And so Herwig Czech has written a lengthy research study on Hans Asperger's work, his "personnel files, political assessments by Nazi authorities, and medical case records from various institutions, most importantly from the child “euthanasia” clinic Am Spiegelgrund and Asperger’s Heilpädagogik ward. " Hans Asperger, National Socialism, and “race hygiene” in Nazi-era Vienna
He found an image contrary to that of the kindly paediatrician who selflessly saved autistic children from the evil Nazi euthanasia programme. This is the common view of Asperger, a view held by all those who have worked to make Autism a spectrum and those who write of the Neurodiversity movement. I've often wondered if any of them had actually read Asperger's paper, which is often uncomfortable reading. Czech argues:
"A review of the existing literature on Asperger’s life and career shows the current fault lines in the narrative of his Nazi-era trajectory. Lorna Wing’s seminal paper from 1981 which popularized the term “Asperger’s syndrome” made no reference to the historical context of Asperger’s work. Similarly, Uta Frith’s 1991 book chapter “Asperger and his syndrome” barely mentioned National Socialism in the few pages dedicated to Asperger’s professional and personal life in Vienna during the 1930s and 1940s. Based on her reading of Asperger’s 1944 article on “autistic psychopaths,” she stated that “Asperger clearly cared about these children, who in most people’s eyes were simply obnoxious brats.” Her text established what has become the most common view of Asperger’s behavior during the Nazi period, namely that he defended his patients against the Nazi regime at great personal risk: “Far from despising the misfits, he devoted himself to their cause—and this at a time when allegiance to misfits was nothing less than dangerous.” She defended Asperger against accusations of “allegiance to Nazi ideology” that had been raised because of his early commitment to the German Youth Movement."
Indeed "In 1993, Lorna Wing argued that as a devout Catholic, he could not have been a Nazi."
"A Nazi? No,” Wing said. “No, no, no! He was a very religious man.”"
She could have added that he spoke German too.
"The strongest claim to the effect that Asperger was an active opponent of the Nazis and that he risked his life defending the children in his care is based on an episode reported in Adam Feinstein’s book on the pioneers of autism research. Allegedly, the Gestapo twice came to the clinic to arrest Asperger, either because of his 1938 talk or because he had refused to “hand [patients] over to officials”. The only known source for this claim is Asperger himself, who mentioned the incident in 1962 at his inauguration as the Vienna chair of pediatrics and in the above-cited 1974 interview:
It is totally inhuman—as we saw with dreadful consequences—when people accept the concept of a worthless life. […] As I was never willing to accept this concept—in other words, to notify the [Public] Health Office of the mentally deficient—this was a truly dangerous situation for me. 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."
But then others lined up as apologists for Asperger. Simon Baron-Cohen:
"Asperger coined the term Autistische Psychopathen (autistic psychopathy) or Autismus for short to describe the children in his special education unit. In them he saw children with the minds of geniuses, eccentrics, obsessed with their special interests, some with amazing memories who could recall all the routes of the Viennese tramlines, others who could perform rapid arithmetical calculation, and others with profound learning difficulties. When he submitted his thesis describing these children in 1943, he argued that many of them had a natural aptitude for science, for example giving a portrait of a child who was obsessive with performing chemistry experiments at home. He saw them as potential innovators, seeing the world with a fresh perspective, and called them his ‘little professors’. He suggested to his superiors that his ‘little professors’ would make superior code breakers for the Reich. While he recognised how broad the autism spectrum was, he emphasised their special talents, not their ‘degenerate defects’."
This is nonsense, even before Czech's publication. I'm pretty sure that Baron-Cohen has not read Asperger's Autistic Psychopathy. Of Asperger's fourth case study, Hellmuth, he wrote he had a "grotesque" appearance: "Soon after his birth he had convulsions...In Hellmuth's case there were clear indications that his autism was due to brain injury at birth...This boy was an 'autistic automaton', impractical and instinctually disturbed. His pedantries tyrannised the household and he was in general very difficult to cope with." Emphasising those special talents.
And, of course, Steve Silberman, from whom Baron-Cohen is quoting:
"Silberman concludes that Asperger was the opposite of a Nazi sympathiser and that, in doing this, he saved these children from almost certain extermination."
Silberman himself in his book Neurotribes creates a narrative in which Asperger is a kind of Oskar Schindler in a lab coat to autistic children and whose original ideas were stolen by the dastardly Leo Kanner who held back Autism diagnosis and support for decades. It's complete nonsense but it was widely bought by the public keen to hear this feel good story of man fighting the odds to bring the truth that we're all autistic, only some more so or, as in the case of The Female Autism Phenotype, not at all but somehow still magically autistic, etc. Even after Czech had published accounts of Asperger having effectively signed the death warrant of a 3 year old girl, Silberman continued this deluded fantasy by writing an apologia, of sorts Was Dr. Asperger A Nazi? The Question Still Haunts Autism arguing:
"Donvan and Zucker base their conclusions on documents allegedly uncovered by a Holocaust scholar in Vienna named Herwig Czech, whose grandfather was a Nazi. Czech has made a career of documenting the horrific crimes of the medical establishment under the Third Reich." My italics.
And Silberman made a career alleging that Kanner stole Asperger's ideas, I have no idea what Silberman's grandfather was, is it relevant? No but you want to make your opponent sound like an opportunist with an axe to grind so...
"While researching my own history of autism, NeuroTribes, published in 2015, I ultimately came to take a more nuanced view of Asperger as a compassionate clinician and educator working under the most difficult possible circumstances as Hitler and his henchmen rose to power. My book explores the historical background of the Nazis' attempt to wipe disabled people off the face of the earth..."
Well, it seems that kindly old uncle Hans did his bit too in wiping disabled people off the face of the earth. Odd really, as the villain, Leo Kanner did no such thing. In fact he was often appalled at the conditions that autistic people lived in in institutions.
Of course, placing Asperger's work in context is fine. But then, Silberman is happy to deride Kanner's backward views of how to treat autistic people. You can't have the rule used for one but not the other.
Silberman repeats the claims made by Asperger himself: "Asperger and his colleagues would eventually examine more than 200 children with autism at all levels of ability — from nonspeaking children who would always require assistance in their daily lives to a young man who became an assistant professor of astronomy after detecting an error in one of Isaac Newton's proofs. Asperger noted the prevalence of autistic traits among "distinguished scientists," and went so far as to say, "It seems that for success in science and art, a dash of autism is essential ... the necessary ingredient may be an ability to turn away from the everyday world, from the simply practical, an ability to rethink a subject with originality so as to create in new untrodden ways."
This story is oft repeated and makes no sense whatsoever. From Asperger's Autistic Psychopathy:
"Here is an example. For almost three decades we were able to observe an autistic individual from boyhood to manhood. Throughout his life he showed grossly autistic behaviour. It was as if he never took any notice of other people. He behaved so absent-mindedly that he often did not recognise his closest acquaintances. He was extremely clumsy and gauche, and there were all the difficulties we described earlier in learning to deal with the practical chores of daily life. He remained awkward and socially unconcerned in his demeanour. For instance, one could see him as a young man sitting in the tram and picking his nose with great care and persistence!
When he was at school there were constant serious difficulties; he learnt or did not learn as the whim took him...
In secondary school he surprised his teachers by his specialised mathematical knowledge which had already advanced to the most abstract areas. Thanks to this extraordinary talent, and despite his
impossible behaviour and failure in other subjects, he managed to advance without having to repeat classes, and was able to take the university entrance examinations. Not long after the start of his university studies, reading theoretical astronomy, he proved a mathematical error in Newton's work. His tutor advised him to use this discovery as the basis for his doctoral dissertation. From the outset it was clear that he was destined for an academic career. In an exceptionally short time he became an
assistant professor at the Department of Astronomy and achieved his Habilitation."
The paper was written in 1944, if they had followed the boy for three decades that means they would have had to have been following him from around the end of WWI, Asperger himself would have been around 12. If it means they followed the boy via school reports, parents etc. then that still makes no sense as Asperger was a paediatrician, why would he be looking at the case of a man in his mid twenties? Feinman believes the boy was Asperger's first case study Fritz, whom Asperger first saw in 1939 aged 5. Fritz would have been gaining his hypothetical doctorate in the late 1950s. Unless Asperger had perfected time travel this is nonsensical. Why has no one else ever mentioned this brilliant autistic boy who proved a mathematical error in Newton's work? Asperger claims they followed him over three decades, even observing him on the tram as a young man, what is Asperger doing following men around on trams? It literally makes no sense whatsoever yet that hasn't stopped Feinman or Silberman repeating this obviously apocryphal story as hard undisputed fact that autistic people can do stuff.
Silberman claims: "As a clinician who worked with children with many types of hereditary disabilities, Asperger was in an acutely perilous position — particularly because the man who originally assigned him to work in the Children's Clinic, an infectious disease specialist named Franz Hamburger, became one of the most prominent Nazis in Austria. Hamburger portrayed the Fuehrer as a grand physician, opening up "new avenues of health for the 80 million folk of Germany."
Czech's work shows that Hamburger protected Asperger because the latter showed no objection to National Socialism. To all intents and purposes, Asperger was a good Nazi:
"According to the Vienna NSDAP Personnel Office, Asperger was “unobjectionable with respect to his character and politics.” His Catholic orientation was considered a minus, but this was mitigated by the fact that he had not been actively involved with the Christian Social Party or the Austrofascist regime. Crucially, the assessment concluded that Asperger “was in conformity with the National Socialist racial and sterilization laws...
This investigation in all likelihood constituted the basis for Asperger’s claim, made 24 years later, that he had faced persecution by the Gestapo. Hamburger was certainly in a position to decisively influence the outcome of such a procedure, by vouching for his protégé’s willingness to cooperate with the regime—a less dramatic but much more plausible version than the alleged arrest, for which no documentary evidence exists. This explanation also correlates with Asperger’s 1974 account that Hamburger saved him “from the Gestapo” rather than “from being arrested by the Gestapo,” as he put it in 1962. 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."
Yes, that is odd isn't it. It's as if Asperger was just keeping his head down after the war avoiding any mention of his association with Hamburger. Funny that. Even funnier is that, if Asperger actually "discovered" Autism why oh why did he not continue his work after the war? Hmmm.
Silberman repeated the evidence given by Asperger alone (everyone else that could corroborate it was dead):
"Under the influence of fanatics like Hamburger, the distinction between normal and abnormal behavior became a litmus test that meant the difference between life and death. The Nazis embarked on a series of euthanasia campaigns to murder disabled children and adults in large numbers, which effectively became practice runs for the Holocaust. Doctors were required to report disabled children in their care, medical students were trained to administer lethal injections while filling out fictitious death certificates, and clinics and hospitals became factories of death — including the former rehab facility in Vienna called Am Spiegelgrund that became the primary killing center for all of Austria under the supervision of Erwin Jekelius.
Dissent in the ranks was punished harshly. Asperger found himself in what he later described as a "truly dangerous situation." According to Adam Feinstein, author of A History of Autism, the Gestapo came to the clinic twice to arrest Asperger — and both times, Hamburger was able to send them away."
Compare and contrast with Czech's findings from historical documents:
"It is documented that he personally referred a number of children to the Spiegelgrund “euthanasia” facility...
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. Based on the narrative promoted by Asperger himself and others who took his cue, one would expect to find considerable differences between his reports on troubled children and those written by colleagues committed to the idea of “unworthy” lives and their exclusion from the body politic.
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."
Silberman argues "In his first talk on autism in 1938, which Donvan and Zucker put forth as evidence of Nazi sympathies, Asperger may well have emphasized his "most promising cases" to his Nazi bosses in part because newly passed eugenics laws in Austria targeted more impaired children for extermination. This tactic inadvertently led to one of the most pernicious myths about Asperger's legacy: that he only saw high-functioning children, when he made clear in his published work that he saw children from all points on the spectrum."
He certainly did. And Czech has detailed some of them in his new work:
"Asperger’s report on another 4-year-old, Karl E. (like Leo a foster child), is similarly harsh and devoid of any discernible positive bias when measured against the diagnoses produced at Spiegelgrund. Asperger characterized him as “a psychopathic infant who causes considerable pedagogic difficulties: marked irritability […], a tendency towards negativistic reactions and acts of malice, demanding character.” He recommended transferal to a closed institution as the only viable possibility for the boy, conceding that in this case, the boy had potential thanks to his intelligence.125 After several months of observation at Spiegelgrund, Jekelius concluded that “contrary to the assessment at the pediatric clinic, the diagnosis of psychopathy could not be confirmed.” The boy’s behavior was not outside the normal range: He was “very intelligent” and “solved with ease” the questions and puzzles put to him by the psychologist.
The case of 16-year-old Johann K. illustrates Asperger’s tendency to downplay the importance of the children’s circumstances (including instances of mistreatment and abuse) and to explain difficulties they may have experienced (or caused to caregivers) with alleged constitutional deficiencies. Asperger called Johann a “semi-imbecile,” although he conceded that his achievements at school were not that bad considering he had missed years of school because of bone tuberculosis. Asperger saw the main problem in the boy’s “severe irritability and lack of inhibition in every respect (severe aggressions, sexual over-excitability, prodigality, laziness).” Provided that he was placed under “very sovereign, inexorable guidance,” Asperger thought it possible that Johann could be used for unskilled labor. Left with his parents or grandparents, Asperger considered the boy a “danger to his environment” who would without a doubt end up “in total neglect.” He recommended removing the boy from his family and referring him to a closed institution.
Another example of Asperger’s tendency to downplay the consequences of neglect or abuse are his comments on two sisters of 7 and 5 years, whom he saw in February 1941 because their mother had difficulties with them. He wrote that Charlotte (the younger one) was “more severely degenerative than her sister,” “intellectually clearly retarded,” and “always ready for serious mischief,” The mother, whom he characterized as “not very intelligent and mentally slightly strange,” was in his view not able to cope with the two girls, requiring their immediate placement in a closed institution
In 1941, Asperger sent a 15-year-old boy to a “labor education camp for work-shy youth” in Bavaria because he hoped that strict discipline and forced labor would help alleviate his severe hypochondriac symptoms.135 Although this case is in some respects unusual, it illustrates how authoritarian Asperger’s approach could be. The case records kept by his clinic are full of examples revealing how he considered strict discipline and “sovereign guidance” (überlegene Führung, a signature phrase in his written reports) the answer to many of his patients’ (and their caregivers’) troubles"
Silberman claimed "Donvan and Zucker's account of that lecture omits any reference to the most radical statement Asperger made that day: his observation that his patients' impairments were inextricable from their special gifts, forming "natural, necessary, interconnected aspects of one well-knit, harmonious personality." Later, he would make the prescient suggestion that the enhanced pattern-recognition abilities of his autistic patients would make them valuable code-breakers for the Reich. This view was completely at odds with the eugenicists' core belief that humanity could only thrive by shedding the "burden" of providing disabled people with the support they need, while they make contributions that only they can."
I still don't know where the Reich code breaking thing comes from as Silberman doesn't reference it and Silberman's the only one to mention it. Feinman oddly suggests that Asperger received letters from his autistic patients who were away fighting for the Reich. Again, never heard this anywhere else, funnily enough.
As to Asperger being at odds with the disabled burden paradigm, Czech shows that Asperger sent two girls to Am Spiegelgrund precisely because their mothers saw the children as burdens, Herta Schreiber and the seemingly unrelated, Elisabeth Schreiber, aged three and five.
Asperger, in his paper, is keen to link heredity to Autism and precisely dwells on Fritz V because of his heritage, little Fritz came from nobility, his relative was a noted poet that Asperger read. The two boys who Asperger dismisses as hopeless cases, Ernst and Hellmuth come from poorer backgrounds. For these two boys Asperger dwells on their physical appearance. This isn't surprising as Asperger was a keen walker and a long time member of German hiking clubs.
"In Asperger’s own words, his formative experience within the polarized political landscape of interwar Austria was membership in the so-called Bund Neuland, a Catholic youth organization focused on outdoor activities, with roots in the predominantly völkisch-nationalist Wandervogel and the German Youth Movement."
Further Asperger hints at physical defects being linked to criminality, echoing the infamous Cesar Lombardo:
"A typical example of his approach is a 1952 paper on the “Psychopathology of Young Criminals,” in which he named three groups of children with constitutional or organic defects as particularly prone to committing crimes: the so-called “unstable” (or “disorganized”) type, those with encephalitis-induced brain damage, and the “autistic, with disturbed instincts, especially those with normal or above-average intelligence.”"
Asperger was particularly het up about Hellmuth's masturbation. Being Catholic and believing in the Germanic health tradition sex seemed to be problematic for Asperger. In this case, Czech's research is very unpleasant:
"One troubling consequence arising from this approach is how Asperger regarded the sexual abuse of children. He was convinced that victims of sexual abuse shared a common constitutional disposition and certain character traits such as “shamelessness,” leading them to “attract” such experiences, while children with “natural defensive forces” should be able to “reject” them. If a child suffered from trauma as a result of abuse or rape, Asperger again took this as a sign of an inherent constitutional weakness, since a “healthy personality” should be able to “outgrow” even “brutal acts of sexual violation” without suffering any damage in terms of psychological development. In his textbook, the only examples offered on this subject are cases in which the abuse was presented as a fabrication of the child, reinforcing the impression that the victims were always to blame—either because they were phantasizing, if not outright lying, or because they had “provoked” the deeds due to their constitutional predisposition
The case of 15-year-old Edith H. illustrates the continuity of Asperger’s thinking on sexual abuse from the Nazi to the post-war period. Edith was admitted to the Heilpädagogik ward in April 1941 because she had been sexually abused by a 40-year-old man. In his report, Asperger called her “under-developed with regard to intellect and character.” He deplored that she lacked “moral sense” and did not show any remorse about what had happened. He recommended placing her in permanent welfare care (Fürsorgeerziehung), not just because of her “severe sexual depravation” but also because of the moral danger she allegedly posed to her environment."
I think that's what is now called victim blaming. This notion of being too weak to overcome trauma souds...welll...pretty Nazi-like.
"In this belief, Asperger anticipated the development of the modern neurodiversity movement, which views conditions like autism, dyslexia and ADHD as profound disabilities that can also convey striking gifts in the presence of adequate accommodations and educational resources," claimed Silberman. I suggest reading Czech's account of Asperger's history and see if the two opinions gel at all.
Silberman's piece concludes with "I look forward to Herwig Czech finally making his research available to other scholars. But if Donvan and Zucker's allegations turn out to be true, the most important lesson of this tragic chapter in history is not that Asperger's work should be ignored, as it was in most of the world until developmental psychologist Uta Frith finally made it available in English. The most important lesson is not that brutal regimes like the Third Reich enable evil men to do evil, but that they are able to compel even well-intentioned people to do monstrous things."
Well, Czech's work is freely available now. I wonder if Silberman is still clinging to this belief.
As Czech suggests in his study: "Adam Feinstein’s 2010 book on the history of autism illustrated the increasing gap between the English- and German-language literature. The author qualified the affirmative references to Nazi ideology in some of Asperger’s papers as a deliberate tactic to deceive “the Nazis” about his true intentions, namely to protect his patients. A cornerstone of his argument is Asperger’s claim that he had faced arrest by the Gestapo for his stance against Nazi race hygiene policies. Steve Silberman’s 2015 book NeuroTribes, written for a general audience, also pushed the narrative of Asperger as an Oskar Schindler-like protector of children with autism. One of Asperger’s alleged strategies was that he “intentionally highlighted his ‘most promising’ cases to deflect the wrath of the Nazis”. As far as Asperger’s conduct during National Socialism is concerned, Silberman’s argument (and the evidence presented) is very similar to Adam Feinstein’s and some of the other texts already mentioned."
In The Guardian it's reported that:
"In a joint statement, the editors of Molecular Autism – Simon Baron-Cohen, Ami Klin, Steve Silberman and Joseph Buxbaum – said they welcomed the fact that Czech’s “meticulous research” had finally thrown light on decades of scepticism about Asperger’s claims that he had taken a caring approach to his patients.
“The degree of Asperger’s involvement in the targeting of Vienna’s most vulnerable children has remained an open and vexing question in autism research for a long time,” they wrote in a joint statement."
I do hope that Steve Silberman addresses this further as, though it effectively makes no difference to how useful Asperger's work is (or isn't) it does complicate Silberman's pantomime story of evil Leo Kanner stealing kindly Hans Asperger's work and passing it off as his own. Leo Kanner, rather than being the villain of the piece, objectively studied 11 children (three of whom were girls) and his findings are still the cornerstone of ASD diagnosis whereas Asperger's paper is "rambling and disorganized." British first professor of child psychiatry, Michael Rutter. And furthermore, his work involved sending those he deemed mentally unfit to their deaths. it's hard to view Asperger as said pantomime hero in that context.
While Czech's findings make little difference to diagnoses of Autism it adds an important detail to how Autism diagnosis has evolved.
He found an image contrary to that of the kindly paediatrician who selflessly saved autistic children from the evil Nazi euthanasia programme. This is the common view of Asperger, a view held by all those who have worked to make Autism a spectrum and those who write of the Neurodiversity movement. I've often wondered if any of them had actually read Asperger's paper, which is often uncomfortable reading. Czech argues:
"A review of the existing literature on Asperger’s life and career shows the current fault lines in the narrative of his Nazi-era trajectory. Lorna Wing’s seminal paper from 1981 which popularized the term “Asperger’s syndrome” made no reference to the historical context of Asperger’s work. Similarly, Uta Frith’s 1991 book chapter “Asperger and his syndrome” barely mentioned National Socialism in the few pages dedicated to Asperger’s professional and personal life in Vienna during the 1930s and 1940s. Based on her reading of Asperger’s 1944 article on “autistic psychopaths,” she stated that “Asperger clearly cared about these children, who in most people’s eyes were simply obnoxious brats.” Her text established what has become the most common view of Asperger’s behavior during the Nazi period, namely that he defended his patients against the Nazi regime at great personal risk: “Far from despising the misfits, he devoted himself to their cause—and this at a time when allegiance to misfits was nothing less than dangerous.” She defended Asperger against accusations of “allegiance to Nazi ideology” that had been raised because of his early commitment to the German Youth Movement."
Indeed "In 1993, Lorna Wing argued that as a devout Catholic, he could not have been a Nazi."
"A Nazi? No,” Wing said. “No, no, no! He was a very religious man.”"
She could have added that he spoke German too.
"The strongest claim to the effect that Asperger was an active opponent of the Nazis and that he risked his life defending the children in his care is based on an episode reported in Adam Feinstein’s book on the pioneers of autism research. Allegedly, the Gestapo twice came to the clinic to arrest Asperger, either because of his 1938 talk or because he had refused to “hand [patients] over to officials”. The only known source for this claim is Asperger himself, who mentioned the incident in 1962 at his inauguration as the Vienna chair of pediatrics and in the above-cited 1974 interview:
It is totally inhuman—as we saw with dreadful consequences—when people accept the concept of a worthless life. […] As I was never willing to accept this concept—in other words, to notify the [Public] Health Office of the mentally deficient—this was a truly dangerous situation for me. 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."
But then others lined up as apologists for Asperger. Simon Baron-Cohen:
"Asperger coined the term Autistische Psychopathen (autistic psychopathy) or Autismus for short to describe the children in his special education unit. In them he saw children with the minds of geniuses, eccentrics, obsessed with their special interests, some with amazing memories who could recall all the routes of the Viennese tramlines, others who could perform rapid arithmetical calculation, and others with profound learning difficulties. When he submitted his thesis describing these children in 1943, he argued that many of them had a natural aptitude for science, for example giving a portrait of a child who was obsessive with performing chemistry experiments at home. He saw them as potential innovators, seeing the world with a fresh perspective, and called them his ‘little professors’. He suggested to his superiors that his ‘little professors’ would make superior code breakers for the Reich. While he recognised how broad the autism spectrum was, he emphasised their special talents, not their ‘degenerate defects’."
This is nonsense, even before Czech's publication. I'm pretty sure that Baron-Cohen has not read Asperger's Autistic Psychopathy. Of Asperger's fourth case study, Hellmuth, he wrote he had a "grotesque" appearance: "Soon after his birth he had convulsions...In Hellmuth's case there were clear indications that his autism was due to brain injury at birth...This boy was an 'autistic automaton', impractical and instinctually disturbed. His pedantries tyrannised the household and he was in general very difficult to cope with." Emphasising those special talents.
And, of course, Steve Silberman, from whom Baron-Cohen is quoting:
"Silberman concludes that Asperger was the opposite of a Nazi sympathiser and that, in doing this, he saved these children from almost certain extermination."
Silberman himself in his book Neurotribes creates a narrative in which Asperger is a kind of Oskar Schindler in a lab coat to autistic children and whose original ideas were stolen by the dastardly Leo Kanner who held back Autism diagnosis and support for decades. It's complete nonsense but it was widely bought by the public keen to hear this feel good story of man fighting the odds to bring the truth that we're all autistic, only some more so or, as in the case of The Female Autism Phenotype, not at all but somehow still magically autistic, etc. Even after Czech had published accounts of Asperger having effectively signed the death warrant of a 3 year old girl, Silberman continued this deluded fantasy by writing an apologia, of sorts Was Dr. Asperger A Nazi? The Question Still Haunts Autism arguing:
"Donvan and Zucker base their conclusions on documents allegedly uncovered by a Holocaust scholar in Vienna named Herwig Czech, whose grandfather was a Nazi. Czech has made a career of documenting the horrific crimes of the medical establishment under the Third Reich." My italics.
And Silberman made a career alleging that Kanner stole Asperger's ideas, I have no idea what Silberman's grandfather was, is it relevant? No but you want to make your opponent sound like an opportunist with an axe to grind so...
"While researching my own history of autism, NeuroTribes, published in 2015, I ultimately came to take a more nuanced view of Asperger as a compassionate clinician and educator working under the most difficult possible circumstances as Hitler and his henchmen rose to power. My book explores the historical background of the Nazis' attempt to wipe disabled people off the face of the earth..."
Well, it seems that kindly old uncle Hans did his bit too in wiping disabled people off the face of the earth. Odd really, as the villain, Leo Kanner did no such thing. In fact he was often appalled at the conditions that autistic people lived in in institutions.
Of course, placing Asperger's work in context is fine. But then, Silberman is happy to deride Kanner's backward views of how to treat autistic people. You can't have the rule used for one but not the other.
Silberman repeats the claims made by Asperger himself: "Asperger and his colleagues would eventually examine more than 200 children with autism at all levels of ability — from nonspeaking children who would always require assistance in their daily lives to a young man who became an assistant professor of astronomy after detecting an error in one of Isaac Newton's proofs. Asperger noted the prevalence of autistic traits among "distinguished scientists," and went so far as to say, "It seems that for success in science and art, a dash of autism is essential ... the necessary ingredient may be an ability to turn away from the everyday world, from the simply practical, an ability to rethink a subject with originality so as to create in new untrodden ways."
This story is oft repeated and makes no sense whatsoever. From Asperger's Autistic Psychopathy:
"Here is an example. For almost three decades we were able to observe an autistic individual from boyhood to manhood. Throughout his life he showed grossly autistic behaviour. It was as if he never took any notice of other people. He behaved so absent-mindedly that he often did not recognise his closest acquaintances. He was extremely clumsy and gauche, and there were all the difficulties we described earlier in learning to deal with the practical chores of daily life. He remained awkward and socially unconcerned in his demeanour. For instance, one could see him as a young man sitting in the tram and picking his nose with great care and persistence!
When he was at school there were constant serious difficulties; he learnt or did not learn as the whim took him...
In secondary school he surprised his teachers by his specialised mathematical knowledge which had already advanced to the most abstract areas. Thanks to this extraordinary talent, and despite his
impossible behaviour and failure in other subjects, he managed to advance without having to repeat classes, and was able to take the university entrance examinations. Not long after the start of his university studies, reading theoretical astronomy, he proved a mathematical error in Newton's work. His tutor advised him to use this discovery as the basis for his doctoral dissertation. From the outset it was clear that he was destined for an academic career. In an exceptionally short time he became an
assistant professor at the Department of Astronomy and achieved his Habilitation."
The paper was written in 1944, if they had followed the boy for three decades that means they would have had to have been following him from around the end of WWI, Asperger himself would have been around 12. If it means they followed the boy via school reports, parents etc. then that still makes no sense as Asperger was a paediatrician, why would he be looking at the case of a man in his mid twenties? Feinman believes the boy was Asperger's first case study Fritz, whom Asperger first saw in 1939 aged 5. Fritz would have been gaining his hypothetical doctorate in the late 1950s. Unless Asperger had perfected time travel this is nonsensical. Why has no one else ever mentioned this brilliant autistic boy who proved a mathematical error in Newton's work? Asperger claims they followed him over three decades, even observing him on the tram as a young man, what is Asperger doing following men around on trams? It literally makes no sense whatsoever yet that hasn't stopped Feinman or Silberman repeating this obviously apocryphal story as hard undisputed fact that autistic people can do stuff.
Silberman claims: "As a clinician who worked with children with many types of hereditary disabilities, Asperger was in an acutely perilous position — particularly because the man who originally assigned him to work in the Children's Clinic, an infectious disease specialist named Franz Hamburger, became one of the most prominent Nazis in Austria. Hamburger portrayed the Fuehrer as a grand physician, opening up "new avenues of health for the 80 million folk of Germany."
Czech's work shows that Hamburger protected Asperger because the latter showed no objection to National Socialism. To all intents and purposes, Asperger was a good Nazi:
"According to the Vienna NSDAP Personnel Office, Asperger was “unobjectionable with respect to his character and politics.” His Catholic orientation was considered a minus, but this was mitigated by the fact that he had not been actively involved with the Christian Social Party or the Austrofascist regime. Crucially, the assessment concluded that Asperger “was in conformity with the National Socialist racial and sterilization laws...
This investigation in all likelihood constituted the basis for Asperger’s claim, made 24 years later, that he had faced persecution by the Gestapo. Hamburger was certainly in a position to decisively influence the outcome of such a procedure, by vouching for his protégé’s willingness to cooperate with the regime—a less dramatic but much more plausible version than the alleged arrest, for which no documentary evidence exists. This explanation also correlates with Asperger’s 1974 account that Hamburger saved him “from the Gestapo” rather than “from being arrested by the Gestapo,” as he put it in 1962. 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."
Yes, that is odd isn't it. It's as if Asperger was just keeping his head down after the war avoiding any mention of his association with Hamburger. Funny that. Even funnier is that, if Asperger actually "discovered" Autism why oh why did he not continue his work after the war? Hmmm.
Silberman repeated the evidence given by Asperger alone (everyone else that could corroborate it was dead):
"Under the influence of fanatics like Hamburger, the distinction between normal and abnormal behavior became a litmus test that meant the difference between life and death. The Nazis embarked on a series of euthanasia campaigns to murder disabled children and adults in large numbers, which effectively became practice runs for the Holocaust. Doctors were required to report disabled children in their care, medical students were trained to administer lethal injections while filling out fictitious death certificates, and clinics and hospitals became factories of death — including the former rehab facility in Vienna called Am Spiegelgrund that became the primary killing center for all of Austria under the supervision of Erwin Jekelius.
Dissent in the ranks was punished harshly. Asperger found himself in what he later described as a "truly dangerous situation." According to Adam Feinstein, author of A History of Autism, the Gestapo came to the clinic twice to arrest Asperger — and both times, Hamburger was able to send them away."
Compare and contrast with Czech's findings from historical documents:
"It is documented that he personally referred a number of children to the Spiegelgrund “euthanasia” facility...
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. Based on the narrative promoted by Asperger himself and others who took his cue, one would expect to find considerable differences between his reports on troubled children and those written by colleagues committed to the idea of “unworthy” lives and their exclusion from the body politic.
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."
Silberman argues "In his first talk on autism in 1938, which Donvan and Zucker put forth as evidence of Nazi sympathies, Asperger may well have emphasized his "most promising cases" to his Nazi bosses in part because newly passed eugenics laws in Austria targeted more impaired children for extermination. This tactic inadvertently led to one of the most pernicious myths about Asperger's legacy: that he only saw high-functioning children, when he made clear in his published work that he saw children from all points on the spectrum."
He certainly did. And Czech has detailed some of them in his new work:
"Asperger’s report on another 4-year-old, Karl E. (like Leo a foster child), is similarly harsh and devoid of any discernible positive bias when measured against the diagnoses produced at Spiegelgrund. Asperger characterized him as “a psychopathic infant who causes considerable pedagogic difficulties: marked irritability […], a tendency towards negativistic reactions and acts of malice, demanding character.” He recommended transferal to a closed institution as the only viable possibility for the boy, conceding that in this case, the boy had potential thanks to his intelligence.125 After several months of observation at Spiegelgrund, Jekelius concluded that “contrary to the assessment at the pediatric clinic, the diagnosis of psychopathy could not be confirmed.” The boy’s behavior was not outside the normal range: He was “very intelligent” and “solved with ease” the questions and puzzles put to him by the psychologist.
The case of 16-year-old Johann K. illustrates Asperger’s tendency to downplay the importance of the children’s circumstances (including instances of mistreatment and abuse) and to explain difficulties they may have experienced (or caused to caregivers) with alleged constitutional deficiencies. Asperger called Johann a “semi-imbecile,” although he conceded that his achievements at school were not that bad considering he had missed years of school because of bone tuberculosis. Asperger saw the main problem in the boy’s “severe irritability and lack of inhibition in every respect (severe aggressions, sexual over-excitability, prodigality, laziness).” Provided that he was placed under “very sovereign, inexorable guidance,” Asperger thought it possible that Johann could be used for unskilled labor. Left with his parents or grandparents, Asperger considered the boy a “danger to his environment” who would without a doubt end up “in total neglect.” He recommended removing the boy from his family and referring him to a closed institution.
Another example of Asperger’s tendency to downplay the consequences of neglect or abuse are his comments on two sisters of 7 and 5 years, whom he saw in February 1941 because their mother had difficulties with them. He wrote that Charlotte (the younger one) was “more severely degenerative than her sister,” “intellectually clearly retarded,” and “always ready for serious mischief,” The mother, whom he characterized as “not very intelligent and mentally slightly strange,” was in his view not able to cope with the two girls, requiring their immediate placement in a closed institution
In 1941, Asperger sent a 15-year-old boy to a “labor education camp for work-shy youth” in Bavaria because he hoped that strict discipline and forced labor would help alleviate his severe hypochondriac symptoms.135 Although this case is in some respects unusual, it illustrates how authoritarian Asperger’s approach could be. The case records kept by his clinic are full of examples revealing how he considered strict discipline and “sovereign guidance” (überlegene Führung, a signature phrase in his written reports) the answer to many of his patients’ (and their caregivers’) troubles"
Silberman claimed "Donvan and Zucker's account of that lecture omits any reference to the most radical statement Asperger made that day: his observation that his patients' impairments were inextricable from their special gifts, forming "natural, necessary, interconnected aspects of one well-knit, harmonious personality." Later, he would make the prescient suggestion that the enhanced pattern-recognition abilities of his autistic patients would make them valuable code-breakers for the Reich. This view was completely at odds with the eugenicists' core belief that humanity could only thrive by shedding the "burden" of providing disabled people with the support they need, while they make contributions that only they can."
I still don't know where the Reich code breaking thing comes from as Silberman doesn't reference it and Silberman's the only one to mention it. Feinman oddly suggests that Asperger received letters from his autistic patients who were away fighting for the Reich. Again, never heard this anywhere else, funnily enough.
As to Asperger being at odds with the disabled burden paradigm, Czech shows that Asperger sent two girls to Am Spiegelgrund precisely because their mothers saw the children as burdens, Herta Schreiber and the seemingly unrelated, Elisabeth Schreiber, aged three and five.
Asperger, in his paper, is keen to link heredity to Autism and precisely dwells on Fritz V because of his heritage, little Fritz came from nobility, his relative was a noted poet that Asperger read. The two boys who Asperger dismisses as hopeless cases, Ernst and Hellmuth come from poorer backgrounds. For these two boys Asperger dwells on their physical appearance. This isn't surprising as Asperger was a keen walker and a long time member of German hiking clubs.
"In Asperger’s own words, his formative experience within the polarized political landscape of interwar Austria was membership in the so-called Bund Neuland, a Catholic youth organization focused on outdoor activities, with roots in the predominantly völkisch-nationalist Wandervogel and the German Youth Movement."
Further Asperger hints at physical defects being linked to criminality, echoing the infamous Cesar Lombardo:
"A typical example of his approach is a 1952 paper on the “Psychopathology of Young Criminals,” in which he named three groups of children with constitutional or organic defects as particularly prone to committing crimes: the so-called “unstable” (or “disorganized”) type, those with encephalitis-induced brain damage, and the “autistic, with disturbed instincts, especially those with normal or above-average intelligence.”"
Asperger was particularly het up about Hellmuth's masturbation. Being Catholic and believing in the Germanic health tradition sex seemed to be problematic for Asperger. In this case, Czech's research is very unpleasant:
"One troubling consequence arising from this approach is how Asperger regarded the sexual abuse of children. He was convinced that victims of sexual abuse shared a common constitutional disposition and certain character traits such as “shamelessness,” leading them to “attract” such experiences, while children with “natural defensive forces” should be able to “reject” them. If a child suffered from trauma as a result of abuse or rape, Asperger again took this as a sign of an inherent constitutional weakness, since a “healthy personality” should be able to “outgrow” even “brutal acts of sexual violation” without suffering any damage in terms of psychological development. In his textbook, the only examples offered on this subject are cases in which the abuse was presented as a fabrication of the child, reinforcing the impression that the victims were always to blame—either because they were phantasizing, if not outright lying, or because they had “provoked” the deeds due to their constitutional predisposition
The case of 15-year-old Edith H. illustrates the continuity of Asperger’s thinking on sexual abuse from the Nazi to the post-war period. Edith was admitted to the Heilpädagogik ward in April 1941 because she had been sexually abused by a 40-year-old man. In his report, Asperger called her “under-developed with regard to intellect and character.” He deplored that she lacked “moral sense” and did not show any remorse about what had happened. He recommended placing her in permanent welfare care (Fürsorgeerziehung), not just because of her “severe sexual depravation” but also because of the moral danger she allegedly posed to her environment."
I think that's what is now called victim blaming. This notion of being too weak to overcome trauma souds...welll...pretty Nazi-like.
"In this belief, Asperger anticipated the development of the modern neurodiversity movement, which views conditions like autism, dyslexia and ADHD as profound disabilities that can also convey striking gifts in the presence of adequate accommodations and educational resources," claimed Silberman. I suggest reading Czech's account of Asperger's history and see if the two opinions gel at all.
Silberman's piece concludes with "I look forward to Herwig Czech finally making his research available to other scholars. But if Donvan and Zucker's allegations turn out to be true, the most important lesson of this tragic chapter in history is not that Asperger's work should be ignored, as it was in most of the world until developmental psychologist Uta Frith finally made it available in English. The most important lesson is not that brutal regimes like the Third Reich enable evil men to do evil, but that they are able to compel even well-intentioned people to do monstrous things."
Well, Czech's work is freely available now. I wonder if Silberman is still clinging to this belief.
As Czech suggests in his study: "Adam Feinstein’s 2010 book on the history of autism illustrated the increasing gap between the English- and German-language literature. The author qualified the affirmative references to Nazi ideology in some of Asperger’s papers as a deliberate tactic to deceive “the Nazis” about his true intentions, namely to protect his patients. A cornerstone of his argument is Asperger’s claim that he had faced arrest by the Gestapo for his stance against Nazi race hygiene policies. Steve Silberman’s 2015 book NeuroTribes, written for a general audience, also pushed the narrative of Asperger as an Oskar Schindler-like protector of children with autism. One of Asperger’s alleged strategies was that he “intentionally highlighted his ‘most promising’ cases to deflect the wrath of the Nazis”. As far as Asperger’s conduct during National Socialism is concerned, Silberman’s argument (and the evidence presented) is very similar to Adam Feinstein’s and some of the other texts already mentioned."
In The Guardian it's reported that:
"In a joint statement, the editors of Molecular Autism – Simon Baron-Cohen, Ami Klin, Steve Silberman and Joseph Buxbaum – said they welcomed the fact that Czech’s “meticulous research” had finally thrown light on decades of scepticism about Asperger’s claims that he had taken a caring approach to his patients.
“The degree of Asperger’s involvement in the targeting of Vienna’s most vulnerable children has remained an open and vexing question in autism research for a long time,” they wrote in a joint statement."
I do hope that Steve Silberman addresses this further as, though it effectively makes no difference to how useful Asperger's work is (or isn't) it does complicate Silberman's pantomime story of evil Leo Kanner stealing kindly Hans Asperger's work and passing it off as his own. Leo Kanner, rather than being the villain of the piece, objectively studied 11 children (three of whom were girls) and his findings are still the cornerstone of ASD diagnosis whereas Asperger's paper is "rambling and disorganized." British first professor of child psychiatry, Michael Rutter. And furthermore, his work involved sending those he deemed mentally unfit to their deaths. it's hard to view Asperger as said pantomime hero in that context.
While Czech's findings make little difference to diagnoses of Autism it adds an important detail to how Autism diagnosis has evolved.
Comments
Post a Comment