Talk:Aktion T4

Archives
Archive 1: 2004 — August 2006

Opinion presented as fact

The statement "This apparently helped to ease the consciences of many of those involved, since it gave them the feeling that the children had not died in vain and that the whole program had a genuine medical purpose." (footnote 27)is a supposition and should not be presented as factual. It may even need removed from the article. 129.71.73.247 (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I

I have written this article to replace the old one, which was not very good and also wrongly titled, since T4 was not a program of euthanasia properly defined. I don't see how the two articles can be "merged." Adam 16:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is certainly superior in contents to the article T-4 Euthanasia Program. Thanks Adam. The title T-4 Euthanasia Program is fine and better than the name of this article. I oppose removing "T-4"/"T4" from the article name. Andries 22:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This title is fine. Fredrik Johansson 11:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Euthanasia

Look at our Euthanasia article. It is not defined as killing out of compassion. It is confined as killing those "perceived as living an intolerable life". That applies to the the subject here. Therefore the article should be renamed to include the word "euthanasia". Better yet, it should be merged as proposed. Nobody's going to search for "killing of people with disabilities in Nazi Germany", and it is entirely a product of your invention. --Hyphen5 13:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The Nazis did not kill these people because they "perceived [them] as living an intolerable life." They killed them to eliminate "inferior" people from the German Volk, and to save the state the expense of caring for them. Read the article before making such remarks. The whole article is a "citation for the contention that these were not "mercy" killings." This must be one of the most heavily referenced articles at Wikipedia. Adam 15:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Nazi ideology considered Jews' lives "intolerable" to society. Are you denying this? Euthanasia is not a positive word (it is a euphemism), so I don't understand why you are intent on disassociating it from this program. --Hyphen5 18:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The recent edits by 155.143.255.195 were in fact by me - I didn't realise I had been logged out. The article is now much expanded and better referenced, and thus even more educational for those in need of instruction. Adam 16:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Still to do, a section on the postwar doctors' trial. Tomorrow. Adam 16:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the program was among others justified as mercy killings which is even the title of one of Gitta Sereny's book so that is a similarity with Euthanasia. (I read her book on Franz Stangl). I do not think that this justification was sincere for higher ranking officals involved in the program by the way (a major difference with Euthanasia), but it may be have been sincere for people like middle and lower ranking officals such as Stangl. Andries 22:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course the program was justified to the German public as being one of euthanasia, and the article notes that. It is also true that many of the people who carried out the program rationalised it to themselves as being euthansia. But the fact is that it was not a euthanasia program, it was a program conducted for both racist-eugenicist reasons and economic reasons. These people were not killed out of concern for their suffering - many of them were not suffering - but to remove them as genetically inferior from the "German Volk" and to save the state the cost of caring for them. Adam 03:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, just exactly as euthanasia goes on around the world today, for example in Netehrlands but also in USA. 22.5.2008 [User:JosefMengeleMD|JosefMengeleMD]] (talk)16:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"But the fact is that it was not a euthanasia program, it was a program conducted for both racist-eugenicist reasons and economic reasons." This is a ridiculous claim for two reasons. First, the Hitler's decree of 1 September 1939 states emphatically that the purpose is to provide a merciful and humane death for incurably ill people who are suffering. Second, the number of people euthanized according the official record, about 70,000, amounts to less than one in one-thousand Germans. Is that enough euthanasia to have any significant effect on the German economy? Some have suggested that euthanasia continued after the decree was withdrawn, but this is all supposition. Suppose that they are right, and instead of 1/1000 the number euthanized is more like 1/300. Is that enough to have a great enough effect on the German economy that one may regard the program as economically motivated? Now from the viewpoint of eugenics, what is to be gained from euthanasia that is not gained from sterilization? Absolutely nothing. Hadding (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that Hitler qualifies as a reliable source, and that the purpose stated in his decree should be taken at face value. Whatever the precise motivation of the program, it appears to me, er... ridiculous to state that it was compassion for the ill people.

The fact is that I know of no current reliable sources that claim that the motivation was compassion. Thus the sentence that you find ridiculous seems reasonable to me.

David Olivier (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

just one please

where is there the results of one autopsy that one person actually died from being gassed?

The autopsies were falsified. If I remember it well Franz Stangl admitted this. Andries 17:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Goebbels

In the article, Goebbels is said to suffer from a congenital club foot, yet the wikipedia article Josef Goebbels seems to indicate it was the result of a bone infection at age 7. Any clarifications? --TeaDrinker 01:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of the sources I have seen say he had club foot, and club foot is a congenital condition. If his condition wasn't congenital it shouldn't be described as club foot. I don't have a Goebbels biography to check - the world needs a new scholarly Goebbels biography to replace Irving's book, which can no longer be cited. Adam 02:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I was surprized to notice that respectable historians cited Irving too, but of course, not in anything that is related to the Holocaust. Irving is in spite of everything respected for his research on primary sources. Andries 07:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Not by me. Adam 07:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Translation

Hello,

this translation seems missleading to me:

"60,000 Reichsmarks is what this person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money, too. Read 'New People', the monthly magazine of the Bureau for Race Politics of the NSDAP."

Nazis do not think, "those persons" are suffering at all. They do not even think, "those persons" are persons. "Community" is a term, which does not exist in German. They have two kinds of "Volk": one is a racist term ("Blut und Boden" - meaning: no black people are Germans even if there are German black people), the other corresponds to "people" in the tradition of the French Revolution (egalite, fraternite, citizen ...). "Volksgenosse" means: comrade in "German race" - this has no equivalent in English.

More correct translation is sth. like:

"60,000 Reichsmarks is what this hereditary invalid costs the Volksgemeinschaft during his lifetime. German comrade, that is your money, too. Read 'New Volk ', the monthly magazine of the Bureau for Race Politics of the NSDAP."

Please excuse my bad English #} ... - I'm a native of Germany.

I'm more curious whether "that is your money, too" is a faithful translation. Can you verify? 08:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Das ist auch dein Geld," means precisely, "That is your money too." Hadding (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadding (talk • contribs) 11:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think your translation is better.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This person complaining about the translation may have a point with "this hereditary invalid" for "dieser Erbkranke" but the other translations that he proposes are bad. He/she seems not really to know German, which is surprising for somebody claiming to be from Germany. Gemeinschaft means precisely community. Volksgemeinschaft means the community of (our) people. Rassenpolitik means racial policy, not racial politics. Fellow German is a reasonable translation of Volksgenosse. On the whole I would leave the original translation alone. Hadding (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadding (talk • contribs) 10:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The comma in his/her sentence “"Community" is a term, which does not exist in German.” is strong evidence that he/she does indeed speak German! Now please don't be so aggressive. The correction of the translation of Erbkranke was the main point, I think, and it was important to correct that. Now on the other points, you may be right (note that my own knowledge of German is not fluent). It seems to me that Gemeinschaft indeed means “community”; but there is a problem in rendering the Volk part in Volksgemeinschaft. “Community of our people” seems to leave out the racist touch that Volk so often had in those times. Perhaps a solution would be “German community”? As for the use of “racial policy” instead of “racial politics”, OK. Lastly, concerning Volksgenosse, I can't say. Leaving in “fellow German”, that would give:

60,000 reichsmarks is what this hereditary invalid costs the German community during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money too. Read Neues Volk, the monthly magazine of the Bureau for racial policy of the NSDAP.

I don't feel necessary to provide a translation of Neues Volk; it seems that to an English speaker its meaning is transparent.

David Olivier (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Victims?

Was any victim of T-4 notable enough to have an article?--T. Anthony 17:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Elfriede Lohse-Wächtler --Hozro 15:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Confusing sentence in the "Towards a policy of killing" section

This is from the "Towards a policy of killing" section:

    He intended, he wrote, “in the event of a war radically to solve the problem of the mental asylums.”[12]

I don't think this sentence makes sense, but as I'm not exactly sure what the intended meaning it, I didn't want to change it. Perhaps someone in the know can fix this sentence?

Darwinism or Social Darwinism?

In this last paragraph of the "Background" section:

• "It may be noted that racial hygienist ideas were far from unique to the Nazi movement, although Hitler expressed them in an extreme form. The ideas of social Darwinism were widespread in all western countries in the early 20th century, and the eugenics movement had many followers among educated people, being particularly strong in the United States. The idea of sterilising those carrying hereditary defects or exhibiting what was thought to be hereditary anti-social behaviour was widely accepted, and was put into law in the United States, Sweden, Switzerland and other countries. Between 1935 and 1975, for example, 63,000 people were sterilised on eugenicist grounds in Sweden.[9]"

It mentions "social darwinism"...my understanding is that social darwinism refers to "survival of the fitist" in regards to socio-economic factors, but eugenics was based on biological factors, i.e. artificial selection. How does social darwinism fit in the context it is used in here and should it be changed to simply darwinism with a mention of artificial selection? AbstractClass 13:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I had removed "social" from "social Darwinism" (after waiting 24 hours for a response to this) and squiddy reverted it saying "social Darwinism more relevant in this context than Darwinism"

I'd like to know the argument behind this. Eugenics is about genetic makeup of a population and uses artificial selection which is all included in Darwin's work. How is social Darwinism more relevant? I disagree and if I'm wrong I think there must be something I'm not understanding about social darwinism? AbstractClass 01:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read the talk page before changing Darwinism back to Social darwinism. The reason I did is that social Darwinism was a widely influential extension of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, specifically applying it to human society. It contained several cultural assumptions which are not present in Darwin's theory:

• That 'races' (understood circa 1900 as Englishmen, Frenchmen, Italians, as well as Africans and Chinese) were in evolutionary competition (which reflected imperialist ambitions very closely, which were thus given a 'scientific' justification.)
• That there was a strong hereditary element to 'undesirable' social attributes of people, especially criminality, insanity and sexual deviance, and 'good stock' was 'tainted' by mixing with 'poor stock'. The fear of evolution going into reverse was widespread at the time (see Degeneration). This was prompted by the fear in the educated/middle-class types who made up the eugenics movement of the masses of urban poor, a class created in great numbers in the nineteenth century.

Eugenics was therefore not a biological science (although it was often seen as such in its heyday), but was a social/political movement with a (pseudo)science basis. I think that 'social darwinism' reflects this more accurately. Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 02:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Estimation of number of victims

The article says "from 75 000 to 250 000" victims, and quotes next sentence Ian Kershaw's biography on Hitler. However, in Hitler: A Profile in Power, Chapter VI, first section (London, 1991, rev. 2001), Kershaw gives the number of 70,000. Tazmaniacs 18:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

the first number has been changed from 75 to 200. I know there are good references that say 75 and 250. I have seen them, just haven't written them down.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

i found this http://www.holocaust-education.dk/baggrund/eutanasi.asp

In the period of 1939-1941 around 70,000 were murdered.

In August 1942 the Euthanasia Programme was resumed, and the group of potential victims was expanded to include victims of air raids, “anti-socials” and slave labourers. Even handicapped children were murdered, by lethal injections, or they were starved to death. The bodies of the victims were burned in large ovens (crematoria). Operation T4 continued in deep secrecy through the end of the war.

According to the testimonies presented at the Nuremberg War Tribunal, a total of approximately 270,000 people fell victim to the Euthanasia programme between 1939 and 1945. --Mark v1.0 (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"In all, between 200,000 and 250,000 mentally and physically handicapped persons were murdered from 1939 to 1945 under the T-4 and other "euthanasia" programs." http://www.ushmm.org/education/resource/handic/handicapped.php?theme=educators --Mark v1.0 (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC) ____________________________________

The number of victims of euthanasia in the period October 1939 through August 1941 is known precisely, because the physicians involved in T4 were required to keep records. The number is 70,273. All higher figures are the result of speculations about unauthorized killings.

Robert N. Proctor (p. 191) says: "The committee responsible for overseeing the operation kept meticulous records, and today we have an accurate account of how many were killed, and where."

Proctor (Ibid.) also says: "The original intent of those who planned the euthanasia operation was to scale it according to the formula 1,000:10:5:1--that is, for every 1,000 Germans, 10 needed some form of psychiatric care; 5 of these required continuous care; and among these, 1 should be destroyed."

This suggests to me that the documented number of deaths may in fact be the total number, since 70,273 was approximately one out of every 1000 Germans.

Any instances of euthanasia after Hitler gave the order to stop in August 1941 are unauthorized (as far as anybody knows) and really, therefore, not part of T4. Also if there were undocumented instances of euthanasia during the duration of T4, those are not part of the program either, since as Proctor says (quoted above) euthanasia carried out under T4 was recorded in "meticulous records."

I would like to keep it clear in the article that there is the documented number of deaths (70,273), which are definitely part of T4, and then there is the speculation about additional deaths, about which there are widely varying estimates. Hadding (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What year is the poster?

It would be nice if the poster's caption included the year in which it was published. The Image page doesn't contain it either. Afabbro 17:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 08:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Werner Villinger

Can someone fact check this article for me? It says in this article that the Bethel Institute had and exemption from the 'program', where he is listed as working.Ticklemygrits (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

geneticist?:genetic cleaning?

Are there any professional geneticist's that have studied the effects of Action T4, on the human population? People with supposed mental illness/BAD DNA were supposed to be cleaned from the human race (est 250,000). Did the number % percentages of mentally ill to "normal" drop? I ask this as people claim mental illness is genetically inheritable. According to Robert Whitaker http://www.naturalnews.com/011353.html the incidence of serious mentally ill has significantly increased over the last hundred years.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suspect that reputable researchers would be rather leery of looking into the effects because what do you do if, objectively, the state budget of the FRG/GDR was improved by the actions of T4? The moral objections remain and you'd be hounded from most public roles that have anything to do with ethics or morals. This is a problem with a lot of the Nazi programs. Why research this particular thing when there are so many other areas that are entirely unexplored and nowhere near as dangerous? TMLutas (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Article tolerates euthanasia

It is quite unacceptable that this article implies in many places that condemnation could be withheld if only the victims were truly disabled, of if they or their family had given consent. --Ezra Wax (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This would of course be unacceptable. NOT because Wikipedia content should refute euthanasia, but because WP:NPOV requires that Wikipedia content neither supports nor refutes any opinion. So if you can cite examples where the text of this article is firstly POV, including any where that POV might in a way "tolerate euthanasia", rather than objectively reporting others' historical views on the matter, then please note them so that the appropriate copyediting can be done. No-one wants an article which can be said to advocate or even tolerate the policies recorded here.

"Reasonable people" might well be said to be "against euthanasia", or against "enforced euthanasia", but WP:NPOV mustn't even get close to that issue. We need NEUTRAL POV, not "reasonable person's POV". As the obvious example, the idea of self-imposed euthanasia in some narrow cases (e.g. motor neurone disease) is quite rightly a subject of ethical debate, with valid viewpoints from both sides. It's not Wikipedia's place to take sides in that debate, and by extension it still mustn't take sides either around T4 where the "reasonable" viewpoint could be considered to be clearer. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

euthanasia white washing

If the nazis describe T4 and many other people describe it as euthanasia, why are they all wrong and the article writers correct? This is POV and should be reworded to reflect all significant views. TMLutas (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the statistics, but at least the prosecution at the Doctors' Trial, as quoted in the article, spoke of ”the so called "euthanasia" program of the German Reich”. The expression “so called”, and the quotation marks, mean that they didn't describe it as euthanasia; only stated that it had been called thus.

That many people have since then come to speak of Action T4 as a euthanasia program, without quotation marks, may not be very significant. That is how the Nazis called it, and the name has stuck. It often happens that inappropriate names come into general usage, for historical reasons. For instance, East Germany was commonly called “German Democratic Republic”, because that is how its government named it. That doesn't mean that all those who used that name accepted that it was in fact a democratic republic.

Another example is that of “ethnic cleansing”. The term is commonly used, without quotation marks or other qualification, to name certain actions, by people who oppose those actions, and who do not believe that the targeted group is dirt and that getting rid of it is an act of cleansing. I see that the expression is even used as the title of the Wikipedia article, and by UN documents, in which the intent is certainly not to condone the practice. The same can be said of expressions such as “racial hygene” or even “genocide” — to describe the Holocaust as genocide is not to accept that the Jews were really a genetically defined race.

David Olivier (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

My point is that Wikipedia is not the place for such judgments to be made because we're supposed to adopt NPOV on these questions. The Nazis say it was, popular usage agrees for the most part, thus WP:Weight means that those who hold the contrary belief may get some mention but not an undue one. TMLutas (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so go to the article on the Srebrenica massacre, which the perpetrators called ethnic cleansing, the UN calls ethnic cleansing, and popular usage calls ethnic cleansing; and add there that the victims were dirt. Why would the perpetrators, the UN and popular usage all be wrong and the Wikipedia article writers right? So it was indeed an act of cleansing, which implies that the victims were dirt. Please, you go to that article and argue that; I'll go have a look every once in a while. David Olivier (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're asserting that the UN and popular usage is that the victims of Srebrenica were dirt? Really? I just want to make sure I'm not being unfair before I unload on you.

What we're discussing in Action T4 is the meaning of euthanasia, not issuing opinions on people's worth. Step back a bit and don't be so offensive. TMLutas (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, TMLutas, exactly what do you mean by “unloading on me”? David Olivier (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course the program was justified to the German public as being one of euthanasia, and the article notes that. It is also true that many of the people who carried out the program rationalised it to themselves as being euthansia. But the fact is that it was not a euthanasia program, it was a program conducted for both racist-eugenicist reasons and economic reasons. These people were not killed out of concern for their suffering - many of them were not suffering - but to remove them as genetically inferior from the "German Volk" and to save the state the cost of caring for them. Adam 03:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC) -quoted by N.N. (talk)

Therefore, just exactly as euthanasia IN FACT goes on around the world today, for example in the Netherlands but also in the USA. Then, what does "euthanasia" REALLY mean? N.N. (talk)16:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the essence of the problem. The intersection between limited economic growth of big government societies, low national TFR, and strained public health budgets has meant that some doctors are engaging in a modern day Action T4 and it's spreading though without a guy with a funny mustache to give it a centralized kick into high gear. There should be something of an equivalence between doctors in the Netherlands today and in Germany 70 years ago. The same acts should be described in the same terms. TMLutas (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The use of the word euthanasia by nazi-officials is clearly euphemistic (= "I say it nobly") and could be discribed as being anything in between purple prose and a boldfaced lie. Note Van Galen and other bishop's public protests and the action of the judge Lothar Kreyssig who, confronted with Hitler's writ said: "das Führerwort schafft kein Recht" (the word of the Führer does not constitute justice) and charged the appropriate Reichsminister with murder. He then of course was sent into "pension", another euphemistic use of words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.91.171 (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Is that propaganda poster really linked to the euthanasia program?

There are at least three difficulties in the proposition that the propaganda poster featuring "dieser Erbkranke" is supposed to be advocating euthanasia. First, the euthanasia decree only went into effect in late 1939, while the date of the poster is given as about 1938. Second, the poster could just as easily have been intended to promote sterilization of the unfit, preventing the birth of such an Erbkranker--sterilization being a much less controversial public health measure than euthanasia, practiced openly in Germany and also in the United States. Third, supposedly the euthanasia decree was not supposed to be known to the general public; therefore it makes absolutely no sense to make propaganda posters related to such a policy, nor does it make sense to assume that this poster is supposed to be about euthanasia. It seems that by default, it must be about prevention of the births of unfit people.

Consequently I think that it is inappropriate for that image to be accompanying this article. It should be with an article on eugenics or dysgenics, or sterilization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadding (talk • contribs) 11:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You raise a good point, but I think this poster is justified. It describes propaganda efforts produced by the same government as T4, and a cultural attitude in which such things were tolerable. Can you imagine such a poster in public today? Can you imagine a program like T4 even in private today? A public society that can accept the aims of the poster is a society where a small group in power can put forward a program like T4. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sterilization of the mentally retarded was official policy in many of the United States of America until the 1960s. How does acceptance of sterilization imply acceptance of euthanasia?

The stated purposes of sterilization and euthanasia in the Third Reich were not even the same. Sterilization was a eugenic measure, but Hitler's euthanasia decree specifically declared the purpose of relieving the suffering of incurably ill people.

The presentation of that poster with this article implies that the poster pertained to euthanasia when this is really quite impossible. The inclusion of that poster with this article creates the false impression that the German public knew and approved of euthanasia, when according to Robert N. Proctor, "Racial Hygiene" (p. 177) the euthanasia decree was secret. Hadding (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The Holocaust of the Jews too was carried out in secret; the Wannsee conference was secret, and the orders were secret. Despite that, the Holocaust had also been announced publicly, by Hitler himself. Thus there is no contradiction between a poster having been a form of announcement of the elimination of sick people, and the actual decrees for that elimination being held secret.

It is strange that you can say that the purpose of the killing in Aktion T4 was “relieving the suffering of incurably ill people”, taking Hitler's declarations on their face value. Sometimes he said things that were not really true, you know.

David Olivier (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to take the wording of Hitler's secret memo about euthanasia at face value, since it was not written for public consumption. There was zero motive for Hitler to say anything in that memo other than exactly what he meant.

It is an affront to reason to say that something can be publicly known and secret at the same time. The euthanasia program was not publicly known at its inception, and after it became known it had to be discontinued. Hadding (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It is an affront to the facts to say that secret deeds are never announced publicly; or rather, that attempts are never make to hint to their possibility and to justify them in advance. That is what that propaganda poster does.

Furthermore, even in the secret documents, the phrasing can be twisted, full of euphemisms and lies. See the article on the Wannsee Conference:

At the conclusion of the meeting Heydrich gave Eichmann firm instructions about what was to appear in the minutes. They were not to be verbatim: Eichmann would "clean them up" so that nothing too explicit appeared in them. He said at his trial: "How shall I put it—certain over-plain talk and jargon expressions had to be rendered into office language by me". As a result, the last twenty minutes of the meeting, in which, as Eichmann recalled, words like liquidation and extermination were freely used, were summed up in one bland sentence: "In conclusion the different types of possible solutions were discussed".

The minutes of the conference were to be kept secret. So will you say that “there was zero motive for them to say anything in those minutes other than exactly what they meant”? :David Olivier (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

David Olivier discusses two points, the relevance of the "dieser Erbkranke" poster to euthanasia, and the question of whether it is reasonable to read Hitler's written instruction about the euthanasia program at face value.

Regarding the poster:

The poster is clearly about eugenics, or racial hygiene, which was accomplished in Germany mainly by sterilization, just as in many American States. There is nothing about the poster that indicates euthanasia. There was no euthanasia program at the time the poster was published. The National-Socialist Government did not advertise euthanasia to the public. In fact the decree was secret. How does it make sense to have public promotion of a secret program? Answer: it's not about that; it's about sterilization of the unfit.

Regarding the reading of Hitler's decree:

You are bringing in a totally unrelated issue. This is not about the Wannsee Protocol. You can claim that there were secret instructions issued at the Wannsee Conference to supplement the Wannsee Protocol (which had nothing to do with euthanasia), but unless you have specific evidence that secret instructions were issued at some euthanasia conference where Hitler issued the euthanasia decree, I am going to consider this a total red herring.

We are talking about the euthanasia program of 1939-1941. Hitler wrote a memo so that his precise intention would be known to the relevant people, so that it would be known by the responsible parties precisely what the physicians should be authorized to do.

The physicians would have wanted documentation of precisely what they were authorized to do, because if they exceeded their authorization they could be prosecuted. Even with the written decree, and Hitler's assurance that he would bear the responsibility, there were still physicians who worried about the legality of the power that was vested in them by the written decree. This makes the interpretation of the memo as a euphemistic document that means more than it says seem rather untenable. The physicians would have wanted to have it in writing what they were empowered to do.

It makes no sense to assume, without solid evidence, that a secret memo means anything other than precisely what it says. Hadding (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, I brought up the Wannsee Conference as a counter-example contradicting your assertion that when a document is secret, there is no reason to disguise its meaning. You can't just brush it aside and say that we are not talking about the Wannsee Conference. You can't just declare that whatever contradicts your assertions is irrelevant. You can't just go on repeating your opinions without addressing the arguments others give you.

What you say about the intentions of Hitler is just your opinion. The fact is that no one today believes that Hitler's intentions were only to relieve the suffering of people. To attempt to insist that Hitler's intentions were benevolent looks like a strange case of whitewashing of the Nazi regime, or perhaps a tortuous way to attempt to blackwash the idea of euthanasia itself.

You say the poster is only about eugenics, which would be brought about by sterilisation. That's just your opinion. The poster says nothing about eugenics, nor about sterilization, nor about elimination. It just says that invalids cost money, and that the German Volk should be concerned about that (“It's your money too”). The implication is that it would be better if the invalids were not there. Knowing that later on the invalids were killed, and the habit of the Nazis of preparing ideologically the public opinion for violent acts that were later carried out in semi-secret, it seems quite appropriate to leave that poster in the article.

I don't understand your argument about the worries of the physicians. If they did worry, it would rather seem to indicate that there was a discrepancy between the written orders and what they were really asked to do, and thus confirm that the decrees were not explicit.

David Olivier (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You haven't given any solid reason why the secret euthanasia decree should not be read literally. More to the point, you have not given any reason why the "dieser Erbkranke" poster should be understood as PUBLICITY for a euthanasia program that only began a year later and was SECRET. Hadding (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the "Background" section tendentious?

The Background section of the article creates the impression that racial hygiene and sterilization of the unfit are ideas particularly associated with Hitler and National-Socialism when in reality Germany was a relative latecomer to these ideas.

The last paragraph of the Background section notes that racial hygiene and compulsory sterilization were not entirely unique to Hitler and National-Socialism but this is a jarring admission in light of the four preceding paragraphs, which portray racial hygiene and sterilization as facts of particular relevance. I see that final paragraph as a figleaf for the bias of the preceding four paragraphs. It's like an "Oops, sorry!" that is a very poor compensation for the offense that it follows.

The whole section needs to be rewritten so as not to represent racial hygiene as an expression of psychopathology on the part of Adolf Hitler. Hitler was following a preexistent trend, which had non-Nazi exponents both in Germany and in the world at large.

Indiana (1907) and 27 other American States (before 1930), the Canadian province of Alberta (1928), a Swiss canton (1928), and Denmark (1929), all had compulsory sterilization before Germany. British Columbia enacted its sterilization law at about the same time as Germany.

Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Iceland, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Turkey, and Vera Cruz (Mexico) are listed by Robert N. Proctor as states that adopted sterilization laws after Germany. (Racial Hygiene, 97)

There have even been governments that had compulsory sterilization programs since World War II; for example the Communist government of Czechoslovakia started sterilizing Gypsies in the 1970s. The People's Republic of China uses compulsory sterilization as part of its population control effort.

The Wikipedia entry Euthanasia and the Law also documents that in a number of countries in recent years laws permitting euthanasia have been enacted. (Hitler's euthanasia decree of 1939 likewise, literally understood, only permits euthanasia as an act of mercy.) These laws do not seem to be outgrowths of any sterilization law.

The purport is that the euthanasia program in Germany was a natural outgrowth of the sterilization program, despite the fact that the stated purposes of the two programs are totally different, and the fact that many nations practiced sterilization without the sequel of euthanasia, and a number of countries in recent years have introduced euthanasia without compulsory sterilization appearing as the prececedent. The Background section should be entirely rewritten or, preferably, eliminated, since its entire thesis is a matter of interpretation rather than fact.

Hadding (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert Hadding

Hadding does not own this article.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:EnthanasiePropaganda.jpg

The image Image:EnthanasiePropaganda.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't murder

Execution under the sovereignty of a national state does not meet the qualifications for murder. The more NPOV, scientific way of expressing what happened is "euthanized". Murder has a very specific legal meaning and its usage in this article (except in the quotes, obviously) is misleading and inappropriate in context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.137.32 (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem clear to me at all that murder is limited to killing contrary to the laws of the place and time. The killing of Jews and others in the death camps does seem something it is natural to call murder, for instance, whether or not it was contrary to the Nazi laws. Also, when the Smiths sang Meat is Murder they were not stating that slaughtering animals is contrary to the current laws.

And it would certainly not seem right to call the Holocaust, or the large scale slaughtering of animals for meat, euthanasia! But I agree that it can be better to avoid using the word murder in the article, since that is a charged term, and can be seen as POV. Let's just speak of killing. I propose: “evidence that about 275,000 people were killed under T4” David Olivier (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what seems appropriate. What matters is what is correct. The term "murder" is incorrect and should be replaced with a more suitable term. 129.71.73.247 (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is better to avoid “murder”, as it can be seen as POV. However, replacing it with the term “euthanasia” is not an option, as it is simply factually incorrect. I see no objections to the word “killing”. David Olivier (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, already the Military Tribunal of Nuremberg found and concluded that the euthanasias commited by those doctors were murders as well, and as such were judged and condemned. Therefore, what seems being lacking in the definition of Aktion-T4 in this article, is NOT the word murder but the word euthanasia. TMLutas (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.193.61 (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Which book by Ian Kershaw?

Excuse me for asking, I might have missed something and am new to wikipedia, but as far as I can tell, this page cites Ian Kershaw and page numbers but never gives a book title.

As Kershaw has written multiple books which the cited facts could have come from, it would be useful for research if someone could either correct the page or tell me where the cited info is from.

Thanks much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.152.41 (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute still valid?

Dear all, In my humble opinion this article does a nice try to be as factual as possible and give references at important issues. Even in the section which neutral point of view is disputed (Action T4 and euthanasia). I would argue that there are several clear references in this article showing that indeed the Action T4 program has been referred to as an "euthanasia program", but that the concept of Nazi Germany euthanasia is different from the modern concept of euthanasia (references 63, 65, and 66). Is the neutrality of this section still disputed? LennartVerhagen (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Not after I fixed it. :) ► RATEL ◄ 07:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Modification of the T4/Euthenasia section

I just reverted a significant modification of the T4 and euthanasia section. There are a few issues: the first is the grammar and wording, which seems awkward in places, although admittedly can be fixed, the second is the lax citation style (citing a BMJ volume in bulk, for example), which again could be fixed with some clarification. The big issue to me is whether the addition meets neutral point of view; it seems to be slanted in the direction of paralleling modern right to die advocates with the T4 program. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

But as you are the one not who is not sure if the editions are truly facts, therefore you can't assumme the other version, which sustains the contrary, is true. My editions were citated and supported in documents, your reverting does not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.27.99.48 (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I found the addition largely unreadable, and the point it was trying to make unacceptable (essentially saying that euthanasia is not unlike the Nazi's eugenicist murder program, which is an extremist view and an unacceptable synthesis of data). Suggest removal of entire edit. ► RATEL ◄ 02:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is your OPINION still not supported on nothing else but your own OPINION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.107.149 (talk • contribs)

User 190.25.107.149 was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation. -TeaDrinker (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There was just only 1 revert. Not 3. There was a wide correction of the spelling and redaction to answer the demands of User:Ratel. This correction was deleted by User:TeaDrinker because he was "...not sure...". This insecure deletion made by User:TeaDrinker was reverted ONCE (1 not 3), precisely because he was not sure and he didn't support his OPINION.