Autor/Autorin
Review: Aktion T4 – The Nazi euthanasia programme. Research was also guilty. Using the example of the doctor Julius Hallervorden. A film by Catherine Bernstein (German, original 2015). Berlin: absolut Medien, 2018, 54′, 14,90 €
As part of the so-called Action T4 – named after the headquarters of the murder authority responsible at the time at Tiergartenstraße 4 in Berlin – 70,273 people who were „unworthy of life“ in the eyes of the Nazis were systematically murdered. The mass murder was carried out between January 1940 and August 1941 in six German gas murder centres. The focus was on economic motives and the question of whether or not they were fit for work. „Aktion T4“ is considered the blueprint for the later Holocaust and Porajmos [1 ].
The 54-minute documentary film by French director Catherine Bernstein, which was produced in 2015 and is now available in German for the first time, is divided into the following chapters:
Emergence of racial hygiene Joining the NSDAP in 1939 Construction of the first gas chamber Utilisation of knowledge for the Holocaust The doctors‘ trial and the time afterwards End credits
It should be noted at the outset that the documentary primarily focuses on the biography of Dr Julius Hallervorden as a reflection of the National Socialist „euthanasia“ crimes and not on „Aktion T4“ in the strict sense. The focus of the film therefore does not correspond to the title.
Julius Hallervorden (1882-1965) was a German doctor and, from 1938, head of the histopathology department at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Brain Research (KWI) in Berlin-Buch, which was one of the world’s leading institutions in this field. In this role, he amassed a huge collection of brains for research purposes, which were taken from victims of the National Socialist „euthanasia“ programmes. On 15 May 1940, he received the first brains from children who had been murdered in Brandenburg. Hundreds followed and Hallervorden developed into the central processor of the brains of murdered people. Among others, he received brains from the Bernburg and Pirna-Sonnenstein killing centres as well as from the Leipzig-Dösen institution. Between 1939 and 1944, he received at least 698 brains.
His own statements prove that he demanded the brains on his own initiative and unscrupulously exploited the favour of the hour. In addition, the notebook of Dr Irmfried Eberl, Brandenburg’s death doctor at the time and later head of the Treblinka extermination camp, shows that Hallervorden personally carried out dissections. It can even be assumed that he „ordered“ the brains of people who were (still) alive.
After the Second World War, Hallervorden was questioned about his role in National Socialism by the US Major Leo Alexander, who prepared reports on behalf of the military government for the prosecuting authorities in Nuremberg. He spoke frankly about the „euthanasia“ murders:
„I heard that this was going to be done, so I went to them and told them, ‚Well, children, if you’re going to kill them all, at least take out the brains so that the material can be utilised. They then asked how many you could examine, and I told them an unlimited amount – the more the better (…).“ [2 ]
Despite the admission, no investigation or charges were brought against Hallervorden. However, the public became aware of him because his name was linked to the acceptance of brains during the Nuremberg Doctors‘ Trial. He then tried to conceal his actions and the tense situation calmed down towards the end of the 1940s, allowing him to resume his usual research activities as head of department at the Max Planck Institute for Brain Research (MPI), the successor to the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Brain Research.
In the run-up to an international congress in Lisbon in 1953, Hallervorden’s announced participation led to a scandal. The Dutch delegation threatened to boycott the conference and a heated controversy erupted, centred around the question of how to deal with research results that had been obtained in an unethical manner. Hallervorden received support from the Society of German Neurologists and Psychiatrists and the German Society of Neurology under the chairmanship of Werner Villiger, among others. [3 ]Despite all the scandals, he continued to work at the Max Planck Institute for Brain Research and later became a professor at the University of Giessen. In 1956, he even received the Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany and an honorary doctorate in 1962. [4 ]Whether Hallervorden ever developed an awareness of wrongdoing cannot be conclusively clarified, but it is doubtful.
It was not until decades after his death that the extensive collection of specimens was examined at the end of the 1980s, whereupon the remains of the victims were buried in Munich’s Waldfriedhof cemetery as part of a memorial service [5 ].
In the opening credits of Catherine Bernstein’s film, reference is made to the active involvement of the German medical profession in the murder of their own „patients“ [6 ] and the crucial question is raised: „How could this happen?“
This is immediately followed by a sequence from a Nazi propaganda film with original commentary, in which idyllic shots of nature are contrasted with shots that were presumably taken in psychiatric institutions and portray people who were not asked if they wanted to be filmed as „deviant“ monsters. The commentator of this sequence, biased by Nazi social Darwinism, speaks in admonishing words about how humanity has violated the „law of natural selection“ and not only preserved „life unworthy of life“, but also allowed it to „multiply“. The sequence ends with a close-up of a person’s face and the defamatory words: „(…) the descendants of these sick people looked like this“.
The opening credits of the film raise a decades-old question that became topical again at the latest in the wake of the publication of Hitler’s inflammatory Mein Kampf : How to deal with National Socialist propaganda? A (highly) controversial historical and educational question to this day. The participants of an interdisciplinary conference on the topic of „Between ban and public debate: Nazi propaganda in the 21st century“ came to the unanimous conclusion in 2012 that propagandistic material can and should be used in lessons, but only with content preparation and guidance from trained teaching staff.[ 7 ]In the anthology published to accompany the conference, Benjamin Städter emphasises with regard to „Nazi films in school lessons“ that although film analysis must allow suggestion in a first step, it must deconstruct it in a second step, as otherwise there is a risk that the National Socialist propaganda will have its intended effect. [8 ]In this context, René Schlott also speaks of a necessary „break in the propaganda effect“, which can be achieved in different ways. [9 ]
Since Catherine Bernstein’s film is labelled as an „information programme“ [10 ] and is available on the open market without age restrictions, it was intended to deconstruct National Socialist propaganda in general and the „National Socialist image of disability“ in particular. Especially as it can be assumed that only in rare cases is trained teaching staff available to process what has been seen. This aspect is of particular importance, as fragments of the National Socialist image of disability are still effective and continue to influence the view of the phenomenon of disability to this day. The debate on euthanasia and prenatal diagnostics can be cited as examples. This is a decisive pedagogical criterion for the film analysis, by which the educational content of the film can be measured, beyond the communication of mere factual knowledge, and accordingly the main focus in the following will be on the question of whether the film achieves a deconstruction of the National Socialist image of disability.
After the sequence described in the opening credits, the main part of the film begins – without any further references. A deconstruction does not take place at this point. Instead, the discussion begins with the biography of Dr Julius Hallervorden. Firstly, the controversy triggered by his participation in the international congress in Lisbon is discussed and his path into medicine is outlined. In addition, the general social conditions of the time are presented and related to Hallervorden’s life. This mediation of the general and the particular, which characterises the film, facilitates access to the complex subject matter and promotes the ability to think in a networked way. Shortly after the sequence in the opening credits, a second sequence from a propaganda film is suddenly shown in the original soundtrack, in which numerous children and adults are portrayed as „ballast existences“ (from minute 07:45). Between the shots, an accompanying text appears repeatedly in large white letters on a black background, stating, for example: „The curse of sick genetic material destroys the happiness of entire families“. The sequence ends with the words: „We want a strong, healthy nation!“ After the sequence, the film continues with Hallervorden’s biography without comment – there is no deconstruction at this point either. Instead, the historian Götz Aly refers to Hallervorden’s relationship with his Jewish colleagues and emphasises that, as a scientist, he was prepared to exploit the crimes that occurred in his favour. This is followed by the third sequence from a propaganda film. This time, numerous faces of people can be seen in close-up, which are intended to instil fear and arouse revulsion (from minute 11:29). The style of presentation is reminiscent of a horror film. In comparison to the previous sequences, this one is critically commented on by the film narrator. However, the shots are more dominant than the narrator’s identical words, which merely run in the background. The attempt at deconstruction ultimately fails due to the suggestive power of the footage. Apart from that, the „horror shots“ are followed by sequences from another National Socialist propaganda film in which young, „beautiful“ women do physical exercises. At this point, the director’s editing reproduces the constructed contrast of sick/healthy or disabled/normal that characterises National Socialist propaganda.
After the sequences, the historian Michael Tregenza speaks and emphasises, with regard to the National Socialist racial ideology, that the German medical profession was not seduced by Hitler, but actually waited for him. Further biographical remarks about Hallervorden follow, until a sequence from a propaganda film appears again without comment – the fourth. Based on the economistic thinking of the National Socialists, this sequence evokes the high costs incurred for the „care“ of the „hereditary clan“ (from minute 17:41). A deconstruction of the National Socialist image of disability does not take place here either.
The sequence ends and „Aktion T4“ is suddenly discussed. Unfortunately, the historical focus at this point leaves something to be desired, as the differences between „Aktion T4“ and the so-called child euthanasia are not sufficiently emphasised. In between, there is another sequence from a propaganda film (from minute 23:54) – again without deconstruction. After the sequence, historian Astrid Ley points out that the National Socialists were concerned with finding a suitable method of killing and a recording from Belarus is shown in which a naked and emaciated man, whose genitals can be seen, is led into a gas chamber to be killed. The film then focuses on Hallervorden’s biography again.
From minute 32:50, several portrait photos of people who were killed as part of „Aktion T4“ are shown. This is the first point in the film where the victims are shown as human subjects and not as objects. It is also implied that some people resisted during their transport to the gas chambers. A deconstruction begins for just under a minute before the narrative continues.
Historian Thomas Beddies shows that the killing continued after „Aktion T4“ and Michael Tregenza draws attention to the links to the mass extermination in the occupied eastern territories. In addition, Hallervorden’s path in the post-war period is traced and the Nuremberg trials are discussed. The extensive investigations by Attorney General Fritz Bauer and the „euthanasia“ trials initiated by him at the beginning of the 1960s are not mentioned, although they are of enormous importance with regard to the criminal prosecution of „Aktion T4“. [11 ]It would also have been desirable to learn a little more about the whereabouts of the brains after Hallervorden’s death and the resistance of the Max Planck Institute for Brain Research in coming to terms with the past. Finally, the film ends with some portrait photos of children who fell victim to National Socialist „euthanasia“ – the second brief passage that can be seen as an attempt at deconstruction.
Catherine Bernstein’s film can be very instructive and informative, especially for people who have previous knowledge and a reflected understanding of disability. In this context, the historians‘ comments should be emphasised in particular, as they provide insights and reveal important connections. Furthermore, the approach of conveying the biography of Dr Julius Hallervorden in the context of contemporary history is convincing. In principle, from an educational perspective, there is no reason why the film should not be shown in higher classes, provided that it is prepared and followed up by a trained teacher. However, the film cannot be recommended for children, young people and adults who are on their own, have no special prior knowledge and no reflected understanding of disability, as the National Socialist image of disability is not sufficiently deconstructed and there is a danger that the National Socialist propaganda will fall on fertile ground. Although the tentative attempt at deconstruction by means of portrait photos is generally to be welcomed, it is not sufficient to break with the propaganda effect. Moreover, the attempt is undermined by the undifferentiated and in places discriminatory language that pervades the entire (educational) film and is expressed in the equation of disability and illness. [12 ]The film thus fails to do justice to the call on all media organisations to „(…) promote a positive perception of persons with disabilities (…)“, which can be found in Article 8 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ratified by Germany in 2009, and should have made greater efforts to this end.