governor’s Office in Lower Danube. Asperger did not have any function in the reporting, nor did he report the children to the Vienna Health Office, as Czech (2020) claims.
The medical reports of the children transferred to Spiegelgrund in 1942 describe all of them as severely handicapped. It is obvious that in these cases (uneducable children), even without a detailed examination, the Commission served merely as an alibi since it had no choice but to approve Schicker’s classification.14 Consequently, Asperger had to agree to this diagnosis to avoid risking his professional credibility. Moreover, an analysis of the fate of the children transferred to Spiegelgrund showed no connection to the Commission’s activity (see ESM 1). The invitation to the basic meeting was sent out on 17 November 1941, and further issues were discussed until shortly before the Commission’s meeting on 16 February 1942. The report was drawn up shortly afterward. However, groups of children were transferred to Spiegelgrund only from 25 May to 7 October 1942. The first death was reported on 27 July 1942, the last on 26 May 194315; the fate of 3 children is unknown.
Whether Asperger used his professional credibility to protect other, less obviously affected children cannot be judged from the documents available to this study. In this respect, we refer to the recent publications by Falk (2020) as well as to earlier articles by Silberman (2015), Frith (1991), Schirmer (2002), and Gröger (2003, 2015).
Conclusion
Czech’s (2018) statement that “[in] this case, it seems that Asperger was a well-functioning cog in a deadly machine” requires further specific evidence if we are to understand it as a description of intentional behavior. Based on the documents available to us, we found no indications that Asperger knew about the “Aktion Jekelius” and its hidden agenda. Thus, he could raise no ethical objections to being a member of the Commission.
Electronic Supplementary Material
The electronic supplementary material (ESM) is available with the online version of the article at https://doi.org/10.1024/1422-4917/a001001
- ESM 2. What did those involved in “Aktion Jekelius” know about Spiegelgrund? (Text)
Our special thanks go to the staff of the Lower Austrian Provincial Archives for enabling an uncomplicated access to the original files. We particularly thank Mag.a Martina Rödl and Dr. Stefan Eminger of the Lower Austrian Provincial Archives as well as the entire staff of the Vienna City and Provincial Archives, in particular Dr. Susanne Fritsch-Rübsamen.
References
Anonymous . (1942). Amtskalender für den Reichsgau Niederdonau, 1. Jahrgang [Official directory for the Reichsgau Niederdonau,. 1st year]. St. Pöltner Zeitungsverlag Ges.m.b.H. und Kurt Gruber Verlag Wirtschaft-Recht- Dresden. Lesesaal des NÖ Landesarchivs CA.Anonymous . (2024). Wien Geschichte WIKI [Vienna History WIKI]. Behörde des Reichsstatthalter. Retrieved 17 March 2024, from https://www.geschichtewiki.wien.gv.at/Beh%C3%B6rde_des_Reichsstatthalters(2009). Die „Euthanasie” an Kindern während des Nationalsozialismus in den zwei Hamburger Kinderfachabteilungen [The “euthanasia” of children during National Socialism in the two specialized children‘s wards in Hamburg]. (Doctoral dissertation, Medical Faculty of the University of Hamburg. Retrieved 17 March 2024 from http://ediss.sub.uni-hamburg.de/volltexte/2010/4578/pdf/Kindereuthanasie_Hamburg.pdf
(2014). Der Spiegelgrund-Komplex: Kinderheilkunde, Heilpädagogik, Psychiatrie und Jugendfürsorge im Nationalsozialismus [The Spiegelgrund Complex: Pediatrics, Therapeutic Pedagogy, Psychiatry and Youth Welfare under National Socialism]. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaften, 25(1–2), S194.
(2018). Hans Asperger, National Socialism, and “race hygiene” in Nazi-era Vienna. Molecular Autism, 9, 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-018-0208-6
(2020). Hans Asperger und der Nationalsozialismus: Konturen einer Kontroverse [Hans Asperger and National Socialism: contours of a controversy]. Monatsschrift für Kinderheilkunde, 168, 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00112-020-00947-3
(2012). Die Heil- und Pflegeanstalt Gugging während der NS-Zeit [The Gugging sanatorium and nursing home during the Nazi era]. (Diploma dissertation, University of Vienna). Retrieved 17 March 2024 from http://othes.univie.ac.at/17933/1/2012-01-20_9503724.pdf
(2000).
Die Tötung behinderter Kinder in der Anstalt „Am Spiegelgrund“ 1940 bis 1945 [The killing of disabled children in the “Am Spiegelgrund” institution 1940 to 1945] . In G. Eberhard & W. Neubauer (Eds.), Euthanasie in Wien (pp. 75–92). Böhlau.(2004). Endstation Spiegelgrund: Die Tötung behinderter Kinder während des Nationalsozialismus am Beispiel der Kinderfachabteilung in Wien: 1940 bis 1945 [Spiegelgrund terminus: The killing of disabled children during National Socialism using the example of the specialized children‘s ward in Vienna: 1940 to 1945]. (pp. 34–35, 137–141). Erasmus. Retrieved 17 March 2024 from http://gedenkstaettesteinhof.at/sites/default/files/Volltextarchiv/Die-Toetung-behinderter-Kinder.pdf
DÖW – WN 51401 – Verhörprotokoll Erwin Jekelius [WN 51401 – Interrogation protocol Erwin Jekelius]. 9 July 1948.DÖW – WN 19542/1– Vernehmungsprotokoll der Beschuldigten Anna Katschenka vom [WN 19542/1- Interrogation protocol of the accused Anna Katschenka]. 24 July 1948.(2012). NS-Euthanasie in Wien. Erwin Jekelius: der Direktor vom „Spiegelgrund“ und seine Beteiligung am NS-Vernichtungsprogramm [Nazi euthanasia in Vienna. Erwin Jekelius: the director of “Spiegelgrund” and his involvement in the Nazi extermination program] (Diploma dissertation, University of Vienna.
(2020). Hans Asperger und der Nationalsozialismus: Zwischen historischer Rekonstruktion und persönlicher Erinnerung [Hans Asperger and National Socialism: Between historical reconstruction and personal memory]. Monatsschrift für Kinderheilkunde, 168, 223–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00112-020-00952-6
(2020). Non-complicit: Revisiting Hans Asperger’s Career in Nazi-era Vienna. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50(7), 2573–2584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-03981-7
(1991).
Asperger and his syndrome . In U. Frith (Ed.), Autism and Asperger syndrome (pp. 1–36). Cambridge University Press.(2003). Das Syndrom des „Autistischen Psychopathen“. Hans Asperger zwischen Pädiatrie, Kinderpsychiatrie und Heilpädagogik [The syndrome of the “autistic psychopath”. Hans Asperger between pediatrics, child psychiatry and therapeutic pedagogy]. Schriftenreihe der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Nervenheilkunde, 14, 199–213.
(2015).
Zur Ideengeschichte der medizinischen Heilpädagogik – Hans Asperger und das Syndrom des „Autistischen Psychopathen“ [The history of ideas in medical therapeutic pedagogy – Hans Asperger and the syndrome of the „autistic psychopath“] . In A. Pollak (Ed.), Auf den Spuren Hans Aspergers fokus Asperger-Syndrom: Gestern, heute, morgen [In the footsteps of Hans Asperger fokus Asperger syndrome: yesterday, today, tomorrow]. (pp. 30–37). Schattauer.(Hrsg). (2020). Hans Asperger und die Heilpädagogik. Monatsschrift Kinderheilkunde, 168 (3).
(2007).
Zur Geschichte des „Spiegelgrunds“ [The history of the “Spiegelgrund] . In E. Berger (Ed.), Verfolgte Kindheit: Kinder und Jugendliche als Opfer der NS-Sozialverwaltung [Persecuted childhood: children and young people as victims of the Nazi social administration]. (p. 159–192). Böhlau.(1996/97). Die Klinik „Am Spiegelgrund“ 1940–1945 – eine Kinderfachabteilung im Rahmen der NS-„Euthanasie“ [The “Am Spiegelgrund” clinic 1940–1945 – a children‘s ward as part of the Nazi “euthanasia” program]. Jahrbuch des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Wien, 52/53, 97S, 99 ff.
NÖLA 1 (Niederösterreichisches Landesarchiv – Lower Austria Provincial Archive) IIIb-3-305/51 1941 D.Z. 4/161-1941: Report of the request by Jekelius.NÖLA 2 : Annex to II b 3 -305/51: request by Jekelius.NÖLA 3 : III b-3-305-15-1941 GZ.: III b-3-305-15-1941: Answer from Subsection III b on requested transferals of children to Spiegelgrund, no signature.NÖLA 4 : III b – 3 – 305/53 1941: Invitation to a first meeting.NÖLA 5 : Back of NÖLA 1 handwritten note by Dr. Fritz after the first meeting mentioning the Aktion Jekelius.NÖLA 6 : III b – 3-305/54 1941: Procedure for school liberation.NÖLA 7 : III b -3-305/59 1941: note of file by Dr. Kampas.NÖLA 8 : No deposit number: facts of the case by Dr. Axmann.NÖLA 9 : III b-3-305/61 1941: Number of children admitted to Gugging.NÖLA 10 : III b-3-305/3 1942: Organization.NÖLA 11 : III b-3-305/4 1942: Organization.NÖLA 12 : Reich´s Governor’s Vienna – Abt IIa-S-10393/41: Proposed date and nomination of the Vienna members of the Commission.NÖLA 13 : Handwritten draft with reference III b-3-305/4-1942: Invitation to departure and postponement to 16.2.NÖLA 14 : Geschäftszahl: IIIb-3-305/5-1942 note to file concerning the result of the Commission.NÖLA 15 : III b-3-305/7 1942: Report by the Commission.NÖLA 16 : Reference number: in relation to IIIb-3- 305/7-1942: Letter to Gugging, instruction for further proceedings.NÖLA 22 : IIIb-3-303/11-1942: Governor’s Office in Lower Danube: File note with draft letter to the Directorate of Gugging.NÖLA 23 : Abt IIIb-3: letter of the Directorate of Gugging to the Governor’s Office in Lower Danube.NÖLA 24 . IIIb-3-303-7 DuABl-Nr. 510: Registration of children with severe congenital conditions and their care of 4 December 1942.(1961). Hofrat Dr. Ottokar Wanecek – 70 Jahre [Court Counsellor Dr. Ottokar Wanecek – 70 years]. Heilpädagogik, 4, 58–59.
(2023). Die Ehrungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie, Psychosomatik und Psychotherapie e. V. (DGKJP) und ihrer Vorgängerorganisationen [The awards of the German Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy (DGKJP) and its predecessor organizations]. Zeitschrift für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie und Psychotherapie, 51, 106–125. https://doi.org/10.1024/1422-4917/a000877
(2002). Autismus und NS-Rassengesetze in Österreich 1938. HansAspergers Verteidigung der ‘autistischen Psychopathen’ gegen die NS-Eugenik [Autism and Nazi racial laws in Austria in 1938: Hans Asperger‘s defense of ‚autistic psychopaths‘ against Nazi eugenics]. Die Neue Sonderschule, 47, 460–464.
(2018). Asperger’s Children: The origins of autism in Nazi Vienna. W. W. Norton and Company.
(2015). NeuroTribes. The legacy of autism and the future of neurodiversity. Avery.
(2020). Hans Asperger und die Heilpädagogik – ein Erfahrungsbericht [Hans Asperger and therapeutic pedagogy – a testimonial]. Monatsschrift für Kinderheilkunde, 168, 24–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00112-020-00950-8
(2023). An assessment of what Hans Asperger knew about child euthanasia in Vienna during the Nazi occupation. Acta Paediatrica, 112(5), 1109–1119. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.16571
WStLA 1 : Dep. VI /4-M-9065/40: Application of the municipal administration of the Reichsgau Vienna, Main Health and Social Welfare Office, to the general representative of the Reich Governor in the municipal administration of the Reichsgau Vienna Regierungspräsident Jung. WStLA, M.Abt. 209.10
1 Sheffer, in this matter, refers only to the statements made by Czech.
5 These were high-ranking Nazi functionaries of the Reichstatthalterei Vienna and the staff of Pavilion 15.
2 See the Verordnungsblatt für den Amtsbereich des Bürgermeisters von Wien of 15 October 1938, http://alex.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/alex?apm=0&aid=lgw&datum=19387004&seite=00000017&zoom=2
10 “For Vienna, as a rule, the opinion of the „Hilfsschularzt“ (doctor for auxiliary school) Dr. Hans Asperger is deemed to be the official medical opinion in the case of mentally inferior children.“ Asperger held this position in addition to his work at the university since 1940.
13 These were to be “delivered to the operation of Dr. Jekelius as soon as possible,” Czech 2018).
14 Assessment by the Author (E. T.).
3 This board, based in Berlin, defined and coordinated both the organization and the implementation of the Child Euthanasia Program throughout the Reich.
4 This murder of psychiatric patients, ordered by Hitler himself, affected thousands of victims at the “Steinhof”. It could not be kept secret and caused unrest and resistance among the population.
9 Reichsschulgesetz of 1938, http://www.verfassungen.de/de33-45/schulpflicht38.htm
8 The invitation was sent to the Director of Gugging, the head doctor of the Department for Children with Weak Minds of Gugging, Dr. Oman (handwritten supplement), to the Departmental Head of III-b-4 (Dr. Thum – [Youth Welfare, Youth Welfare Office]),to the Head of the U. a. III-a [Healthcare], to the Head of Department II- of the Reichstatthalterei in Vienna [Primary, Secondary, Auxiliary and Special Schools] (handwritten supplement), and to Dr. Machaczek, the auxiliary school doctor.
7 For the content of the decree, see Burlon (2000).
12 One of these (Divoky Norbert) was transferred to Spiegelgrund on 15 July 1942 and died there; the other (R. F.) stayed at Gugging until its closure and was then transferred to Wagner Jauregg.
11 NSLB – Nationalsozialistischer Lehrerbund – Association of National Socialist Teachers.
16 See also Tatzer E. (2020).
15 Concerns the first 12 transfers on 20 May 1942 (Spiegelgrund’s list of deaths).
