According to
Simon Baron-Cohen et al., "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." However, as is becoming clearer in historical research, collaboration of scientists and university teachers of all fields was the norm rather than the exception in the Third Reich and as various academic studies reveal, Hans Asperger did not violate professional medical ethics during the Nazi period, contrary to what was claimed in 2018. Edith Sheffer, a modern European history scholar, wrote in 2018 that Asperger cooperated with the Nazi regime, including sending children to the
Am Spiegelgrund clinic which participated in the
euthanasia program. According to Sheffer, Asperger supported the Nazi goal of eliminating children who could not fit in with the
Volk: "people" in german. Herwig Czech, another scholar and historian from the
Medical University of Vienna, concluded in a 2017 article in the journal
Molecular Autism, which was published in April 2018: Asperger managed to accommodate himself to the Nazi regime and was rewarded for his affirmations of loyalty with career opportunities. He joined several organizations affiliated with the NSDAP (although not the Nazi party itself), publicly legitimized 'race hygiene' policies including forced sterilizations and, on several occasions, actively cooperated with the
child 'euthanasia' program. Asperger worked under the direction of Franz Hamburger, a prominent long-time member of the NSDAP, for whom he expressed the greatest admiration, signed his letters with the formal "Heil Hitler", and joined organizations affiliated with the Nazi Party after 1938. (
Deutsche Arbeitsfront, Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt, Nationalsozialistischer Deutscher Ärztebund). For Czech, "by renouncing membership in the NSDAP, he chose a middle path between staying away from the new regime and aligning himself with it."
Dean Falk, an American anthropologist from
Florida State University, questioned Czech and Sheffer's allegations against Hans Asperger in a paper in
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Czech's reply was published in the same journal. Falk defended her paper against Czech's reply in a second paper. Based on a review of Czech and Sheffer's work, Norwegian doctor and historical scholar Ketil Slagstad concluded: The story of Hans Asperger, Nazism, murdered children, post-war oblivion, the birth of the diagnosis in the 1980s, the gradual expansion of the diagnostic criteria and the huge recent interest in autism spectrum disorders exemplify the historical and volatile nature of diagnoses: they are historic constructs that reflect the times and societies where they exert their effect. Slagstad also wrote, "Historical research has now shown that [Asperger] was...a well-adapted cog in the machine of a deadly regime. He deliberately referred disabled children to the clinic Am Spiegelgrund, where he knew that they were at risk of being killed. The eponym Asperger’s syndrome ought to be used with an awareness of its historical origin." After the Anschluss, Asperger, like all medical personnel, was investigated in the application of the "decree on the reorganization of the Austrian professional civil service" dated May 31, 1938, and then received confidential evaluations from NSDAP officials, who expressed an increasingly positive opinion of him. His first evaluation, dated June 1939, judged him "politically acceptable from the National Socialist point of view", "unassailable as far as his character and politics are concerned", and concluded with the statement that Asperger was "in conformity with the racial and sterilization laws of National Socialism", despite his Catholic orientation. In October 1940, he wrote that he had "committed himself to work for the Hitler Youth". Czech analyzed this as a desire to adapt to the new regime and to protect his career. Hans Asperger was never considered an opponent of the regime. According to Czech, "Asperger’s political socialization in Neuland likely blinded him to National Socialism’s destructive character due to an affinity with core ideological elements." Czech asserts that Asperger "publicly protected his patients from forced sterilization", supporting his claim with Asperger's description of his patients "whose abnormity is not of a type that would call for sterilization, who would socially fail without our understanding and guiding assistance, but who with this help are able to occupy their place in the large organism of our people". In 1939, he published an article with his colleague Heribert Goll, in which he "demonstrated" that innate or hereditary characteristics determine later personality traits. This article was published in the journal, edited by
Otmar von Verschuer, a prominent propagator of
Racial hygiene theories. According to Czech's analysis, "Asperger went so far in these attempts [to prove his loyalty to the NSDAP] that his collaborator
Josef Feldner had to restrain him, lest he risks his credibility." Asperger obtained his
accreditation in 1943, passing the political control of the
National Socialist League of German Lecturers. The British psychiatrist
Lorna Wing and the anthropologist Dean Falk consider that Hans Asperger's Catholic convictions are incompatible with the voluntary sending of children to extermination programs. For Falk, it is not certain that Asperger was aware of the fate awaiting the children he had transferred to: knowing his religion, his colleagues could have hidden this information from him. Czech refutes Falk's conclusions, noting that the Viennese population was protesting against the mortality rates in psychiatric hospitals several months before Asperger referred patients to the
Am Spiegelgrund clinic and that even if he was not informed of the intention of the officials of the clinic to kill the children he referred there, he was necessarily aware of these mortality rates and of the risks that a transfer to the clinic would pose to the children. Czech concludes that "The assumption that Asperger was unaware of the risks to the children is unfounded." The curative pedagogy promoted by Hans Asperger was never considered to be contrary to the objectives of the Third Reich, which was marked by a shortage of manpower. Moreover, this approach was approved by euthanasia policy makers such as Erwin Jekelius. Only children considered to be educable benefit from it. Hans Asperger's text, which is most often interpreted as a defense of his autistic patients against the "euthanasia" program, can also be read in a utilitarian way. For Sheffer, "the examination of the archives reveals the dual nature of his action." According to her:He distinguished between young people whom he considered amendable, endowed with a potential for "social integration", and those judged irrecoverable. At the same time as he offered intensive and individualized care to promising children, he ordered the placement in an institution or even the transfer to the home of severely handicapped children.Czech believes that the argument that Asperger placed a positive emphasis on a small number of autistic individuals in order to protect all autistic children does not hold water. For Sheffer, Asperger is a "self-proclaimed
eugenicist" and "this duality of Asperger's mirrors that of Nazism as a whole."
Children sent to Am Spiegelgrund In 1940, Asperger obtained a position as a medical expert in Vienna, for which he was responsible for diagnosing "hereditary diseases" and proposing forced sterilization in the interest of the Nazi eugenics program. Even at that time, the excess mortality in Vienna's psychiatric hospitals was well known to the population, which protested against this situation, especially in September and November 1940. According to Czech's analysis of Hans Asperger's written diagnoses, he was not "more benevolent towards his patients than his peers in labelling children with diagnoses that could have an enormous impact on their future – quite the contrary"; in the majority of cases, Asperger made a harsher judgment than other doctors towards the children and adolescents he examined. He described one of the children he recommended for Am Spiegelgrund on 27 June 1941, Herta Schreiber, as follows:Severe personality disorder (post–encephalic?): very severe motor retardation; erethic idiocy; epileptic seizures. The child is an unbearable burden at home for her mother, who has five healthy children to care for. A permanent placement in seems absolutely necessary – Dr. Asperger, WStLA file, 1.3.2.209.10, Herta Schreiber, Heilpädagogische Abteilung der Universitäts–Kinderklinik Vienna, 27 June 1941 In the case of Herta, archival documentation describes the following sequence of events. According to the source, the term "special treatment" (Spezialbehandlung) used by Wilhelm Schmidt functioned as a coded term employed by the organizers of the child euthanasia program. On 1 July 1941, Herta was brought to the institution, presumably by her mother, and admitted; the financing authority for her hospitalization was not specified. The mother also discussed with the staff the possibility of the child's death. On 20 July 1941, a physician at the hospital diagnosed Herta with "severe mental deficiency (idiocy) 1a." She was subsequently reported to the Reich Committee for the Scientific Registration of Severe Hereditary and Congenital Diseases, the organization in Berlin coordinating the secret child euthanasia program, on 8 August 1941. Herta died at Am Spiegelgrund on 2 September 1941, officially of "pneumonia". A second documented case concerns Elisabeth Schreiber, the other child sent to Am Spiegelgrund. On 27 October 1941, Hans Asperger described her as follows: Hereditary imbecility, probably of post-encephalitic origin. Salivation, ‘encephalitic’ affects, negativism, significant language deficit (now slowly beginning to speak), with relatively better comprehension. In the family, the child is undoubtedly a burden hardly bearable, especially under crowded living conditions, and due to her aggressiveness endangers her younger siblings. Therefore, it is understandable that the mother insists on institutionalization. Am Spiegelgrund would be the best solution. The diagnosis indicated moderate non-hereditary intellectual disability with delayed speech but relatively better comprehension. However, Elisabeth later received a second diagnosis at Am Spiegelgrund by other physicians, which classified her as "severe mental deficiency (idiocy) 1a." This diagnosis led to her inclusion in the child euthanasia program and ultimately to her death. According to a study conducted by Klaus Schepker and Christine Freitag, which reports this information, Hans Asperger did not violate medical professional ethics during the Nazi period, did not participate in nor recommend child euthanasia, and the fatal decisions were made exclusively by other physicians responsible for the transfers and reporting. In 1942, following a request addressed to his superior Franz Hamburger, Asperger took part in a selection of patients aimed at separating the "uneducable" from those who could become German citizens. Although he was not directly responsible for their death, he chose 35 children whom he considered to be "uneducable". However, a 2025 study clarified Hans Asperger's role in the Gugging Commission. According to archival records, the commission was officially tasked with evaluating which children should attend auxiliary schools and consisted of officials from Vienna and the Lower Danube. The term "Aktion Jekelius", which some authors had associated with child euthanasia, was communicated only within the Reich Governor's Office in the Lower Danube and not to the Vienna physicians who were part of the commission, including Asperger. No direct links were found between the Gugging Commission and Am Spiegelgrund. While he did not cooperate with the forced sterilization programs according to the records, he also did not oppose them. According to Czech, "what emerges from the available sources is that Asperger's approach to the forced sterilization program was ambivalent." He quotes passages written by Hans Asperger demonstrating his support for this aspect of racial hygiene policy:In the new Germany, we took on new responsibilities in addition to our old ones. To the task of helping the individual patient is added the great obligation to promote the health of the people [], which is more than the well–being of the individual. I need not add to the enormous amount of dedicated work done in terms of affirmative action and support. But we all know that we must also take restrictive measures. Just as the physician must often make painful incisions during the treatment of individuals, we must also make incisions in the national body [], out of a sense of responsibility: we must make sure that those patients who would pass on their diseases to distant generations, to the detriment of the individual and of the Volk, are prevented from passing on their diseased hereditary material – Hans Asperger, Pädagogische Therapie bei abnormen KindernThere is a possible protective case of a patient, Aurel I., whom Hans Asperger examined in the autumn of 1939 and exempted from group education. His family sent him to the countryside, where he survived the war under his parents' care. In 1962, a member of Asperger's family believed that he had saved Aurel from "castration" and possibly worse. Asperger wrote his report a few days before the introduction of the sterilization law in Austria. Further Research by Ernst Tatzer, Werner Maleczek, Franz Waldhauser in 2022 concluded as follows. ″Our detailed investigation, aided by historians, and investigations by other authors, showed no clear evidence to support the allegation that Asperger knowingly or willingly participated in the National Socialist Child Euthanasia programme in Vienna. This investigation included thorough analyses of the records for all the patients he and colleagues referred to Am Spiegelgrund from the Therapeutic Pedagogy Unit of the University Children's Hospital in Vienna. This covered the period between 1939 and March 1943 when Asperger was drafted by the military.″ They first examined all admissions from the hospital where Aspergers worked and then which patients Asperger had either direct or indirect involvement with, cross-referencing this with Am Spiegelgrund's own records including their book of the dead to trace any missing records as well as all referrals to the Reich committee responsible. They found no reports by Hans Asperger. One patient died of natural causes while another was referred to the clinic after having been sent to another institution. They were reported by the then director of Am Spiegelgrund to the Reich committee, against Hans Asperger's original recommendation, at the request of the institution the child had been sent to. A third child was not referred to the clinic by Asperger but by his family doctor. He did not die at the clinic or as a result of Asperger's recommendation, but as a result of a director of another institution and his family doctors own actions as well as orders from the Reich committee in relation to forced labour workers. Asperger had no involvement in this case and this patient was referred by the family doctor to Am Spiegelgrund and had been reported for forced labour by the director of the institution he had been placed at. All of Hans Asperger's other patients survived.
Hansi Busztin The
Heilpädagogik Vienna department, where Asperger worked, is known to have taken in Hansi Busztin from September 1942, a Jewish patient in hiding until the end of the war, who states that about a hundred people knew of his existence, and that this department housed "a group of opponents of National Socialism". However, Busztin does not mention Hans Asperger's name, and Asperger makes no reference to this episode even after the war, even though it could have helped him establish anti-Nazi credentials. According to Czech, Asperger may have been aware of this Jewish patient, but he did not take an active role in protecting him, and more importantly, joined the Wehrmacht only six months after Busztin's admission. Czech considers it likely that Asperger joined the Wehrmacht to protect himself in case Busztin's presence in his ward was discovered, rather than because of "persecution by the Gestapo", which is not proven. However, he also did not denounce the presence of this Jewish child. == Works and publications ==