The Palmstroem Syndrome. Dick W. de Mildt

were no less trivial and lacking in ‘inner conviction’ than the grounds for their selection. Invariably, these motives rooted in a common concern for the (im)material advantages associated with T4 employment. That is to say, they consisted of such conventional incentives as concern for jobs, income and status, as well as the welcome perspective of being exempted from military service in times of war. One could call this ordinary opportunism, and that is in fact pretty much what it was.

5 The opportunist route to crime (and back)

      That something as trite as common self-interest could serve as the prime motivation for participation in mass murder may be considered too meager an explanation. And yet, everyone knows how potent an incentive opportunism can be, even in societies which we would generally consider to be liberal, diversified, democratic and free. In social environments with an authoritarian, dictatorial or totalitarian ruling system, however, its prevalence as a behavior governing principle is obviously even more manifest. Here, opportunism becomes a veritable way of life for anyone but the incorrigible rebel at all costs. And it is precisely because of these costs that the latter’s presence is quite rare in such societies. Thus, under the circumstances prevailing in the Third Reich opportunism became the supreme ally of its criminal regime. Far more than the personal idiosyncrasies of its collaborators, these circumstances form the true key to Michael Marrus’ puzzle, and their impact can again be studied particularly well within the context of Hitler’s Euthanasie-Aktion.

      To Hitler, his medical assassination program was more than the fulfilment of a long cherished wish; it was the ultimate test for his claim to unconditional power. For with the inauguration of this program on the day of his invasion of Poland, he crossed a threshold which he had eschewed until then. In 1935 Hitler had already informed his inner circle that, in case of war, he would settle the ‘euthanasia question’ as public opposition ←40 | 41→to it would be less prominent and easier to tackle than in normal times.⁴⁶ Obviously, two years after his appointment to Reich Chancellor he still could not trust the German people to support his extermination agenda. Indeed, only a few months earlier, his own Minister of Justice, National-Conservative Franz Gürtner, had informed his staff in no unclear terms that any form of state-organized euthanasia remained unacceptable: ‘If we would start out in this direction, it would touch on the very foundation of Christianity’s teachings to humanity; it would be the fulfilment of Nietzschean thoughts.’⁴⁷ Consequently, in the final report of the Ministerial Committee for the Revision of the Penal Code of 1936, any suggestions in this ‘Nietzschean’ sense were dismissed out of hand: ‘There can be no question of an authorization of the extermination of so-called life-unworthy life.’ Thus, the committee concluded that forced sterilization was to remain the most drastic measure which the state was allowed in its combat against the ‘degeneration within society’:

      But the strength of the moral standard of the prohibition on killing should not be allowed to weaken through the provision of exemptions for victims of severe illnesses or accidents because of considerations of mere expediency, even if these unfortunate persons are still only related to society through their past or outward appearance.

      And so it was to remain, in legal terms at least. For until the very end of Hitler’s rule any form of euthanasia would continue to be forbidden by law.

      For obvious reasons then, Gürtner and his department were kept in the dark when the extermination program was being set up by the Führer Chancellery in the summer of 1939. It was not until a year later that Gürtner received a photocopy (!) of the decree which had set the killings in motion. It consisted of a one-line note, dated September 1, 1939, and signed by Hitler:

      Reichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. Brandt, M.D., are charged with the responsibility of enlarging the authority of certain physicians, to be designated by name, so that persons who, according to human judgement, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death.

      By this time, however, Gürtner had already been informed of the killing practices which, based on Hitler’s ruling, were taking place all over Germany. On 8 July 1940, he had received an extensive report by the guardianship judge of the Brandenburg court, Dr. Lothar Kreyssig. It mentioned murders which allegedly had taken place in the Hartheim nursing ←41 | 42→institute, near Linz. In his report, judge Kreyssig was very outspoken in his criticism on the perversion of justice under Nazism in general, as well as on Gürtner’s acquiescing compliance with it. In accordance with their repugnant principle ‘Recht ist was dem Volke nutzt’ [‘Right is what benefits the people’], the Nazis had exempted entire areas of public life from the rule of law. Next to the concentration camps, this exemption now apparently also applied to the psychiatric homes and nursing institutes. Kreyssig informed his minister that he considered it his ‘undoubted duty’ as a judge ‘to uphold the law’, and that – after formally asking his highest superior for advice in the matter – he was determined to act accordingly.