Psychiatry as a weapon of fascism: How psychiatry was ... · über die Notwendigkeit eines Lebens zu entscheiden ... notions of ethics and morality in order to exploit psychiatry

Katharine Abbott Quinault Travel Bursary 2016

1

Psychiatry as a weapon of fascism: How

psychiatry was systematically exploited to

advance the ideological objectives of the Nazi

regime.


2

“[Der Artzt] soll und darf nichts anderes thun als Leben erhalten; ob es ein Glück oder Unglück sey,

ob es Werth habe oder nicht, dies geht ihn nichts an, und maß er sich einmal an, diese Rücksicht in

sein Geschäft mit aufzunehmen, so sind die Folgen unabsehbar, und der Arzt wird der gefährlichste

Mensch im Staate; denn ist einmal die Linie überschritten, glaubt sich der Arzt einmal berechtigt,

über die Notwendigkeit eines Lebens zu entscheiden…“

- Words of the famous Berlin doctor Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland from the year 1806 (from

Burleigh, 2002)


3

Psychiatry as a weapon of fascism: How psychiatry was systematically exploited to advance the

ideological objectives of the Nazi regime.

Psychiatry is, fundamentally, a medium which seeks to heal and to understand. It is a science

dedicated to the human mind, striving for a more nuanced understanding of why the psyche functions

in certain ways, what motivates our behaviour and generates our thought processes.

Contemporaneously, psychiatry is understood to be a benevolent field of study, a science proven to

protect the vulnerable. As a medical field, psychiatry should possess a bulletproof concept of

morality, yet its history has not always been interwoven with good intentions, nor has it exhibited a

flawless model of human ethics. The despotic political climate of the Nazi regime desecrated the very

notions of ethics and morality in order to exploit psychiatry and manipulate it into a political tool used

to fuel Nazism’s hegemonic fascist ideologies. The very individuals who ought to have been protected

by the psychiatric field became immediate victims of a repressive regime that deemed them unworthy

of life itself. In this essay, I will endeavour to explore why the extermination of mentally ill people

during Nazism’s reign is classed as “eines der größten medizinischen Verbrechen aller Zeiten”

(Bastian, 2001) as well as examining how psychiatry was exploited by a fascist rule, how this

proliferated Nazism’s most insidious policies and ultimately the savage effects this wreaked upon

German society.

The crimes committed against mentally ill people in Nazi Germany are, according to Frei,

“einzigartig in der Geschichte der Psychiatrie.” (1991) Of course, psychiatry had never been exploited

to such an incredulous extent – nevertheless, the cruelty apparent under the Nazi reign was certainly

preceded by a history of psychiatric misuse that had existed well before the Nazi government.

Ultimately, the science behind psychiatry was charged less with an intention to heal and to

comprehend the differences in mental processes, than a desire to actively eliminate mentally

‘incompetent’ people from the German nation. Psychiatrists in Germany during the 19th century and


4

Weimar Republic desired to curb the population of the mentally ill for economic benefits. Mental

illness was a drain on the economy, a burden to society and a sickness that was better annihilated than

ailed. German psychiatry’s engagement with the mentally ill was akin to the treatment of criminals –

leading to what Trus describes as a “Gefängnistradition,” (2013) a system so preoccupied with

demonising neurodivergent people that the prison-like conditions the mentally ill were subject to

included overcrowded mental institutions which also lacked vastly in resources. Insurmountable

patients of psychiatric institutions died during the First World War, “insbesondere durch

Unterernährung und mangelnde Pflege.” (Trus, 2013) These deaths were not organised, as they would

have been during the second world war, but psychiatric patients were still regarded as less than

worthy of precious resources that could otherwise be in the hands of sane members of society. By the

end of World War 1, the death toll of psychiatric patients had reached an incredible 140,234.

(Burleigh, 2002)

Before the Nazis came to power, notable psychiatrists and psychiatric research had already

begun theorising the inherent ‘dangers’ that mental illness posed to society. Perhaps the most notable

psychiatrist of the late 19th century, Emil Kraepelin, was a prolific researcher of theories of eugenics

and racial degeneration. His ideas were indispensable to Nazi ideologies of racial degradation, as he

believed the root of all mental disorders to be genetic impurity. One of the most influential and

damning publications was then released in 1920 by Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche, titled Die

Freigabe der Vernichtung Lebensunwerten Lebens. The publication insisted that Germany, as a

nation, would be racially stronger and more financially stable if mental illness, of which the afflicted

were referred to as “unheilbar Blödsinnigen” (Hoche, Binding, 1920) was gradually eliminated from

the gene pool. Bit by bit, the perception of mentally ill people became flecked with suspicion and

distain. Whilst the Nazi regime implemented an institutional, systematic exploitation of psychiatry,

their theories had stemmed from years of insidious research. What had risen before the dawn of

Nazism was a compendium of racist theories and invalid scientific research inextricably tied to mental

illness. What one can ultimately surmise, as Trus so succinctly writes, is that “Hitlers Weltanschauung

kaum ein origineller Gedanke zugrunde lag.” (2013)

Research undertaken by psychiatrists during Nazism argued the necessity of race refinement,

and coupled this with weak conclusions about evolutionary theory – this research was vital to the

foundation of an exploited psychiatric system. Social Darwinism fuelled a considerable amount of

psychiatric research and declared that people were neurodivergent as a result of a genetic defect. This

school of thought was easily welcomed by a despotic regime so fixated with race preservation.

Interestingly, such ideas were never backed by concrete scientific evidence, making them unsound,

unsubstantiated and highly damaging to the population. Indeed, the notion that a human had to be

worthy of life became a popular idea, saturating much of Nazism’s propaganda and indoctrinating the


5

minds of citizens. The imperfect mind was to be removed from the population in order to adhere to a

hyper-idealistic notion of mental immaculacy. Psychiatrists ensured that health resources would then

follow “rassistischen Wertigkeitskriterien und gesellschaftlichen Nutzlichkeitzkalkulen,” (Süß, 2003)

to proliferate the hegemonic ideologies. During the rise of Nazism, it was ultimately psychiatrists who

identified mentally ill members of society, deemed them unfit for survival, carried out their death

sentences and implemented the slaughter of hundreds upon thousands of lives. Psychiatry laid the

very foundation of these murders, its research welded the ideologies that authenticated the need to

exterminate worthless lives. This was legislated violence. The implementation of a law in 1933

oversaw the “Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses,” (Schott, 1998) which permitted the forced

sterilisation of genetically ill people (see Figure 1 for example of the sterilisation documents). The

title of this was later changed to the more apt description of “Gesetz zum Schutz des deutschen Blutes

und der deutschen Ehre” (Schott, 1998) – dysphemistically exhibiting Nazism’s perception of mental

illness as an inherent flaw.

In examining Nazism’s engagement with mental illness in general, we must first consider the

regime’s beliefs about fortifying the German nation and the place of the individual versus the

collective. During a famous speech, Adolf Hitler stated “Wir sehen unser Volk als einen Körper von

Fleisch und Blut” (Trus, 2013) - a fierce reminder that one’s psyche and one’s body belonged to the

state and not the self. Nazism was fixated with the vision of an idealistic Aryan race, and utilised

many deplorable methods in order to attain it. Nazism was preoccupied with eliminating any flaws in

an otherwise “gesunden Volkskörpers,” (Trus, 2013) and any mind, body or belief that did not align

with the interests of the Aryan race were to be annihilated. Nazism officially defined the mentally ill

as “Untermenschen,” (Klee, 1985) showing that such people could never articulate the beauty,

strength and mental capacities of an otherwise infallible German race. Instead, they were regarded as

being sub-human. Nazism did not seek to accommodate difference and instead actively inhibited

anything that could possibly curb the prowess of the nation. Therefore, a contributing factor to the

demonization of the mentally ill was their supposed inability to contribute to the German workforce,

rendering them useless in the eyes of the government. An early preoccupation with Nazi psychiatry

had been to explore means of turning such people into “nutzbringende Arbeiter.” (Trus, 2013). Other

perceptions of the burden the mentally ill posed on society can be found in Ernst Maeckel’s words, as

he describes, “welche ungeheure Summe von Schmerz und Leid bedeuten diese entsetzlichen

Zahlen… welche Verluste an Privatvermögen und Staatskosten für die Gesamtheit.“ His suggested

solution to this economic burden was „die ganz Unheilbaren durch eine Morphium-Gabe von ihren

namenlosen Qualen zu befreien.“ (Zimmerman-Acklin, 2002) Economic factors were largely used as

an excuse for the oncoming systematic extermination. A study bemoans that “5000 Idioten mit

Jahreskosten von je 2000 Reichsmark [kostet] 100 millionen jährl.“ (Burleigh, 2002). The economic

concepts sought to differentiate the “Heilbaren von der Unheilbaren,” and so “die Lebensverhältnisse


6

der Unheilbaren drastisch einzuschränken.” (Frei, 2003) Terrifyingly, even highly esteemed

psychiatrists exhibited contemptuous perceptions of their own patients. Professor Julis Hallevorden,

described as someone who “liebte seine Patienten” said: “es gibt lebensunwerte Menschen… wenn es

nach mir ginge, würde ich den ganzen Abschaum vergassen.” (Klee, 1985)

In his infamous “Appel an die deutsche Kraft,” Adolf Hitler discussed the ominous

“zusammebruch unseres Volkes,” (Trus, 2013) in which the mentally ill, among others, were cited as

contributing to this internal collapse. His message successfully infiltrated the masses, and the

culturally held perceptions of the mentally ill began to alter. Examining the propaganda of this time

illuminates the kind of messages that the Nazis were disseminating to their people. In Figure 2, the

propaganda poster uses the euphemistic language frequently employed to lessen the severity of the

cruelty committed; here, the poster argues that the death sentence is truly liberating parents and the

children from a mental handicap. Figure 3 elucidates the supposed economic burden that the mentally

ill will carry upon an Aryan man’s shoulders. A propaganda film, Opfer Der Vergangenheit, was

shown in every cinema in Germany. The dramatic music underpinning the film was coupled with

dramatic close-ups of the living quarters and physiognomy of the mentally ill, with a voiceover

insisting that the German population was supporting inferior lives in building ‘palaces’ for the insane.

People subscribed to Nazism’s ideologies so vehemently that many were more than willing to

propagate the eschewed vision of a flawlessly healthy society, unmarred by disabilities or other such

undesirable things. The indoctrination was so savagely rooted that the family Knauer wrote to Hitler

and asked for their “mißgebildetes” (Burleigh, 2002) child to be put to death. This was purely due to

the fact that the infant was born blind and missing a leg, and therefore did not match the hyper-

idealised image of the perfect Aryan baby. Brant, Hitlers Begleiterarzt, insisted of the baby’s mental

capabilities, “zumindest schien es ein Idiot zu sein” (Burleigh, 2002). This shows the sheer power

Nazi propaganda had in welding the cultural perceptions belonging to the populace.

A plethora of methods were used in order to successfully exploit psychiatry. Sterilisation, human

experiments and euthanasia became key components of psychiatric misuse. Sterilisation was

employed in order to eliminate the issue of hereditary illnesses, of which schizophrenia and epilepsy

were unjustly included. Human experiments were conducted on unwilling patients so as to investigate

how the human psyche and body would cope under extreme conditions. Finally, euthanasia became a

tool of lethal destruction in ridding the country of the burden of the mentally ill. Nazism took

particular issue with schizophrenic patients, who were most drastically hit by the sterilisation laws.

Schizophrenia was regarded as an Erbkrankheit, despite there being no scientific studies to confirm

this. The notion that mental illness was a hereditary disease that needed to be terminated became a

good rationalisation for systematically murdering thousands of schizophrenic patients. Official

documents of Hadamar illustrate that the reasons given for a sterilisation were less


7

“erbbiologisch…als vielmehr sozial,” (Trus, 2003) and in this way adhering to the political values and

vision. Patients diagnosed as schizophrenic were prioritised in being sterilised for their illness.

Overall, between 200,00 -400,000 people were sterilised under this law. (Frei, 1991)

The case of Karl E illustrates the clandestine descent into death of an individual institutionalised

for schizophrenia. Karl E, with no prior history of mental illness, returned from war with what was

essentially a case of PTSD. Case notes describe him walking naked into a neighbour’s room, losing

money and not regulating his personal hygiene. At the Landesanstalt Großschweidnitz, Karl E was

diagnosed with schizophrenia. His case notes state that, during his time in this establishment, Karl E

was plagued by hallucinations and believed himself to be a lieutenant. Yet Karl E was simultaneously

the idealistic patient, a “produktiver Arbeiter,” a quiet and independent man. It was decided

nonetheless that he be sterilised. The conditions in this mental hospital (a lack of food essentially)

meant that his health worsened. Großschweidnitz “stellt ihren Anstaltsbetrieb systematisch auf die

Vernichtung ihrer Patienten um.“ When Karl E no longer came to work and he was described as being

weak and unclean, he was killed for „allgemeine Entkräftung,” as shown in Figure 4 (both

Kampmeyer, 2009). What this tells us is that a person was only worthy of life as long as they were

deemed ‘useful’ – even if this usefulness was severely dented by the institution’s own precarious

conditions.

An insurmountable number of the victims of this abuse were, unfortunately, children.

Children diagnosed with a mental illness of some form or another were removed from their families in

order to be examined by experts, only then to mysteriously die in these conditions. This inhumanity

was conducted under the guise of better therapy potentials. There were allegedly around 30

“Kinderfachabteilungen” (Schott, 1998) responsible for enacting this abuse. Hitler explained that if

Germany euthanised 700,000-800,000 children of the 1 million born each year, the race would

perhaps become stronger, and so children were selected from early ages, even as infants, in order to

have their lives ended as soon as possible. This would, by and large, free the government of the

problem of supporting them and their families with welfare, and would protect society from an

increase in the population of the mentally ill.

Nazism’s preoccupation with the term “euthanasia” was inherently ironic – ‘euthanasia’

derives from the Greek term which effectively means “Gnadentod,” (Esser, 1994) otherwise known as

a pleasant death. This became quickly appropriated by the Nazi regime (see Hitler’s letter, Figure 5)

in order to cloak the reality of the exterminations. Nazism emblazoned their inhumane acts with this

term, as it to imply their actions were wholly benevolent, freeing the mentally ill from their

afflictions. According to a statutory declaration from Viktor Brack written on the 12th of October

1946, Hitler had called for the implementation of euthanasia, in which those regarded as “nutzlose

Esser,” (Klee, 1985) particularly members of mental hospitals, would be executed for the crime of not


8

being mentally sane. High officials colluded on the matter. The Chief of the Reichskanzlei, Hans

Heinrich Lammers, echoed Hitler in stating, “daß es rechtens sei, wenn das Wertlose Leben solcher

Kreaturen ein End hätte.“ (Burleigh, 2002). In a frightening example of the dehumanisation of the

mentally ill, Dr. Albert Widmann, the Head of the “Chemieabteilung” described euthanasia as the

“Töten von Tieren in Menschengestalt,” (Burleigh, 2002) brutally stating that these people were not

really human at all. Psychiatric genocide, formally known as Aktion T4, was the final solution to the

problem of the mentally ill. Reasons for applying euthanasia, according to an internal T4 document,

included “Ausscheidung aller derjenigen, die unfähig sind, auch nur in Anstalten produktive Arbeit zu

leisten, also nicht nur von geistig Toten.“ (Klee, 1985) Throughout documents advocating euthanasia

and describing what kinds of people should be put to death, a recurrent theme was that of those who

could not contribute to the work force.

Other people to be euthanised, as according to this document, included:

a) “ Sämtliche Schizophrenen, soweit sie zu keiner oder nur mechanische Beschäftigung fähig

sind.

b) Sämtliche Schwachsinnigen, die zu keiner produktiven Tätigkeit, auch in der Anstalt, nicht

mehr fähig sind.

c) Sämtliche Epileptiker, die entweder gehäufte Anfälle haben oder deutliche

Wesensveränderungen zeigen.„ (quoted in Klee, 1985)

There were six psychiatric euthanasia centres. These oversaw the signing of fake death certificates

and extermination via gas chambers. These euthanasia centres would later elicit the technology for

even larger extermination camps. Much of these murders were, of course, carried out in clandestine

conditions, and trucks disguised as “Kaiser- Kaffee-Geschäft” were used to poison 40 patients at a

time with toxic gas. Though Aktion T4 was “officially” stopped as of August 1941, this did not,

however, mean that the systematic murder had ended. There came the “sogenannten zweiten Phase

der “Euthanasie”” (Kampmeyer, 2009) in which the mentally ill were no longer gassed to death

within extermination camps, but rather starved to death or supplied with medication that would

ultimately kill them. For example, when T4 had been “officially“ stopped at Hadamar, psychiatrists

resorted to starving their patients instead. Their method was as follows: “in der Woche dreimal

Brennesselsuppen,” (Klee, 2010) followed by tablets and injections. Ultimately, there were 4400

fatalities at Hadamar alone. The outcome of this grave inhumanity was ultimately the mass

extermination of mentally ill. By the end of the war, many psychiatric institutions were empty, as T4

had fatally claimed at least 70,000 people as victims. A report from an investigation of Meseritz-

Obrawalde stated, “für eine medizinische Anstalt eine nie dagewesene Sterblichkeit – 97%,“ (Klee,

2010) going so far as to explain that even cholera or the plague had not wiped out so many people.

The investigation finally stated that there was no notable difference between a concentration camp


9

and this establishment – only that their preferred method of execution was through lethal injection

rather than gas chambers.

The Nuremberg trials confirmed that psychiatry had played an instrumental role in the

holocaust. In fact, many believed the holocaust may not have happened at all, had it not been for

psychiatry. One would expect that a refurbished system of ethics and law would have immediately

criminalised those responsible for committing these atrocities, yet only thirteen doctors actually made

it to trial: four of whom died during the war and two committed suicide. There was one death sentence

which was terminated in January 1958, whereupon the criminal was set free. One sentence was

intervened as the subject was deemed not fit for prison. Another was incarcerated and released a year

later due to “schlechten Gesundheits zustandes.” (Bastian, 2001) Another imprisoned, released a

month later, a doctor who had helped to kill 1815 people. A doctor who had killed 4950 people was

imprisoned and released a week later. One was imprisoned and released on the same day. He had

helped murder 2250 mental patients.

Furthermore, one would suspect that such atrocities committed against psychiatric patients

would have divulged fury and uproar amongst the civil members of the public. But researching

dissidents of these methods proved to be a somewhat difficult task. Of course, it must not be forgotten

just how fiercely the Nazis had used fear-mongering and violent tactics to frighten their people into

submission, and it is to be imagined nowadays that to protest against the Nazi regime in any way was

essentially a suicidal act. Attempting to comprehend the justification of such behaviour on the part of

psychiatrists is impossible in our contemporaneous society, which we model on the basis of basic

human rights. Yet one can trace why so many psychiatrists chose to follow this heinous behaviour in

the words of those who stood before juries after the war. Professor Paul Nitsche insisted that Hitler

promised every psychiatrist, “der in wohlbegründeten Fällen Sterbehilfe anwende, vor Strafe schützen

werde“ (Klee, 1985)– indeed, they were promised impunity from the fascistic government. Very few

psychiatrists seemed to be vocal about what was truly occurring – it appeared that the vast majority of

them willingly participated in the subjugation of their own patients. Counter-movements, such as the

Weiße Rose, were not dissuaded by the Nazis’ violent fascism and protested nonetheless against the

despotic regime and their practises that involved the misuse of patients. Bonhoeffer protested against

cheaper mental institutions, which would have resulted in weakened care for the mentally ill. But

altogether, a scarce amount of effort had been devoted to saving the lives of these people. After the

fall of the Nazi Regime, Ludwig Schlaich wrote about the cold reality these patients had been subject

to, stating that they too had belonged to the “Verfolgten des Dritten Reiches” and yet “wo ist einer,

wo sind die Parteien, wo der Staat, die sich dafür einsetzen,” (Schlaich, 1947) True – nobody had

busied themselves with protecting some of the most vulnerable members of society. Their

vulnerability was exacerbated in that no organisations sought to help them. The insidious reach of the

Nazi regime needled into the sole organisation that should, theoretically, have helped them.


10

The presence of psychiatry in Nazi Germany was overwhelming – indeed, its involvement

should never be overlooked or forgotten. Psychiatric research had forged a disdain for the mentally ill,

and had deemed them worthy of death, purely for not being psychologically capable of adhering to the

hegemonic standards of Aryan perfection. One of the most ruthless ideologies perpetuated by the Nazi

regime was the belief that not all human beings are worthy of life. If a person could not contribute to

the workforce, could not raise children or otherwise inhibited by a psychological problem, they were

nothing but an unwanted statistic to the Nazis. Whilst psychiatrists were the individuals signing death

sentences, their imprint on the arduous Nazi regime remains largely unknown and their crimes have

been obscured over the course of history. For some of the most heinous acts of cruelty against the

vulnerable, these criminals barely faced justice or received a semblance of punishment. The active

participation in the voluntary desecration of human life, as enacted by well-esteemed psychiatrists,

was a brutal violation of the Hippocratic Oath and, I would add, basic human ethics. The original

focus of this research was to analyse how psychiatry had become exploited by the Nazi regime, only

to discover that the psychiatric field had already been inherently corrupt in the first place. Nazism

merely gave psychiatrists the tools to carry out systematic murder. Psychiatry became mutated beyond

recognition, the sanctity of human life desecrated in the name of striving for an utterly unobtainable

societal ideal. What one can ultimately surmise from examining the dynamics of this industry during

the Nazi epoch is that psychiatry was more than a medical field - it was a weapon of mass destruction.


11

Figures

Figure 1: Sterilisation Request (1926)

Figure 2: Nicht Strafe

Sondern Befreieung

(1936)


12

Figure 3: „Hier Trägst Du Mit“ (1936)


13

Figure 4: Death Certificate of Karl E (1945)


14

Figure 4: Adolf Hitler’s signed letter

advocating Gnadentod (1939)


15

Image Sources

Figure 1. Sterilisation Request (1926) In: Schott, H. Die Chronik der Medizin. Germany:

Bechtermünz Verlag, 1998: 247

Figure 2: „Nicht Strafe Sondern Befreieung“ (1936) In: Permanent Exhibition at the NS-

Dokumentationszentrum München. Germany, 2016

Figure 3: „Hier Trägst Du Mit“ (1936) In: Trus, A. ‚… vom Leid erlösen.‘ Zur Geschichte der

nationalsozialistischen ‘Euthanasie’ – Verbrechen: Zur Geschichte der nationalsozialistischen

‘Euthanasie’ Verbrechen. Germany: Mabuse-Verlag, 2013 : 85

Figure 4: Death Certificate of Karl E (1945) In: Kampmeyer, M. Tödliche Medizin: Rassenwahn im

Nationalsozialismus. Germany: Wallstein, 2009: 120

Figure 5: Adolf Hitler’s signed letter advocating Gnadentod (1939) In: Schott, H. Die Chronik der

Medizin. Germany: Bechtermünz Verlag, 1998: 255

Filmography

1. Opfer der Vergangenheit, 1937 [Film] Directed by Gernot Bock-Stieber, Kurt Botner (as

Dr. Kurt Botner.) Germany

Bibliography

1.Bastian, T. Furchtbare Ärzte: Medizinische Verbrechen im Dritten Reich. Germany: C.H Beck,

2001: 55 – 92

2. Binding, K and Hoche,A. Die Freigabe der Vernichtung Lebensunwerten Lebens. Leipzig:

Verlag von Felix Meiner, 1920

3. Burleigh, M. Tod und Erlösung. Euthanasie in Deutschland 1900 – 1945. Germany: Deutsch,

2002: 21 – 138

4. Esser, Brigitte. Chronik des 2. Weltkriegs. Germany: Bechtermünz, 1997: 21

5. Frei, N. Medizin und Gesundheitspolitik in der NS-Zeit. Germany: De Gruyter Oldenbourg,

1991: 191


16

6. Kampmeyer, M. Tödliche Medizin: Rassenwahn im Nationalsozialismus. Germany:

Wallstein, 2009: 50

7. Klee, E. Dokumente zur „Euthanasie“ im NS-Staat. Germany: FISCHER Taschenbuch, 1985:

28 – 116

8. Klee, E. „Euthanasie“ im Dritten Reich: Die „Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens.“

Germany: FISCHER Taschenbuch. 2010: 61 -440

9. Schlaich, L. Lebensunwert? Kirche und Innere Mission Württembergs im Kampf gegen die

„Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens.“ Germany: Evang. Gesellschaft, 1947: 79

10. Schott, H. Die Chronik der Medizin. Germany: Bechtermünz Verlag, 1998: 193 – 255

11. Süß,W. Der ‚Volkskörper‘ im Krieg. MunichL: Oldenbourg Verlag, 2003: 405

12. Trus, A. ‚… vom Leid erlösen.‘ Zur Geschichte der nationalsozialistischen ‘Euthanasie’ –

Verbrechen: Zur Geschichte der nationalsozialistischen ‘Euthanasie’ Verbrechen. Germany:

Mabuse-Verlag, 2013 : 13 -35

13. Zimmermann-Acklin, M. Euthanasie. Germany: Saint Paul, 2002: 62

Locations used:

1.KZ-Gedenkstätte Dachau

2. Institut für Zeitgeschichte (München)

3. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek

4. NS-Dokumentationszentrum München

5. Münchner Stadtbibliothek

With my deepest gratitude to the Quinault Family for this opportunity.

Documents

Psychiatry as a weapon of fascism: How psychiatry was ... · über die Notwendigkeit eines Lebens zu entscheiden ... notions of ethics and morality in order to exploit psychiatry