A Sober Reich?
Alcohol and Tobacco Use in Nazi Germany
Jonathan Lewy
Alcohol and tobacco use did not fit well with National Socialist aesthetics. However, these substances were not proscribed in Nazi Germany in spite of the heavy penalties for excessive use: Alcoholics were sterilized, and smoking by children was a criminal offense. This article argues that the great demand of the German people for these products prevented the authoritarian regime from alcohol and tobacco prohibition but measures were taken by the Nazis to reduce tobacco and alcohol consumption in the next generation.
We do not forget that the National Socialist revolution was simultaneously a biological revolution! The thoughts of the individual beget the thoughts of the community, and the thoughts of the community are connected with the state. Indeed, one can say that they are identical.1
So Hans Reiter of the Health Ministry stated before the opening of the Institute for Tobacco Research at the Friedrich-Schiller University in Jena on 4 April 1941. Reiter's individual was primarily a biological organism whose ancestry determined his characteristics; to defend the biological development of the community, the state, and the race, one had to prevent individuals with hereditary defects from spreading their seed onto what was perceived as the healthy German public. The fear was that the defects would find their way into the next generation. As a result, research on tobacco was important to determine whether it caused hereditary defects and was the prime objective of the Institute in Jena.
Biology, heritage, genes, and the betterment of posterity fascinated the Nazis. National Socialism was in many ways a utopian movement whose goal was to improve the "superior race" by using a biological measuring rod to determine who is worthy and who is not; they wanted to make their world a better place by removing undesirable elements. The movement brought with it a long list of health activists and others who desired to improve the public's health. It was in an essence a movement of young people, composed of idealists and optimists who thought they could change the world.2 Their goals might have been lofty, but their methods were brutal, ruthless, and murderous. Yet, one must remember that they were not the only ones who sought to improve the human race, but they were the only ones who tried to do so on a grand scale unheard of before or ever since.
The deeper the researcher explores the Nazi ideology, the more contradictory he finds it. It is almost safe to say that no two Nazi scientists shared the same opinion on how National Socialism affected science and how science affected their ideology. The more opinions the researcher finds, the less coherent will the National Socialist Worldview appear to be, but it exists nonetheless. In spite of these difficulties, the purpose of this study is to isolate two seemingly unimportant Nazi policies on psychoactive substances and extrapolate about the Nazi ideology from its enforcement. To accomplish this goal, the study is divided into three major parts: one on alcohol, another on alcoholism, and the last on tobacco.
Accounts of physicians drinking alcohol while conducting the infamous selections of who was to be killed immediately and who was to become part of slave labor, only to be "selected" later on in Auschwitz, are abundant, but the testimonies of the physicians reflect ad hoc local arrangements3 rather than a policy orchestrated from above in one of the halls of administration of Berlin. Such a policy simply did not exist. Nonetheless, claims that the Nazi regime purposefully used psychoactive substances to alleviate the moral objections of soldiers to enable them to perpetrate atrocities persist to this day.4 Surprisingly, such claims of drugs used to induce social control are as old as the war itself. On 5 February 1941 the Stuttgarter Neues Tageblatt reported that Reuters published an article blaming Germany for sedating the Poles with opium in the same manner the Japanese were drugging the Chinese in Shanghai. In response, the German press recounted the opium problem in India and China and reminded the readers how England benefited from the trade in the 19th century.5
In 1944, Reuters reported that English authorities arrested 35 suspects of Swiss and German nationality in Cairo. It was estimated that the German ring had trafficked 50,000 Pounds Sterling worth of opium from Turkey to Egypt with the purpose of corrupting the free world and weakening public morals.6 German analysts at the Foreign Ministry refuted the accusation by noting that England deported all Germans from the Middle East in 1939 and those who lived in the region were either Jews or Germans who had fled the Reich in 1933. Thus the Nazi conclusion was typical; Communists, Jews, or Social Democrats were responsible for the ring but certainly not real Germans.7
Each side blamed the other for utilizing psychoactive substances in social control. The purpose was to blacken the reputation of the enemy by adding an evil twist to their conquests. But in spite of such idle claims, no proof was ever found to support the propaganda. Handing troops cigarettes and alcohol in the field is the closest thing that comes near to psychoactive substance–induced social control; however, suggesting that such morale boosters were more sinister than they appeared requires more proof, especially since all armies used and still use similar boosters to some degree. The history of soldiers smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol is almost as old as the existence of the substances themselves.8
Before one considers the employment of alcohol in social control, one must first understand the National Socialist stance toward alcohol and alcoholism. Alcohol prohibitionists began their activities in Europe and America in the late 19th century. Some youth organizations, such as the nature-loving Wandervogel and other nationalistic movements, frowned upon alcohol consumption, and many physicians warned the public about the negative effects of alcohol overindulgence. Prohibitionists scored some successes in the United States, Scandinavia, and other countries that imposed control measures on alcohol but not in Germany. Yet, despite the economic importance and popularity of alcohol, the National Socialists began a campaign against alcohol and alcoholism. On 31 March 1926 the Voelkischer Beobachter published an article that read: "The struggle against alcohol, however, became an unquestionable and an undeniable moral national calling (Voelkermission)."9 The National Socialist Party voiced its opinion early and contrary to public opinion as construed from the widespread demand.
The German antitobacco journal Reine Luft published a caricature in 1939, which expresses the National Socialist attitude toward alcohol. Under the title: "Two men—two worldviews" (Zwei Maenner–zwei Weltanschauungen), the caricature portrays the depraved fat and bald man sitting idle behind a window and drinking a Mass of beer, while the young, healthy, and strong brown-shirt marches purposefully on at the front.10 The decadent fat man, whose drink paralyzes him, is certainly not part of the new German worldview and has no place in the future of the German Reich. In fact, he is synonymous to the decadence that spread into German society, which the Nazis swore to change.
Nevertheless, alcohol remained popular in Germany, and the alcohol industry played so great a role that it is not surprising that the prohibitionists' call was only partially heeded. In 1933, over a 100,000 workers were employed in the alcohol manufacturing industry, or 2.2% of the German workforce.11 In addition there were the enormous number of workers who were employed in hotels, restaurants, and pubs, which distributed alcohol and in some cases were fiscally dependant on it. Alcohol consumption rose and fell with the economic situation of the Reich. Before the outbreak of the First World War;
The importance of beer among consumption goods in Germany may be judged from these figures of consumption per capita. German beer consumption reached its highest level with 118 liters in 1909, decreasing slightly to 102 liters in 1913. … The consumption fell sharply to about 39 liters in 1918. With 718 million marks the brewing industry occupied the second place in the capital stock league in 1913–1914, leaving such industrial sectors as metals and coal behind and having only machine building with eleven hundred and eighteen million marks as the front runner.12
After the war, consumption steadily rose. One estimate showed that 6.7% of an individual's salary was spent on alcohol in 1935.13 Other estimates were higher. In 1933–1934, Germans spent four billion Reich Marks on alcohol, 65 Reich Marks per capita, or 9% of Germany's national income.14 thirteen and a half million bottles of Sekt (German Champagne) were consumed in 1936, the same number as before the beginning of the First World War.15 These figures may have been behind the conclusions of the Study Group for Combating Drugs (Arbeitsgemeinschaft fuer Rauschgiftbekaempfung) to the Ministry of Interior in 1939 to ban the sale of spirits on paydays and to minimize the number of stores where alcohol was sold.16 None of these measures saw the light of day.
Not only the Nazi party opposed alcohol, but also physicians expressed their disdain for the drink. In articles published in Deutsches Aerzteblatt, the official gazette of the physicians' professional union and chamber, warnings against alcohol were raised. Its danger was equated with that of other addictive drugs (Rauschgiften or Genussgiften.)17 According to one article, mild drunkenness could have physical effects such as manual awkwardness; hence "alcohol poisoning" caused about 60% of car accidents.18 Some figures, such as Dr. Guenther Hecht of the Racial Political Office of the Nazi Party (Rassenpolitisches Amt der NSDAP), even linked the dangers of alcohol to the race policies of the Third Reich, claiming that the lack of self control of the "oriental people" led to the ban on alcohol in Islam, but instead the people of the East smoked hashish. The Jews were alcohol free but used cocaine or morphine to calm their nerves instead. The Aryan race had no historical need for narcotics; its bane lay in alcohol, whose market was controlled by Jews. Alcohol was also a threat to youths and children who drank it, because the habit endangered family values and resulted in illegitimate liaisons between the sexes.19 However, no legal measure was taken to illegalize alcohol or to include it on the list of illegal drugs, in spite of physicians' warnings.
Additional attempts were made to link between alcohol and habit-forming drugs. On 29 November 1940, a convention on Youths and Educators (Jugend und Erzieher) of the Reich Office against the Dangers of Alcohol and Tobacco (Reichsstelle gegen die Alkohol- und Tabakgefahren) of the Health Ministry concluded that alcohol should be designated as a drug (Genussgifte) when consumed by children. Therefore, role models and educators should avoid consuming tobacco and alcohol to set an example for the younger generation. Furthermore, the Reich Office recommended that the state would provide additional information to schools on the dangers of tobacco and alcohol. It should encourage alcohol-free drinks for youths and support "drug-free" restaurants, where smoking or drinking was forbidden. The Office suggested that cigarette machines would be banned and that advertisements that stress the enjoyment from tobacco and alcohol would be controlled.20 Some of these ideas were already implemented in the Police Ordinance for the Protection of Youths back in March of the same year.21
In the situation report, the Security Service of the SS (Sicherheitsdienst, or SD) reported on the Hitlerjugend propaganda against alcohol and tobacco as part of the watchword of the Year of Health (Gesundheitsjahre) program of 1939. The program was well received in the Reich, especially in the centers of alcohol consumption in the Northeast, in Pomerania, and in East Prussia. The result of the program was an increase in the number of people who were arrested for drunkenness.22 Very little else was reported. Even in the SD reports, the line between luxury goods and foodstuffs was unclear. On 13 December 1939 the SD drew a list of consumer goods the public expected to have available during the war. Of note, beer and chocolate were included as foodstuffs and not luxury items.23 Thus the population deemed beer as important as other nutrients. It appears as if the public kept its taste for alcohol in spite of Nazi propaganda. Alcohol was never banned in Germany, and during the war it was a highly valuable commodity rationed by the state.24
The Fuehrer was a vegetarian. He did not smoke or drink alcohol. Every German knew that. The role model had been set, but no coercive measures were used to force the public to follow his example; meat, tobacco, and alcohol remained legal in the Third Reich. No one dared upset the public by banning these goods. In addition, little had the public known that on rare occasions, when health permitted, Hitler allowed himself a sip.25 Other eminent personas of the Reich were often spotted drunk in bars, as in the case of the chief of the Main Office of Reich Security (Reichssicherheitshauptamt, RSHA), Reinhard Heydrich. The only leader who truly abstained from alcohol and despised it was the aesthetic Heinrich Himmler.26 One thing is certain. The German public as a whole never abstained, in spite of the National Socialist proclaimed goals.
Most people would probably identify alcoholism as being a byproduct of alcohol overindulgence. If alcohol was so popular and the regime dared not proscribe it, how were alcoholics treated? The answer lies in how the National Socialists treated antisocial behavior. For practical administrative purposes, a clear definition of antisocial behavior was required. However, German vocabulary during the National Socialist period was characterized by the use of euphemisms and words, "whose meanings were utterly twisted out of shape and at times turned on their head."27 Heydrich, as the chief administrator of German police, believed that an effective administration could not function without clear definitions; therefore, he circulated a bill proposal in 1941 that would clarify the situation. The proposal codified the term antisocial behavior and gave extreme enforcement authority to the police. A modified proposal was resubmitted on 19 March 1942 but was rejected again, this time raising a strong opposition within the cabinet: Hans Frank, the General Governor of Poland; Konstantin von Neurath, the former Foreign Minister; Johannes Popitz, the Finance Minister of Prussia; Otto Thierack, the Minister of Justice; and Goering actively scuttled the second proposal.28 Some even claim that Hitler himself opposed the law because he believed the German people would not stomach the new legislation.29
Contrary to popular belief, the Nazis did not have a clear legal definition for antisocial people, Suffice it to say the term remained ambiguous. It was used by Nazis ideologues to define anyone who did not act according to what they thought was a "good citizen," someone who avoided what was understood to be one's proper social responsibilities. Antisocials were usually ascribed to have weak character, loose morals, and poor working habits. However, the lack of proper legal definition of antisocial behavior forced the police to hunt them down using existing laws, an action that caused many irregularities and contradictions. But for practical purpose, the historian can claim that only those who were persecuted were considered to be antisocial.
Although contemporary scholars could not agree on a clear definition, studies proving that antisocial behavior was hereditary were conducted in France, England, and Germany30 and were supported by many, not excepting quite a few National Socialists.31 The sterilization of antisocials whether forced or voluntary was discussed before the National Socialist takeover of power and had many proponents since the end of the 19th century both in Germany and abroad. The United States and other countries conducted such sterilization programs in the 1920s before Germany, because no political party dared to change the German law prohibiting sterilization.32
The question of the sterilization law was raised again with the Nazi takeover of power. The Fulda Bishop Conference of May 1933 objected to a draft of the law providing the voluntary sterilization of antisocials. This marked the continual resistance of the church toward the draconic measures offered by the National Socialists. The physician Dr. Leonard Conti of the health department of the Prussian Ministry of Interior and the physician Dr. Arthur Guett, the ministerial director of the health division at the Ministry of Interior and Conti's predecessor, wrote the draft of the law and offered it to Hitler.33 On 14 July 1933 in the same cabinet session that approved the Concordat with the Vatican, the government approved the "Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring." But to avoid jeopardizing the agreement, the publication of the decree was postponed until July 25.34 Guett, the psychiatrist Dr. Ernst Ruedin, a director at the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut for genealogy and demography, and the jurist Dr. Falk Ruttke of the Ministry of Interior wrote the commentary on the law, which was mandatory for physicians according to an order by Gerhard Wagner in 1934, the leader of the Nazi physicians' league and yet another predecessor of Conti.35
Ruedin already suggested a similar proposal to sterilize incurable alcoholics at the Ninth International Congress to Combat Alcoholism in 1903 but was refuted.36 Hitler, this time, accepted the proposal. The cabinet, due to Hitler's popularity and the intensification of the Fuehrer's cult, approved the law, in spite of the Vice-Chancellor's, Franz von Papen, ill-feelings toward the law and its possible ramifications for the relationship with the Catholic church.37 The law fitted the National Socialist scientific worldview like a glove, asserting that all diseases could be cured by scientific means. This latter idea was not in a sense Nazi, but conveyed the spirit of science of the time, which was implemented by the Nazis.38
The second section of the first paragraph of the law categorized "hereditary disease" as mental illness from birth, schizophrenia, manic depression, hereditary epilepsy, hereditary Huntington's chorea, hereditary blindness, and serious hereditary physical deformities. In a separate section of the paragraph the law read: "Furthermore, whoever suffers from severe alcoholism, can be sterilized."39 Although the law was proposed to be eugenic rather than castigatory, some claimed that it would also reduce antisocial behavior, because there was a strong belief that biological defects manifested socially; especially in repetitive criminality.40 Drug addicts, however, were not listed as those who suffered from hereditary disease. Apparently, the addicts were not suspected of being a biological threat. Instead, they were treated according to different regulations.41
According to the sterilization law, anyone who suffered from the listed diseases was to be sterilized, if it was determined with high probability by medical or scientific experience that the offspring would suffer from the hereditary disease as well. Any state-employed (beamteter) physician was allowed to sterilize in a hospital, sanatorium (Heil- und Pflegeanstalt), or in prison. The regional Court for Hereditary Health (Erbgesundheitsgericht)—-a de facto physicians' committee—-evaluated each case and decided whether the "patient" was to be sterilized or not. It was the duty of physicians in private practices to report anyone they suspected for having a hereditary disease to the regional authorities or else they could be fined with 150 Reich Marks.42 Some 1,700 of such committees were created at the cost of 14 million Reich Marks.43 The goal was clear: To battle a biological defect, one must stop it from spreading in the following generation. "Whoever is not bodily and spiritually healthy and worthy, shall not have the right to pass on the suffering in the body of his children," Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf,44 and some 350,000 individuals fell victim to the forced sterilization,45 of which an unknown number were alcoholics. However, alcoholism was the fourth most popular ground for sterilization in three separated reports conducted in 1934: 5% of 6,052 men, 0.5% of 6,032 women, 6.8% of 325 men and women—in all about 327 sterilized alcoholics out of 12,409 victims.46
A different picture precipitated in other regions of the Reich. In a speech before the German Union against Alcoholism (Deutcher Verein gegen den Alkoholismus) in 1935, Gerhart Feuerstein, the head of the Study Group for Combating Drugs, stated that the National Socialist state must take care of its citizens against drugs as part of its many new medical undertakings. By April 1935, for example, 1364 biologically defective persons were sterilized in Hamburg. Five hundred sixty-one (or 41%) of these were severe alcoholics. Drugs, according to Feuerstein's speech in 1935, damage the body and soul. Cleaning the population from drugs should be part of the social hygiene program of the state. Interestingly, Feuerstein used the term "social hygiene" instead of racial—-or biological—-hygiene, in spite of the fact that in 1935 only a biological program existed. The statement might have occurred due to confusion between the two or, more likely, due to Feuerstein's desire to broaden the biological program to social matters, hence increasing the importance of his study group.
Feuerstein, like other professionals, tied together alcoholism and narcotic use, claiming that characteristics displayed by one existed in the other. Therefore he called both substances Rauschgift (stupefying poison). He traced a link between Rauschgift users and addicts to the amount of children they bear and their cost to the public purse. Therefore, the problem had to be eradicated. Thus he questioned whether the various treatment sanatoria were effective. Once a soul was lost to the vile Rauschgift, not much could be done. Control was another goal Feuerstein vied for. The very fact that alcohol was accessible to all made the eradication impossible; hence, alcohol should be controlled like any other drug. Success in the struggle against drugs lay with education. Teaching the masses about the dangers of alcohol and drugs before the possible addict would touch the substances, therefore preventing the vice to occur before it began.47 Some education programs were created, but other than that Feuerstein's plans, as were depicted in his speech, were never implemented by the regime.
On 28 September 1934 Dr. Frey of the health department of the Berlin government published a warning in which he chastised the local authorities of Berlin for publishing the number of men and women who were sterilized. He reminded the authorities that such information should be kept confidential.48 The regime tried to hide the scope of the sterilization process. From the lists that survived the war, drug users were not mentioned among those who were sterilized. In fact, the file concerning hereditary diseases in the Berlin Landesarchiv ignored their existence completely, even though four sanatoria existed in the region, which handled cases of sterilization.49 These four institutions had a rehabilitation program for alcoholics, who were not deemed to have a biological defect and so could be saved by a "social" program. The program, presumably, was not intended for the severe alcoholics.
By 1939, the sterilization process slowed down, and only 5% of all sterilization occurred after that date, either due to lack of qualifying cases, internal changes within the committees, the war,50 or legal changes.51 For example, on 20 March 1940 the health office of Berlin–Steglitz reported to the Main health office that because of the war and cutbacks, the local office was reducing its activity in reviewing pharmacists, far away schools, alcoholics, and drug addicts. However, the office would continue its activities concerning children and hereditary diseases.52 The source does not explain the discrepancy why alcoholism was singled out of the other hereditary diseases.
The question of severe alcoholism and other biological diseases continued to pester the authorities. In report number 51, dated 9 February 1940, the SD reviewed the drug-fighting program of the Wehrmacht during the war. It was concerned with the possibility that new alcoholic recruits would enter the military; therefore, a program was being developed to battle this danger. Furthermore, the SD raised the possibility that alcoholics, who did not manage to receive wedding certificates because of their habit, might try to enlist into the army and as soldiers try to get married, because their medical record was not present.53
The SD expressed its fear that "severe" alcoholics could circumvent the law on the health of married couples (Ehegesundheitsgesetz), which forbade the marriage of hereditary diseased persons, as defined by the law of 1933.54 A similar concern was reflected in the criminal statistics of the SS courts in 1943. Of 16,567 cases, 359 persons were convicted for drunkenness; one was jailed for a period between 5 and 10 years. Four were sentenced for up to 5 years in jail, and the rest were arrested for a period of less than a year. Only 32 of the convicted drunkards received light disciplinary penalties.55 In conclusion, the Nazis tolerated alcohol; drunkenness was frowned upon, and alcoholism was treated by force.
The fact that Hitler abstained from smoking and alcohol in his later years as a politician56 does not necessarily prove he had a specific policy against tobacco, especially in the military. It is true that the German cigarette rations were lower than those of the Americans, but they may simply have had better things to invest in other than cigarettes in 1942. They certainly did not have the luxury of providing soldiers with 30 cigarettes a day like the Americans. A program against tobacco existed in Germany, but it was directed at women and children, not at male adults and certainly not at soldiers. According to Traudl Junge, one of Hitler's personal secretaries and an avid smoker, the Fuehrer forbade smoking during meetings that he attended. This ban was only relaxed on 24 April 1945 when relations became informal in the bunker under scorched Berlin. At any rate, the Fuehrer's disdain for smoking could not have been too severe, since even Eva Braun occasionally smoked,57 as did other important figures of the Reich such as Joseph Goebbels and Hermann Goering, who even smoked in public.
If the National Socialists had the inclination to proscribe tobacco, they could have relied on historical precedents. In the 17th century smoking bans were enacted in various German principalities with various degrees of severity, which even reached the death penalty in Lueneberg.58 On 18 October 1758 the King of Prussia barred the smoking of tobacco in flammable areas.59 Other European countries also prohibited tobacco use during the 17th and 18th centuries, but to no avail. Their reasons varied from religious convictions to resistance to foreign habits.60 By the "professor revolution of 1848," most these bans were abolished. Incidentally, "Nazi philosophers would later use this coincidence to argue that liberalism spurred the uptake of corrupting vices like alcohol and tobacco."61 At any rate, the fact that the Nazis did not ban tobacco does not mean they endorsed the use of the substance.
Propaganda against smoking was a result of an increase in tobacco consumption. Some 194 cigarettes were smoked per person in the German Reich in 1913; 489 cigarettes per capita were smoked in 1930, 503 cigarettes were smoked in 1933, and 609 by 1937.62 There was a clear rise; after the First World War, the Germans increasingly began to pollute their lungs, which may explain both the placement of Nazi propaganda on cigarette packs and the concern of the government. In 1930 the financier Otto Wagener persuaded a tobacco company to produce "Sturm" cigarettes for SA men; this was a sponsorship deal, which benefited both the business and the SA coffers. The storm troopers were encouraged to smoke only that brand and in exchange the manufacturer contributed to the brown shirts. At first, the payments were sent to the SA, but after Ernst Rhoem took over the organization, the treasurer of the Party seized the revenues. Thus Hitler's repugnance of smoking did not stop the Party from conducting business with the tobacco industry,63 especially when it involved accepting money from the German tobacco magnate Reemtsma.
Smoking and drinking were one of the first issues on which the fledgling SS tried to distance itself from the rowdy SA. The elite black-shirted SS always tried to distance itself from the rough brown-shirted SA, whose image was of low class ruffians. In one of the first orders of the SS in 1925, drunkards and gossipmongers were barred from the organization. In 1927 members of the SS were instructed to stop smoking while at Party meetings. The opposition to smoking was not ideological but rather a way of maintaining an image of aloofness, organization, and discipline to contrast the SS from the bigger SA.64 Therefore, the National Socialist att
Posted via email from Daten zum Denken, Nachdenken und Mitdenken
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen