Discussion: Psychoanalysis in Germany 1933-1945: Are There Lessons for the Nuclear Age?

Abstract

The panel presentations evoked a moving, wide-ranging audience discussion and further remarks by the panelists. The issues addressed included the admission into the International Psychoanalytic Association after World War II of psychoanalysts who had collaborated with the Nazis; the fear and risks for professionals generally of speaking out against repressive or dangerous state policies; the career concerns which make scientists and academicians susceptible to political manipulation; the extent of moral responsibility of each individual; and the possible ways we can learn to resist socialization to genocide. We cannot afford to regard the Nazi phenomenon as unique to German society. What cultural tilts (Staub's phrase) of our own might contribute to a next, far more destructive, nuclear holocaust? Political activism, for example, we know, is not conducive to career advancement in the United States. The experience of the German analysts warns us of the danger of seeking to preserve the scientific status of a professional group at all costs. Drawing parallels between the Nazi holocaust and the nuclear arms race is filled with risks. Those who work with nuclear weapons, and believe in nuclear deterrence policies, are hoping to prevent war. Yet the nuclear arms race, like the Nazi holocaust, requires for its perpetuation the total collaboration of a society. From the panelists in this symposium we may learn a lot about the forms that our own resistance to knowing and acting may take. Even under National Socialism there were ways of resisting available to the German analysts which they did not follow. The symposium raised important questions for ISPP as an organization, especially concerning the proper