Racial Science in Hitler's New Europe, 1938-1945

12. In Pursuit of Biological Purity

12 In Pursuit of Biological Purity Eugenics and Racial Paradigms in NaziOccupied Latvia, 1941–1945 B J Ö R N M . F E L D E R InDecember1941,sixmonthsafterNaziGermanyinvadedtheSoviet-occupied BalticStates,LatviananthropologistLūcijaJeruma-Krastiņawroteanarticlein the largest Latvian newspaper, Tēvija, under the heading “Par latviešu rasisko būtību” (On the racial fundamentals of the Latvians): “Our forefathers were fighting as Nordic people did in the past. . . . It is the Nordic blood that had for generations upheld the fighting spirit of our forefathers.”1 In her article Jeruma-Krastiņa,aleadingLatviananthropologistandthefirstLatvianwoman to receive a PhD, not only directly asked her fellow countrymen to support the Nazi war effort against the Soviet Union but also pointed out the “Nordic” characteristicsoftheLatvians.AlthoughJeruma-Krastiņadidnotusetheterm Aryan, anyone who read her article must have understood that she racially categorized the Latvians as “Nordic,” thus placing them on the same level as theGermans.This particular piece of popular science dealt with racial anthropology differently from her prewar writings: they had emphasized a balance between brachycephalic (broad-headed) and dolichocephalic (long-headed) typesandanadmixtureof“Nordic”and“EastBaltic”traitsamongtheLatvians.2 In Pursuit of Biological Purity 321 Like many other scholars in Europe, Jeruma-Krastiņa had subscribed to the paradigm of racial anthropology since her graduate studies at the University of Latvia in Riga. However, even though she had supported the theories of the German racial anthropologist Hans F. K. Günther since the late 1920s, the abovementioned article signified a qualitative change.3 Printed in a series of essays on race, Jeruma-Krastiņa’s article was not mere propaganda; rather, it placed the author within the realm of Nazi racial anthropology. Neurologist Teodors Upners, by contrast, did use the term Aryan race vis- à-vis the Latvians. Upners served as the head of the eugenic division of the Working Group for the Advancement of National Vitality (Tautas dzīvā spēka veicināšanas darba kopa, or tdsvdk), established in December 1941 with the purposeofpromotingeugenicsinLatvia.AsapartoftheLatvianeugenicproject ,thisworkinggroupbelongedtothesocialdepartmentwithintheso-called Latvian Self-Administration (Selbstverwaltung) under German occupation. In his speech to scientists and members of the Latvian health administration, Upnersexpandedonthe“purityoftheAryanpeople,” that is,theLatvians.He feared“degeneration”causedbymixingwith“inferiorraces.”4Inordertoprompt the vitality of the Latvian race and simultaneously improve its quality, Upners evoked eugenic measures as exemplified by racial hygiene in Nazi Germany. Upners’sargumentationwasaradicaldeparturefromtheprewardiscussionon eugenics in Latvia. No Latvian scholar had ever called for compulsory sterilization , as Upners did, nor had any local eugenicist ever before suggested the adoption of eugenic measures like those introduced earlier in Nazi Germany. Followingadiscussionoftheparadigmaticshiftinracialandeugenicdiscourse inLatviainthewakeoftheNaziinvasionof1941,thischapteranalyzesthemotivationofthoseLatvianphysicians ,scientists,andpoliticianswhopopularized andsometimesimplementednewracialandeugenicconcepts.Itexaminesthe extent to which the racial paradigm shift occurred due to the opportunism of Latvian protagonists and whether it was a genuine strategy to realize a specific agenda.Whilethehistoryofeugenicshasbeenasubjectofintensiveresearchin WesternEurope,Germanyinparticular,onlyrecentlyhasitprovokedsignificant academicinterestamongscholarsofEastCentralEurope.5Similarly,asregards the Baltic States, historical research in this field is relatively new. In Lithuania, Arunas Germanivicius has just launched a research project examining Lithuanianpsychiatryandeugenicdebatesduringtheinterwarperiod .6KenKalling worked on the same subject in Estonia while paying attention to racial science 322 B J Ö R N M . F E L D E R as well.7 By contrast, the chapter by Anton Weiss-Wendt in this volume is the first scholarly treatment of racial science in Nazi-occupied Estonia. In the case of Latvia, Andrew Ezergailis has contended that there is little evidence for the existenceofbiologicalnationalism,racialthinking,orevenanindigenouseugenic movement.8 Likewise, he has contested the claim that a eugenic curriculum was ever instituted at the University of Latvia following the Nazi occupation.9 A brief overview of eugenics in prewar Latvia questions these assumptions.10 In the ensuing debate, a fellow historian, Vita Zelče, while acknowledging that a eugenics movement existed in Latvia, nonetheless insisted that the eugenic project in Latvia was essentially benign—aimed mainly at increasing national birthratesandassistingpoorLatvianfamilies.Inanycase,shearguedthatwritingacomprehensivehistoryofLatvianeugenicswasaltogetherimpossibledue to the fact that so much essential documentation had been destroyed in the aftermath of the occupation.11 In spite of the fact that eugenics is closely connected to race, studies examining the Nazi mass murder of Jews in Latvia rarely have dwelled on national debates, forms of nationalism, or racial science.12 In general, the public and scientists alike used the term race in the sense of a genetic group, especially in the context of eugenics and biopolitics. In addition, anthropologists used the classicalsystemofclassificationinwhichracewascloselyconnectedwithmoral values.13No wonderthat anthropologistslike JuhanAulinEstoniaandJēkabs Prīmanis in Latvia proved the foremost proponents of eugenics. Both were leading scientists in their...