Nazi Eugenics – what, why and how did it happen and will it ever happen again Essay Example

improvement. He demonstrated that the inheritance of traits follows particular laws, using peas as his example. His studies were performed between 1856 and 1863 but it was not until the early 1900s that his work was rediscovered and the importance realised.

Darwin's publication of The Origin of Species also gave rise to the development of further theories into genetics and generated huge interest into the area. It was this text that Francis Galton - Darwin's cousin - based his work on. He was especially interested in the area of breeding for domesticity, and the possibilities for application of this idea to the human race. He published his ideas of inheritance of intelligence and other mental characteristics in his book "Hereditary Genius" in 1869.He invented the term 'eugenics' (meaning "good breeding") after performing studies of his own, ranking families on various criteria to determine hereditary factors. He published his results in "Inquiries in Human Faculty and its Development" and encouraged early marriages between families of high rank and suggested incentives for these couples to have children.

(Ridley 2005 p. 12) At first eugenics developed in Germany in very similar ways to other countries around the world, especially the United States.The first International Congress of Eugenics was held in 1912, presided over by Leonard Darwin, the Head of the British Eugenics Society - Winston Churchill was present as representative of Great Britain. As a result of the meeting the Permanent International Commission of Eugenics was created, which hugely influenced the German Racial Hygiene Movement. During the First World War America was the strongest power in the eugenics movement, and the German eugenicists thus followed American progress closely.

This idea

of maintaining the 'good' genes in a population was a popular one, and the importance of heredity and evolution meant ideas of "decay" were a high priority for the Americans. The possibility of 'race suicide' was referred to by both Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt, detailing their concerns at the possibility of 'inferior segments of the population gaining power' (Stern 2005, p. 102) German hygienist Geza von Hoffman wrote a book in 1913 outlining the need for marriage restrictions and also sterilization legislation in the States and Germany - the "easiest measure to prevent the reproduction of inferior people" (Kuhl 1994, p. 6). He also quoted Charles Woodruff (an American eugenicist) stating that "the types of human beings from northwest Europe are our best citizens and have, therefore, to be conserved.

" (Kuhl 1994, p. 17)Sterilization programmes in the States were well established by 1920, with some states having implemented compulsory sterilization of the mentally handicapped as early as 1907. In 1933 the 'law for the prevention of progeny with hereditary defects' was proclaimed in Germany, resulting in the sterilization of those with 'congenital defects, schizophrenia, manic-depressive psychosis, inherited epilepsy... And] severe alcoholism.

' It ultimately resulted in the sterilization of over 350,000 people. In 1937 it was decided that all German, coloured children should also be sterilized. Illegal sterilization programmes continued throughout the war, as did research into more efficient sterilization methods - most were carried out by X-irradiation, and this could be done without the patient's knowledge (they would be distracted when filling in some forms and 'zapped' under the desk) but a Viennese physician also suggested a method using a plant poison.Techniques

for the sterilization of women were also investigated though were not as widely used due to the increased complications involved.

The Nazi Eugenic programme itself began in 1927, when the Kaiser Wilhem-Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Wissenschaften (KWG - Kaiser Wilhelm Society for the Advancement of Sciences) founded an institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics. Professor Fischer was appointed director and in 1929 attended the International Congress of Eugenics.In 1933 the 'law for the restoration of the professional civil service' was proclaimed and as a result all Jewish and half-Jewish workers are dismissed. In 1935 the law for the 'protection of German blood' was proclaimed, preventing all marriages and extra marital relations between German citizens and Jews and half-Jews.

At the same time the Reich law was passed, stating that Jews, half-Jews and quarter-Jews were no longer citizens. The main eugenic programme devised by the Nazis was referred to as T-4.It was established by Hitler and run by Werner Heyde and Paul Nitsche. Its aim was to lower the expenses of the country by improving and preserving the genetic quality of the German population by sterilizing those with physical disabilities or mental illnesses, and systematically killing the institutionalised. Six euthanasia killing sites were established, and doctors and medical assistants applied to assist with the program.

The salary offered was comparable to "the salary of a mayor governing a town of 20,000 residents! (Web 1) Despite a slowing of the program following a speech by the Bishop of Munster, by 1941 every third inmate of a psychiatric unit had died by direct or indirect (starvation) means of the program. Euthanasia programmes were in place in Germany

from the early 1930s, but a law of that effect was only passed in 1939: "... patients who are judged incurable after the most thorough review of their condition which is possible, can be granted mercy killing". This was intended to empty mental hospitals permanently.

 Read also what led to the Rwandan genocideIn some camps this was by shooting; but in most food was simply withheld, despite protests by (very few and far between) physicians, such as Professor Kleist: "As long as there is no law 'for the destruction of lives unworthy to be lived', those who are beyond cure have the right to humane treatment" (Muller-Hill 1088, p. 39) Research into eugenics was facilitated by the eugenics program itself - prisoners were used as subjects of studies that determined in turn who should be taken prisoner.Gypsies were already being studied at the KWI institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics, but in 1936 a Doctor Ritter successfully applied for funding to begin research into Gypsies as part of the department of Race Hygiene.

He and his co-workers performed genealogical and anthropological surveys on circa 30,000 Gypsies, travelling to campsites and concentration camps. The results, he claimed, proved his hypothesis that Gypsies were "... a people of entirely primitive ethnological origins, whose mental backwardness makes them incapable of real social adaptation.

.. " (Muller-Hill 1988, p. 7) Ritter suggested that to solve the "Gypsy Problem" the only mode of action would be to collect together all Gypsies of mixed blood and keep them working in labour camps, to prevent further breeding.The Department of Race Hygiene

trained 'experts' to provide their opinion on mixed blood decisions. In 1941 the decision was made that Gypsies should be "given the same treatment as the Jews" (Muller-Hill p.

59) and sent to extermination camps. Gypsies beginning to return from Poland (where they had been deported at the beginning of the war) were to be sent to Auschwitz so they could be used as case studies by Dr. Ritter. In 1943 Dr. Ritter was awarded his doctorate for a thesis entitled "Race-biological observations on Gypsies and Gypsy-twins".

Professor von Verschuer, the successor of Professor Fischer at the KWI of Anthropology, made use of the scientific material provided by Auschwitz. A former lab assistant of his - Dr Mengele - was a camp doctor at Auschwitz. He was employed to control an outbreak of typhoid in the camp - as part of his duty he had to 'select' those too ill to work that must be sent to the gas chambers.As the prisoners arrived at the camp Dr Mengele separated them into groups to work and groups to be gassed immediately - at that point he collected "over 100 pairs of twins and about the same number of families of dwarfs and deformed individuals". They were then subjected to hugely rigorous tests and any organs of scientific interest were preserved and sent on to Professor von Verschuer. There, studies into the heterochromatic eyes of fraternal and identical twins were undertaken.

The disappearances from the camps were written off as victims of epidemics.Other studies were later carried out into inheritance: "we can begin our real research very soon... how hereditary factors act and what kind of events take

place in their action. " (Von Verschuer in Muller-Hill 1994 p.

73) "Before the Nazis came to power... German eugenics was both ethnically and politically diverse" (Paul 1995, p. 85).

So why did the eugenics programs in Germany splinter so drastically from those of the States and the rest of the world when they began in near identical fashions?For example, in Denmark the sterilization laws were taken up with near to no dissent, yet the number of occurrences over 4 years was almost 10 times less than that of Germany, even allowing for the differences in population size. Scandinavian countries such as Denmark embraced the science of eugenics in the same way as Germany, marvelling at America's stance and keen to prevent the economic and genetic decline associated with supporting the 'feeble minded' and other 'inferior' populations. One suggestion is that in the post-World War I era German scientists were keen to regain their status at the forefront of advances.Hitler provided the opportunity to excel by pushing the boundaries of eugenics: "Hitler came to power because he made it possible for German citizens to think of their dreams of destruction as a science with biological basis. " (Muller-Hill 1994, p.

96) Indeed, a senior representative of the American eugenics movement praised Hitler in 1924, stating that Hitler had "been able to construct a comprehensive race policy of population development and improvement that promises to be epochal in racial history... other nations and other racial groups must follow.

.. (Kuhl 1994, p. 34) Control of the media and propaganda meant that the extent of T-4 was well disguised - and provided a scapegoat for scientists and physicians

at the end of the war, who all claimed they had not been aware of the extermination camps or illegal sterilization and euthanasia practises going on. "The Jewish Question" was terminology for the mission to remove all Jews from Germany, and "evacuating them to the East" was the answer, where the East meant concentration camps in Poland and surrounding areas.

Research was also restricted, with government funding awarded only to those doing 'relevant' research - such as Fischer, Ritter and von Verschuer. Claims that instructions had been misinterpreted or misunderstood was also used in the defence of physician on trial after the war. The extermination aim of German fascism was an open secret - everybody knew it but nobody spoke the words: "To collaborate in the exterminations no one needed to know the goal. It was sufficient to believe in it. " (Muller-Hill 1988, p.

97)After the war the anti-Semitic "racial cleansing" program was publicly criticised by all Eugenics societies. Eugenics continues to be associated with the Holocaust: "popular discussions of eugenics focus on compulsory sterilization and Nazi breeding programs, that is, on brutal measures of state control. " (Paul 1995, p. 135) As a result, today research with racial implications is a hugely controversial area, despite arguments that progress should not be hindered when it can be compared to disciplines such as gender studies.Studies have produced data that suggest there could be basis in the hypothesis that some races are generally more intelligent than others, for example studies of Jews and Gentiles by Terman and Oden in 1947.

Roger Pearson, an anthropologist, has been defending scientific racism on the basis of his research and theory

that the white race is endangered by inferior genetic stock. He also edited a magazine formed to answer "every aspect of the Jewish Question" and also supported Nazi ideologies. Pearson's research is mostly funded by The Pioneer Fund, as was psychologist Hans Eysenck's.The Fund was founded by Harry Laughlin and Frederick Osbourn in 1937, both Nazi eugenicists. The main benefactor left the money in order to "prove that Negroes were inferior" (Web 2) Other criticisms of the fund include the evidence that its main benefactors supported racial segregation, Mengele and von Verschuer were on the board and today it has close links with pressure groups supporting the reformation of American Immigration Policies. However, it rebuts these criticisms, stating that in the 1930s views of race were different to today, and at the time views on segregation, for example, were not as outrageous.

Funding is provided to those submitting an outline proposal of research. Restricting this funding is an effective way of controlling research, as demonstrated by the Nazis. Research is too expensive to generally be funded privately and thus science can be directed generally in the way the government and rich private institues would like. This is especially evident in the pharmaceutical industry - drugs companies are businesses, and as such their work will be into drugs that will provide the largest profit and not necessarily the largest benefit to mankind. As well as the 'negative' programs, the Nazis also encouraged some 'positive' eugenics.

This included the Lebensborn (Well-of-Life) Project, in which single and married women passing certain racial tests were allowed to give birth in special SS-run maternity houses. Today 'positive' eugenics are more prevalent than

ever, with pre-natal screening, terminations and treatment for a variety of disorders freely available, as well as contraception, which collectively "increase the reproductive choices available to women and... reduce the incidence of genetic disease" (Paul 1995, p.

35) So how can another incident of such horrific scale (or in fact on any scale! ) be avoided in the future?Lessons have surely been learnt from the Jewish Holocaust, but not enough to prevent recurrence - the Rwandan genocide unfortunately demonstrated this. However, the deliberate misunderstanding and denial by scientists and physicians working on T4 allowed it to continue for a frightening length of time. Was the Holocaust Hitler's original and ultimate aim? Or did it occur as a result of 'fortuitous' circumstances? The absolute control over the research, the science and the interpretation of laws resulted in the atrocities. Today control over research is as strong as ever, especially in areas that have the potential to prolong human life.Improvements in screening of foetuses are a form of positive eugenics, although the decision is left to the parents as opposed to the government - although medical guidelines may affect this decision.

"... the forces of destruction, marching under the banner of science and technology, may once again gain the upper hand.

" (Muller-Hill 1988, p. 99) While the horrors of Auschwitz and T4 are still within living memory it is unthinkable that events such as the euthanasia and sterilization programs will ever exist anywhere in the developed world.I would have hoped that by this point in the 21st century it would be accepted that no one race is greater than another and attempts at racial 'cleansing' would

be a thing of the past but ignorance is still rife, for example within the British Nationalist Party today: "[Mixed marriage] waters down the gene pool. It's as bad as them as it is for us.

" (Neil Walker, BNP candidate for Abbey Green). For the future we need to implement some sort of safety net - perhaps a governing body that can oversee research relating to eugenics and similar disciplines, which can prevent one authority gaining ultimate control and prevent media brainwashing.But then who will call the shots within that body? Should science be allowed to advance and its usage controlled, or should that direction of research be stopped entirely? It is impossible to control the work of every person around the world - I feel the only solution to prevent a disaster on the scale of the Nazi eugenic program again is to educate everybody. Then the situation of denial and acceptance of such atrocities seen in Germany, and indeed the States and Britain, would be prevented.