Note: In this post I consider the differences between a German “dentist” and a German “Zahnarzt,” both of which confusingly translate into English as dentist. This provides an opportunity to assess the dental work that Dr. Hugo Blaschke, Hitler’s dentist, performed on him. Though bestowed with the title of “Doctor” by Hitler, Blaschke was nothing more than an unlicensed practitioner and his dental techniques a reflection of his “old-fashioned” work, work that Blaschke’s ever-present dental assistant, Käthe Heusermann, was easily able to identify for the Russians immediately after WWII ended. As my uncle Dr. Fedor Bruck’s former dental assistant, Käthe confided her knowledge of Hitler’s fate to him, a fate that many conspiracy theorists have ever since tried to refute.
Related Posts:
POST 17: SURVIVING IN BERLIN IN THE TIME OF HITLER: MY UNCLE FEDOR’S STORY
POST 31: WITNESS TO HISTORY, “PROOF” OF HITLER’S DEATH IN MY UNCLE FEDOR’S OWN WORDS
POST 40: ELISABETH “LISA” PAULY NEE KRUGER, ONE OF MY UNCLE FEDOR’S “SILENT HEROES “
Coming from a line of distinguished and accomplished dentists, including some with riveting life stories, I thought I would explain to readers a distinction between a so-called German “dentist” and a German “Zahnarzt.” This is a distinction that did not formally exist in America as it did in Germany. However, if readers watched some of the same American westerns I did as a child, they may recall scenes in which so-called “barber-surgeons” performed dental extractions. They were equipped with tools for shaving and cutting, utensils that could also be used for pulling teeth. This practice was common due to the lack of specialized dentists and the barber’s access to sharp implements. Similar “specialists” also performed dental work in Germany though under a more formal structure as I will explain.
But I’m getting ahead of my skis. My interest in exploring this topic stems from something I will explain before discussing the differences between a “dentist” and a “Zahnarzt.” My uncle, known in Germany as Dr. Fedor Bruck, has been the subject of multiple earlier posts. In Post 31, I discussed my uncle’s understanding of Adolf Hitler’s fate and how he obtained such knowledge as the Nazi regime collapsed, and the Russians encircled and captured the Reichstag and Reich Chancellery where Hitler was hiding and ultimately killed himself.
Below I will not only discuss the “dentiste” (plural) and “Zahnärzte” (plural) but I will also weave in some of what my uncle had to say on some of the topics discussed.
Following the forced closure of his dental practice in Liegnitz, Germany (today: Legnica, Poland) after Hitler’s ascension to power in 1933, my uncle decamped for Berlin hoping to lose himself in the anonymity of a larger city and work under the auspices of an Aryan dentist. My uncle’s dental assistant in Liegnitz was a non-Jew named Käthe Heusermann (Figure 1), a well-known personage historically. She followed my uncle to Berlin perhaps because they were romantically involved. Regardless, Käthe wound up being hired by Hitler’s dentist, Dr. Hugo Blaschke (Figure 2), as his dental assistant. This is significant because Käthe was always in attendance when Dr. Blaschke performed dental work at the Reichstag or on the Obersalzberg estate on Hitler, who incidentally was known to be deathly afraid of having dental work done. Käthe’s presence on these occasions meant she was intimately familiar with and recognized Dr. Blaschke’s distinctive and, as it happens, “old-fashioned” dental work. This would become significant following the discovery of Hitler’s presumed skeletal and cranial remains shortly after the Russians occupied the Reichstag and Käthe’s positive identification of his dental jaws.
On this topic my uncle wrote the following:
“The main person in this connection is Mrs. Käthe Heusermann, née Reiss regarding whom I must mention more details, because of the importance attached to her in this matter. She was born in 1909, and I trained her as a dental assistant in my office in Liegnitz, Silesia, in the year 1926. She practiced in this profession until 1945, for at least 15 years. Over this time, she worked with me for three-and-a-half years, and from 1937 on, that is for over eight years, she worked with Blaschke, Hitler’s dentist. She quickly advanced to the position of first assistant, and, during the last years, she was mostly present during Hitler’s treatments, whether they took place in the Reich Chancellery or on the Obersalzberg estate. She was very much interested in her profession and possessed great experience. She had the special gift to remember very well the peculiarities of the patients’ mouths . . .”
As I explained in Post 17 my uncle Fedor Bruck miraculously managed to survive underground in Berlin during the entire war. He hid in greenways and was occasionally sheltered by non-Jewish family members. Also, with the help of Otto Berger, a man later bestowed the honorary title of “Righteous Among the Nations,” he even managed to obtain false identity papers in the name of Dr. Friedrich Burkhardt, a name matching his own initials. His earlier relationship with Käthe Heusermann meant she also hid him on occasion, likely at great personal risk. Based on my uncle’s own account, it is clear he was in regular contact with Käthe during his time underground. My uncle came in search of Käthe shortly after Berlin was captured by the Russians:
“On April 26, 1945, Steglitz, in the southwestern part of the city [Berlin], was occupied by the Russians. Behind the advancing troops, I arrived, on May 4th, in the apartment of my former assistant Käthe Heusermann. This apartment was situated at Pariserstrasse 39-40 near Kurfürstendamm. A friendship of twenty years tied my person and the family of Käthe Heusermann. Käthe was alone in the bomb-damaged apartment and was very upset and confused. She had only returned to her apartment the day before, May 3rd, having spent the time before that in the Air Shelter in the Reich Chancellery.”
The problem with understanding and explaining to an English-speaking audience the difference between a “dentist” and a “Zahnarzt” is that both words translate into English as “dentist.” The primary bibliographic reference discussing the differences between the two is written in German, so constant reference back to the original German text is necessary to accurately understand and explain the distinctions. I will attempt to do so along with providing some historical background.
The primary source of the information for the following discussion comes from an article written in 2015 by a gentleman named Dr. Dominik Groß for a German magazine named “ZM (Zahnärztlichen Mitteilungen).” Coincidentally, several years ago I was contacted by Dr. Groß in connection with a “Lexikon,” an encyclopedia, he was developing on Jewish dentists persecuted during the Nazi period for which he requested information on my father and uncle. Conveniently, I was able to communicate with Dr. Groß while writing this post to have him explain certain nuances, though I take full responsibility for any misinterpretations.
According to Dr. Groß, as recently as the mid-19th century, there were few Zahnärzte in Germany; in 1850, it is estimated that no more than 250 of them were registered in the German states that in 1872 became the German Empire, 103 of which practiced in Prussia, the largest of the states. For ease, I will alternately refer to Zahnärzte as “pure” or licensed dentists. The key reason for the slow development of the profession was the existence of so-called “contemporary surgeons,” basically non-academic surgeons working at the same time who performed dental treatments.
The “Prussian Medical Regulations” did not list pure dentists as medical practitioners until 1825. At the time, to stand for the dental examination, someone who was not a physician or surgeon had to provide evidence of having attended lectures on anatomy, general and special surgery, operative theory, pharmacology, and surgical clinical practice. Regulations from 1836 supplemented these requirements. However, the only educational prerequisite was a “tertiary” entrance qualification from a grammar school, a “Gymnasium.” This would have been the equivalent to the completion in Germany of the so-called “Obertertia” (Latin) (Upper Tertia), corresponding to the ninth grade in United States, thus students as young as 15 or 16!
Astonishingly, it wasn’t until 1909, 73 years later, that the so-called “Abitur” became a prerequisite for studying dentistry. In the United States, the Abitur is most closely comparable to a combination of a high school diploma and a college transcript, specifically from a college preparatory program, and potentially including Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) courses. Suffice it to say, there is no direct equivalent been an Abitur and a single U.S. degree or certificate.
In 1869, Prussia enacted new dental examination regulations requiring completion of the 12th -13th grades and two years of university education; however, unlike medical students, they were classified as “immature” meaning not regularly enrolled students because they did not have a university entrance qualification, a so-called “Matura,” closely equivalent to an Abitur. As I understand, even today, medical practitioners in Germany tend to look down on Zahnärzte, no doubt a relic of the past and the disparate educational requirements.
As Dr. Groß notes, “At the time, there were other dental practitioners besides [pure] dentists who had not undergone regular training. Although lay practitioners had been explicitly banned from practicing dentistry in Prussia since 1825 (a ‘courier ban’), unlicensed practitioners repeatedly attempted to practice dentistry, particularly in regions where there was no strict control. They were often disparagingly referred to as ‘quacks’ by the contemporary dental profession, and in fact, these practitioners generally possessed low qualifications: quite a few had originally worked as barbers or bath attendants before later shifting their attention to the treatment of dental diseases. Other unlicensed dental practitioners had gained experience in skilled trades such as instrument makers, goldsmith, or mechanics and then specialized in the manufacture and insertion of dentures. In addition, dentistry was originally also practiced by ‘wandering healers’ who appeared as tooth breakers, traveling journeymen or market criers—but by the 19th century at the latest, these had clearly lost importance.”
Without getting too lost in the weeds, the so-called Trade Regulation Act was enacted into law in October 1869 in the Northern German Federation, the core territory of what would later become the German Empire. This law basically liberalized medicine and astonishingly stipulated that henceforth anyone would be permitted to practice medicine, although the use of medical titles was dependent on proof of qualification. As Groß notes, “It soon became apparent that the introduction of lay treatment was causing enormous damage to the reputation of licensed practitioners.”
Following liberalization of medicine, the total number of practitioners grew exponentially. Dentistry was particularly affected. By 1890, there were three unlicensed practitioners for every pure dentist. The majority soon called themselves “dental artists.” To cement their newly found legal standing, they organized themselves into powerful interest groups. In 1880, this resulted in the establishment of the first central organization of unlicensed dental practitioners, the “Association of German Dental Artists” (VdZ), to more effectively counter attacks by licensed dentists. Striving to demonstrate a standardization of training, the dental artists established the first “Dental Technical Training Institute” in Berlin, a hallmark of which became holding of final examinations for dental artists.
Though dental artists became increasingly better organized, as Dr. Groß notes, they were a diverse lot: “. . .at the beginning of the 20th century, non-licensed dental practitioners still represented a very heterogeneous group. Statistics published in 1909 show that only 31.4 percent of 1,060 non-licensed practitioners examined could prove that they had completed a regular apprenticeship as a dental artist. 58.4 percent had previously worked as barbers, and a further 10.2 percent had no professional training whatsoever. But even the trained dental artists did not provide evidence of a uniform apprenticeship period. In any case, many of their statements were difficult to verify. The quantitative importance of dental artists, however, was undisputed: their number rose from 735 to 6,171 between 1878 and 1909/10, a more than eightfold increase. In contrast, in 1909/10, only 2,667 [pure] dentists were registered.”
The liberalization of dentistry was opposed by the dental profession from the outset. To obfuscate matters, many unlicensed practitioners, contrary to the provisions of the 1869 Trade Regulation Act, adopted professional titles ranging from “dental artist” to “dental surgeon” to “specialist for dental sufferers” to “dentist.” Dental organizations filed complaints against every professed misappropriation of titles to no avail.
According to Dr. Groß, the issue about professional titles became even more contentious when dubious U.S. institutes began selling the title of “Doctor of Dental Surgery” (D.D.S.) to German dental practitioners. Many dental artists acquired these sham diplomas without proving they were professionally qualified, nor even without traveling stateside. As the dispute intensified, Prussia issued a decree in 1897 requiring all future foreign doctorates awarded to be approved.
This did not resolve the problem as unlicensed practitioners had already switched to using the professional title “dentist.” Pure dentists indignantly countered that according to Latin and Anglo-Saxon usage the terms “dentiste” and “dentist” respectively referred to a licensed dentist and vehemently opposed the use of the title “dentist” by unlicensed practitioners. Nevertheless, an expert in foreign languages concluded that “. . .someone who calls themselves a dentist is a dental technician practicing a free trade, who does not claim a title and is not entitled to one. Those who claim and are entitled to the title and who have passed an exam are Zahnärzte or, depending on their university, doctors of dental practice. Therefore, neither foreigners nor nationals can confuse a Zahnarzt with a dentist.”
With this favorable expert opinion, in 1908 the “Association of German Dental Artists” renamed their organization the “Association of Dentists in the German Empire.” In the ensuing years the term “dentist” entered common parlance despite protests from Zahnärzte. It would take until 1952 for what Dr. Groß refers to as the “dualism in dentistry” to be overcome and for practicing “dentiste” (plural) to be integrated into the dental profession.
The reason I’ve gone to such lengths to explain the distinction between a “dentist” and a “Zahnarzt” relates to Hitler’s dentist, Dr. Hugo Blaschke. His Wikipedia entry tells us that he studied dentistry in Berlin and at the University of Pennsylvania and trained as a “dental surgeon” in London before opening his own practice in late 1911. Dr. Groß’s article hints that Blaschke’s training as a dental surgeon meant he was a “dentist,” not a “Zahnarzt.” His title, though, implies he was a “Zahnarzt.” Dr. Groß explained, however, that Hitler bestowed the honorary title of doctorate on Blaschke and that he was in fact a “dentist,” an unlicensed practitioner.
My uncle also addressed this point:
“. . .He [Blaschke] studied at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia before the first World War, from which he graduated. Since he had not passed any examination in Germany, he was only rated a dental technician there. Having joined the [Nazi] Party early, he had a membership number below 40,000. He had already treated Hitler before 1933. Upon a decree by Goebbels, he was awarded the title of dentist, without having to pass any examination, and was later given the professor title by Hitler. His knowledge was that of an average dentist . . .”
Ever since Hitler committed suicide in the Reichstag or the Reich Chancellery, conspiracy theorists have nonsensically speculated that he escaped to South America. The empirical evidence suggests otherwise. Let me review some of what I discussed in Post 31 again quoting from my uncle’s own words. (I recommend readers read Post 31 in tandem with the current post to get a fuller picture.)
Regarding the outmoded dental work Käthe recognized as the work of Dr. Blaschke, she told the Russians the following upon being questioned by them:
“On a front tooth there was a so-called rim-crown, furthermore there was a cut-off bridge in his mouth, since the molar, which would have served as support, had to be removed. She gave them more details regarding some crowns and other treatments . . .She furthermore declared that the written data regarding Hitler’s treatments were kept in a box which was either still at the Chancellery, or which Blaschke had taken with him to Obersalzberg.”
Let me attempt to explain this to readers.
A “cut-off bridge” in dentistry, also known as a cantilever bridge, means the bridge is only anchored on one side. Instead of having crowns on extant teeth adjacent to the gap on both sides, a cantilever bridge utilizes a crown on only one side to support the replacement tooth (pontic). Cantilever bridges are designed for situations where there are teeth available for support on only one side of the gap. This means the pontic, the replacement tooth, is essentially “hanging” off the single supporting tooth.
After doing some research on the question of rim crown usage on front teeth, I conclude based on what my uncle wrote that this is not the most common or ideal choice for anterior restorations. The primary concern with rim crowns on front teeth is their aesthetic impact. The thickness of the crown material can sometimes result in a less natural and bulkier appearance, especially if the original tooth requires minimal reduction. Porcelain, ceramic, and zirconia crowns, which offer a more natural, translucent appearance that blends with adjacent teeth, are usually preferred for front teeth restorations.
The significance from my point of view of Dr. Blaschke’s use of a cut-off bridge and a rim crown on Hitler’s front teeth is that they would easily have been recognizable by Käthe given her involvement and presence when Hitler was having dental work done. They reinforce the belief that the jaws found in the Reichstag were those of Hitler. In my uncle’s words:
“. . .The peculiarities of Hitler’s jaws are very extraordinary ones. Rim-crowns are seen very rarely only, since present-day dentists do not make them any longer, and cut-off bridges are not frequent either . . .
I had pointed out to correspondents a rim-crown as being ‘old-fashioned’ which, because of its comparative rarity, necessarily constituted an important factor [in the identification of Hitler’s jaws].
The fact that Dr. Blaschke knowingly performed ‘old-fashioned work’ on ‘his Führer,’ seems to me, as expert, rather ridiculous. On the other hand, he does not owe his title of professor, nor his various other titles, to the fact that he was an ace in his profession, but only to the fact that he was a faithful Nazi having a party membership number somewhere around 36,000 . . .”
Käthe Heusermann suggested that my uncle apply to the Russians to take over Dr. Blaschke’s intact dental office, which he was eligible to do as a surviving dentist; Dr. Blaschke’s office was in the Russian occupation zone and my uncle was granted permission to take possession of his premises located at Kurfürstendamm 213 (Figure 3), as postwar Berlin address directories confirm. (Figure 4)
Following my uncle’s occupancy of Dr. Blaschke’s dental office, as I noted in Post 31, events took place that seemed to confirm Hitler’s fate. Quoting again from my uncle:
“Then, during the days following . . . happenings took place which I believe to be proof that Hitler actually died. On Wednesday, May 9th, 1945, I met a Russian Lieutenant Colonel in the building, as well as woman in uniform and a gentleman in mufti, as they inquired from the Superintendent as to the whereabouts of Blaschke. As I learned later, they were the deputy military governor of Berlin, a female agent of the Russian secret police, and a certain Doctor Arnaudow, who had been assistant at the Berlin Charité with “Geheimrat Sauerbruch” [“Geheimrat Sauerbruch” is a successful and respected physician]. The latter was a Bulgarian and had brought the Russians who were looking for Hitler’s dentist . . .; furthermore, he acted as interpreter, although the agent of the Russian Secret Police, who called herself ‘Lola,’ spoke a little German.”
I think “Lola,” as I implied in Post 31, was a 26-year-old Jewish woman named Elena Rzhevskaya, born Elena Moiseyevna Kagan in Belarus in 1919. She was traveling with the Soviet vanguard when they entered the center of Berlin on April 29, 1945. She was a military interpreter for SMERSH, the Soviet counter-intelligence agency. As the Soviet forces advanced through Berlin, Rzhevskaya’s unit was tasked with finding people who could provide information on Hitler’s whereabouts.
The Soviets predictably showed up at Blaschke’s dental office, now occupied by my uncle, shortly after he took possession of the premises. My uncle was asked to get Käthe. She was taken away and questioned by the Soviets. Upon her return two days later, she related to my uncle what had transpired during her questioning:
“First of all, they asked that she give as detailed as possible a description of Hitler’s teeth, with pertinent sketches. Then she was shown a number of skulls and parts of jaws, on which there was still some flesh, which in some instances were charred or burned. Among these, she definitely recognized the jaws of Hitler, with the aid of the details written down, and the peculiarities she had noted. One jaw, which contained a bridge made from Palapont (i.e., artificial colophonium on a colloidal base), was identified as that of Eva Braun, who had received this bridge only a few weeks previously. She declared, upon questioning that the technical work had been done by Fritz Echtmann, Blaschke’s technician. This fact most probably was the reason for later on picking up Fritz Echtmann.
During the entire time, the Russians took down in writing the proceedings, which Käthe had to sign on each page. She also had to swear that she would not speak of the identification of the remains of Hitler, until the Russian Press and the Radio would have published same. Lola, of whom Käthe only had heard . . . that she was an agent of the Russian Secret Service, said to her ‘Mrs. Käthe, you will be a very famous woman, you are the only person who not only knows, but also can prove that Hitler is really dead’”
In the current environment of vast misinformation and disinformation, it’s unrealistic to believe that hard evidence will convince conspiracy theorists that Hitler killed himself in the Reichstag but such are the facts.
REFERENCES
Groß, D. (2015 Oct 31). Der Dentist setzt sich durch. ZM (Zahnärztlichen Mitteilungen) (21/2015).
Rzhevskaya, Elena. (2018) Memoirs of a Wartime Interpreter: From the Battle of Rzhev to Hitler’s Bunker. Greenhill Books. London.