As Germany sought to rebuild itself [after 1918], establishing the rôles disabled people would hold in society became a means for German citizens to evaluate the success of the new democracy.¹⁰⁶ The 1919 Weimar Constitution, the governing document for the newly created [pseudo]democratic régime, promoted, amongst other things, equality, free speech and freedom to participate in one’s community; however, in practice, the disabled were not granted equal access to this right.¹⁰⁷

While “many remained objects of charity or social outcasts” and “appeared in freak shows,” others were “hidden away by their ashamed families,” perceived to be “crippled beggars” on the streets, or became the focal point for malicious jokes.¹⁰⁸ Of course, non‐disabled Germans undervaluing or preferring to avoid disabled communities does not equate to supporting “euthanasia” practices; however, it does highlight a preference for their removal and exclusion.

[…]

In West Germany, the history of [Fascism] was first treated with a “collective amnesia” during the 1940s and 1950s, where “postwar Germans suffered from an incapacity to ‘work through’ the traumas of the era [the Third Reich].”¹⁵³ It was during this period that [Fascist] perpetrators of “euthanasia” were tried at the Nuremberg Medical Trials from 1946 to 1947 (NMT) and at smaller West German courts.¹⁵⁴

Although Germans supported the larger trials, which convicted a handful of major war criminals, the successor trials, which included the NMT and proceedings in West German courts, involved moving beyond top [Fascist] officials and confronting the complicity to [Fascist] crimes, which permeated multiple levels of German society, and made it difficult for civilians to separate ‘Nazis’ from ‘Germans’.¹⁵⁵ Because of this, Hepburn argues that “the German public was simply not interested in the trial[s]” and Bryant claims they “were highly critical” of them.¹⁵⁶

Thus, the court proceedings failed to convey the seriousness of the atrocities committed against disabled Germans, an act that had ramifications on their postwar memorialization. The majority of the perpetrators of “euthanasia” crimes were never convicted, or served minimal sentences, and prejudiced perceptions of disabled victims were evident during German court proceedings.¹⁵⁷

During the 1951 to 1953 proceedings for Dr. Alfred Leu, who was called to trial for murdering disabled children, he was acquitted of his charges because the court agreed that Dr. Leu had “not acted maliciously ‘because the children or the mentally ill were guideless or defenseless in the first place”’ and that those he had killed were “low forms of existence with no perceptible emotional life”.¹⁵⁸

Even after medical professionals were brought to trial, and the horror of the “euthanasia” program was uncovered, many [Fascist] perpetrators of “euthanasia” did not believe they had committed crimes against disabled Germans.¹⁵⁹ This resulted in an extensive portion of the medical community from [the Third Reich] continuing to practice in postwar Germany and perpetuate their perceptions of disabled Germans.¹⁶⁰

Therefore, the cumulative treatment of “euthanasia” crimes in postwar Germany contributed to the delayed memorialization of disabled Germans because it established a precedent that they were not victims of [Fascism].

However, there were members of the German medical community that spoke out against [Fascist] “euthanasia”. Two early reports, written by Germans about the “euthanasia” program, include Alice Platen‐Hallermund’s The Killing of the Mentally Ill in Germany: From the German Medical Commission at the American Military Court, 1948 (Die Tötung Geisteskranker in Deutschland: Aus der deutschen Ärztekommission beim amerikanischen Militärgerricht) and Alexander Mitscherlich and Fred Mielke’s The Dictate of Contempt for Humanity (Das Diktat der Menschenverachtung), which was originally printed in 1947 and later reprinted in 1960 as Medicine without Humanity: Documents of the Nuremberg Medical Trial (Medizin ohne Menschlichkeit: Dokumente der Nürnberger Ärzteprozessess).¹⁶¹

However, neither work was reviewed in German medical journals because no German publisher was willing to distribute works discussing [Fascist] “euthanasia” until the 1960s.¹⁶²

The early works of Platen‐Hallermund, Mitscherlich and Mielke indicate that the crimes committed against disabled victims were not entirely disregarded, but the resistance they faced from the German medical community suggests their viewpoint was a minority. This enforced silence about [Fascist] “euthanasia” contributed to the delay in memorialization because it inhibited Germans from engaging with this area of the [Fascist era].

[…]

The 1980s also witnessed the beginning of disability studies and the use of disability as an analytical lens with which to examine the [Fascist era].¹⁶⁷ During this time disability also became equated with “gender and race as an analytical construct used to define what it means to be human”.¹⁶⁸

These changes re‐established people with disabilities as individuals worthy of scholarly exploration and aided in the recognition of disabled Germans as victims of [Fascist] policies. This assisted in their eventual memorialization within Germany, but this process was delayed due to continued discrimination towards disabled Germans.

The end of World War II did not bring about an immediate shift in societal perceptions of disabilities, even though West German society included a variety of disabled individuals: veterans, coercive sterilization survivors, those who had managed to evade death at a “euthanasia” centre, and those who developed a disability due to malnourishment or disease immediately following 1945.¹⁶⁹

Within West Germany, medical professionals deliberated how best to care for and integrate disabled veterans and those who had a disability due to illness into society; however, “in all these discussions there was almost never any reflection on the fate of disabled people under [Fascism] or the involvement of professionals and special education teachers in carrying out the policies of racial hygiene.”¹⁷⁰ These debates also defined who was labeled as disabled, which further excluded disabled survivors.

In the Federal Ministry for Labor and Social Affair’s commissioned work The Disabled and Physically Handicapped in the Struggle for Existence in Former Times and Today, 1956, the term disabled was reserved for “war or workplace victims whose health had been harmed in the service of society,” and those who failed to meet these requirements were deemed “physically handicapped.”¹⁷¹

Although some survivors of [Fascist] sterilization and “euthanasia” may have rejected both terms, disabled and physically handicapped, their segregation from the German government’s definition of disabled impacted their ability to receive financial support and government services.

Those who matched the Labor Ministry’s definition of disabled were eligible for pensions and the protection of welfare laws. Those whom the Labor Ministry deemed “physically handicapped” were also labeled as “non‐genuine disabled” and were expected to be cared for by their family, the church or a charity.¹⁷²

Therefore, the German government aided in the segregation of disabled victims of [Fascist] crimes from Germany’s disabled community; an act that contributed to their delayed memorialization because segregation and discrimination does not foster an environment for memorialization.

Furthermore, the notion that sterilization and “euthanasia” were medically sound actions permeated beyond Germany’s [Fascist] medical community, and influenced government legislation in both West Germany and reunified Germany.

In 1953, the West German government issued the Federal Law for the Compensation of the Victims of National Socialist Persecution (Entschädigungegesetz), which further segregated the more than 370,000 victims of sterilization and 300,000 “euthanasia” victims by denying them financial compensation for their suffering and official recognition as a victim group.¹⁷³ They were excluded because they were not viewed as victims of racial, religious, or political persecution.¹⁷⁴

Although [Fascist] crimes of sterilization and “euthanasia” were considered crimes against humanity, Germans who were sterilized under the 1933 sterilization law were viewed as having received genuine medical treatment.¹⁷⁵ It was not until 2007 that the 1933 […] sterilization law was officially declared unconstitutional.¹⁷⁶

However, victims of coercive sterilization still did not receive compensation under Entschädigungsgesetz, because their persecution was still not considered to have been racially or politically motivated.¹⁷⁷ This finally changed in 2011 when “euthanasia” victims were officially granted “equal status to those of other [Fascist] crimes” (eg. the Jews) by the German government.¹⁷⁸

However, it was not until 2017 that “euthanasia” victims were included in the German Parliament’s annual remembrance of victims of [Fascism], which takes place on January 27th.¹⁷⁹ Although disabled victims are now officially recognized as victims of [Fascist] crimes, it is evident that it took time for that to be socially accepted and expressed, which impacted and delayed the memorialization process.

It is arguable that one of the most significant factors in the marginalization of disabled victims from postwar memorialization in Germany is the lack of survivors and those who can lobby to promote the interests of the victims of [Fascist] euthanasia and coercive sterilization.¹⁸⁰ There were very few disabled survivors of the “euthanasia” program, and victims of sterilization have continued to face discrimination and ostracism, as this chapter has discussed and will explore further in Chapter Three within the context of deaf survivors.¹⁸¹

Overall, disabled Germans may not have been able to share their experiences because of their marginalized positions. “Marginalized groups can only contribute to the national memory ‘if they command the means to express their visions and if their vision [is] compatible [with] social or political objectives and inclinations.’”¹⁸²

Furthermore, arbitrary categories such as “feebleminded” and “deaf and dumb”, which developed credibility during the Weimar Republic and Third Reich, continued into the postwar years and perpetuated prejudiced categorization and discrimination of disabled Germans. Therefore, disabled Germans were hindered in their ability to advocate for themselves because there were a limited number of survivors and their voices were suppressed by a society that was unwilling to include the plight of disabled Germans in the narrative of [Fascist] crimes.¹⁸³

This directly impacts the memorialization process, because, once again, disabled Germans were recognized as victims of [Fascism].