Health & History, 2016. 18/2 1 Introduction Australian Perspectives: Genocide, the Health Professions, and an Inglorious Past Michael Robertson, Kirril Shields, and Linda Shields This special edition of Health and History falls on the seventieth anniversary of the verdicts of the Nuremburg International Military Tribunal war crimes trials, and the commencement of proceedings in United States-v-Karl Brandt et al. (the so-called ‘Doctors Trial’).1 It is therefore timely to reflect upon current historiographical and sociocultural engagements in relation to health and health practice that are legacies of the Holocaust. The aim of this special edition of Health and History is to provide an Australian scholarly voice to that history and historiography; to examine the role of health professionals within genocidal events that are not solely the Holocaust, but extend, in this case, to Armenia, Bosnia, and Australia. The term ‘genocide’ was coined in 1944 by Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, who defined the act as ‘the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group’.2 Yet the definition is problematic and the discipline of ‘genocide studies’ has come to integrate multiple discourses that reflect this divergence in opinions over what exactly constitutes genocide.3 Here, in this edition of Health and History, the nature of these killings and their location extends beyond Auschwitz, to other European locations, and to Australia itself. What is not included are the plethora of other genocides that erupted in Cambodia, Rwanda, and South Sudan; much of the ethnic cleansing of the colonial era both in and outside Australia; the program of state sponsored mass murder under Stalin’s rule; and recent events in Syria and Iraq. While genocide is not a criminal act particular to the Holocaust, the Holocaust is often considered the most bureaucratic of genocides given its reliance on the apparatus of the modern industrialised state. This apparatus included the government’s need for efficient transport infrastructure, the use of police and security services, certain functions of governmental hierarchies, the compliance of professions, a culture of scientism, and a willing 2 MICHAEL ROBERTSON, KIRRIL SHIELDS, LINDA SHIELDS or tightly controlled press.4 The uniqueness or distinctness of the Holocaust has been subject to considerable debate, often polemic and intensely political.5 Discourses surrounding the Holocaust are multi-faceted, shifting from suggestions that the Holocaust was a unique German act built from a particular meld of anti-Semitism and fascist politics, to the idea that this murderous episode was one of numerous killings carried out in the so-called ‘bloodlands’ of Eastern Europe.6 Included in this shifting focalisation are politicised debates over the use of the term ‘Holocaust’ to denote any victim of the National Socialist regime. Regardless of semantics or what might be considered the appropriation of blame, included in this bureaucratic system were health professionals such as nurses, physicians, paediatricians, and psychiatrists. This edition of Health and History examines the role of these health professionals as participants in this particular killing apparatus, but also as the victims of these measures, including Jewish health professionals denied the right to practice due to Nazi regulations. Garry Walter provides a biographical overview of his grandfather, the Austrian-Jewish doctor Otto Walter. The paper traces Otto’s early days as a reputable clinician inVienna prior to the Anschluss, and the subsequent repercussions National Socialism had on his life, family, and medical career. The narrative of Otto Walter’s life as an émigré European Jew in Australia demonstrates how institutionalised racism in the Australian academy, such as Sydney University’s Faculty of Medicine in the 1950s and 60s, was redolent of the racism he encountered in nazified Europe. Garry Walter’s personal homage to his grandfather bears witness to an individual and family tragedy against the backdrop of Mitteleuropa, drawing an arc of racist exclusion from Vienna to the xenophobic angst of the mid-century Sydney medical profession. Such observations intersect with Colin Tatz’s contribution, in which he considers more generally Australian attitudes to the genocide of the Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population. Here Tatz outlines why he believes this killing and subjugation of indigenous Australians is a genocide. Tatz’s paper “Australia: The ‘Good’ Genocide Perpetrator?” seeks to define...