“The authors of this volume, led by Peter Selg, have succeeded in drawing a nuanced picture of anthroposophical physicians between 1933 and 1945 through intensive study of source materials and a comprehensive reconstruction of the broad spectrum of actors.” This is what professors Thomas Beddies and Heinz-Peter Schmiedebach ascribe to Peter Selg, Susanne H. Gross, and Matthias Mochner in the foreword of the new book Anthroposophie und Nationalsozialismus. Die anthroposophische Ärzteschaft [Anthroposophy and National Socialism—the anthroposophical medical profession.] The two medical historians, who are members of the study’s scientific advisory board, write that the study benefited from the fact that the authors succeeded in combining critical closeness to and distance from the historical and present circumstances of anthroposophic medicine.
Combining closeness and distance: linguistically, this balancing act means—especially when it comes to historical guilt and responsibility—calibrating judgment based on the significance of the sources. Every word is on the scales. Here is an impressive example from the author’s foreword: “There are publications and traditions, but also a number of facts that suggest that the anthroposophical doctors were essentially part of a small, hard-pressed opposition movement that did not engage in political resistance, but was nevertheless observed very critically by the authorities.” Closeness and distance.
Translation Laura Liska
Image Presentation of the study Anthroposophie und Nationalsozialismus. Die anthroposophische Ärzteschaft [Anthroposophy and National Socialism—the anthroposophical medical profession] in Berlin on May 23, 2024: Sybille Seitz (moderator), Astrid Ley (Sachsenhausen Memorial and Museum), Florian Bruns (medical historian), Thomas Beddies (scientific advisory board of the study) and Peter Selg (co-author)
