Who is hans asperger

He was even seen as a hero, saving children with the condition from the Nazi killing programme by emphasizing their intelligence. However, it is now indisputable that Asperger collaborated in the murder of children with disabilities under the Third Reich.

Czech Mol. Autism 9 , 29; She makes a compelling case that the foundational ideas of autism emerged in a society that strove for the opposite of neurodiversity. These findings cast a shadow on the history of autism, already a long struggle towards accurate diagnosis, societal acceptance and support.

Wing Psychol. A decade later, in the book Autism and Asperger Syndrome , developmental psychologist Uta Frith translated into English the treatise by Asperger in which he claimed to have discovered autism. The syndrome is characterized by strengths such as unusually deep, narrow interests, and challenges in social communication and interaction, in people with average IQ or above and no history of language delay.

Credit: Pictorial Press Ltd. Sheffer lays out the evidence, from sources such as medical records and referral letters, showing that Asperger was complicit in this Nazi killing machine. He protected children he deemed intelligent. Some were starved, others given lethal injections. Their deaths were recorded as due to factors such as pneumonia. Sheffer argues that Asperger supported the Nazi goal of eliminating children who could not fit in with the Volk : the fascist ideal of a homogeneous Aryan people.

Both Czech and Sheffer include details on two unrelated children, Herta Schreiber and Elisabeth Schreiber, and their referral letters, signed by Asperger. These provide proof that he effectively signed their death warrants. Nearly children were killed in Am Spiegelgrund.

At the very least, others say, keeping the name may help us remember the lessons of this dark past. This article was republished in Science. By joining the discussion, you agree to our privacy policy.

Spectrum: Autism Research News. All News Conference News Collections of articles from conferences. All Opinion Viewpoint Expert opinions on trends and controversies in autism research. All Features Deep Dive In-depth analysis of important topics in autism.

About Subscribe. News The latest developments in autism research. See All in News. Rising ranks: Hans Asperger's career at a Vienna children's hospital, seen here in , blossomed in tandem with a Nazi program to euthanize children with disabilities.

Courtesy of Wellcome Library, London. Hamburger and Jekelius were not the only fervent Nazis with whom Asperger had close professional contact during his early career.

Medical Clinic for a few weeks in [ 32 ]. Footnote 18 Under Franz Chvostek junior — , this clinic became known as a hotbed of Pan-German nationalist and Nazi agitation.

Risak became an assistant to Hans Eppinger junior — , director of the I. Medical Clinic, who was later involved in the Dachau seawater experiments. This will help explain why Asperger in found enough common ground with National Socialism to establish himself as a credible fellow traveler in the eyes of the party, without directly embracing National Socialism.

Footnote 22 It defined itself as Christian, Catholic, and Pan-German, and in sharp opposition to everything perceived as Marxist-leftist, liberal, or modern, which included parliamentary democracy. Nevertheless, in its fundamental principles, the Bund stood close to the fascist and authoritarian currents of the time [ 36 ]: During the s, important sections of the Bund were infiltrated by Hitler Youth groups and members of other Nazi organizations [ 34 ]: 95, , [ 37 ].

Over the following years, the Bund published a number of articles supporting the anti-Jewish persecutions in Nazi Germany [ 40 ]. Catholicism remained the central point of reference, and the NSDAP was mainly judged according to its policies towards the Church. Resistance activities, which included an assembly of youths in Vienna on the night of the German invasion, were primarily the work of the younger generation. By contrast, the older generation to which Asperger belonged tended to seek immediate accommodation with Nazism [ 36 ]: —8, The physicians within the Bund delegated him to the St.

Lukas guild, which promoted medical ethics along Catholic principles. Regarding eugenics, its position was ambivalent; it opposed some tenets of Nazi race hygiene such as forced sterilizations while developing its own eugenic program within the bounds of Catholicism [ 46 ]: — In the s and again after the Nazi takeover in Germany, the organization called to limit the number of Jewish students [ 47 ]: A considerable portion of leading non-Jewish Viennese doctors, including the former head of the pediatric clinic Clemens Pirquet, belonged to the association—an indication of how widespread anti-Jewish sentiment was in Viennese medical circles [ 4 ]: In this questionnaire from October , Asperger reported several memberships in organizations affiliated with the Nazi Party.

In the same questionnaire, Asperger mentioned another membership indicating his affinity to the Pan-German nationalist wing, despite his Catholic orientation. Despite these associations, there is no indication that Asperger actively sympathized with the Nazi movement prior to , unlike many of his colleagues. Rather, the evidence points to an ambivalent attitude. Potential obstacles to his supporting National Socialism were his religious convictions, his humanist background, and his elitist, cultivated habitus.

Furthermore, following the ban of the Austrian Nazi Party in , the movement remained attractive only to a core of ideologically hardened supporters, whereas for mere sympathizers or opportunists, the risks of adherence far outweighed potential advantages. In other words, Asperger in distanced himself from the Unmenschlichkeiten inhumanities of National Socialism, but not from its Pan-German program, which in had led to the annexation of Austria and later to World War II.

Only soldiers, soldierly thinking—ethos—German paganism. In , Lorna Wing argued that as a devout Catholic, he could not have been a Nazi [ 24 ]: The only known source for this claim is Asperger himself, who mentioned the incident in at his inauguration as the Vienna chair of pediatrics [ 48 ] and in the above-cited interview:. It is totally inhuman—as we saw with dreadful consequences—when people accept the concept of a worthless life.

I must give great credit to my mentor Hamburger, because although he was a convinced National Socialist, he saved me twice from the Gestapo with strong, personal commitment. He knew my attitude but he protected me with his whole being, and for that I have the greatest appreciation [ 3 ].

Footnote 36 The Vienna Gestapo, when asked for a political assessment of Asperger, answered in November that they had nothing on him. Initially, before Asperger had a chance to prove his willingness to adjust to the new political order, the NSDAP was unsure about his loyalty. If the latter story were true, it would be difficult to explain why Asperger to the best of my knowledge did not publicly mention it until 17 years after the war, although it would have benefitted both him and Hamburger.

Footnote 40 In all, this investigation is the only documented instance of political trouble for Asperger; the sources otherwise reflect a spotless record of political accommodation with National Socialism. In September , he took in Hansi Busztin — , a Jewish patient of his, and hid him until the end of the war.

Unusually, Busztin lived a relatively open life, with regular visits to the public library and the opera; he estimated that around people knew about him, many of whom provided support [ 51 ]. Busztin does not mention Asperger—and, interestingly, Asperger did not mention the episode even in instances where he was trying to establish his anti-Nazi credentials [ 3 , 48 ] or in his obituary for Feldner [ 52 ]. It is clear that such a spirit had to be diametrically opposed to National Socialism.

He acted accordingly. There are episodes—confrontations with the Gestapo, the hiding over years of a Jewish student whose family had been exterminated—which could have been taken from an adventure novel [ 53 ].

This episode could help explain why Asperger joined the military in March Footnote 42 In the interview already mentioned, he claimed to have volunteered to escape reprisals from the Gestapo because he had refused to cooperate with Nazi race hygiene policies [ 3 ]. While this is contradicted by the favorable assessments he continued to receive from Nazi officials for example during the vetting for his Habilitation , the cited evidence and the timeline of events suggest a direct connection—namely, that he wanted to get away from the Vienna clinic in case Busztin were discovered.

Footnote 43 Given the high proportion of party members among non-Jewish physicians, this is certainly significant. He also mentioned that he had committed himself to working for the Hitler Youth. These memberships should be seen against the backdrop of the heavy Nazi influence at the clinic see [ 4 ]: —1. Most likely, Asperger took these decisions in order to protect and further his career.

By foregoing NSDAP membership, he chose a middle path between keeping his distance to the regime and outright alignment. It is important to note that Asperger had all the political protection he needed through his mentor Franz Hamburger. In all, they demonstrate how after an initial phase of distrust the party authorities came to see Asperger in an increasingly positive light. It was noted positively that he had not taken any stance against the Nazi takeover in Austria.

In response to your enquiry from 25 October I declare that Dr. Asperger is a faithful Catholic, but without supporting the political tendencies of Catholicism. Regarding questions of the racial and sterilization laws he conforms to National Socialist ideas.

With respect to his character and in political terms he is considered unobjectionable. Asperger hails from Catholic circles and his orientation during the period of the [previous Austrian] system was strictly Catholic.

He has never taken active steps of any kind against National Socialists, although it would have been easy for him to procure incriminating evidence at the Pediatric Clinic, which was staffed exclusively with Nazi physicians. In terms of his character, Dr. Due to his political past, the party hierarchy treated Asperger with a certain reservation. This changed over time, however, as he was increasingly regarded as politically reliable, and no obstacles to his career resulted.

This development culminated in Asperger obtaining his Habilitation in , the academic qualification necessary to become a lecturer and, eventually, a professor. According to the Nazi doctrine, medicine should be based both on science and the ideology of National Socialism. This is another indicator that Asperger enjoyed the trust of the highest ranks of the Nazi medical establishment in Vienna. After the Anschluss, Asperger tried to prove his loyalty to the new regime in various ways.

Maybe you can make something of it. How they were diagnosed and what decisions about their future were taken at the clinic had an important impact on their chances of survival. A number of these children—like Alfred—were Jews living with non-Jewish families. When the Nazis took over the city administration, this came to be regarded as a problem, and Jewish foster children were separated from their caretakers and segregated in Jewish orphanages, which for many became death traps during the Holocaust.

The diagnostic report itself is rather benevolent in tone; Asperger considered Alfred capable of functioning among adults, who would feel less provoked by his behavior than children.

His fate is unknown. Walter Brucker was admitted to the clinic on 14 March , the day following the Anschluss, because of extreme agitation. On 15 March, amidst cheering youngsters, Walter had to listen to a triumphant speech by Hitler. Despite the fact that as a Jew Walter had every reason to panic, his fearful reaction was held against him. He was very agitated; when a child broke out in cheers he opened his eyes wide and turned pale.

In his diagnosis, Asperger omitted the fact that Walter was Jewish and that his life was under threat from the Nazi regime. As it turns out, Walter indeed had every reason to be fearful. As far as the written record is concerned, there is no indication that Asperger was guided by personal animosity towards Jews, but there is a notable absence of empathy for their plight under Nazi rule.

Footnote 56 The report he wrote in November on year-old Ivo P. Racial stereotyping became—not surprisingly—more frequent following the Anschluss. When she spoke of the violent abuse she had suffered at the asylum, this was taken as an indication of her dishonesty rather than an explanation for the changes in her behavior. She thought a Jewish acquaintance had died from hanging, but could be convinced that this was not true.

This leads to the broader question whether Asperger held anti-Semitic views. Apart from the case files quoted above, there is scant direct evidence. On the one hand, hostility towards Jews and their alleged corrupting influence was a common ideological denominator of the groups Asperger associated with. Until the end of his life, as far as his public statements are concerned, he never distanced himself from the racialized anti-Semitism that pervaded Austrian and German political life during the twentieth century nor did he comment on the destruction this had brought down on the Jews of Europe during the Holocaust.

I will show that Asperger on several occasions supported tenets of Nazi race hygiene and medicine, contributing to their legitimization. We stand in the midst of a massive reorganization of our intellectual and spiritual life, which has seized all areas of this life—not least in medicine.

You know by what means one strives to prevent the transmission of diseased hereditary material—many cases that belong here are hereditary disorders—and to promote hereditary health. We physicians have to take on the tasks that accrue to us in this area with full responsibility [ 1 ] We will see shortly what these tasks entailed and how he handled them in the context of his own work.

These children are intellectually below average including to the degree of feeble-mindedness —whereby with intelligence we mean abstract intelligence—whereas practical reason, in short everything that has to do with instinct, including the practical usefulness and the values of character, are much better developed in relative terms. These cases are important—or at least they will be as soon as the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring comes into force here.

If the physician has to take a decision in such a case, he will not be allowed to do so based solely on a questionnaire or the intelligence quotient. This passage has been quoted as evidence that Asperger tried to publicly protect his patients from forced sterilizations [ 8 ]: ; more cautiously [ 9 ]: —7. Why did these comments then not hurt his standing in the eyes of the Nazi hierarchy, which came to the conclusion that he was in conformity with Nazi race hygiene policies?

It is important to note that Asperger focused on skills, where others were primarily concerned with defects. In the new Germany, we physicians have assumed an abundance of new responsibilities in addition to our old ones. To the task of helping the individual patient is added the great obligation to promote the health of the Volk , which is more than the welfare of the individual. I do not need to elaborate on the enormous dedicated work being performed in terms of positive, supporting measures.

But we all know that we also have to carry out restrictive measures. Therefore we are called more than others to contribute decisively to what is probably the most important area of research on human heredity, namely the questions concerning the inheritance of mental traits and mental abnormalities. We must also lead the way in the practical tasks of eugenics, especially with regards to the problems relating to the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring—and not just the physicians, but also the special school teachers we work with.

Although many race hygienists were more dogmatic in terms of a one-sided genetic determinism, Nazi ideology was not monolithic. A key element in the established narrative of Asperger as a principled opponent of Nazi policies derives from his repeated appeals to treat troubled children with the utmost dedication to help them overcome their challenges [ 20 ]: 17, [ 21 ]: —9.

One of the most significant passages in this regard is contained in his paper on autism:. We think that such individuals have their own place in the organism of the social community, which they fully occupy, some of them maybe in ways nobody else could.

Often, in the course of development, possibilities for social integration arise which one would not have expected before. This is in line with his speech, in which he also expressed his determination to side with his patients:. But let me discuss this problem today not from the standpoint of the Volk as a totality—in this case one would have to primarily focus on the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring—but from the standpoint of the abnormal children.

How much can we accomplish for these children shall be the question [ 1 ] Again the question is whether this approach put Asperger at odds with the regime or even made him vulnerable to reprisals, which is a central claim in the narrative of his resistance to the Nazis.

The evidence, however, does not support this. Due to increasing labor shortages, it became a political and military imperative to rehabilitate as many potential workers as possible, even those considered of inferior hereditary quality.

And if we help them [the abnormal children] with all our dedication, we also render the best service to our Volk ; not only by avoiding that they burden the Volksgemeinschaft with their dissocial and criminal acts, but also by trying to ensure that they fulfill their duties as productive individuals in the living organism of the Volk [ 1 ] He made sure that local authorities and hospitals cooperated and that the operation ran smoothly.

From June to the end of , Jekelius directed the child killing facility Am Spiegelgrund, where hundreds of disabled children were murdered. The two men maintained professional contacts during the Nazi period. In , when Jekelius became the first chairman of the newly established Viennese Association for Therapeutic Pedagogy, Asperger represented the Pediatric Clinic along with Hamburger [ 4 ]: —3.

Erwin Jekelius represents Nazi medicine in its most inhumane extremes: a fanatical Nazi and a murderer responsible for the deaths of thousands of patients. Had Asperger deviated from the party line, Jekelius would certainly have reined him in. Instead, this is what Jekelius had to say about Asperger and his therapeutic approach:. At this opportunity, I would like to remind you of the substantial lecture on therapeutic pedagogy which our Dr.

Asperger gave last year in this same place. To be sure, when their writings are set side by side, there is an enormous divide between the two men in tone. I wanted to emphasize this from the beginning, when I talk today about our Aesculapian obligation specifically towards the psychologically abnormal individual, as I see this obligation.

Our time has brought revolutionary changes in the field of education: Whereas in earlier times a number of philosophical, political, and religious orientations stipulated their pedagogic goals and consequently were in competition with each other, today National Socialism has established its pedagogic goal and demands that it be the only valid one. As much as this development is to be approved, we nevertheless have to stress: This one goal, the integration into the National Socialist state, can only be achieved with these children by using different means.

This is how we know that the success of our work is worth the effort [ 67 ]. This paper was originally presented in September at a prominent pediatric conference in Vienna. Asperger was one of only three speakers from Vienna. Footnote 73 The complex and sometimes contradictory attitude towards children with disabilities or other challenges is underlined by the fact that the Hitler Youth had special formations for the blind and the deaf [ 64 ]: — The decisive question that remained was what should happen to the residual group of children whose disabilities were so impairing that efforts towards rehabilitation could not be justified under the utilitarian approach dominant at the time, and also professed by Asperger.

This argument is problematic for several reasons. While this position anticipated later advances in autism research, the question arises whether under the circumstances it was prudent to put such an emphasis on heredity. Had protecting his autistic patients been his primary goal, he could have taken a more flexible position, one less likely to draw the attention of race hygienists to his patients [ 2 ]: — Fritz had for his age outstanding abilities in mathematics, but was incapable of attending regular school, having passed the first three school years by homeschooling.

These latter cases, according to Asperger, were often very similar to conditions caused by organic brain damage such as birth trauma. Nevertheless, the argument that Asperger focused on the better-functioning cases in order to protect all of his patients presumably, by deflecting attention from the less well-functioning is questionable given that Asperger by no means withheld from his readers the severe impairments of some of the boys.

Third, there is a fundamental flaw in the assumption that highlighting the potential of some of his patients would benefit all of them. Focusing on the higher functioning children did nothing to lift the boat for all of them; those on the lower end still risked being left to drown. Highlighting the potential of some patients should not then be mistaken for the defense of all children with disabilities.

Also, Asperger did not adopt this strategy in reaction to the Nazi takeover in Austria. Asperger, who had begun his career under Hamburger, shared many of these views, including a staunch opposition to psychoanalysis [ 76 ].

This increased demand, together with the exclusion of Jewish doctors, Footnote 78 led to additional career opportunities for Asperger, for example, his appointment as an expert witness in May to the Vienna Juvenile Court. Footnote 80 In this capacity, he routinely wrote expert opinions which are hard to reconcile with his claim not to have reported patients to this office [ 3 ].

In some cases, however, he demonstrably cooperated in such matters. In two of these cases, both Asperger and the Spiegelgrund staff suggested a hereditary etiology. In two other cases, Asperger included a reference to heredity in his report, but the Spiegelgrund staff did not. In ten of the cases, however, only the Spiegelgrund doctors referred to heredity.

This raises the question whether this non-cooperation by omission should be considered a form of resistance. It is important to note that the sterilization program in Nazi Austria was never implemented on a scale comparable to Nazi Germany between and and that children were not its primary targets.

In Vienna, the Hereditary Health Court decreed a total of sterilization cases. Footnote 88 Failure to comply with the sterilization law was widespread at the time, and there are no indications that this carried personal risks such as persecution by the Gestapo [ 78 ]: Footnote 91 Although Asperger did not explicitly refer to sterilization, the information provided meant that the addressee would have to initiate a sterilization procedure on the grounds that the condition appeared to be hereditary.

Footnote 92 Asperger could have omitted this information without any risk, but in this case as in those he referred to Spiegelgrund, analyzed in the next section , it seems that he was willing to cooperate as long as he did not have to take direct responsibility for the consequences.

There is one case in which documents suggest that Asperger may have helped shield a patient from possible persecution. In the fall of , he examined Aurel I. His family then moved him to the countryside, where he spent the war in the care of relatives. Footnote 93 Asperger wrote his report just days before the sterilization law was introduced in Austria, an event that was widely publicized [ 79 ].

Footnote 94 Ultimately, it is impossible to say with certainty what happened in , and to what extent the dramatic elements of the story are a product of the years that passed before the quoted letters were written.

His role in this context is the topic of the next section. In his wartime publications, Asperger appears as someone who declared his willingness to cooperate with the Nazi state, propagated—albeit less enthusiastically than others—elements of Nazi race hygiene, and tried to argue that his discipline had an important role to play within the new political order.

His professed pedagogical optimism reached its limits, however, in children with greater degrees of mental disability. In this regard, as we will see, his record was mixed. On 27 June , 2 months before her third birthday, Asperger examined a girl at his clinic named Herta Schreiber Fig. The youngest of nine children, Herta showed signs of disturbed mental and physical development ever since she had fallen ill with encephalitis a few months before. Severe personality disorder post-encephalitic?

At home the child must be an unbearable burden to the mother, who has to care for five healthy children. Permanent placement at Spiegelgrund seems absolutely necessary. Footnote 95 Fig. Herta was admitted to Spiegelgrund on 1 July On 2 September, a day after her third birthday, Herta died of pneumonia, the most common cause of death at Spiegelgrund, which was routinely induced by the administration of barbiturates over a longer period of time.

Mother asks to be notified if the condition of the child should get worse. The husband should not be informed, he would be too upset. She says in tears that she can see for herself that the child is mentally not well. If she cannot be helped, it would be better if she died. She would not have anything in this world, she would only be ridiculed by others. As the mother of so many other children she would not want that for her, so it would be better if she died.

Footnote 97 Fig. Or did he decide independently what he thought best, based on the information she provided? From the available documents, we cannot know with certainty. As previously mentioned, he repeatedly called for giving people with mental anomalies the best available care in order to develop their potential as far as possible.

However, he never addressed the question of what should happen in cases without hope of improvement. The children Asperger advocated for were those who promised some future benefit to society. Footnote 98 The transfer of Herta Schreiber to the Spiegelgrund facility looks like such a capitulation.

Perhaps it is no coincidence that another girl who was recommended for transferal to Spiegelgrund by Asperger suffered from similar symptoms, also attributed to an earlier infection. Erethic imbecility, probably on a post-encephalitic basis. In the family, the child is without a doubt a hardly bearable burden, especially under their crowded living conditions, and due to her aggressions she endangers the small siblings.

Therefore it is understandable that the mother pushes for institutionalization. Spiegelgrund would be the best possibility. Footnote 99 Fig. What can be said with a degree of certainty is that she sought institutional care for her daughter and that Asperger recommended transferal to the killing facility. However, Elisabeth was not immediately transferred to Spiegelgrund, probably because there was no bed available. Instead, she was sent to another institution for children with mental defects, where she stayed for a few months.

In March , she was transferred to Spiegelgrund. Was Asperger aware that Elisabeth would have almost no chance of survival at Spiegelgrund, that he was sending Herta to her death? Significantly, the extermination of the mentally ill was never explicitly referred to in written documents, at least not outside the smallest circles of the initiated. In documents not protected as state secrets, it would have been a grave breach to even mention the possibility of killing patients.

I point out that my clinic [Spiegelgrund] was always overcrowded, since other clinics […], including the University Pediatric Clinic, transferred—or wanted to transfer—such hopeless cases, evidently because they believed that in my clinic euthanasia was possible on account of the mentioned circular, while they were not allowed to practice euthanasia. I am absolutely convinced that the directors of the mentioned institutions were aware of euthanasia and the mentioned circulars.

Illing had every reason to diminish his own responsibility, but there is further evidence for the close ties between Spiegelgrund and the university clinic. After the experiments, the children were sent to Spiegelgrund, where they were murdered so that the vaccine results could be compared with the pathological findings. Staff at the pediatric clinic were not only aware of what happened at Spiegelgrund but exploited the research opportunities created by the murders [ 85 ].

Even abroad, the killings at Spiegelgrund became known. In light of this evidence, it seems extremely implausible that Asperger—a longtime colleague of Erwin Jekelius and a well-connected player in his professional field—was unaware of the activities at Spiegelgrund. In the cases of Herta and Elisabeth, were there alternatives to sending them to Spiegelgrund? Could he have saved their lives? Nevertheless, Asperger was under no obligation to send children directly to the killing facility, even if they suffered from severe disabilities.

He could, without any risk to himself, have transferred them elsewhere, and in a number of other cases, he did just that. Footnote There is insufficient evidence to determine with certainty why he decided one way or the other, although in the cases of Herta and less clearly Elisabeth, the attitude of the parents may have played a role.

The evidence in these two cases suggests that at least under the given circumstances he accepted the killing of disabled children as a last resort. Jekelius as soon as possible. Due to overlapping jurisdictions the Gugging hospital was on Viennese territory and property of the city, but leased to the Niederdonau administration , the committee consisted of seven members from both provinces. After children had been transported in March and May to the killing center in Hartheim, at the end of that year, patients remained on the ward.

Footnote However, there is evidence for a number of later transferals from Gugging to Spiegelgrund with fatal outcomes. On 20 May , 3 months after the commission convened in Gugging, nine boys were transferred to Spiegelgrund. All of them were dead within a few months.

By the end of that year, another 20 children 9 girls and 11 boys followed, only to meet the same fate. During , 12 children 8 boys and 4 girls were taken to Spiegelgrund, none of whom survived. The commission relied on suggestions prepared by Schicker but examined the children individually and took a decision in each case. Among a group of 50 children whom the director deemed unfit for school and wanted to keep in Gugging, the committee found 18 who in their opinion warranted further pedagogical efforts.

In all, 59 of children evaluated by the commission died at Spiegelgrund before the end of the war, a death rate of Was the commission in a position to save at least some of the children had they wanted to? Due to the limited sources available, this question cannot be answered conclusively. What can be shown, however, is that at least in some cases their families wanted to take them into their care but were not permitted to do so by the authorities.

He was deaf-mute from his birth in His case file mentions hydrocephaly and severe mental disability. Although he could not attend school, there was hope he might be able to improve his physical abilities to perform simple tasks.

He was described as lively and sociable. The requests were denied on all three occasions, the last under the pretext that further examinations were necessary. On 20 May , Engelbert was transferred to Spiegelgrund, where he died on 8 November. Footnote In the case of Georgine Schwab born , her grandmother repeatedly pleaded for her release, again to no avail. Footnote The files contain numerous similar examples, proving that these children were neither unwanted nor unloved.

In this case, it seems that Asperger was a well-functioning cog in a deadly machine. In his publications, Asperger projected an image of himself as benevolent, optimistic, and affectionate towards the children in his care—a characterization echoed in the biographical literature.

While there is little doubt that he was passionate about his work and genuinely cared about many of his patients, in the context of this paper, we must ask whether this positive attitude extended to those children who did not offer hopes of future development or who defied attempts to educate or discipline them. The following analysis focuses on the remaining 40 children 12 girls, 28 boys , who survived Spiegelgrund and were later transferred to other institutions or discharged.

Footnote Although other instances—especially the Youth Welfare Administration—were also involved in determining what would happen to the children, Asperger was the leading expert in the field, and his diagnostic reports and recommendations were often decisive.

Unlike with Herta and Elisabeth Schreiber, in the 14 cases in question, there is no indication that Asperger expected the children he recommended for transferal to Spiegelgrund explicitly or by suggestion to be killed there.

The conditions of these 14 children appear not to have been so severe as to make them targets for extermination, although sending them to Spiegelgrund nevertheless put them at considerable risk. The senior staff at Spiegelgrund who were the authors or signatories of the medical reports analyzed here were committed Nazis and race hygienists.

Against this background, any systematic bias Asperger might have had in favor of his patients would have to be visible in this sample. And yet, out of these 30 cases, there are only 2 in which Asperger appears to judge the children less harshly than his peers at Spiegelgrund. In 16 or just over half of the cases, Asperger and the diagnosticians at Spiegelgrund came to comparable conclusions. In the remaining 12, Asperger took a more negative and in some instances an outright disparaging view of his patients.

Gerald St. Footnote Gerald was admitted to Spiegelgrund 8 months later, via two other institutions. Gross now described the boy as emotionally responsive, cheerful, and excitable. Gerald was initially described in similar terms by Asperger and at Spiegelgrund. Leo A. Born in April to a single mother, Leo was placed in foster care immediately after his birth. At age four, Leo was an intelligent but difficult child.