The theoretical background to eugenic legislation in Nazi Germany and democratic Denmark 1929-1939 An introduction

At the beginning of the twentieth century eugenics, the ideology of selective human breeding had become a widely accepted ideology, which also found its way into the legislations of a number of countries. The first social law that proscribed forced sterilisation was enacted in the US-state of Indiana in 1907. Between 1917 and 1927, 23 US-states had sterilisation laws and about 8515 persons were sterilised without their consent. These developments were eagerly followed by the scientific community in Nazi Germany, which maintained a vivid correspondence with Californian eugenicists and thereby directly benefitted from the experience gained in the United States. However, it was Denmark that was the first European country to enact eugenic legislation. In 1929, a coalition government enacted the preliminary version of the Lov om adgang til Sterilisation (Law Providing Access to Sterilisation), which provided for the sterilisation of inmates of institutions for the so-called “feeble-minded”. This term included a wide range of persons, for instance those suffering from mental illnesses, schizophrenia, epilepsy, the blind, the deaf and alcoholics. It also included “moral imbeciles”, that is persons whose sexual behaviour did not conform to the morals of the time, including prostitutes and single mothers. From 1935, the definite version of this act legalised the forced sterilisation for individuals both living inside and outside institutions. Between 1929 and 1968, about 12’000 persons were sterilised.

Shortly after Adolf Hitler’s access to power in 1933, Germany enacted the Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses (Law for the Prevention of Progeny with hereditary Disease), which legalised the forced sterilisation of any person who suffered from a “hereditary disease”, as well as alcoholism or feeble-mindedness. The definitions of these indications are similar to those applied by Danish eugenicists. This act was revised in 1935 and 1936.

It becomes apparent that the same eugenic considerations were made both in a parliamentary democracy and a fascist dictatorship. In both countries, entire social groups were marginalised, segregated and sterilised. Thus, eugenics made an astonishingly similar impact on the legislations of racist dictatorships as well as parliamentarian democracies.

Part of the explanation of this apparent paradox lies in the social and political circumstances of the two countries. These determined the radical differences in the relationship between the individual and the state and the consequential reception of eugenic theories.

After the First World War, the political and social conditions in Denmark and Germany differed substantially. The Weimar Republic had to deal with the payment of war reparations, mass unemployment and the economic consequences of the Great Depression. Social tensions worsened and at the beginning of the nineteen thirties, communist and rightwing extremists fought each other in civil war-like street battles. The newly established democracy of the Weimar Republic did not seem to be able to cope with these problems and never attained broad support among the population or political groups. Its consensus-based democratic decision processes were perceived as weak and as lying at the root of financial and economic difficulties. The view that the new republic lacked a leader figure to unify the people and lead the people out of the crisis was widespread. These preconditions paved the way for the ascent of Adolf Hitler’s dictatorship and its destructive approach to rebuilding German society along racial lines. Eugenics incorporated many elements of the Nazi ideology and it almost immediately became incorporated in the legislation of Nazi Germany.

In Denmark, on the other hand, democracy continued despite considerable economical problems caused by the First World War and the Great Depression. Even though governments changed relatively frequently, democratic structures as such were never challenged. Against this background, political parties across the political spectrum agreed on systematically extending and revising the existing social welfare legislation. Reformist ideas like eugenics were received with widespread approval, when it came to remedies for the mentally ill, the so-called feeble-minded. Leader of institutions were among the most vociferous proponents the sterilisation of inmates. This, they argued, eugenics was a scientifically approved remedy to a variety of social problems: for example poverty, moral deprivation as well as hereditary diseases.

Although the aim of eugenics, namely the qualitative improvement of the population, was a common denominator among both German and Danish proponents, the means were subject to the prevailing political and social circumstances in the respective country.

It appears that on a theoretical level, it was the aim of the Danish welfare state to provide for those individuals who could not do so themselves, including protecting them from their own hereditary defects. The quality of the population was debated among politicians, physicians, psychiatrists and other interest groups. It can be attributed to their influence on parliamentary debate that eugenic reasons played an important part in the decisions to sterilise individuals. Despite the strong support of expert opinion, enacting the sterilisation law was a cautious process, possibly out of consideration for public opinion. In the end, a high degree of state intervention seemed to be acceptable in connection with social legislation. It was the acceptance of this highly paternalistic approach to welfare provision, which seems to have been an important factor in the administration of the sterilisation law.

Nevertheless, it is no straight-forward task to explain why the disclosure of the atrocities committed by the Nazi-regime did not stop the application of eugenic sterilisations in Denmark. One possible explanation could again be the aim to improve the individual's life by facilitating his or her rehabilitation into society. Possibly, Danish decision makers saw themselves well apart from Nazi Germany, because in Denmark the physical elimination of patients was never contemplated. Further research into this aspect seems to be necessary.

In Nazi Germany, The Law for the Prevention of Progeny with hereditary Disease clearly stipulated eugenic grounds for the forced sterilisation of any individual with a flawed heredity. The definition of these diseases and the affected groups of individuals does not differ much from the one in Denmark. However, it was the context of the Nazi ideology with its emphasis on the racial purification of the people, the Volkskörper, which legitimised a much more extreme interpretation of eugenics. The theoretical construction of a “German race”, which was supposed to be superior and dominating, justified the exclusion of undesired social groups. The feeble-minded, with their dangerously detrimental heredity were portrayed as threat from within. It was therefore legitimate to annihilate them physically, just as it was opportune to destroy "external enemies" to the Volkskörper like Jews and Gypsies. Forced sterilisation, forced abortion and the killing of members of the excluded social groups were defined as a means of self-defence.

We can see that the reception of eugenics differs substantially, depending on the political and social preconditions of a society. It becomes apparent that even a parliamentary democracy is well capable of incorporating highly coercive elements into its legislation, which clearly transgress the limits of human rights. Democratic mechanisms prevented the worst excesses, i.e. the killing of individuals. This was not the case in dictatorial Nazi Germany, where all ideals of enlightenment and humanitarian thought were discarded and replaced by a racially motivated amalgamation of theories. The execution of eugenics progressed well-organised and was only briefly checked, when members of the public protested.

The different approaches to eugenics, the differing aims and outcomes cannot disguise the similar considerations with regard to the “worthiness” of human beings to lead their lives as integrated members of society.