The two expert opinions

First Expert Opinion (2012)

In February 2012, the HPI commissioned the medical historian Prof. Heinz-Peter Schmiedebach to prepare an expert opinion on the position of Heinrich Pette in the National Socialist era. The "Gutachten über das Verhältnis des Neurologen Professor Dr. Heinrich Pette zum Nationalsozialismus und sein wissenschaftliches Werk zwischen 1933 und 1945", prepared jointly by Dr. Andrea Brinckmann and Prof. Heinz-Peter Schmiedebach, focuses on the presentation of three aspects:

• On Heinrich Pette's role as an expert witness in forced sterilizations,
• the question of whether Heinrich Pette's research results were based on accompanying research into "euthanasia" murders, and
• on knowledge of "euthanasia" crimes through contacts with incriminated physicians.

However, due to the short preparation time of only eight weeks, the first expert opinion did not provide a clear picture of Heinrich Pette. The authors emphasize that the "knowledge base due to the lack of source material" is too narrow to make a conclusive assessment and to answer the questions of the HPI unambiguously.

• However, the expert opinion states that Pette was involved in sterilization procedures with his own expert opinions.
• On the question of possible research by Pette with "contaminated material," the experts find no evidence and suggest further research.
• Regarding Pette's connivance in "euthanasia" crimes, the first expert opinion proves on the one hand Heinrich Pette's contacts to important "euthanasia" profiteers as well as Pette's work in the advisory board of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Brain Research, so that a knowledge of "euthanasia" crimes is very probable..

Questions remained open about the date and evaluation of Heinrich Pette's entry into the party.

Although some questions could not be answered and the knowledge base remains "too narrow" for "an unambiguous assessment," according to the authors, they arrive at the following overall impression:

„Pette did not distinguish himself as a convinced and fanatical National Socialist and advocate of National Socialist hereditary health policy. However, contrary to his pronouncements, he was not an outspoken opponent of the regime.“

PDF download of the first expert opinion (2012): Gutachten über das Verhältnis des Neurologen Professor Dr. Heinrich Pette zum Nationalsozialismus und sein wissenschaftliches Werk zwischen 1933 und 1945; created by Dr. Andrea Brinckmann and Prof. Heinz-Peter Schmiedebach. 

Second Expert Opinion (2015-2020)

As a result, the Institute decided to start an extensive process of reappraisal: In March 2015, the contract for a second expert opinion was awarded to the renowned historian Prof. Axel Schildt. Together with his colleague Prof. Malte Thießen, it was prepared in the period from summer 2016 to April 2018. After a first revision at the beginning of 2019 and another revision and the addition of new data by the Hamburg historian Prof. Philipp Osten in 2020, the second expert opinion has been available in its final form since the end of 2020.

The main findings of the second opinion include the following:

• According to the few sources available and the known historical background, Heinrich Pette can be characterized as a "Märzgefallener" who probably joined the party for career reasons. A fanatical Nazi ideologue and "old fighter" Pette was not.
• The assessment of Pette's scientific work and activity remains contradictory: On the one hand, Pette was not an ardent National Socialist in the sense that he subordinated his scientific ideas to ideological goals. Thus, Pette's later writings in particular remain free of Nazi ideological references. On the other hand, as second chairman of the GDNP, he represented one of the most important organizations of Nazi health policy. With his speeches and positions he paved the way for neurology into the "Third Reich" and he remained an important contact person both for party leaders and for all relevant ministries until the end of the war.
• Despite intensive research in archives, no evidence of accompanying research by Pette on victims of "euthanasia" could be found. Since especially the "euthanasia" accompanying research in medical history has been intensively studied for years, it can be assumed that Pette himself was not involved in corresponding crimes. Most likely, however, is a connivance of Pette of "euthanasia" crimes. This is supported by his work in the advisory board of the "Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Brain Research" and his contacts with several persons responsible for "euthanasia" crimes. Moreover, Pette himself confirmed his knowledge several times after 1945.
• As a specialist in neurology, Heinrich Pette was involved as an external expert in hereditary health procedures within the meaning of the Law for the Prevention of Hereditary Diseases. Thereby Heinrich Pette voted in favor of sterilization in a relatively large number of cases (in 7 of a total of 15 hereditary health procedures known to date). In four cases, he also voted against the judgment of his colleagues, who had previously rejected sterilization in the initial opinion. In addition, it could be shown that Heinrich Pette occasionally voted for sterilization even when the clinical picture (for example alcoholism/drunkenness or "imbecility") - even according to the scientific state of his time - could not be classified as hereditary.
• Pette's self-portrayal underwent a gradual change from 1945 to the 1960s. While Pette openly characterized himself as a fellow traveler in 1945, he stylized himself as a "resistance fighter" in 1961.

The findings of the second opinion are summarized by the expert Prof. Malte Thießen as follows:

„Pette was not a fanatical National Socialist and was almost certainly not involved in crimes in the course of 'euthanasia'. Rather, he can be characterized as a fellow traveler who took advantage of the opportunities offered by the regime, advanced his career, and supported health policy at all times: both with his function as second chairman and as an expert witness in sterilization proceedings, Pette did his part to ensure that the 'racial hygiene' health policy functioned smoothly. We can thus look at very few white spots in Pette's biography, but equally few clearly black ones. In this sense, Pette stands almost as a prime example of the complexity of a life in the Nazi era. And that is precisely why his life cannot be reduced to a simple answer to the question of how we should deal with his legacy today.“

PDF download of the second expert opinion (as of November 2020): Heinrich Pette und der Nationalsozialismus; created by Prof. Axel Schildt und Prof. Malte Thießen.