The Third Reich is one of the darkest chapters in the history of disability. Nazi Germany subjected large numbers of disabled people to medical experimentation, forced sterilization, and mass murder. The Nazi regime sterilized approximately three hundred thousand disabled people on eugenic grounds between 1933 and 1945 (most before 1939), and killed approximately three hundred thousand between 1939 and 1945 (Friedlander 1995; Fuchs 2003; Knittel 2014; Mitchell & Snyder 2024). This article presents a lesser known part of the Nazi regime's treatment of disabled people, namely the ideology of Bann K (the "K" stood for "Körperbehindert," meaning physically disabled). Bann K was a special section of the Hitler Youth (Hitlerjugend, HJ) which existed for nineteen months between July 1935 and February 1937 (Thomann 1992). 1 Throughout its brief existence, the organization attempted to reconcile the social inclusion of physically disabled youth with national socialism, claiming that members of this group had a central role to play in the Third Reich.
This article analyzes how the Bann K combined Nazi ideology with disability empowerment. While previous research has examined the oppression and elimination of disabled people under Nazi rule, only a few studies have analyzed how actors in Nazi Germany formulated ideas about how select groups of disabled people could be part of Nazi Germany (see Poore 2007; Fuchs 2014; Benecke 2018). Studying the Bann K contributes to this literature, shedding light on the ideological work of a disability organization during the years just before the mass murder of disabled people began.
The topic of this article may appear as a paradox; the state ideology and the structure of Nazi German society was built on the distinction between strength and weakness, qualities associated with superiority and inferiority. At the same time, disabled people were commonly perceived as inferior in German society. Without denying the extremist ideology in Nazi Germany, however, it is important to remember that the distinction between strength and weakness was not a specific Nazi ideology. It was also common to view disabled people as unwanted, weak, and inferior in the Weimar republic, as well as in other countries (see for example Kirkebæk 1995; Snyder & Mitchell 2006; Benedict & Chelouche 2008; Weindling 2011). Nevertheless, Bann K and the other two special units of the Hitler Youth that existed at the same time—Bann B for the blind ("Blinde") and Bann G for the deaf and hard of hearing ("Gehörlose") (Biesold 1999; Büttner 2005; Poore 2007)—promoted the social inclusion of groups regarded as "inferior" and "weak." During the years when Bann K existed, Hitler Youth focused mostly on political indoctrination. The organization sought "to achieve a monopoly of youth control" (Horn 1979, 641), which is key to understanding the ideology of Bann K. Our study of Bann K's ideas of inclusion contribute to the understanding of the disability politics of the Third Reich.
There are no primary or secondary sources that shed light on how the young disabled members of Bann K viewed the organization, their place within it, or their place within Nazi Germany (Fuchs 2014, 83). However, Bann K's membership bulletin, Unsere HJ, Amtliches Organ der Reichsführung der Körperbehinderten HJ (Our Hitler Youth: Official Organ of the Reich Leadership of the Physically Disabled HJ), offers important insights into how the organization, or at least those responsible for the publication, articulated a vision of disability inclusion that aligned with the Nazi government's objectives.
We accessed the archived editions of Unsere HJ through the Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz in Berlin. Sixteen issues were published as a supplement to Der Körperbehinderte between October 1935 and February 1937. Der Körperbehinderte was sent to all members of the Reichsbund der Körperbehinderten (RBK), the only organization for people who were physically disabled but not disabled from a war injury (Fuchs 2014). This organization was not only recognized by the Nazi regime, it was completely "nazified"; it had Nazi leadership and worked towards the same goals as the Nazi regime (Fuchs 2014). Although some of the texts in the bulletin explicitly addressed the relatives of disabled people, the physically disabled members of Bann K and the RBK were the primary readers of Unsere HJ. As we shall see, Unsere HJ portrayed disabled Bann K members "as worthy of inclusion." By guiding the physically disabled youth and making sure they used their determination to contribute to the Third Reich, the Bann K could transform members from burdens on society to contributing members of the Third Reich. The articles present the viewpoint of a Nazi disability organization, which means that their ideas about inclusion must be understood as deeply ideological and a form of Nazi propaganda.
Each issue was usually four pages long, and the number of pieces in each issue varied from three to eleven. In total, there are 102 pieces in the issues, ranging in length from a few sentences to several pages. Of these, thirty pieces have a named author while seven provide the author's initials. Not all of the published pieces are articles; Unsere HJ also printed poems and short notes. This means that the bulletin did not adhere to a consistent style or tone. Its voice shifted from piece to piece and from one issue to the next, a pattern especially noticeable in pieces concerning Bann K. Some works take the form of fiery, almost propagandistic speeches, while others are more restrained in both language and tone. Some articles are written in first person singular, making them appear to be authored by Bann K members. Others, judging by their signatures, appear to have been written by administrators, the HJ's press office, or even by Baldur von Schirach, the leader of the Hitler Youth. However, we have not been able to verify whether those credited as authors were in fact the true writers. Not all of the texts address disability or disabled people; forty-three of them cover other topics and we did not include them in this study. The material we used for this article includes the fifty-nine texts that explicitly deal with the Bann K and/or disability.
Considering the common use of the term "inclusion" to promote disability justice today, it may seem offensive to talk of inclusion in the context of Nazi Germany. It is important to point out that this historicized concept of inclusion in Nazi Germany differs from the meanings of "inclusion" today, in contemporary discussions about disability politics. Although the concept of "inclusion" has been the target of well-founded critiques by contemporary disability scholars (see Davids 2002; Altermark 2017a), we do not intend to compare contemporary uses of the term with the ones promoted by the Bann K. The reason for labelling the ideas promoted by Bann K "inclusion" is that this term has been used by other researchers studying officially sanctioned disability organizations in Nazi Germany (Fuchs 2014; Benecke 2018).
It also bears mentioning that our focus on Bann K's strategies and ideas, which were benign in comparison to what was to follow, should not diminish the significance of the violence perpetrated against disabled people during the Nazi era. The aim here is not to argue that Nazi disability policy was less evil than is commonly believed, but to document and analyze a facet of Nazi disability policy that also existed during Hitler's reign. Hopefully this will contribute to a more complete understanding of disability in Nazi Germany that recognizes nuance and complexity without diminishing the atrocities and injustices of the era.
Germany's mass casualties from World War I and its economic collapse after the war provide an important context for understanding the emergence of Bann K. In the years following the Treaty of Versailles ending the war, 2.7 million disabled and/or chronically ill war veterans from all classes returned to Germany (Poore 2007). During the 1920s, the increasing number of disabled people and the pervasiveness of eugenic thinking produced intense problematizations of disability (Friedlander 1999, 3). In the context of welfare policy, Carol Poore argues that financial support for reintegration seemed to be "an unquestionably legitimate claim" at the time (Poore 2007, 3), which in some ways broke with earlier perceptions of disabled people as charity recipients (Poore 2007, 26-27; Anderson & Perry 2014, 238). At the same time, hereditary and cognitive disabilities were still seen as social ills. Referencing Friedlander (1995), Poore argues that the large numbers of soldiers who had been killed or disabled in World War I led to suggestions for eugenic policies from across the political spectrum (Poore 2007, 45).
Hitler came to power in early 1933, approximately fifteen years after the end of World War I. There had been a long tradition of prejudice against disabled people, which during the nineteenth century had evolved "into a racially based theory of their inferiority" (Friedlander 1999, 2). Eugenic ideas were established and widely accepted in Germany, as in several other countries, in the early 1930s (Kühl 1994; Friedlander 1995; Snyder & Mitchell 2006; Benedict & Chelouche 2008; Weindling 2011). Under Nazi rule, these ideas of hereditary inferiority merged with an overt concern about the quality and integrity of the Aryan race.
These evolving policies reflected the escalating implementation of Nazi eugenic ideology, moving from ideological foundations toward concrete, state-sponsored programs of systematic killing. Previous research has documented the atrocities of this period, committed within the T4 program, the period of so called "wild euthanasia," and through other instances of mass murder (Klee 1983, 78; Friedlander 1995, 39; Schmidt 1999; Poore 2005, 86). Over time, the estimates of how many disabled people were killed by the Nazis have changed. Friedlander wrote that around eighty thousand persons were killed during T4 and "an even larger number" after the program was formally ended (Friedlander 1995, 110, 112). More recently, historians have estimated that three hundred thousand disabled people were killed in Nazi Germany between 1939 and 1945 (Poore 2007, 89; Mitchell & Snyder 2003, 859; 2024, 65). As stated earlier, Bann K preceded the mass murders that took place before, during and after the T4 program. However, the material used in this study was created at the same time that several eugenic laws were enacted. This was also at the time when the systematic transportation of physically and intellectually disabled people from Catholic-run institutions to state institutions began, a move Ernst Klee (1983, 66-75) interpreted as a preparation for the subsequent euthanasia.
Following Adolf Hitler's seizure of power in 1933, German society underwent the process of Gleichschaltung, or Nazification. This meant that every organization in the country, whether social, political, or cultural, had to receive official regime approval and adhere to the ideology of national socialism (Michael & Doerr 2002). The Nazification process, however, was never complete in its reach and contained contradictions that could create unclear areas where opposing viewpoints could be expressed in public, though carefully (Dodd 2018. For a discussion specifically on the Hitler Youth, see Horn 1979; Benecke & Link 2022). Although some organizations resisted Nazification and tried to remain independent, the Nazi seizure of power radically transformed German civil society, including disability organizations (Biesold 1999, 91–108; Poore 2007, 125–130; Söderfeldt & Schwanke 2019). It was this process that made RBK the only state sanctioned organization for physically disabled people in Nazi Germany. Its youth section would eventually integrate into the Hitler Youth as Bann K.
Previous research has portrayed the 1930s as a period in which the status of different groups of disabled people in Germany was not fully settled (Muhs 2002; Ellger-Rüttgardt 2006; Brill 2011). Over the last few decades, some scholarly work has shed light on how disability organizations sought to justify their existence and articulate ideas about the inclusion of disabled people in the Third Reich (see Biesold 1999; Büttner 2005; Poore 2007). Jakob Benecke (2018) details how the Hitler Youth sections for disabled people fall into a "grey area," where disabled people's biological differences appear to contradict state ideology. In another article, Benecke (2020) argues that Nazi ideology was founded on contradictory policies, where groups that were seen as deficient were singled out and separated from the majority, while at the same time the Nazi regime strove to assimilate as many groups as possible into the state. Poore (2007, 125) shows that the RBK's ideas of inclusion helped secure the status of physically disabled people by claiming that, through willpower, they could overcome their disability and become "Germans of full value." Petra Fuchs (2014) argues that the RBK saw the inclusion of Bann K members into the HJ as evidence of the successful integration of physically disabled people into the Nazi community—one of the goals of RBK. Our study of Bann K contributes to a richer understanding of the ideas circulating during the 1930s and during the processes that led up to the organized mass killings of disabled people.
The history of Bann K starts some fifteen years before it was founded as a special section of HJ. When the Bund zur Förderung der Selbsthilfe der körperlich Behinderten e.V. (Association for the Strengthening of the Empowerment of People with Physical Impairments) was founded in 1919, it was the first self-help organization for physically disabled Germans. This association was formed to support people who had either been born disabled or had become disabled in childhood. Its main goals were to promote adequate care, education, and work, leading to the economic independence of its members. Such goals were controversial and sparked protests from teachers, medical professionals, and psychologists (Fuchs 2003). In 1931, the Bund zur Förderung was transformed into the RBK.
When Adolf Hitler seized power, all established organizations needed to reconcile their goals with the ideology of national socialism if they wished to be sanctioned by the new regime. As stated above, the advent of Bann K was part of the Gleichschaltung. This process was gradual and complex and some organizations took the risk of remaining independent of Nazi rule. However, the RBK actively sought acceptance by the regime and in May 1933 was recognized as the only legitimate organization for people with physical impairments within the Third Reich (Fuchs 2001). Many leaders of the RBK had to step down from their positions to be replaced by members of the Nazi Party. Jewish members were expelled and thanked for their honorable service (Fuchs 2001).
Bann K was formed in 1935 when the youth section of the RBK was incorporated into HJ after an agreement between von Schirach and Hellmut Neubert, administrator ("Reichsverwalter") of the RBK (Thomann 1992; Büttner 2005; Fuchs 2014). Sepp Held, Nazi party member and organizer for sports within the RBK, was placed in charge of the organization (Poore 2007). An Unsere HJ article emphasized that the members who were forced to move from regular HJ to Bann K should not see this as a punishment. Instead, they should welcome it as a chance to gain access to a leadership position, since experienced members would show new ones how HJ worked ("Mitarbeit…" 1935:2, 7). The RBK saw Bann K as a vehicle for bringing their young disabled members into the Nazi community (Fuchs 2014, 73). A year later, membership of HJ became mandatory for all "Aryan" youngsters between the ages of ten and eighteen, making the organization a central institution for German adolescents (Fuchs 2001). This was an important step for the Nazi regime's goal of making HJ a more important institution than the family or schools for nurturing Aryan youth (Benecke 2013). Besides ideological schooling in national socialism, the organization also instituted compulsory pre-military training and prepared its young members for war (Buddrus 2003).
The following year, in November of 1936, the leadership of HJ decided to dissolve Bann K. The reason was that the public perception of people with disabilities contradicted Nazi ideology (Benecke 2020, 27). Visible physical disabilities were too-obvious signs of weakness in Nazi Germany and not compatible with national socialism or what the Nazi regime wanted its youth organizations to convey. The organization ended its work on February 5, 1937. According to an article in Der Kämpfer, the members' bulletin of Bann G, members were transferred to regular HJ groups ("Festlegung…" 1937:4, 151–152). Unfortunately, due to a lack of sources after the dissolution of Bann K we do not know the fate of its former members or whether any of them were killed under the T4 program and during the period of "wild euthanasia."
We now turn to the main subject of the article and three central ideas of inclusion that we have found. First the idea that the Bann K could instill in members the mindset needed to be included into HJ and the Third Reich. Second, the idea that inclusion of Bann K members is linked to the progression of Germany under Nazism, depicting Weimar Germany as having prevented physically disabled people from being included. Third, the idea that Bann K can free society from the burden of disability. These ideas can be viewed as a response to the challenge of legitimizing a disability organization in an ideological and institutional landscape idolizing health and strength and disdaining deviancy.
On the cover of the first issue of Unsere HJ, the overarching ambition of Bann K is formulated as follows:
March with us!
The publication of our national association "Der Körperbehinderte" has a younger friend in the struggle: "Unsere HJ," the official organ of the association of people with physical impairments, marches with us. This publication for our youth will let our young comrades know everything that we have to tell them. It will be a guiding light in the everyday struggle and hardships, it will lead the way that German youth want to follow. It will show us how to look at things and handle them, in order to understand them in the right way, and thereby help us secure a place within the Volksgemeinschaft, as we physically impaired young people fully desire. But the publication will also recount everything that we see and experience in our group. It will make known all of the things that our non-impaired friends experience when they are camping or on excursions. We want to stand active in the middle of the Hitler Youth and become fully a part of it. This is what we wish to achieve with this pamphlet added to our national association's publication "Der Körperbehinderte." Our wish is that our young rank and file learn how to understand us fully and that, with open hearts and all their power, they take on this new challenge. ("Mitmarschieren!", Unsere HJ 1935:1)
The above quote represents the goals of the organization's leaders, the main one being to provide guidance about how Bann K members should view the societal position of disabled people and also how they should view themselves. One important purpose of Unsere HJ was to demonstrate the mindset needed for physically disabled youth to be included. Bann K's goal to make disabled members tougher runs throughout the bulletin. One article encourages disabled boys to "turn will into action": "We want to—and in this respect Bann K will help out with social demands—make men out of you, men who do not say 'I cannot, it is impossible,' but men who transform will into action. Although you are physically impaired, you must commit to justifying the measures of doctors and the social with a double will, once and for all" ("Rund um…" 1936:11, 12).
Another article focuses on both self-consciousness and strength: "We want…to harden them at an early stage, make them resistant to inner struggles, to have fighters who assert themselves, who are recognized and are no longer pushed aside as inferior, as we have unfortunately always had to experience" ("Was wir wollen!" 1935:1, 3). Here the members are described as people with physical disabilities needing to brace themselves against the hardships of their condition. Doing this will enable them to assert themselves as members of the Volksgemeinschaft.
In the articles, the attitude to be instilled by the Bann K is often juxtaposed with descriptions of a so called "weakened mindset" of suffering. For example, one of the texts signed by the physician Albert Meyer states that some disabled people are "predisposed to losing themselves in an opposing attitude towards their Volksgenossen" (Meyer 1936:8, 8). Another article explains that the role of Bann K, and of national socialism, is to "kill off the sense of inferiority" of its members by means of a "hard but comradely" upbringing ("Was wir wollen!" 1935:1, 2). Then, when the "sense of inferiority" has been "killed off," physically disabled people will have the willpower necessary to contribute to Nazi society. Unsere HJ presents Bann K as the only way for members to become part of the Volksgemeinschaft. Members were expected to achieve subject transformation through Bann K, National Socialism, and their presumed desire to serve the Führer.
These descriptions of Bann K's function and attitudes toward disabled boys are directly connect to descriptions of a broader transformation of German society. For example, Unsere HJ argued that members of Bann K, before the Nazi takeover, had been obstructed by mainstream attitudes:
How often is he [the physically disabled boy], because of his defect, laughed at, spat at, and mocked by non-disabled youth, so that he can never get the sense that "I also belong to you." How often has not a disabled boy said "I cannot help that I am like this, and it hurts my heart when I see you, my healthy comrades, easily tumbling around. I cannot participate because you would never understand me—yes, never understand me, if for once I did not live up to all the great demands." For such reasons, it was impossible for our physically impaired youngsters, hit so hard by destiny, to be part of the common activities at this time… The inevitable result of this was that, in addition to their suffering, they [physically disabled people] were never aware of their full value, that they were never part of a larger community, and that they hence fell further and further. ("Was wir wollen!", 1935:1, 3)
As expressed in this quote, the Weimar Republic did not offer a sense of inclusion to physically disabled youth. Instead, they were excluded from "common activities," which contributed to them falling "further and further" behind. This quote depicts the Third Reich as a more inclusive society than that of the Weimer Republic, since physically disabled adolescents in Bann K were relieved of stigma and marginalization. In hindsight and considering the fundamental ideas of national socialism and the treatment of disabled people under Nazi rule, this might seem peculiar. However, from the perspective of Bann K it can be understood as way of describing the progress of society brought on by the Nazi regime.
In Unsere HJ some articles address, and refute, the idea that national socialism is incompatible with disability inclusion: "'The disabled child has no future in the new Germany.' This, I have also often heard from serious people and I think that it is about time to kill off this misguided opinion. I contend: 'Precisely in the new Germany, the disabled child has a future!'" (M. G. 1935:1, 3, highlighted in original). Other articles emphasize that the heroism of disabled people should be recognized and that they deserve to be regarded as comrades. One article that argues for the inclusion of Bann K members states that the "Volksgemeinschaft requires that everyone is equal" (Sch. 1935:3, 11).
Corresponding to the overarching progress narrative inherent in Nazi propaganda more broadly, Unsere HJ constructs a corresponding story of progress with regard to physically disabled people. The Third Reich would fulfill the ideals of inclusion and dispense with the Weimar republic's negative attitude toward disabled people. An unsigned article expresses this view clearly:
The physically disabled person was always seen in the wrong way, as crippled, unable to care for himself, and as someone who was always a burden on the state. Yes, the physically impaired was once destined to be a burden on the state, and when you ask yourself why, the answer unfortunately must be that no one made the effort to convince them of the knowledge and skills of the disabled. Only a few were privileged enough to provide for themselves and to be a useful member of the Volksgemeinschaft ("Was wir wollen!" 1935:1, 3).
This progress narrative glorifies the Nazi regime by constructing a dark past in the pre-Nazi era, in a way similar to disability progress narratives more generally (see Altermark 2017b; Altermark & Svensson Chowdhury 2024). The lack of inclusion in the Weimar republic justifies new policies, new ideas, and conveys that the new regime is improving the situation for physically disabled people.
In Unsere HJ, the progress narrative is intertwined with deep-seated ideas about sameness and difference between Bann K and other HJ members. In some of the texts, disabled people are portrayed as similar or almost similar to other HJ members. For example, two quotes taken from training camp reports read: "At the end of service, a straight line was formed. It was almost impossible to see that we are physically disabled. As the commander entered, our heads were swiftly turned to the right" ("Schulungslager…" 1936:10, 11). And: "[The boys] were standing in line, one after the other, including those who walked with a stick. It was hardly noticeable that they were impaired. They made a very good impression" (Steinlein 1936:10, 12). Here, the physically disabled Bann K members had become so similar to other HJ members that their impairments were described as "hardly noticeable." The fact that this observation appears in a report from training camps—key educational institutions of the Hitler Youth—is likely not a coincidence. These training camps aimed primarily to achieve Nazi indoctrination through immersive experiences far away from everyday influences (Benecke & Link 2022).
Another theme that comes through in Unsere HJ is the idea that transforming physically disabled people into contributing members of society could completely eliminate the costs they supposedly created. In one text, Bann K takes on the task of educating members and thereby enable a transformation of disabled people from "burdens" to "contributors": "We have the task…of educating you physically disabled boys and girls so that you will later become capable citizens who are not dependent on public welfare, but who earn their living with the work of their hands" ("Rund um…" 1936:11, 12). By stressing the possibility of this transformation, Unsere HJ describes not only the value of Bann K to its members, but also the value of this organization to the German economy and to the Third Reich more broadly. This is something the bulletin had in common with Der Körperbehinderte, which often expressed similar sentiments (Poore 2007).
The idea of turning Bann K members into "contributors" rested on two lines of reasoning. First, authors argued against the notion that physically disabled people could not contribute to the German society and economy. Second, they emphasized the strong desire among Bann K members to contribute to society: "The disabled HJ…want to prove their proficiency and thereby logically force the non-impaired in the Hitler Youth to realize that the physically impaired are not of lesser value, but are equally valuable humans beings" (Urlaβ 1936:6, 12). Another article expresses a similar idea from the perspective of an anonymous Bann K member: "By following our Führer, we want time and time again to prove to each and every person that we, as physically impaired, are not weaklings or unfortunate human beings, but that, through the Hitler Youth, we have been raised to become mentally strong and true followers of our Führer" ("Einweihung…" 1936:9, 11). Lastly, written from the perspective of a leader in the organization: "As I stand today in front of my boys, it appears to me that only one wish is burning in their hearts: We want to prove that we are of the same fiber as the non-impaired in the Hitler Youth. And, certainly, this is not only a wish; they prove it with their actions" (Sasse 1936:10, 12).
These quotes reinforce the conclusion of previous research arguing that disabled people were encouraged to prove their value to the Third Reich by various kinds of contributions (Büttner 2005; Poore 2007). The most important proof of such a contribution was the ability to work and pay taxes: "As physically impaired in the Hitler Youth, we have the special duty to commit to our work by all available means, since only our performance can give us the recognition that we strive for!" (Damköhler 1937:1, 12). As stressed above, the factor that determined success was strength of will, which Bann K and Hitler Youth helped disabled boys develop. At the same time, the claim that transformation is possible implies that the failure to prove oneself by contributing is an individual shortcoming, stemming from a lack of determination.
This view of disabled people amounted to an individualization of inclusion, emphasizing the determination of those who were to be included rather than the structural barriers producing exclusion. According to the descriptions in the bulletin, the Nazi regime had removed the structural barriers of Weimar Germany. By implication, if Bann K members committed to HJ activities and transformed their mindset, they would become contributing members of the Third Reich. As a result, the failure of some individuals to work and pay taxes was implicitly presented as a consequence of lacking motivation. The risk of being seen as someone lacking in these regards loomed over Bann K members and was a threatening reminder of the dangers facing disabled youth if they did not become part of Bann K.
The arguments formulated in Unsere HJ are based on the underlying assumption that the value of different groups hinges on the contribution they make, ideas that have been duly criticized by disability scholars and disabled activists in other contexts. Beyond Germany, classification systems, institutionalization, and eugenic policies were all to an extent motivated by the idea that disability was a societal cost (Rapley 2004; Walmsley 2005, 51). As seen above, in Unsere HJ, the remedy to this is the promise of individual transformation, where the willingness to serve the Führer motivates physically disabled youth to become contributing members of society.
For many decades, descriptions of the Nazi treatment of disabled people failed to connect the mass killing of disabled people to the Holocaust more broadly or to examine how eugenic ideas survived after World War II (Friedlander 1995, Herzog 2022, 110; 2024, 204-215). Perpetrators often continued to practice medicine after the war and disabled victims of forced sterilizations and medical experiments were rarely compensated (see for example Petersen & Zankel 2003; Forsbasch 2012). Dagmar Herzog argues that eugenic thinking has continued to have a central place in the post-World War II era (Herzog 2024, 6), which underlines the contemporary relevance of historical knowledge. Along the same lines, we contend that historical knowledge about attempts to articulate ideas of inclusion in time periods of strong eugenicist ideals can help us understand the shortcomings of politics of inclusion today.
Bann K was a result of the Nazi effort to subsume civil society into the state. This left disability organizations with a dilemma; whilst national socialism, and fascism more broadly, was based on a hierarchy between strength and weakness, disabled people were portrayed as deviant and vulnerable. Bann K's bulletin responded to this challenge, seeking to justify why physically disabled people were worthy of inclusion into the Volksgemeinschaft and why Bann K had an important role to play in Nazi Germany.
In its bulletin, Bann K used three arguments to justify the inclusion of its disabled members in Nazi Society. First, the Unsere HJ described the role of the Bann K as transforming physically disabled people by instilling in them the willpower necessary to contribute. Secondly, it argued that the Third Reich represented a great leap forward from the pre-Nazi era as it fought against negative attitudes towards physically disabled people. Finally, it claimed that the work of the Bann K benefited German society more broadly, since it transformed its members from burdens to contributing members of society.
The main empirical contribution of this study is that it broadens our understanding of disability under Nazi rule. In other scholarship, the sections of HJ for groups of disabled people have only received cursory attention. While the strong scholarly interest in the atrocities of sterilizations and mass killings of disabled people is important, it is also important to highlight other aspects of the development of Nazi disability politics. Our focus on the brief period during which ideas of disability inclusion under national socialism were formulated contributes to a richer understanding of one of the darkest periods in disability history.
Secondly, we have also touched upon several theoretical themes and discussions that may resonate beyond the Nazi historical context. Ideas of disability as a cost that can be reduced by assimilation, of how disabled people can overcome physical limitations through determination, and of inclusion as a testament to progress, are not unique to Nazi Germany. Similar phenomena have existed, and still do exist, elsewhere. While such parallels should be treated with caution—we do not want to suggest that Nazi rule is morally or structurally comparable to the liberal-capitalist societies often scrutinized in contemporary disability scholarship—there are ideas about inclusion that appear to recur in very dissimilar historical and social contexts. The challenges faced by Bann K share certain features with those encountered by other historical efforts aimed at disability inclusion. If we take seriously a general insight of contemporary disability scholarship—that disabled people are commonly devalued, perceived as burdens to society, and that most contemporary societies are structured around an implicit norm of the "normal" body—then it follows that other inclusion initiatives, both past and present, must also justify why disabled people are deserving of inclusion.
This insight helps us reflect on the limits of strategies of inclusion. In Bann K's propaganda, disabled people could only be included through national socialism, an ideology based on the devaluation of groups understood as deficient and weak. In a similar way, disability scholarship problematizing the contemporary politics of inclusion has often noted that the inclusion of disabled people appears to require that disabled individuals "overcome" their disability or prove themselves to be valuable by the yardsticks used to produce their exclusion (see Altermark 2017a; Goodley 2017). Although the emergence of Bann K needs to be historically and socially contextualized, we suggest that this organization, as well as the broader ensemble of techniques deployed to target disabled people in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s, can generate theoretical insights that also speak to our times.