Statement: "Bethel during the Nazi era. The concealed history"
Publication date of the statement: 12 September 2014
The author Barbara Degen concludes in her book "Bethel in der NS-Zeit. Die verschwiegene Geschichte", author Barbara Degen concludes that Bethel had a "disproportionately high number of Nazi victims", "young children and disabled adults who were killed, neglected, starved, deported and died from medical experiments." (S. 307). Already in the introduction, the author speaks of "negligent and deliberate killings" (p. 15) and of "her own support of the 'euthanasia' policy" (p. 15). She formulates chapter headings such as "The co-operation with the T 4" (p. 57) or "'Sacrificing' for progress - The dead of medical border crossings" (p. 221) and refers to Bethel doctors as "'euthanasia' doctors" (p. 222)
Since the early 1980s, there has been broad-based research on Bethel under National Socialism. To date, Bethel has never been associated with deliberate killings as part of the National Socialist murder of the sick in all historical research.
When an author comes to such statements as presented here, one would think that she has undertaken extremely thorough historical research. However, if you look at the last chapter, the author discredits herself by essentially calling her entire book into question. Under the heading "The need for research", she names what was actually her own research approach and would have been her task, namely:
"1. The death figures at least for the von Bodelschwinghsche Anstalten in Gadderbaum itself are to be determined in full in the municipal archives." .. . (S. 344)
"2. systematic analyses of the patient files are still lacking". (S. 345)
In scientific publications, it is quite common to name research desiderata at the end. But how can an author make such far-reaching and damning statements such as deliberate killings, starvation policies, medical experiments or even human experiments on over 350 pages when she obviously does not even know the exact death figures and, above all, has not systematically analysed the patient files?
After this final chapter, you could actually ignore the book if there weren't numerous statements in its 350 pages that absolutely need clarification. These range from questionable interpretations of historical sources to definitely verifiable errors. The entire history of Bethel is discredited with slanderous allegations.
The book cannot be regarded as serious historical research; this applies to the presentation of medical histories from the individual case files as well as to the interpretation of documents from the factual files or the handling of previous research results from the secondary literature.
Among other things, the author has looked at individual case files from the Bethel main archive. However, it is incomprehensible why the author only consulted a few individual case files for her far-reaching statements on content. The source basis for research is very good: around 80 per cent of all individual case files are still extant. In addition to the limited use of files, the content of the presentation of the results of the file study is irritating: at no point does the author directly address the question of where the deliberate killing is to be seen in the medication, therapy or care. In addition, a detailed examination of selected individual case files by the main archive reveals that none of these case histories have been accurately reproduced by the author.
Between 1939 and 1945, more than 6,000 patients were catered for in the long-term section of the Bethel asylum alone. Some, for example in the psychiatric institutions or in the Mara observation hospital, only stayed for a few weeks; others, mainly men, women and children with epilepsy, lived at Bethel for years and decades. In total, there were around 2,500 places for people with epilepsy, disabilities and mental illnesses.
Under the heading "The dead children have names" (p. 52), Degen alleges the deliberate killing of children with epilepsy and disabilities. The author only needs eight cases of deceased children to substantiate this massive claim. She does not even mention the date of death of two children. Three children died before October 1939 - i.e. before the actual "euthanasia" decree - two of them in August and November 1938, leaving three cases of children who died during the actual "euthanasia" phase.
The story continues in a similar vein. In the context of terms such as "starvation death(s)" (pp. 216, 219), "nutritional experiments" or "artificial nutrients" (p. 219), Degen mentions 14 cases of patients who died of marasmus, infirmity or loss of strength. In one case, no date of death is given. Five patients died before the "euthanasia decree".
And for the extremely delicate thesis of "medical experiment(s)" (p. 221) or "human experiments" (p. 224), the author relies on 17 individual cases, nine of which date from the time before the actual "euthanasia" phase.
The author only describes a single case under the heading "Alternatives were also possible in Bethel" (pp. 238-239).
Other individual cases are presented at various points in the book. In total, the author refers to 61 individual case files that she used in the Bethel main archive, plus five cases that she consulted for the forced sterilisations in the main archive. How Degen arrives at "approx. 100" (p. 18) individual case files is incomprehensible. In any case, this is not reflected in the book. Unfortunately, the author does not comment at all on the selection criteria and the methodology of the analysis. The fact that she sees an active killing in all (but one) of the individual case files she has examined is also astonishing. This would mean that all patients in Bethel were actively killed and none died a natural death.
This shows how incorrect the presentation is and how questionable the interpretations derived from it are.
Historical research assumes that it is necessary to analyse at least 10 percent of individual case files in order to arrive at valid results. This means that around 600 files would have been the minimum.
Research into the National Socialist murders of the sick has since gone beyond this to regard the official "euthanasia" decree of October 1939, pre-dated to the beginning of the war, as the official "beginning" of the murders of the sick. However, if you present patients in a study who were allegedly deliberately killed before October 1939, you have to justify this precisely and substantiate it with the relevant secondary literature. But the author does not make this a topic at all.
It is striking that Degen does not specify in a single case what the deliberate killing was. Medical histories are briefly presented and medications and therapies are summarised out of context. Sometimes even more precise details of the diagnosis are missing, the general state of health of the respective patient or even the severity and development of the illness are hardly mentioned. The descriptions seem completely arbitrary and it is impossible to understand why this or that medication should have led to death - and then to an actively induced death?
Specific examples of faulty research
The Bethel main archive has examined 16 of the individual cases presented in detail on the basis of the individual case files and found blatant errors in all cases. And this is not about discretionary judgement, which can certainly exist in historical sources, but about errors in the presentation of medical and therapeutic facts.
Werner Wichter (Ps.) (S. 53)
The author writes about this patient: "There is no information about medication." This is not true. From September 1940 the child received 1 x 0.05 Luminal daily.
Hermann-Gisbert Geist (Ps.) (S. 54)
Here the author writes that the boy received 0.1 Luminal three times a day from February onwards. This is not true, it was 0.1 Luminal once a day. This difference is very important for a child weighing 24 kg. The boy died on 10 June 1939, but the author quotes from a medical record, including one dated 10 June 1942: "he made no mental progress". The author has obviously mixed up two medical records here.
Friederike Glück (Ps.) (S. 218)
The patient did not die on 14.12.1940 but on 14.11.1940.
Else Anger (Ps.) (S. 221)
The case of a patient who died in March 1938 after a suicide attempt is described. The patient had collected Luminal in order to commit suicide. The author writes verbatim: "The patient had received Luminal before her death on 25 March 1938, 10 mg on 21 March, 20 mg on 22 March and 'less than 5 mg' on 25 March." Quite apart from the fact that these were very low doses of Luminal, the claim that the patient "received" these quantities is completely unfounded. The concentration was measured from the urine with Luminal, and these measurements resulted in Luminal values per litre, which, however, do not correspond to the above-mentioned values, but are only similar to them.
A detailed four-page report of the suicide is available: On 21 March, the patient was "found deeply asleep in her bed half undressed at about 5 o'clock". "About 2 litres were emptied through the catheter at about 7 o'clock, the next morning about 1 litre. Barbituric acid in higher than therapeutic doses was found in these two urine quantities in the institution pharmacy (pharmacist Lägel), so much so that a quantity of 10 mg % = 0.1 Luminal per litre was found in the urine portion of 21 March by conversion, and 20 mg % = 0.2 Luminal per litre in the portion of 22 March. The urine taken on 23 March contained less than 5 mg % barbiturates (examination method and conversion according to Oettl.)."
Fritz Werner (Ps.) (p. 224f)
The wrong medication is given here. Degen writes that the patient received 2 x 2.00 bromine daily from 1929. The patient file clearly shows that the patient received 2 x 50 bromine solution. From 1942, the author writes of a medication of 3 x 0.1 Luminal and 2 x 0.15 bromine until his death. However, the patient received 2 x 0.15 Luminal daily and no bromine. The patient had not received bromine since 1931.
The quote: "behind the government and behind the patients", is a summary of a longer passage in the letter and should not have been labelled as a quote. In addition, the author states that an incorrect burial date is given in the file. But this is a reading error. It says "Jan." in handwriting, from which the author then read June.
Lore Nordmeyer (Ps.) (p. 225)
With regard to this patient, the author writes that the doctor performing the autopsy stated: "no definite indication of the cause of death". The attending physician then stated - contrary to the autopsy report - that the cause of death was purulent bronchitis and marasmus. However, the above quote comes from the ward report of 14 January 1941, i.e. it was written before an autopsy took place. The post-mortem report of 15 January 1941 contains absolutely nothing about a cause of death. However, the post-mortem examination revealed what the attending physician then stated as the cause of death. In addition, the increase in medication from 1 x 0.05 Luminal to 1 x 0.1 Luminal was not carried out when the patient weighed 40 kg, but when she weighed 50.5 kg and was therefore close to her maximum weight (which was 52.4 kg in 1933).
Hanna Simsen (pseudonym) (p. 225f)
In the presentation of this case, it becomes particularly clear how a tendency can be created with quotations taken completely out of the context of the file. The author writes about the patient: "Shortly before her death, she was sedated with Pant-Scopolamine". In the patient file, however, it reads somewhat differently: "Repeatedly sedated only with Pant-Scopolamine." The patient was therefore obviously already used to this medication. The patient's fear of "poison", which the author states, also has a different nuance in the patient file. It says: "Consumes almost nothing. Also rejects water as 'poison'."
The author's statement that the patient had received saline infusions one day before her death is true, but the medical record from August 1943 shows that the patient regularly received saline transfusions, in addition to dextrose transfusions - which is not mentioned in the book. Apparently, saline solution and dextrose solution were used because the patient's food intake was difficult at times.
This patient died of pneumonia, and she is mentioned on p. 190 as an example of the dangers of electroshock methods. The author does not mention that the last (fifth) electroshock treatment took place on 30 July 1943, but that the patient did not die until 1 September 1943.
Peter Lehre (Ps.) (S. 226)
The author quotes from a letter from the attending physician about a preparation that he categorised as "uneconomical". Unfortunately, she quotes the wrong preparation. It was not "Luminaltabletten" but "Luminaletten", a preparation from another pharmaceutical company, which had a lower dosage and was more expensive.
The sentence "The patient lost 33 kg to 50 kg in 1942 compared to 1932" is incorrect. At the beginning of 1940, he still weighed 72.5 kg. He had strong weight fluctuations anyway, sometimes weighing 68 kg (second quarter of 1938), then 76 kg again (fourth quarter of 1939). He lost weight steadily from the beginning of 1940 and then slimmed down to 50 kg within the next two and a half years.
Hanna Trink (Ps.) (S. 227)
She did not receive Luminal 5 times a day, but regularly 1 x 0.05 or 0.1 Luminal daily. The "5" mentioned in the individual case file is a "5hochX". An X above a seizure number generally stands for severe seizures. This is how it is written in the medical file on 25 October 1930. The author has misread the superscript "X". In 1938, the patient was not given "a mixture of caffeine and tranquillisers". It was the case that Luminal was administered in liquid form from 15 April 1938. The recipe for this mixture, which included caffeine, is listed in detail in the patient file. The quote from the file that the patient "was always looking out for her own advantage" is an abbreviated and distorted account. The entire passage in the patient file reads: "Very amusing on good days, likes to play the piano. Always looking out for her own advantage. Likes to drink coffee beans."
Helmut Wiesner (Ps.) (p. 227)
The letter from Welck to Villinger mentioned by the author is a letter from Villinger to the patient's wife. However, the medication given was not on Christmas Day, but in September, and the medication behaved differently than the author writes. On 25 September, the patient was actually given 3 x 20 drops of Pantopon (not "Pantopan" as quoted), which he received regularly. On 26.9. a pleural puncture was performed, using 4 cc Novocain for anaesthesia. From 29 September he was given 3 x 40 units of insulin for three days.
The quote "'1 injection of Luminal each time after a 2-hour break'" is not correct. The medical file states: "After 4th start 1 injection of Luminal. Followed by a 2-hour break." A further injection is not mentioned at all. The patient was then transferred to Nebo Hospital. There is no mention of Coffeeinal in the patient file.
Erika Tellner (Ps.) (p. 228)
The date of death is incorrect. The patient died on 18.6.1939. There is no evidence of sterilisation, as the author calls it, in the file. And the patient did not weigh 23 kg in May 1939, shortly before her death, but 27 kg.
Alma Heer (Ps.) (p. 228)
An incorrect weight was given for this patient; she weighed 65.5 kg at the time stated, not 58 kg.
Willi Passau (Ps.) (S. 228)
"He had taken 5 luminal tablets of 0.1 each," writes the author.
This cannot be inferred from the file. A few days before the suicide, a deacon had found "5 luminal tablets of 0.1 each" in the patient's "belongings". The medical report of 12 February 1941 states: "It is possible that Passau [Ps.] obtained Luminal or another anaesthetic by unknown means and took this drug with suicidal intent."
Hans Heinrich (Ps.) (S. 229)
About this patient, the author writes: "Since his admission, he has lost over 20 kg in weight". Unfortunately, the author does not mention that when the patient was admitted in 1925, he was 1.66 metres tall and weighed 98 kg. It was noted in the patient file: "very strong fat development in the abdominal muscles". At the end of 1938, the patient weighed 61 kg. He had therefore lost 30 kg within 13 years and not 20 kg. For religious reasons, he did not eat any food at times. This was also discussed with the patient. Attempts to increase his weight, as the author claims, were not necessary with a final weight of 61 kg.
The medication mentioned by the author was by no means administered at the same time. The patient had been treated regularly with bromine and luminal since 1926. From September 1926 to October 1926, he received Amylen and Cardiazol for a short time because he was being treated in Nebo Hospital for frequent severe seizures. Morphine and Pantopon are given once after an appendectomy with subsequent leg thrombosis in February 1931. The patient is given Digitalis 3 x 15 drops on one day (24 March 1933) after a night with "9 dizzy spells and 5 seizures".
Emma Niemand (Ps.) (p. 229f)
The patient died on 28 October 1941, not, as the author writes, on 31 October. The author then cites an investigation by the Dortmund public prosecutor's office from 1945. Apart from the fact that it was the senior public prosecutor's office, the file does not even begin to reveal what the investigation might have been about. Bethel also did not reply on 28 August 1941, as Degen claims. Rather, the facts of the case were as follows: On 28 August 1945, the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office in Dortmund wrote to Bethel in telegram style: "Notification of the status." Bethel wrote back on 8 September 1945: "Emma Niemand [pseudonym] from Dortmund-[...], [...]strasse 7[...], born on 1.6.1924, died in the local institution on 28 October 1941."
The author writes: "Bethel - asked to comment - declared on 28 August 1945 that the death had occurred before 1940, so it could not be a case of homicide." This sentence is fictitious and has nothing to do with the files. Nowhere is there any mention of "killing".
The excesses that false file research can have can also be seen in the case of Elisabeth Anna Ritter (Ps.), which is described in a separate chapter on four pages (p. 49 ff). It is extremely alarming that so many completely false speculations about the treatment and death of a child appear in one book, even though only one doctor made a small mistake in dating a draft letter at the time.
The author's explanations revolve around this draft letter from the treating doctor to the parents, which is dated 8 March 1939 and reports on the child's scarlet fever. Unfortunately, the author did not look closely at the context of the patient file, otherwise she would have noticed that it incorrectly says "March" and should have read "April". The draft letter is also categorised as April in the context of the file. Likewise, all other medical reports in the file (the ward report, the final report to the previously treating doctor at the patient's place of residence, etc.) clearly indicate that the scarlet fever illness in question occurred on 7 April.
However, the author's further remarks also show that she is not confident in matters of record keeping. She criticises the fact that the medication and further treatment of the child prior to death are missing from the patient file from the long-term care area of Mara. After being diagnosed with scarlet fever, the child was immediately transferred to the Samaria Infectious Diseases Hospital - a facility run by the Westphalian Deaconess Institution Sarepta. The hospital kept its own records, as it was a hospital run by another organisation, namely the Sarepta institution. There can therefore have been no entries from Samaria in the patient file of the Mara House, the long-term section of the Bethel institution.
A special feature is the chapter "Co-operation with T4" (p. 57 ff). It deals with 25 children and adolescents who were transferred from Rickling Institution (Schleswig-Holstein) to Bethel in the autumn of 1941. There is already detailed research on this by a historian (and intensive care nurse, i.e. medically trained) who is also writing a doctoral thesis on the Rickling asylum under National Socialism (Heesch 2007). Nine of the 25 children and adolescents died in Bethel during the war. Heesch rules out any deliberate killing and, after analysing the individual case files in detail, comes to the conclusion that Bethel provided extremely good care and a high standard of medical and therapeutic care. However, Heesch also goes into detail about the difficult nutritional situation at Bethel and the consequences for the patients' deaths.
Unfortunately, Degen does not deal with these research results at all, but makes a generalised claim: "In the case of these children and adolescents, I assume that they were deliberately killed in cooperation with the T4" (p. 59).
However, this was not an action of the T4 - the chapter title alone is therefore wrong - but a transfer as part of "Aktion Brandt" (transfers to create alternative hospitals). The author claims that 15 children died during the war, not nine, without giving the dates of death. She then presents ten individual cases of patients (five died during the war; three in the immediate post-war period; two more in 1950 and 1954). Here again: quotes on medications and therapies taken completely out of the context of the files; at no point is it shown where the deliberate killing is to be seen.
In addition to the individual case files, the author Barbara Degen has also inspected files in the Bethel main archive, the Bielefeld municipal archive, the NRW state archive Detmold department, the LWL archive and the federal archive. However, if you take a close look at how the sources in the main archives were handled - and only these were examined - you will find that the accounts here alone are highly questionable, even false, and in some cases damaging to the organisation's reputation.
There are minor inaccuracies throughout the book, such as on p. 141: a letter from Bodelschwingh to Dr Heidenhain is mentioned. This letter does not exist. The quote mentioned by the author comes from a letter from Bodelschwingh to Villinger - in which he talks about Dr Heidenhain.
However, the description of an incident from 1964 (p. 67) is a case of gross inaccuracy. In this chapter, the author cites sources that are supposed to show that in Bethel "disabled children were also deliberately killed outside the children's hospital" (p. 66).
In 1964, a former senior government councillor Grünberg came forward to say that in a meeting with Bodelschwingh, which can no longer be precisely dated, the latter had said: "'I am prepared to give up the driftwood on the River Eden'."
Even then, Bethel criticised this oral tradition and gave convincing arguments against the authenticity of this statement. However, the author completely omits this part of the source tradition.
For example, the source contains the argument that Bodelschwingh would have used a false biblical quotation: "The figurative speech about the river Eden has no basis in the Bible, which only speaks of the Garden of Eden and the four rivers that belong to it." It also states: "Pastor von Bodelschwingh always treated all questions relating to euthanasia very carefully and cautiously, even in the closest circle of his staff, so that it would be completely contrary to his usual behaviour if he had now made such a far-reaching statement in a conversation with two men from the government, of whom, as far as I know, he only knew Mr Gersbach, but not Mr Grünberg." In addition, according to the file, it was considered completely impossible that Bodelschwingh would have labelled the children from Patmos - who were the subject here - as "driftwood".
With a lot of goodwill, one could still see the author's approach as a selective choice of a source.
The situation is different with the evaluation of a source from 1939 (p. 208). Here the interpretation is at least questionable. It concerns a contract with the Bielefeld district nutrition office, which deals with self-sufficiency in the Bethel institution. The contract states: "For the inmates of the institution, the maximum amount that can be consumed is the amount that can be consumed by the civilian population." The author henceforth refers to this contract as a "supply contract" and reads from this sentence an "equal diet for 'institutional inmates and the civilian population'".
However, the text of the contract in no way refers to an actual equal diet. It merely states that the maximum amount that may be consumed by "institutional inmates" may not exceed the amount that applies to the civilian population.
Now this interpretation would be tolerable if the author did not repeatedly return to this alleged "supply contract" in the further course of her explanations (e.g. p. 216) and accuse Bethel of not having fed the patients in exactly the same way as the civilian population, since the "supply contract" of 1939 did exist. The fact that there were government guidelines for nutrition in institutions and that the nutritional situation also deteriorated in Bethel during the war is not taken into consideration.
The author's statements on p. 220 must be labelled as a definite misrepresentation of a source: "In Bethel, gelatine was possibly also used as a remedy against hunger. Gelatine, a substance that can dampen feelings of hunger, was needed 'for dietetic and therapeutic purposes'". This last part is quoted from a letter from Bethel. The statement that gelatine was a substance to combat feelings of hunger is not supported by literature. The sentence "for dietetic and therapeutic purposes" continues in the source. There it says: "as well as for laboratory purposes and for the production or preservation of meat dishes." This gives the order for gelatine a completely different meaning. The author also refers to the "large order" that Bethel placed in 1940. However, the source states: "The quantity of 150 kg specified by us above is approximately half of the consumption in normal times." Gelatine cannot therefore have been used to combat hunger during the war if far less was ordered than was consumed before the war.
In any case, the misrepresentation of a quote by the physician Dr Schorsch from 1961 (p. 286f) on "euthanasia" is damaging to his reputation. In the previous paragraph, the subject of "human experimentation" was addressed at the Nuremberg trials. The lawyer Barbara Degen now writes: "The head physician Gerhard Schorsch had stated in 1961 about the attitude of the Bethel doctors: 'Some of the doctors were in favour of the measures and decided to actively participate. Active resistance at any price would have no chance of success in a totalitarian state'."
It is clear from the document that Schorsch was commenting here on the medical profession under National Socialism in general and not at all on the Bethel doctors. Schorsch only mentions Bethel in a later paragraph of his remarks. Before that, there was no mention of Bethel at all. "We in Bethel naturally rejected the euthanasia measures," he then writes. With the one word - "Betheler" - that the author unlawfully added to "doctors", the content takes on a completely different and therefore false meaning.
The fact that the author misrepresents medical treatments has already been shown in the individual case files. The alleged use of a common medical method at the time, namely the artificial induction of fever, is also misrepresented. This way of dealing with sources must also be seen as defamation of character.
Degen writes (p. 37): "Gerhard Schorsch, who later became head physician, declared in 1947 that the 'best healing successes' had been achieved through fever production and tuberculin and typhoid vaccinations." Degen cites this medical method in connection with the treatment of children! Schorsch's lecture manuscript from 1947, which is the source here, is about the treatment of mentally ill adults. And that was the only purpose of this method: it was used for mental illnesses and for adults. It was not about epilepsy and certainly not about children with epilepsy. In connection with tuberculosis vaccinations, which the author also mentions, she then comes to the conclusion: "This suggests that there are two central causes for the increased death rates among infants and young children." (S. 37)
In two other places in the book, Degen mentions the use of this method in children with epilepsy. She writes: "It is surprising that Schorsch speaks so openly here about the 'artificial production of fever by poisons and infectious agents', which were not named in the files, especially of the Rickling girls and the Patmos children, but are reflected in the consequences." (p. 231) The author says that something is not named in the files, but sees that the "consequences are reflected". Which consequences the author means remains completely open. And it is also astonishing that a non-medical practitioner is able to judge the consequences of an unnamed therapy on the basis of historical files. Even a doctor would probably have difficulties with that.
And further: In connection with the idea of "doctrines" of Bethel doctors and their Christian self-image, the author writes (p. 243): "When even the artificial production of fever with tubercle bacilli and infectious diseases in weak, emaciated children is regarded as particularly 'successful'". The author is referring to the above quote from Schorsch from 1947, but he was never talking about children. Especially not of "weak, emaciated" ones. Apart from that, the author cannot prove the actual use of this method in psychiatry with any of the individual case files.
Use of secondary literature
About half of the book is based on previous research literature on Bethel under National Socialism. Unfortunately, this is not always clear due to the author's annotation practice. It is rarely documented where the author got the results of her work from. Perhaps she wants to give the impression that no one has ever researched this topic ...
The statements in chapters 4.2.1 (p. 114 ff) and 4.2.2 (p. 130 ff) on forced sterilisations can already be found in Hochmuth (1997) and Vossen (2001). In a paragraph on Dr Bernhard Mosberg, there is no indication that research has already been carried out on this subject (Schmuhl 1998). The chapters on Villinger (pp. 138-149), Schorsch (pp. 149-152) or the comments on Boeckh (p. 241) also lack references to the results already available in the secondary literature (Schmuhl 1998 and 2002). The latest literature on Braune (p. 289f) and Wilm (p. 290f) is also missing (on Braune: Cantow/Stockhecke 2011 and Cantow 2012; on Wilm: Hey/Rickling 2001).
The fact that there is already literature on the Bethel military hospital (p. 300f) is not mentioned (Stockhecke 2005). Research on the handling of the Bethel legend (p. 305f) - which the author rehashes here - has been well advanced since 1997 (Hochmuth 1997; Kühl 1997). The dubious attitude of Friedrich v. Bodelschwingh III (p. 326f) has also been criticised in the literature (Hochmuth 1997). In the chapter dealing with the Nazi perpetrators who were admitted to Bethel (pp. 337-340), the latest literature is also not adequately mentioned (on Himmler: Wittler 2010; on Hasselbach: Schmuhl 2001).
To state that "in 1933, a not inconsiderable proportion of Bethel staff and patients welcomed the turnaround." (p. 109) without referring to the detailed research by Benad (2002) borders on gross disregard for previous research.
Wikipedia is cited as a source for the topics on specialised children's wards and "child euthanasia" (p. 43) as well as the Stuttgart Confession of Guilt (p. 304). These are topics on which there is a wealth of research literature and standard works.
Verifiability of results
Unfortunately, the entire book lacks references to primary and secondary sources at key points. This is particularly worrying when it comes to far-reaching substantive statements. The reader is left perplexed, wondering where these findings come from. And further research is not given the opportunity to retrace or deepen the results on the basis of files or literature.
Here are a few examples:
The author writes that the children in Bethel made up "at most 5-10% of the cared for and sick in total" (p. 24 and p. 64). There is no substantiated calculation or reference to the secondary literature.
To write: "I therefore assume that Bethel conducted research into precisely this substitute food." (p. 36) without substantiating this borders on slander.
On p. 132, an idea is elaborated in detail, which involves the following: "During the sterilisation phase, behavioural patterns developed in Bethel that could become fatal in the later 'euthanasia' phase." Even a statement of this weighty content cannot be allowed to stand without evidence.
"In 1938/39, Villinger was the man in charge of 'medical progress' at Bethel. He influenced the adaptation of the institution to National Socialist requirements and the 'latest' medical findings (insulin, cardiazole and electroshock treatment, immobilisation with narcotics, vaccinations, fever cures, etc.), which were risky and dangerous for the patients, more than almost anyone else." (S. 145). Here, too, there is not a single comment. Incidentally, there is nothing to be said against an institution - according to the possibilities of the time - introducing the latest medical standards. At no point does the author prove how high the risks and dangers of these methods really were.
On p. 156 there are interesting details about Bethel's financing - but unfortunately without any references. It would be highly informative to be able to read this again and delve deeper into it
"Bethel, especially Bodelschwingh, pursued a 'secret policy' that was strangely similar to the secret policy of the Nazi rulers criticised by the institution," is claimed on p. 241. What is this supposed to imply? For one thing, comparisons with National Socialism are always difficult, and for another, such a far-reaching accusation is really not possible without source evidence.
There is a short paragraph about the doctor Dr Runge (p. 252): "But they also tended to move in the shadow of their superiors, at least according to the sources." What sources are these? It would be nice if the author had named them.
The sentence "that many nurses allowed themselves to be guided by National Socialist ideas" (p. 272) is an affront to deacon science and cannot stand without evidence.
On pp. 272-273 there is a lengthy paragraph on "eradication", on "GEKRAT", on "perpetration and complicity" - all far-reaching statements without a single comment.
In the context of the transfers of patients from Bethel to provincial sanatoriums ordered by the provincial associations (p. 281), the author comes to the conclusion: "Based on a few random samples, I assume that Bethel was able to select these patients itself - with a fixed 'numerical quota', as I suspect - and chose those who were neither 'fit for the community nor for work', but this may also have been a state requirement." No evidence of this anywhere. This must therefore be regarded as pure speculation. And the specified samples are also not mentioned anywhere.
"Bethel's policy of concealment makes it difficult today to obtain a realistic picture of total income and expenditure," it says on p. 285. However, before accusing an institution of a "policy of concealment", all sources must be examined in detail. There is no indication that any sources were examined at all - such as the annual accounts.
"It is above all thanks to the house mothers, some house fathers, the deaconesses and the many caring relatives that the death figures in the institution were not considerably higher." (p. 294), is an equally weighty thesis. In this sweeping generalisation, such a statement is unfounded without reference to sources.
On p. 312, Degen writes: "The leading Bethel doctors generally wanted 'quick solutions', a reduction in hospital stays with the corresponding reduction in costs and fast-acting medication. Chronic illnesses pushed them to the limits of their patience and tolerance."
There is no evidence of this anywhere. The patients in Bethel's long-term care unit, especially those with epilepsy, were all chronically ill. Why would the doctors lack patience? In the long-term ward, it was by no means a question of the shortest possible stay. And if someone with epilepsy came to Bethel at that time, in many cases it was for a long-term stay. Moreover, doctors cannot be blamed for being interested in effective medication.
The examples given are just a selection. There are other places where entire passages of text can be found without annotations.
The author writes sentences in this book that are illogical. The context of the pages on which these passages appear also does not help understanding.
On p. 311, Degen writes: "In addition to the intellectual and professional integration into what was 'usually' thought and done in the Nazi era, the repeatedly emphasised and rigorous separation between 'normal' and 'abnormal' led to the attitude that medical experiments and premature planned death could be 'normal'. The blurring of the boundaries between 'euthanasia', compassion and deliberate killing was associated with an option for action that largely eliminated conscience."
And on p. 315 it says: "The 'no' to 'euthanasia' split from individual political decisions and shifted in important questions from a theological commitment to contrary instructions for action."
In two other passages, one also wonders about the logic of the sentences, and these are also formulated in such a way that the author makes herself untrustworthy.
One example has already been mentioned and will be repeated here: "It is surprising that Schorsch speaks so openly here about the 'artificial fever production by poisons and infectious agents', which were not named in the files, especially of the Rickling girls and the Patmos children, but are reflected in the consequences", one reads on p. 231. The author writes that something is "not" named in the files, but sees that the "consequences are reflected". One wonders what consequences the author is referring to and how a non-medical professional is in a position to judge the consequences of an unnamed therapy on the basis of contemporary files. Even a doctor would probably have difficulties with that.
On p. 66 it says: "Although the exact number of deaths of the children and their causes of death have not yet been determined, the facts known to date suggest that disabled children were also deliberately killed outside the children's hospital, 'sacrificed' or 'treated' in Nazi parlance."
How can it be that an author does not know the "number of deaths", not even the "causes of death", but assumes that the children were "deliberately killed"?
This historically and scientifically untenable approach is seamlessly reflected in the book's use of 'quantities '. Such sweeping assertions as "an excessively high death rate" (p. 14), "the large number of deaths" (p. 26), "However, there are often indications of tuberculous ulcers" (p. 38), "inflows and outflows that are unusually high" (p. 190), "the many deaths that are attributed in the files to an epileptic seizure" (p. 235), "in many cases the dose was increased" (p. 236), "the planned autopsy was often not carried out" (p. 238), "although a not inconsiderable number of Bethel employees must have registered the increased death rates" (p. 252), cannot simply be stated. This would require concrete figures and reference values for a comparison.
The author writes just as unscientifically on pp. 232 and 233 about a patient who has an "inguinal gland TB tumour". The word "fusion" appears in the patient file. From this, the author draws the conclusion: "Based on this patient history, I assume that the TB experiments in Bethel were also carried out according to Bessau's so-called lanolin method (active TB vaccination, melting in envelope substances, no detection in urine and blood)." It is purely speculative and completely untenable to make such an assertion on the basis of a single file in which this medical method is not even mentioned.
In the same way, the example of a single patient is cited in favour of the dangers of electroshock therapy: "Some deaths - like that of Hanna Simsen (Ps.) - show the dangerousness of these methods." (S. 233). The author does not mention that she only used six files from the field of psychiatry - i.e. where electroshock methods were used.
The author's use of statistics is opaque. On pages 188 to 203, endless series of figures are cited, from Bethel, from provincial sanatoria, from other institutions of the Inner Mission as well as statistics from the Gadderbaum office. There are no explanatory comparisons or assessments of the content of the figures based on the historical context.
Especially when it comes to deaths in Bethel and in the Gadderbaum office, all the statistics are simply thrown together without explaining which deaths were counted in which statistics. However, it is the task of research to explain the genesis of a statistic in detail and to explain which deaths underlie which statistic. Apples and oranges are being compared here. The reader cannot see through this. But it can easily give the reader the impression that there may have been 'irregularities' after all.
This impression is reinforced by the author's 'maths games'. For example, it is established that the mortality rate of those patients who were discharged increased over the course of the Second World War. Up to 51.41% in 1945 (p. 196). What this means when mortality is calculated on the basis of the number of discharges (discharged and deceased) is not explained. But a figure of over 50% sounds enormous.
This approach to the figures takes on irrational characteristics when the author calculates the number of deaths as a percentage based on the number of newly admitted patients and arrives at 136.81% for 1944 (p. 196), a mortality rate of over 100%, so to speak. Normally, nobody would even think of comparing such figures. But the reader is bound to be shocked.
Especially as the example of the Morija house on p. 198 demonstrates the poor craftsmanship in dealing with the statistics. Here, the author calculates the mortality rate based on the number of beds. This is simply wrong, because the constant influxes - which occurred in a psychiatric nursing home - are not recorded at all. The number of beds - in this case 200 - cannot be used as the basis for a percentage calculation. Of course, far more patients were catered for each year than there were beds available.
Nevertheless, this chapter is a skilful play with numbers. The layman has no idea what kind of statistics are involved. They probably don't even understand when the statistics are contemporary and when they are calculations. The purpose of creating an unpleasant feeling in the reader and suggesting that 'something has been covered up' with all the statistics is definitely achieved. What sticks in the mind is: 'too high' and 'something is wrong'.
What can be seen in the figures continues with the content: the author uses suggestive work. It has already been noted that at no point does Degen directly describe where the deliberate killing of patients can be proven. Where was non-treatment? Where was wrong medication? Where was the deliberate starvation? Nowhere is this named. The numbers are juggled and the individual cases of deceased patients are merely strung together - naturally with the effect that such a concentrated list of deaths inevitably has on the reader.
The author repeatedly links the general history with the history of Bethel in an inadmissibly unscientific manner. She changes the perspective unnoticed within a paragraph, sometimes even within a sentence; sometimes the focus is on the general history of National Socialism and sometimes on Bethel without precise attribution. For an outsider, it is no longer possible to see through this; one no longer knows what the author is currently writing about.
The chapter "The dead children have names" (p. 52 ff). In the paragraphs directly before the individual cases are mentioned, the author writes about "euthanasia" and "euthanasia victims". The individual cases then follow. As I said, without mentioning a direct killing. And the following chapter begins with the sentence "From 1939, the 'Reich Committee', located in the Chancellery of the Führer, was responsible for child 'euthanasia'" (p. 57). There will certainly be readers who cannot escape this 'pull'.
This continues. For example, on p. 113, the top paragraph ends with "Peace of a gentle death". It is a quote from a T4 employee and has nothing to do with Bethel. The next paragraph immediately follows with "Bethel never quite succeeded in implementing these ideological guidelines without contradiction.". Anyone who does not read note 172 and takes the word "these" quite literally might think that the quote comes from a Bethel employee.
This way of working is particularly dubious on p. 155: the sentence "The last letter to Bethel before the T4 transfers to the gas chambers dates from the end of November 1939" must inevitably suggest to the reader that there were transfers to gas chambers in Bethel from November 1939 onwards. This is a very clear example of the author's suggestive style. This is about orders from the provincial administrations to transfer patients from Bethel to provincial sanatoria.
This suggestive approach is also evident in the description of a case history (p. 221). Of course, the author does not explicitly state that the patient was a "euthanasia" victim, but the following sentence is woven into the description of this case: "The 'euthanasia' victims who were poisoned with Luminal in other institutions ... .".
This form of work is particularly perfidious when it comes to the alleged proof of medical experiments in Bethel (p. 221). In a generalised paragraph, the author writes about "killing policies" and "medical experiments" and leads on in the next paragraph to the question: "What was it like in Bethel?" This is followed by a list of individual cases.
On p. 235 there is the quote: "'Even physically depressed chronic schizophrenics were given euthanasia with Luminal. It was usually sufficient to administer 0.3 grams three times a day for three days...'". This is the statement of a doctor who demonstrably killed people with Luminal in the Pirna-Sonnenstein asylum.
As mentioned in the quote, these were psychiatric patients. Luminal was the drug of choice for people with epilepsy at the time. The author did not differentiate between psychiatry and epilepsy when mentioning the case histories. And the reader does not know how much Luminal the patients in Bethel were given and that it is mainly epilepsy patients who are presented in the book. The intention is to suggest that Luminal - dangerous drug - used to kill.
The author begins her publication with the Bethel Children's Hospital. There she mentions annual mortality rates between 1933 and 1945, but these are listed without any substantive analysis. On the basis of these absolute figures and percentages alone, the author assumes that the children in the children's hospital were deliberately killed. There was not even a rudimentary investigation of the content.
"The excessive death rate, the high number of disabled children among the dead children and the 'classic' 'euthanasia' reasons for death such as 'pneumonia', 'tuberculosis', 'weakness of life' and 'nutritional disorders' speak in favour of systematic killing ('euthanasia')." (S. 27)
Not a single figure is given for the allegedly high number of disabled children. And as far as the "classic 'euthanasia' reasons for death" are concerned, the author makes a mistake: this is a children's hospital that was visited by children who came precisely because of these somatic illnesses, including disabled children. The "paediatric euthanasia" - and this is the context in which she places the Bethel Children's Hospital - was exclusively for children with disabilities. In their case, a somatic illness was in fact only put forward as a reason for death.
The chapter on the children's hospital ends with the outrageous accusation: "Given the current state of research, it would appear that Bethel was the 'forerunner' of child 'euthanasia', which probably took place in many more places than assumed." (p. 43) This is in fact completely unhistorical because it is not substantiated in any way and is slanderous.
From a scientific point of view, the author's approach is untenable. She has not even made the slightest attempt to present the contents of the children's hospital: For example, determining the age distribution of the children who died, or naming the illnesses with which the children attended the hospital, or attempting to quantify the causes of death. All of this would have been part of the historical work before any statement was made.
Since the project for the publication of the 100th anniversary of Gilead Hospital in 2013 ("From the beginning Protestant. History of Gilead Hospital in Bielefeld"), historical research into the children's hospital between 1930 and 1950 has been underway.
Barbara Degen was aware that research was already being carried out on the children's hospital. This did not stop the author from coming to the conclusions that are now being spread in her book without any substantive research. This contradicts all rules of fairness in the scientific community.
To date, there has been no research on children's hospitals under National Socialism. In other words, there is also no information about what was a 'natural' mortality rate in a children's hospital at the time, especially not in a children's hospital like Bethel, which specialised in children with severe and very severe somatic illnesses and admitted children from the entire administrative district of Minden at the time.
A simple comparison of mortality rates in the pre-war and post-war periods can be a first step towards a closer understanding. For the pre-war period, only the year 1938 is suitable for comparison, as the children's hospital only reached its 'heyday' in terms of regional and specialist specialisation from then on. Prior to this, there was a slow process of change from the former children's home, which also took in healthy but orphaned children, to a clinic that only treated sick children. In 1938, the mortality rate was 11.5% (these and the following figures are subject to ongoing research). However, a comparison with the mortality rate in the post-war period is more meaningful: in 1946, at 22.9%, it was roughly at the same level as in 1940 (21.5%), 1944 (21.5%) and 1945 (23%). At 15.7% (1947), 13.6% (1948) and 14.9% (1949), the mortality rate in the following years is still comparable to that of the war period or even higher in some cases: 1939 (14.5%), 1941 (13.5%), 1942 (14%), 1943 (17%). This means that these allegedly excessive death rates during the Second World War can be relativised by simple means. A comparison is no longer possible from 1950 onwards, as antibiotics have been increasingly used in Germany since then. The mortality figures at Bethel Children's Hospital have been falling since this time - but mortality and cause of death, even the accusation of homicide, are completely different "categories"!
Research is still ongoing, and it is quite justifiable that serious historical research takes time.
Of course, the annual mortality rate in Bethel rose during the Second World War, which has so far been attributed to the deterioration in the nutritional situation caused by the war. Inadequate nutrition in turn led to an increased susceptibility to illness. And it is a fact that the standard of living in residential care was in any case worse than that of the average population. Researchers have known this for a long time. Food rationing affected welfare institutions more than the general population. Exactly what the food situation was like in Bethel has not yet been researched. This is due to the low mortality rate compared to other institutions, which has so far been categorised as being within the 'normal range' due to the war. The mortality rate for epilepsy was 4.3% in 1939, rising to 4.9% (1941), 6.3% (1942) and 7.7% in 1944, compared to 4.0% in 1937 and 5.1% in 1938. The figures were somewhat higher in the psychiatric sector: 5.6% of those catered for died here in 1939. The rate rose to 7.0% (1942) and 9.5% in 1944. If the pre-war mortality rate is also compared here, it was 4.3% in 1938, similar to 1933 and 1934, when 4.2% of all men and women cared for in the psychiatric ward of Bethel died.