Again…

Nationalsozialismus

Im Nationalsozialismus stand der Infektionsschutz unter dem Vorzeichen der nationalsozialistischen Rassenund Volksgemeinschaftsideologie. So lag nach Solbrig [9] „die Bekämpfung der Seuchen in allergrößtem Interesse der Erhaltung der Volksgesundheit, des Bestandes des Volkes, der Arbeitskraft der Volksgenossen und, nicht zu vergessen, auch im finanziellen Staatsinteresse“. In vielen Fällen wurde die Seuchenbekämpfung dafür missbraucht, Maßnahmen der Euthanasie zu verschleiern. Das Gesetz über die Vereinheitlichung des Gesundheitswesens sah ab 1935 die Einrichtung von ärztlich geleiteten Gesundheitsämtern vor, in deren Zuständigkeiten neben der „Erbund Rassenpflege“ und der „Gesundheitspolizei“ auch die Bekämpfung übertragbarer Krankheiten fiel. Zur Umsetzung der Impfpflicht wurden die Organisation über angestellte Impfärzte und Impfbezirke, die Durchführung von Impfterminen und die Erstellung von Impflisten wie bereits im Reichs-Impfgesetz festgelegt fortgeführt. Der Amtsarzt eines Bezirks bzw. der Medizinaldezernent beaufsichtigte Impftechnik, Impferfolg, Räumlichkeiten, Reinheit und Wirksamkeit von sowie den Handel mit Impfstoffen. Vom Gesundheitsamt musste aus den Berichten der Impfärzte und den Impflisten ein Hauptimpfbericht erstellt und der Aufsichtsbehörde übermittelt werden.

In English:

National Socialism

During National Socialism, infection protection was dominated by the National Socialist racial and national community ideology. According to Solbrig [9], “the fight against epidemics was in the greatest interest of preserving public health, the existence of the people, the working power of the people and, not to forget, also in the financial interest of the state.” In many cases, disease control was misused to conceal euthanasia measures. From 1935 onwards, the law on the standardization of the healthcare system provided for the establishment of medically managed health authorities, whose responsibilities included not only the “Racial Care Association” and the “Health Police” but also the fight against communicable diseases. To implement the vaccination requirement, the organization continued through employed vaccinators and vaccination districts, the implementation of vaccination appointments and the creation of vaccination lists as already set out in the Reich Vaccination Act. The medical officer of a district or the head of the medical department supervised vaccination technology, vaccination success, premises, purity and effectiveness of, and trade in vaccines. The health department had to create a main vaccination report from the reports from the vaccinators and the vaccination lists and send it to the supervisory authority.

Background:

From today's perspective, the "Third Reich" began with a surprise: in 1933, the vaccination practice, which had been liberalized shortly before, was not only retained, but even politically codified. Since the "seizure of power" there has been a noticeable skepticism about vaccination, even a rejection of coercive measures, which Winfried Süss rightly expressed astonishment about: "In a country [...] that [...] since the [...] seizure of power the individual rights to bodily self-determination in favor of the health of an imaginary 'national body' and thus increased the chances of such a vaccination being enforced, [...] this development can come as a surprise."60

How could the reticence in this important area of public health care be explained? Why was it that in 1933, of all things, were government claims to power abandoned when it came to providing for the “national body”? The ongoing debate about the Lübeck vaccination scandal offers an initial explanation for the concerns at the time. A second factor is rooted in the NS ideology itself, since vaccination raises serious problems from a “racial hygiene” point of view. Finally, immunization against disease is in sharp opposition to the idea of hardening and selection.

This was at least emphasized by numerous opponents of vaccination, who sensed the dawning of the dawn since the "seizure of power", especially since they were able to refer to authorities from the NS leadership in their criticism. The reference to a statement by Julius Schleicher, “Vaccination is a racial disgrace” 61, or the assertion that the Reich vaccination law “demonstrably was passed by the Jewish deputies Löwe, Lasker and Eulenburg, who called themselves the 'fathers' of this Law of April 8, 1874," 62 as the "German anti-vaccination medical association e.V." warned in October 1935. Rather unusual, however, was the rhyming form in which the “Vaccination research sheets” published at the end of 1933 declared the “elimination of compulsory vaccination” as a “basic condition [...] for the development and advancement of people and humanity”: “German people, have ' Nothing in common with vaccinations, / It is a mockery of all true health care, / And you don't want to be your gravedigger yourself, / Then you resolutely commit to the anti-vaccine nation!”63

More:

Professor Siegmund W. van Kapff was a member of the National Socialist association “Reich Committee for Public Health Service”. The association examined, among other things, medical research according to the criteria of racist Nazi ideology. In the Interior Ministry's consultation on abolishing compulsory vaccination against smallpox, it was recorded as follows. | quoted from: BAB R 1501/3648, minutes from March 14, 1934, pp. 13-14.

He is convinced that the majority of the German people reject the vaccination. This also confirms the assumption expressed here that if the conscience clause were introduced, not 40 percent, but 75 percent would make use of the exemption. If compulsory vaccination continues, the majority of the people will doubt that National Socialist principles are decisive in Germany's medical policy. […] He could not see that there would be great dangers if the vaccination requirement was relaxed. If the justification refers to the vaccination as “a minor intervention”, this would not be the case. You have to keep in mind that in most cases the damage does not appear immediately after the vaccination, but often only after years. [...] If the conscience clause is introduced, he thinks it is right that the public is informed that vaccination damage could occur. It is intolerable if the justification states that enormous propaganda must be made for the vaccination, but any danger of the vaccination should be concealed. That is not decent. The people must know the truth.

All three of these reports were written in Germany, where Holocaust denial is a crime.

What. Else. Is. There. Left. To. Say?