Jump to content

Talk:Aktion T4/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Recent edits

@Newzild: The validity of the term mass murder has been questioned on grounds of the legality of the AT4 killings. Has anyone got their RS handy to see if they treat the killings as legal (afaik the Weimar constitution was subverted rather than abolished)? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Burleigh, Michael (2008). "Between Enthusiasm, Compliance and Protest: The Churches, Eugenics and the Nazi 'Euthanasia' Programme". Contemporary European History. 3 (03): 253–264. doi:10.1017/S0960777300000886. ISSN 0960-7773. describes it as "mass murder" right in the opening sentence: "This account of how the two major Churches responded to the Nazi 'euthanasia' programme, namely the mass murder of the mentally ill and mentally or physicaUy deficient between 1939 and 1945, deals with the responses of their hierarchies and the stratagems adopted by the asylums which were part of their respective charitable networks." Cheers zzz (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I've had a look through Hilberg but he doesn't go into that amount of detail. The rest of my books are elsewhere for the nonce. Keith-264 (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I went through the article and changed "murder" to "killing" throughout. My rationale for this was that the definition of "murder" is "illegal killing". However, these killings were not illegal in the sense that they were ordered by Hitler and sanctioned by the Nazi regime. My edits have been reverted, but I maintain that "killing" should be the preferred term throughout the article. When I first read the article, the word "murder" jarred with me as being non-neutral. There are several places in the article that stray away from neutral language. Newzild (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I think your opinion needs the backing of the RS; murder is a neutral term when the subject is murder. Only two of your edits were reverted but I think we need another look at the RS, like the Burleigh cite rather than bandying our opinions around. Keith-264 (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Sure it's a neutral term when the subject is murder. But it isn't a neutral way to describe legal killings. For example, the United States still uses the death penalty in some states, and this is never called "murder". I'm not aware of any reliable source that shows the extermination programme to be illegal.Newzild (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
RSes are one thing, an encyclopedic tone is another. Both need to be considered. From my readings, both murder and killing are used in various sources, so we need to make a decision for WP based on the correct voice or tone. I am a supporter of "killing", if consensus is being sought. Ratel (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
What does "RS" mean? I do agree about tone. To me, "murder" sounds pejorative and accusatory. Newzild (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
Currently the German gov uses the term Ermordung-murder-[1] The word appears 25 times in the official document of the German Federal Archive. Murder is the appropriate description, the authority of Hitler did not make this legal. Question, were the Jews in the death camps killed or murdered? --Woogie10w (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
The Jews were certainly killed. Whether or not they were murdered depends on the legality of the killings.
WP:RS Reliable source. There has been debate about what "encyclopaedic tone" means but that seems to boil down to individual opinion. Presumably there are facts that apply to the use of the terms but I'll need to check my sources which are stored. As far as I remember, the Weimar legal code wasn't abolished and the authority for the killings/murders amounted to a letter locked in a safe. The US example only demonstrates a difference between law and justice (and the 8th Amendment). Keith-264 (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
You wrote "To me, "murder" sounds pejorative and accusatory" -200,000 innocent people were murdered in cold blood, in Germany this is considered a gross crime against humanity. You shock me, pejorative and accusatory sounds to me real strange here--Woogie10w (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Your response here, and later, is emotive. Encyclopedias are supposed to be neutral, not emotive. Language such as "murdered", "in cold blood", "a gross crime" and "you shock me" is indicative of the wrong state of mind for editing encyclopedia articles.
The bottom line here is that the German gov considers these deaths as murders. --Woogie10w (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
According to the Foundation Monument for the murdered Jews of Europe there were a total 300,000 involuntary euthanasia "Morde" murders in Europe, of which 200,000 were in Germany/Austria [2]--Woogie10w (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
"Murder" is defined as a premeditated killing, and usually refers to criminal cases where malice aforethought is plain. "Killing" on the other hand seems better suited to the systematic extermination of swathes of people based on a clerical decision by people following orders. Ratel (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
The Nazi's engaged in premeditated killing, they were tried as criminals after the war and the malice aforethought was quite plain for the entire world to see. In any case this whole argument is a waste of time, the use of killing or murder. Why can't we some research to improve the article?--Woogie10w (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I just made this edit Previously it was was believed that 70,000 persons were murdered in the euthanasia program, the German Federal Archives in 2013 reported that recent research in the archives of the former East Germany indicate that the number of victims,from 1939 to 1945,in Germany and Austria was actually about 200,000 persons, an additional 100,000 persons were victims in other European countries There should be no dispute here, the source is the current website of the German Federal Archives,an official government source.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Putting aside the emotional nature of your comments, your source does add weight to the use of the term "murder". I have added the following sentence to the article, partly in order to justify the usage of the term: "Although the programme was authorised by the government, the killings have since come to be viewed as murders in Germany."

That is OR (Original Research). We need an authoritative source on the legality at the time as well as post-war rulings. As for emotive, murder is an emotive subject, hence the difference of opinion about using terms which appear to some editors to be evasive. Keith-264 (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Ethics and Extermination: Reflections on Nazi Genocide Burleigh, M. (1997) 978-0-521-58211-7

The reason Hitler decided to assign the task to the Chancellery of the Fuhrer was not simply that this small prerogative agency could act secretly outside the normative channels of government....a staff of people willing to commit mass murder.

— p. 122

The Chancellery of the Fuhrer established an elaborate covert bureaucracy....

— p. 123

In total, T-4 murdered over 70,000 people....

— p. 126
  • The Racial State, Germany 1933–1945 Burleigh, M. and Wippermann, W. (1991 [1993]) 978-0-521-39802-2

Hence, throughout what follows the word "euthanasia" is employed as a cosmetic term for murder.

— p. 142

Although written in October 1939, the note was backdated to 1 September, suggesting some unease among the T-4 operatives about the total illegality of their actions to date. Their actions remained illegal, for a note did not constitute law.

— p. 143
Keith-264 (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Adult "euthanasia"

The argument that more hospital beds would be needed for a coming war apparently enabled university-based scientists to overlook the fact that that the programme had no legal basis whatsoever. Their involvement in turn lent murder a spurious air of scientific "respectability".

— p. 144

Although the Reich Ministry of Justice, which has misgivings about the legality of the programme, merely confined itself to passing on complaints to the Ministry of the Interior and the Reich Chancellery, one judge—Lothar Kreyssig—instituted criminal proceedings against Bouhler for murder. Summoned to the Ministry of Justice, Kreyssig was shown Hitler's authorisation, which, however, he refused to accept as an adequate legal basis for what had been done. He was subsequently prematurely retired.

— p. 152
Keith-264 (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
So, in other words, we have no clear source stating that the killings were illegal. Only "misgivings" and a "refusal to accept". "Having no legal basis" does not mean illegal.
Er, have you read the quotations? I haven't finished yet btw.Keith-264 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
So, in other words the the entire scope of the Third Reich's policies were clearly legal because Hitler signed off on everything. Bada bing bada boom ferget about it. With that said I will continue to edit Wikipedia with reliable sources that can be verified --Woogie10w (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide Lifton, R. J. (2000 [1986]) 978-0-465-04905-9

Brandt was also empowered to tell those physicians that any legal proceedings against them would be quashed by order of Hitler.

— p. 51

And the contradictory legal status of the "euthanasia" programme—a de facto law that was not a law—added to the confusion and contradiction surrounding the question of anyone's responsibility.

— p. 56
Keith-264 (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

For Hitler, this was a conscious choice of "party discipline" over a state apparatus that still made some demands for legal procedure and fiscal responsibility; it wa also a choice of procedure most protective of secrecy....It was carefully explained that there was no official law...that the authorization to Bouhler and Brandt in the Hitler decree was the equivalence of a law and that doctors participating would be immune from legal consequences.

— p. 64
Keith-264 (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The Third Reich: A New History Burleigh, M. (2001 [2000]) 978-0-330-48757-3

Hitler authorised...Bouhler...and...Brandt to authorise designated doctors to carry out "mercy killings". This authorisation was presumably engineered by medical members of the killing programme, anxious about any legal repercussions, although it is important to underline the fact that this document had no force in law, and that the "euthanasia programme" never enjoyed legal sanction. It was murder even in terms of the laws of the Third Reich.

— p. 383
Keith-264 (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Question to all editors and page watchers

@The Banner: Recent edits have been blanket reverted by an editor with "revert POV, please keep the article neutral in style and tone" as the reason. The editors are in dispute and close to 3RR. I request that the recent edits by Keith-264, made to tidy prose be looked at by interested editors. Can they all be described as "lacking neutrality in style and tone"? Should The Banner be specific edit-by-edit as requested above? Regards. Keith-264 (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice when you stop with your activism and just keep the article neutral in style and tone. You are quite often inventing things to make it look more evil, but you should just follow the sources. The truth is evil enough, no need to invent more horror. The Banner talk 13:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
See Breggin and Tolley and Yolken above; your claims are specious.Keith-264 (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Your editing is frightening. The Banner talk 13:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Show me.Keith-264 (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Here you go: This edit is both editwarring, given that it's the third time your additions have been removed, and uses sensational terms purely for the sake of using them. There is no encyclopedic value or article improvement by changing from the existing prose to your suggested terms.
Moreover, the fact that your prose has been reverted means that you should now be talking about the changes, rather than insisting on them being present. Ironically, you seem to know about the discussion part of BRD, because your edit summary states "take it to talk", which you eventually have done so here.
If you can coherently argue as to why your suggestions should be kept - please do so, but in the meantime the status quo is kept as per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EDITWAR. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for replying; I have taken it to talk to avoid 3RR so why am I the one at fault? What are the "sensational" terms? I have offered Banner the opportunity to describe his objections and got blanket reverts and slogans instead. Banner referred me to the sources and I accepted his suggestion, despite my edits being of form not content and put my findings above. I don't need a referral to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EDITWAR when I'm trying to stop one but would welcome some WP:Civil. What's the point in editing the article if one editor removes them and refused to be specific about the objections? This seems more like WP:own; is it the word "killing"? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
What's incoherent about this?
Extermination centres were established at six existing psychiatric hospitals: Bernburg, Brandenburg, Grafeneck, Hadamar, Hartheim, and Sonnenstein.[1]
  • my edit:

The psychiatric hospitals at Bernburg, Brandenburg, Grafeneck, Hadamar, Hartheim and Sonnenstein were chosen as killing centers.[1]

The original numbers a list which is redundant and refers to existing psychiatric hospitals; they could hardly not exist if something was established at them. Torrey and Yolken are cited and use "killing centers" (sic); Breggin uses killed once and extermination once. I didn't like the term "killing centers" because center is not descriptive but have yet to think of a term that is more descriptive and is as brief. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If you don't like the use of "killing centers" why not leave the article as it is, and not include the term at all?
With regard to Banner's behaviour, I'll not comment - but one of my pet hates on Wikipedia is for an editor to be reverted and instead of BRD to revert back again and insist that their preferred version stays in place while any discussion goes on. A quick glance at my own editing history will show that I regularly oppose any changes based solely on that criteria - but also that I'm quite willing to be persuaded otherwise through the medium of discussion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
What's incoherent about this?
Extermination centres were established at six existing psychiatric hospitals: Bernburg, Brandenburg, Grafeneck, Hadamar, Hartheim, and Sonnenstein.[1]
  • my edit:
The psychiatric hospitals at Bernburg, Brandenburg, Grafeneck, Hadamar, Hartheim and Sonnenstein were chosen as killing centers.[1]
The question is (among other things) over your insertion of the term "killing center" You were reverted over it twice, and you yourself have said you don't like the term - so it seems a perfectly reasonable question to ask why is it needed if the person inserting it isn't even happy with it? The article seems perfectly descriptive without using the term, so I don't see why it's suddenly necessary to clearer understanding of the article. Whilst I agree that your insertions are not making the article worse - they offer no improvement to it either, and at least three editors (@The Banner:, Chaheel Riens & @Keith-264:) have shown that they're not happy with the term in the article as well. I feel I can respond with your own statement - What's incoherent about this? Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I refer you to the two sources and their use of the term. I don't like "center" because it isn't descriptive, "killing" is, as both sources make clear. Please address the main point, the amendment to the sentence containing redundant words. What's incoherent about this?
  • "The original numbers a list which is redundant and refers to existing psychiatric hospitals; they could hardly not exist if something was established at them." Keith-264 (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
    • In fact, the sheer fact that you call my criticism ("revert POV, please keep the article neutral in style and tone") as "slogans", gives me the nasty idea that you are not here to create a neutral article. The Banner talk 00:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
No, the original still seems perfectly reasonable without your additions. The original statement of "Extermination centres were established at six existing psychiatric hospitals" is reasonable, as it clarifies that already open hospitals were used, rather than building more. If you really want to remove redundancy just take out the word "existing". I still maintain - as I always have - that your changes are not necessary. As I've explained this - and my reasoning behind this - several times now always for you to respond with "What's incoherent about this" makes me wonder if the only person who sees incoherence here is you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You have failed to address my question several times which is why I've repeated it. You haven't explained anything, just offered your opinion. You comment about hospitals is incoherent, why would a reader infer that places didn't exist if the word "existing" is omitted? "The hospitals can't not mean existing ones because they are "the" hospitals not "the new hospitals" You did it again by using the term "already open", can't you parse a sentence? Oh and my edit has no additions, count the words and you'll see. Regards.

@The Banner: The are't the slogans, the slogans are in your talk comments;

  • You are inventing terminology to make it sound even worse than the truth already is.

  • The proper name was "T4 programme". You made it "T4 killing programme". And that is not a neutral way to address it. The Banner talk 1:34 pm, 7 February 2018, last Wednesday (6 days ago) (UTC+0)

Is that what the Germans called it? The Nuremberg judges? The RS? Keith-264 (talk) 6:43 pm, 7 February 2018, last Wednesday (6 days ago) (UTC+0)
Thank you for confirming your POV.

Unless you thanked me for confirming my POV was neutral, this is another slogan. In case I have failed to understand, I suggest you cite "T4 programme" to show why it is the proper name. You have blanket reverted my edits and haven't shown willingness to account for one example. You have used hyperbolic terms like "frightening" and "nasty" instead and I quote the sources that cite the sentence (at your suggestion). Just this once, humour me in return and write why you find any of the words in this sentence objectionable or why it doesn't cleave to the sources cited.

The psychiatric hospitals at Bernburg, Brandenburg, Grafeneck, Hadamar, Hartheim and Sonnenstein were chosen as killing centers.[21][51]

Keith-264 (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEFIELD. The Banner talk 10:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:OWN WP:Game Keith-264 (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
My opinion is an explanation. The fact that you don't like (or understand) it does not negate its value. I simply maintain that the article is fine as is and that your additions changes are just not necessary. If you want to truly remove duplication then the term "existing" can be removed from the current text. Other suggested changes have been shown to be controversial - and while I have agreed that they do not make the article worse, so are not vandalism or disruptive (constant re-adding notwithstanding), they do not offer any improvement either.
Your own commentary is becoming just as incoherent as you accuse mine of being:

You comment about hospitals is incoherent, why would a reader infer that places didn't exist if the word "existing" is omitted? "The hospitals can't not mean existing ones because they are "the" hospitals not "the new hospitals" You did it again by using the term "already open", can't you parse a sentence?

What the hell is that all about? You seem to be contesting the removal of "existing" because it will negate their existence, but your use of double negatives is just bizarre: The hospitals can't not mean existing ones because they are "the" hospitals not "the new hospitals" I'm sure in your own head that makes perfect sense, but not here.
I suggest that if you want resolution you consider WP:DRN. I don't see any progress being made here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Now you've changed your mind and are willing for "existing" being dropped; thank you. Do you agree that the word "six" is also redundant because it is followed by a list of six places?

"I simply maintain that the article is fine as is and that your additions changes are just not necessary." No, the article is not fine because in places it is poorly written. My edits have improved the article because they remedy grammatical and parsing errors. I am being obstructed by the Banner who has blanket reverted all of them and trying to reach consensus by discussing the edits, to identify his objections to the edit, rather than to the editor.

Second of the ce reverted by the blanket, original text "They played a crucial role in developments...." my edit "The killing centres played a crucial role in developments...." "They" has no subject, "The killing centres" does. The term "The killing centres...." follows the citation, Breggin 1993 where the it is used three times. Any complaints? Keith-264 (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've not changed my mind over the inclusion of the term "existing" - I suggested its removal in my talk page edit here: If you really want to remove redundancy just take out the word "existing", on the other hand nor have I advocated its inclusion anywhere - unless you equate reversion of your changes to implicitly support the word which is a logical stretch too far. My other comments still stand true: The article is not improved by your inclusion of the term "killing centers", and I'm not convinced by your claim of grammatical and parsing errors either - your edits introduced at least one typographical error and changes such as "when parents persisted with refusal they..." are no improvement over the original. In fact the only part of your edit I do see as improvement is your removal of "Notably" from "Notably, when Sereny interviewed..." - but that doesn't mean you've got consensus for all your other changes.
Once again - I suggest DRN. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@The Banner: Riens agrees to "existing" being dropped for redundancy, do you? Keith-264 (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
No, as it is not a serious improvement. The Banner talk 15:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
You are outnumbered 2:1 will you abide by the majority? Keith-264 (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Please remember that we go by consensus here, which reads in part: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." This isn't a vote and 2:1 is irrelevant. freshacconci (✉) 15:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Besides which - I'm not that fussed over it's removal really; it was suggested as an alternative to removing redundancy as perceived by Keith-264. Whilst I think that "existing" can be removed, I don't think that the article suffers due to its inclusion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It was a question to The Banner, not a referral to procedure. "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." I'm tying to abide by this by addressing Banner's blanket reverting (he/she's done it several times before). It's a struggle though because he isn't addressing the disputed edits beyond "No, as it is not a serious improvement". He is not incorporating my legitimate concerns about the quality of the prose, neither is Riens. Sloppy writing is not a good thing, surely we can agree on that? Keith-264 (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is also a serious thing. The Banner talk 16:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
We have addressed the issues, it's just that you disagree with the results and so dismiss them as either irrelevant or incoherent. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Gainsaying does not address anything.
Do either of you agree with me that sloppy writing is detrimental to the article?
Is an improvement that "is not serious" an improvement or not?
"They played a crucial role in developments...." has no subject, "The killing centres played a crucial role in developments...." does. The edit is clearly an improvement because it adds the appropriate subject.
Banner has returned to his blanket veto. Banner please give one example from the above of NPOV. Keith-264 (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
You have returned to your blanket denial. But to give you an example: "T4 killing program", what is usually just referred to as T4 or T4 program. The Banner talk 21:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I asked several questions about individual edits, I'm going through the edits one at a time. 1) Banner, is an improvement that "is not serious" an improvement or not? Keith-264 (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, given that to gainsay means to disagree, that seems a perfect description. We disagree. You are doing exactly the same thing - refusing to acknowledge any validity in opposing arguments.
"They played a crucial role in developments...." has no subject, "The killing centres played a crucial role in developments...." does. The edit is clearly an improvement because it adds the appropriate subject.
But it's not necessary. The full context is:

Extermination centres were established at six existing psychiatric hospitals: Bernburg, Brandenburg, Grafeneck, Hadamar, Hartheim, and Sonnenstein.[1][2] One thousand children under the age of 17 were killed at the institutions Am Spiegelgrund and Gugging in Austria.[3][4] They played a crucial role in developments leading to the Holocaust.[1] As a related aspect of the "medical" and scientific basis of this programme, the Nazi doctors took thousands of brains from 'euthanasia' victims for research.[5]

It's already been established that the centres in question are the six existing psychiatric hospitals. This is why I don't think your changes are necessary. There is no sloppy writing to change. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Breggin 1993, pp. 133–148.
  2. ^ Torrey & Yolken 2010, pp. 26–32.
  3. ^ Local 2014.
  4. ^ Kaelber 2015.
  5. ^ Weindling 2006, p. 6.
The sentence lacks a subject and this is sloppy writing. Using "They" makes the sentence dependent on the previous one and this contradicts the full stop; this is sloppy. You aren't arguing, you are contradicting and I am referring to commonly accepted standards of good written English. Try this

The psychiatric hospitals at Bernburg, Brandenburg, Grafeneck, Hadamar, Hartheim and Sonnenstein were used as killing/extermination centres.

Breggin uses extermination centre six times and killing centre three times, Torrey and Yolken use killing centre twice and do not use extermination centre. Keith-264 (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
No, we are not doing the same thing as you claim. I strive to a neutral article in style and tone. You seem to wage war to get your version in. And please, tone down a bit. The Banner talk 23:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
So do I but you've turned a cosmetic ce into a war to keep my edits out. Is an improvement that "is not serious" an improvement? Keith-264 (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Aha, slogans... The Banner talk 10:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh and "You seem to wage war to get your version in." is a non sequitur. Keith-264 (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I prefer the word 'extermination' to 'killing'. Killing is too emotive, too vague, has too many other connotations. Extermination is in line with the methodical way the Nazis approached this. Ratel (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for being frank, I don't think "killing" is emotive or vague at all, it's a straightforward word [3] unlike "extermination" which can be something of a cliche. I had a look in Breggin again and he used the term "killing" three times, "murder/s" 25 times, "extermination approx 30 times. Unless you want to question the RS as source, "killing" is a justified term; Torrey and Yolken didn't use "extermination" at all. The nazi killings had aspects of method but also improvisation and in the murder of disabled children, was not peculiar to nazis, it was (and still is) a utilitarian trope. You've owned an opinion about words and your reasons why but do you want to contradict Breggin, Torrey and Yolken as well as me? I don't want to exclude the term "extermination" but the three sources use it among others so I don't see why the article shouldn't reflect this. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't care what various authors see fit to call it, I'm talking about encyclopedic tone. That's for us to decide. You can certainly quote those authors' terms but don't put 'killing program' into WP's voice, is what I'm suggesting. Ratel (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I do care what language the RS use and I fear that you are parading caprice. The word "kill" is descriptive and unambiguous as can be seen in dictionary definitions, its etymology and by its use and context in the sources. I don't want to remove the term "extermination" but I do want it balanced with other words derived from the RS to avoid it being a portmanteau term; it's not for any of us to bowdlerise the RS using NPOV as a pretext rather than a guide. Keith-264 (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Next part of the blanket revert "The Ministry used deceit when dealing with parents or guardians," reverted to "The Ministry used various deceptions when dealing with parents". Various means many and deceptions is the plural meaning more than one; this is plain bad English.Keith-264 (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, have restored the edit due to lack of interest in discussing it. Keith-264 (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
It was to be expected that you would revert this too. The Banner talk 00:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
All open to discussion, do you object? Keith-264 (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
"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 there was a genuine medical purpose." reverted to
  • 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 programme had a genuine medical purpose.
Propose ""Post mortem examinations apparently helped to ease the consciences of many of those involved, that the children had not died in vain, since it gave them the feeling that there was a genuine medical purpose to the killings." Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Nah, still too wordy "Post mortem examinations apparently helped to ease the consciences of many of those involved, it gave them the feeling that there was a genuine medical purpose to the killings" Keith-264 (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Strange that you complain about it being "wordy" when you replace This by Post mortem examinations. The Banner talk 12:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Altered text as suggested, still willing to discuss as always.

Once war broke out in September 1939, less rigorous standards of assessment and a quicker approval process were adopted. Older children and adolescents were included and the conditions covered came to include

reverted to

Once war broke out in September 1939, the programme adopted less rigorous standards of assessment and a quicker approval process. It expanded to include older children and adolescents. The conditions covered also expanded and came to include

old edit is wordy, the revision omitted duplication without altering the meaning; uncontentious surely? Keith-264 (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope, the old text is better. It is not wordy but more precise. The Banner talk 12:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The sentence had no object. "Once war....", pleonasm does not make more meaning; precision comes from picking the right words and putting them in the right order, not throwing words at the page. Keith-264 (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Anyone object to me reinstating the edit?Keith-264 (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Title change to Euthanasia in the Third Reich

Aktion T4 was not the only Nazi mass euthanasia program, I believe the title should be Euthanasia in the Third Reich.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Note well the killings continued after Aug 1941 in a secret program run by the SS, T4 was only part of the big picture--Woogie10w (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  • This article is about the "Aktion T4", as the WP:TITLE indicates. Even though it might not have been the only Nazi mass euthanasia program in World War II, other similar programs would have to be described in addition to the main subject of this article, and perhaps linked to other articles if appropriate. – Can you please elaborate on what other programs do you mean? Thanks, Poeticbent talk 18:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
T-4 ended in Aug 1941 the killings continued in secret after that time. To be honest I am not familiar with the details of the euthanasia program. The recent revelations from the East German archives should be covered in German language sources. For me this is a new topic to research. To complicate matters this Wikipedia article is sourced to the cold war West German bullshit. --Woogie10w (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
At best an article Euthanasia in the Third Reich should be created to cover "the whole picture". Aktion T4 can be linked from that article. Changing the title and content of this article is a very bad move, misrepresenting the importance of this program. The Banner talk 18:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Banner, this topic needs further research using up to date reliable sources--Woogie10w (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
My knowledge of the topic is limited. I have just ordered from ABE books Erfasst, Verfolgt, Vernichtet./registered, Persecuted, Annihilated.: Kranke Und Behinderte Menschen Im Nationalsozialismus published by Springer and Euthanasie" im Dritten Reich-by Klee 2nd revised ed both books should cover the recent German material from the East German archives. I am glad I edited this page, it has sparked an interest in an interesting topic. --Woogie10w (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't like the term euthanasia much in this context, except in quotation marks to describe the lie that the nazis and other Germans used about their crimes, as some of the quotations added above demonstrate. Keith-264 (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  • This whole thread brings us back to a different meta question: – what is Euthanasia (!) in the context of the Nazi culture of death, and how is euthanasia different from the mass killings of targetted groups of people in the name of ideology? – How are euthanasia tools different from genocide methods? – The Soviets were well ahead of Nazi Germany about condemning specific groups of people, see the Holodomor and the Genocide of Poles in the Soviet Union. So if psychiatric hospital victims are not the subject of your inquiry, than who is ? Poeticbent talk 19:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm rather more exercised by the use of "involuntary euthanasia", which surely stretches the understandable but immoral and illegal practice of abetting suicide beyond reasonable bounds. Killing someone without their consent can't be reconciled with the concept of euthanasia, even as we agree that this article is about murder dressed up in euphemistic and circumlocutory clothes. In condemning people via guilt by association, the nazi and \Stalinist regimes were C20th Johnny-come-latelys compared to the western slave empires. Ask the Irish and the Indians (both sorts) what being on the receiving end of utilitarianism was like (an average of a million famine deaths a year in India 1876–1901). I wouldn't rope in the famine in the USSR of 1932–1933 either; should Stalin get the blame for the famines of 1922 and 1892 as well? Do the Tsarists get the blame for inventing the famine measures used by the Soviets in the 30s? Keith-264 (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
"Killing someone without their consent can't be reconciled with the concept of euthanasia" — but that's exactly what involuntary euthanasia is, by definition, when it is done for the reasons the Nazis gave (kill "incurably ill, physically or mentally disabled, emotionally distraught, and elderly people"). Ratel (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
No, it's an oxymoron and another euphemism for murder. Keith-264 (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
That's simply your opinion, not what the article on involuntary euthanasia explicitly states. You seem to have some sort of emotional involvement with this topic ... not the best stance for an editor. Ratel (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I didn't pretend that it was anything else and Wiki is not a source. Are you dazzled by appeals to authority or suffering from a conflict of interest? It's a simple matter of logic to see that eliding the detachment of the fact of killing from the consent of the victim with "euthanasia" is a spurious and casuistical manoeuvre. Keith-264 (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Could you please tone down a bit? Acting aggressively is not helpful. The Banner talk 01:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
What aggression? I suggest that you AGF, WP:civil and let Ratel answer. Keith-264 (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
The same aggression you show in this answer. So please, tone down. The Banner talk 02:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Who made you the judge? I suggest you take your own advice before you point fingers, your comments are inappropriate.Keith-264 (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
That for again confirming your behaviour. The Banner talk 02:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I grant you the last word. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
The post T4 Aug 1941-1945 encompassed the entire German medical system according to what I have read so far. The curious aspect of this how did they keep this a secret. There are unanswered questions in my mind, I hope German books I ordered will answer them. It appears many of these people were starved to death and severely wounded soldiers were killed. No questions were asked in the hospital, the staff just followed orders and took home a pay envelope. --Woogie10w (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC). --Woogie10w (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Plus ca change. Keith-264 (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Your discussion sounds like Poolhall Brawl from "Mean Streets" (1973)-Watch on You Tube- This was my old neighborhood --Woogie10w (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Keith-264:, based on your comments above about euthanasia and involuntary euthanasia, I doubt whether you really understand what the terms mean, and I urge you to study the WP definitions before proceeding here. Involuntary euthanasia (IE) was employed as part of the Nazis' mass genocide program, is the point I'm making. I think that's a generally accepted fact. Your reference to IE as an extension of "immoral and illegal practice of abetting suicide" shows a complete ignorance of what IE really is, as well as rather betraying your emotional interest in the area and suggest a degree of barrow-pushing. Ratel (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Have you noticed that when you are contradicted you retreat into claims of emotionalism, slogans and appeals to authority? With all due respect I commend your attention to the Law of Holes. I think it's better to leave OR to the RS and remember WP:NOTSOURCE so if you can cite any sources to "IE" as it pertains to AT4, I'd be interested in looking at them. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I suggest you do a quick search of Google Books for "nazis involuntary euthanasia" without the quotes to see a fair selection of references. Ratel (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for a constructive reply, I commend"Recent edits" above, especially the last entry, on the illegal nature of the AT4 killings/murders to your attention. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
"It was murder even in terms of the laws of the Third Reich" Is the author of that opinion a lawyer with intimate knowledge of the legal situation in the 3rd reich? Hitler was law, a dictator. He ruled by decree. Many sources back up what I said above about IE. Ratel (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It would be OR for us to decide, are there any RS that contradict Burleigh? In footnote 95 p. 383 (p. 862) Burleigh calls "Euthanasie" im NS-Staat (1985) by Ernst Klee "The most important book on the "euthanasia" programme", what does he write? Apropos the term decree, I altered it in the lead to "note" as described in Burleigh and Wippermann but now I doubt both terms. Is there a universal definition of decree? I would have thought that it is something publicly promulgated. [4] includes "pronounce" [5] has "an official statement". Hmmm Keith-264 (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

This point has also been discussed in German language Wikipedia.
  • Please note that the mass murder of psychiatry patients or other handicapped patients started in 1933 and lasted until 1945. More than 200.000 patients were murdered.
  • The Aktion T4 (as it was named later) took place from about December 1939 to 1941 although some of those six places with death chambers (in Germany and Austria) were used until 1943. There were more than 70.273 patients killed in this.
  • Other plans were named "Aktion 14f13", "Aktion Brandt", there was mass murder in Poland, Russia and so on. And before Aktion T4, a mass murder of children had been started.
  • We owe Ernst Klee a lot who was a journalist starting a research about what had happened in German hospitals.
So there should be a summary article about the mass murder of patients in the time of the Third Reich which refers to some single articles with some more focus, like on Poland and so on.
In German language, there is
If a summary article can be done just by moving/renaming or by doing/starting with a copy, it should be reasonable.
Regards Heimkinderverband (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC) If there are some questions please feel free to ask, we will work to find an answer.
Thank you. Keith-264 (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Heimkinderverband's points. To implement these changes would require quite a bit of work. Who is going to make these changes? The English language sources used in this article are dated and most users on English Wikipedia cannot work with German language sources. My knowledge of the topic is limited, I have just started reading the revised edition of Klee in German. The book Erfasst, verfolgt,vernichtet is bi-lingual German-English, I picked it up recently when I was in Germany. If Heimkinderverband wants to put in the time to make these changes I will assist in updating this article.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I keep my original stance in this: At best an article Euthanasia in the Third Reich should be created to cover "the whole picture". Aktion T4 can be linked from that article. Changing the title and content of this article is a very bad move, misrepresenting the importance of this program. The Banner talk 13:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Banner,read Heimkinderverband's points. I believe you are in agreement. To implement these changes would require a lot of editing. The quick and dirty [6] way would be to copy & paste an English translation of the various articles on German Wikipedia. --Woogie10w (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I see the merit in an article like [[Euthanasia in the Third Reich]] but not here, more a portmanteau article that links here. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Kieth the problem is that this article mostly covers T-4 based on dated English language sources. Recent German research has given us a better understanding of the topic, T-4 was part of a bigger picture.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
That still does not mean that you have to rebuild the present article. It can be improved to give a more up-to-date view about the topic. But the "bigger picture" deserves a separate article. And to me, it seems that starting from scratch with that "bigger picture"-article is the easier solution. The Banner talk 18:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
T-4 was only one part of the euthanasia program, there were other separate programs after 1941!! T-4 should not be the title. the whole article is misleading and historically innacurate --Woogie10w (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
No, this article is not misleading and or historical inaccurate. It describes a part of the euthanasia program. But is is the article about that wider program that is missing and should be written. The Banner talk 23:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The questionable nature of the English sources, if that be true is the way it is. If GerWiki has better sources then good luck for German speakers but I don't think we should turn this article into a translation. Since the article is about T-4 but has context of what came before and after, a general article would make sense separate from this, particularly because most of it wasn't euthanasia but murder dressed up as something else. Is T-4 part of a "Euthanasia Programme"? Did the Germans use that language or is it a mentally lazy term used by TV producers? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
That is your own POV, however today in Germany official government sources use the term "euthanasia". The study by Ernst Klee is entitled Euthanasie Im Dritten Reich [7]. There should be no argument at this point--Woogie10w (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The German government is using a shorthand nomenclature. In WP we must be more exact. Ratel (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
On WP we rely on reliable sources, [8]. When we are shooting the breeze with our friends we can make it up as we go along. Right now we are on WP and must use only reliable sources.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
About the killings in general: As euthanasia was an euphemism. The title of Klee's work contains speeking marks around "Euthanasie" (have a look).
Another words used very often were "Gnadentod" (mercy death, mercy killings) or "Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens" (destroying unwanted life).
Also "murder of the sick", "killing of the sick" or "patient murder" is possible as part of the lemma. "patient" ist more neutral because there was also suspected illness. It happened within the borders of the Third Reich but also in annected and occupated territories.
About the Aktion T4: it was named so later, after the war. There were other contemporary expressions like "Aktion", "E-Aktion", "Eu-Aktion", "Euthanasie" oder "Aktion Gnadentod". -- Heimkinderverband (talk) 07:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, is any of this in English? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
It is a difficult matter, there some works in German in general, other works about one location in particular. We ourselves do not know surveys in English or translations.
A personal note: In Aktion T4 there was a selection between patients who could work and those who could not. In Aktion T4 the patients were transported to six places were they were killed on the same day of arrival, they were burnt after this. More than 70.000 patients ended up in crematories. Running the killings without central administration (and files) in Tiergartenstraße 4, Berlin, the patients were killed by starvation, poison etc and buried nearby, on the hospitals' grounds. In Austria some hundred skeletons were found now when there were works at a parking site. Later, in Germany or for example Poland, the hospitals were just emptied, and the patients (some hundreds, or even thousands) were brought away and killed. There are mass graves in the woods from this in Poland. Therefore, this is the reason why an article is needed to describe the background how there were more than 200 000 killings. -- Heimkinderverband (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay, addressing Woogie10w and Heimkinderverband, so let's have one of these titles:
  • "Mercy killing" in the Third Reich
  • "Euthanasia" in the Third Reich (with the quotation marks)
This emphasizes that we are not really talking about what is generally understood to be euthanasia. My point here is that opponents of [voluntary] euthanasia would like nothing better than to see euthanasia associated in an encyclopedia with the Nazi murder campaign. We must resist that. Ratel (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Your hobby horse has no place on Wikipaedia, you should desist before you fall foul of AGF. A better title for a generic article would be [[Eugenic murder in the Third Reich]]. Keith-264 (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Not a hobby horse, but I don't want to see articles used for political purposes. Words are important. Your own comment does not AGF. But I agree that your proposed title is suitable. Ratel (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Really? You affect to worry about hypothetical people who don't exist "using articles for political purposes" and have the effrontery to point fingers? WP:NOBLECAUSE come off it, who made you the judge? Keith-264 (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
And what about your judgement, Keith-264? The Banner talk 23:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Tu quoque? PS "and" is a conjunction, it can't start a sentence. Keith-264 (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Keith, let's keep this civil please. You are making personal attacks and not concentrating on the topic. My point is that Euthanasia in the Third Reich is not optimal. There are better titles. Ratel (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Calm down yourself and remember that when you point the finger, three more are pointing back at you. WP:game. Congratulations for ending your comment on topic, keep it up. Do you want the last word? Keith-264 (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
It would really be nice when you tone down a bit, Keith-264. The Banner talk 07:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Tu quoque (again) WP:game .Keith-264 (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
/me gives mirror to Keith-264. The Banner talk 08:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

[[Eugenic murder in the Third Reich]] would be a good lemma. The article Aktion T4 should be doubled for this as there is already a lot of general contents. The new article should be changed and prodeceeded into an overview. -- Heimkinderverband (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed! But it is the new article that needs to be the overview but it can take some general info from Aktion T4. Although I prefer moving the info where possible, not doubling. The Banner talk 08:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I will support the writing of an article called [[Eugenic murder in the Third Reich]] which links to this one and others but I do not support changing the title of this one. If a new article is written, some material here would become redundant so it would become a smaller one strictly about T-4 as it has become known since the war, with links to other murder conspiracies before during and after. Keith-264 (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Aktion T4 memorial picture

There is also a Sierra curve there. I don't know the place, is the picture informative?Xx236 (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Even after that date, however,

After that date:

Compassion and Reducing Suffering?

Para 3: <<Several reasons have been suggested for the killings, including eugenics, compassion, reducing suffering, racial hygiene and saving money.>> Do the sources really support the assertion that the murders were carried out for compassionate reasons? I'd be surprised if they did but unfortunately I don't have access. NBeddoe (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Me neitherKeith-264 (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Freshacconci: "Involuntary euthanasia" is neither precise or neutral for the murders carried out by T4 personnel; it is a euphemism. Mass slaughter is an honest term but is also hyperbolic so neither term is an adequate description. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit

@PeterNSteinmetz: "In early 1939, Dr. Werner Catel wrote to Hitler requesting permission to kill a severely deformed child, Gerhard Kretschmar. Following this experience...." rm as it duplicated material already in the article. Is there a citation for Catel's involvement? Keith-264 (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Keith-264: I put the notation back and added a link to another online article about this. The killing of Kretschmar was the initial killing of a child in this program so Catel's seminal involvement is important to note. His involvement is noted on the article about him, but not otherwise on the Aktion T4 page. The only other primary information about him on this page is being cleared by a de-nazification board. PeterNSteinmetz (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

www.projectinposterum.org

@The Banner: please elaborate on how www.projectinposterum.org is a reliable source.MozeTak (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfree pictures

I hope I have fixed the issues with the two pictures for this article. The bot stumbled over the lack of a non-free use rationale for use on this article. I have added that to both of them, politely praying that that does the trick. The Banner talk 12:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I give up. No matter what I do, User:JJMC89 keeps reverting it. When confronted with criticism about his rationale for the removals, he changed the rationale. The Banner talk 11:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Did you ask JJMC89 or ask anyone else (e.g. WP:MCQ) why he (=JJMC89) was removing the file or did you just assume the worst? It wasn't so much that he was changing his rationales for removal based on some whim, but rather based upon the particulars of the situation. The files were first removed by JJMC89 bot because the files lacked the separate and specific non-free use rationales for each file's use in this article as required by WP:NFCC#10c; that's why the bot was leaving edit summaries like this when removing the file. The bot was only doing what it was set up automatically do when it comes across such files and it stopped removing the files once the missing non-free use rationales were added to each file's page. Adding a non-free use rationale, however, doesn't automatically make a non-free use policy compliant as explained in WP:JUSTONE, and this is essentially what JJMC89 was stating in this edit summary when he (not his bot) removed the files again.
The non-free use rationales you added to each file's page pretty much seemed to be basically the same as the ones provided for the stand-alone articles about each person (almost as if they were copied-and-pasted and then just changed in some minor way), but the non-free uses of each file in this article aren't really the same as their respective uses in the two stand-alone articles. Wikipedia generally allows non-free images of deceased individuals to be used for primary identification purposes at the tops of or in the main infoboxes of articles (i.e. stand-alone articles) about said persons per item 10 of WP:NFCI, but the use of such images in other articles or in other ways tends to require a much stronger justification for non-free use per WP:NFCC#8. This looks to be why JJMC89 is disputing the use of the files in this article because their use doesn't seem to really improve the reader's understanding of the subject matter to the extent that not seeing them would be detrimental to that understanding. In such cases, the general consensus is for other alternative ways such as simple text or links to each person's stand-alone article be used instead in order to try and minimize the use of non-free content as much as possible. You should be able to discuss these things with JJMC89 and perhaps you'll be able to clarify how the use of these files in this article satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria; if not, then you can seek wider community input at WP:FFD, WT:NFCC or WP:MCQ to see what some others think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2020

The first sentence says that A4 was a postwar name for this program. It seems that it still is a postwar name for this program, so please change "was" to "is". If it's not a postwar name for the program anymore, the page ought to be renamed because of WP:COMMONNAME.

Better yet, the article talks about the program, not the name. A better first sentence would be "Aktion T4 was a program of mass murder by involuntary euthanasia in Nazi Germany." 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:1C56:9596:76E6:AF78 (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Involuntary euthanasia is an oxymoron. Keith-264 (talk) 06:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
To editor Keith-264: involuntary or "forced" euthanasia does not mean that the person who performs the euthanasia does so involuntarily. It means that the person who is euthanized was capable of giving their consent but did not, either because they did not want to die, or because they were not even asked. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
You described murder; this article is no place for euphemism. Keith-264 (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
You may be correct, however consensus of editors is what counts, and the consensus has been to describe how the mass murder took place. And how it took place was by "involuntary euthanasia". You want a euphemism? Try "non-voluntary euthanasia". Now that's a euphemism! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 22:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 Done, and thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
What consensus? What reliable sources? Keith-264 (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)+
Seems you've been here long enough to be able to understand consensus on Wikipedia ("Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way, the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time.") And reliable sources as well. You don't need an explanation of how editors have been forming this article for sixteen years, and how every word is the result of either discussion or implied/silent consensus. Since I can see no need on your part, maybe you would be kind enough to tell me what I can do to help? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 07:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

"Technology developed under Aktion T4 was taken over by the medical division of the Reich Interior Ministry, particularly the use of lethal gas to kill large numbers of people, along with the personnel of Aktion T4, who participated in Operation Reinhard.[17]" As written this makes it sound like it was the Aktion T4 personnel who were among the large numbers of people killed with lethal gas, which I do not believe is true or the intended meaning. I propose: "Technology developed under Aktion T4, particularly the use of lethal gas to kill large numbers of people, was taken over by the medical division of the Reich Interior Ministry, along with the personnel of Aktion T4, who participated in Operation Reinhard.[17]" tom fisher-york (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Drop "lethal", you can't kill anyone with a gas that isn't. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

To editors ­tom fisher-york and Keith-264:  done, and thank you very much for good catches! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 07:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

JulianDavisFilms

Karl Brandt, doctor to Hitler and Hans Lammers, the head of the Reich Chancellery, testified after the war that Hitler had told them as early as 1933—when the sterilisation law was passed—that he favoured the killing of the incurably ill but recognised that public opinion would not accept this. In 1935, Hitler told the Leader of Reich Doctors, Gerhard Wagner, that the question could not be taken up in peacetime; "Such a problem could be more smoothly and easily carried out in war". He wrote that he intended to "radically solve" the problem of the mental asylums in such an event. Aktion T4 began with a "trial" case in late 1938. Hitler received word about a severely handicapped newborn girl through the Kanzlei des Führers, a.k.a. the Chancellery of the Fuhrer of the Nazi Party, or KdF, headed by Phillip Bouhler. Unlike the SS or the Nazi Party Chancellery, the KdF had no public face, and provided Hitler with the cover needed to move forward with the first killing. Hitler instructed Karl Brandt, his physician, to evaluate the stricken newborn whose family name was Knauer. And although there was some debate as to the infant’s exact diagnosis, the child was killed, giving Bouhler and Brandt the go-ahead for more killings.

Hitler instructed Brandt to evaluate a petition sent by two parents for the "mercy killing" of a child who was blind and had physical and developmental disabilities. The child, born near Leipzig and eventually identified as Gerhard Kretschmar, was killed in July 1939. Hitler instructed Brandt to proceed in the same manner in all similar cases.

On 18 August 1939, three weeks after the killing of the boy, the Reich Committee for the Scientific Registering of Hereditary and Congenital Illnesses was established to register sick children or newborns identified as defective. The secret killing of infants began in 1939 and increased after the war started; by 1941, more than 5,000 children had been killed. Hitler was in favour of killing those whom he judged to be lebensunwertes Leben (Life unworthy of life). A few months before the "euthanasia" decree, in a 1939 conference with Leonardo Conti, Reich Health Leader and State Secretary for Health in the Interior Ministry, and Hans Lammers, Chief of the Reich Chancellery, Hitler gave as examples the mentally ill who he said could only be "bedded on sawdust or sand" because they "perpetually dirtied themselves" and "put their own excrement into their mouths". This issue, according to the Nazi regime, assumed a new urgency in wartime.

After the invasion of Poland, Hermann Pfannmüller (Head of the State Hospital near Munich) said

Für mich ist die Vorstellung untragbar, dass beste, blühende Jugend an der Front ihr Leben lassen muss, damit verblichene Asoziale und unverantwortliche Antisoziale ein gesichertes Dasein haben. (It is unbearable to me that the flower of our youth must lose their lives at the front, while that feeble-minded and asocial element can have a secure existence in the asylum.) Pfannmüller advocated killing by a gradual decrease of food, which he believed was more merciful than poison injections.

Karl Brandt, Hitler's personal doctor and organiser of Aktion T4

The German eugenics movement had an extreme wing even before the Nazis came to power. As early as 1920, Alfred Hoche and Karl Binding advocated killing people whose lives were "unworthy of life" (lebensunwertes Leben). Darwinism was interpreted by them as justification of the demand for "beneficial" genes and eradication of the "harmful" ones. Robert Lifton wrote, "The argument went that the best young men died in war, causing a loss to the Volk of the best genes. The genes of those who did not fight (the worst genes) then proliferated freely, accelerating biological and cultural degeneration". The advocacy of eugenics in Germany gained ground after 1930, when the Depression was used to excuse cuts in funding to state mental hospitals, creating squalor and overcrowding.

Many German eugenicists were nationalists and antisemites, who embraced the Nazi regime with enthusiasm. Many were appointed to positions in the Health Ministry and German research institutes. Their ideas were gradually adopted by the majority of the German medical profession, from which Jewish and communist doctors were soon purged. During the 1930s, the Nazi Party had carried out a campaign of propaganda in favour of euthanasia. The National Socialist Racial and Political Office (NSRPA) produced leaflets, posters and short films to be shown in cinemas, pointing out to Germans the cost of maintaining asylums for the incurably ill and insane. These films included The Inheritance (Das Erbe, 1935), The Victim of the Past (Opfer der Vergangenheit, 1937), which was given a major première in Berlin and was shown in all German cinemas, and I Accuse (Ich klage an, 1941) which was based on a novel by Hellmuth Unger, a consultant for "child euthanasia".

Killing of children Main article: Child euthanasia in Nazi Germany Schönbrunn Psychiatric Hospital, 1934 (Photo by SS photographer Friedrich Franz Bauer)

In mid-1939, Hitler authorised the creation of the Reich Committee for the Scientific Registering of Serious Hereditary and Congenital Illnesses (Reichsausschuss zur wissenschaftlichen Erfassung erb- und anlagebedingter schwerer Leiden) led by his physician, Karl Brandt, administered by Herbert Linden of the Interior Ministry, leader of German Red Cross Reichsarzt SS und Polizei Ernst-Robert Grawitz and SS-Oberführer Viktor Brack. The Reich Ministry of Interior, or RMdI, was the created by the KdF because only a ministry could enforce compliance. It was the RMdI who issued the 1939 decree that got the Aktion T4 program started. Brandt and Bouhler were authorised to approve applications to kill children in relevant circumstances, though Bouhler left the details to subordinates such as Brack and SA-Oberführer Werner Blankenburg.

Extermination centres were established at six existing psychiatric hospitals: Bernburg, Brandenburg, Grafeneck, Hadamar, Hartheim, and Sonnenstein. One thousand children under the age of 17 were killed at the institutions Am Spiegelgrund and Gugging in Austria. They played a crucial role in developments leading to the Holocaust. As a related aspect of the "medical" and scientific basis of this programme, the Nazi doctors took thousands of brains from 'euthanasia' victims for research. Viktor Brack, organiser of the T4 Programme From August 1939, the Interior Ministry registered children with disabilities, requiring doctors and midwives to report all cases of newborns with severe disabilities; the 'guardian' consent element soon disappeared. Those to be killed were identified as "all children under three years of age in whom any of the following 'serious hereditary diseases' were 'suspected': idiocy and Down syndrome (especially when associated with blindness and deafness); microcephaly; hydrocephaly; malformations of all kinds, especially of limbs, head, and spinal column; and paralysis, including spastic conditions". The diagnoses of children who were killed in the Aktion T4 program were often inaccurate. Some victims had nothing worse than a learning disability; others had behavioral issues that made them stand out.

The reports were assessed by a panel of medical experts, of whom three were required to give their approval before a child could be killed.

The Ministry used deceit when dealing with parents or guardians, particularly in Catholic areas, where parents were generally uncooperative. Parents were told that their children were being sent to "Special Sections", where they would receive improved treatment. The children sent to these centres were kept for "assessment" for a few weeks and then killed by injection of toxic chemicals, typically phenol; their deaths were recorded as "pneumonia". Autopsies were usually performed and brain samples were taken to be used for "medical research". Post mortem examinations apparently helped to ease the consciences of many of those involved, giving them the feeling that there was a genuine medical purpose to the killings. The most notorious of these institutions in Austria was Am Spiegelgrund, where from 1940 to 1945, 789 children were killed by lethal injection, gas poisoning and physical abuse. Children's brains were preserved in jars of formaldehyde and stored in the basement of the clinic and in the private collection of Heinrich Gross, one of the institution's directors, until 2001.

When the Second World War began in September 1939, less rigorous standards of assessment and a quicker approval process were adopted. Older children and adolescents were included and the conditions covered came to include

... various borderline or limited impairments in children of different ages, culminating in the killing of those designated as juvenile delinquents. Jewish children could be placed in the net primarily because they were Jewish; and at one of the institutions, a special department was set up for 'minor Jewish-Aryan half-breeds'. —  More pressure was placed on parents to agree to their children being sent away. Many parents suspected what was happening and refused consent, especially when it became apparent that institutions for children with disabilities were being systematically cleared of their charges. The parents were warned that they could lose custody of all their children and if that did not suffice, the parents could be threatened with call-up for 'labour duty'. By 1941, more than 5,000 children had been killed. The last child to be killed under Aktion T4 was Richard Jenne on 29 May 1945, in the children's ward of the Kaufbeuren-Irsee state hospital in Bavaria, Germany, more than three weeks after U.S. Army troops had occupied the town. Copied from Aktion T4

My source will be Henry Friedlander’s, The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to The Final Solution, which includes an exhaustive and thoroughly researched account of Aktion T4. Not only was Friedlander a professor in Judaic studies at the City University of New York in Brooklyn, but he was also a survivor of Auschwitz. Known for his scholarly debates arguing that Jews were not the only victims of the Holocaust, Friedlander sites how the euthanasia killings were not only the model for the mass extermination to come, but they were the one instance where German nationals were the victims.

The first notable exclusion from the Aktion T4 page is any mention of the organization KdF, Kanzlei des Fuhrers, or Chancellery of the Fuhrer. This addition is essential because, as Friedlander writes, “If direction had been handed to a visible office of the Nazi Party, the Nazi Party Chancellery or the party’s Schutzstaffel, the SS, such open involvement of local party leaders and offices would have made orderly and secret implementation difficult…the KdF as an implementing office had none of these drawbacks.” (Friedlander, 40). On the Aktion T4 page, the authors only mention “the Reich Committee for the Scientific Registering of Hereditary and Congenital Illness,” which, as Friedlander notes was “a fictitious agency…that existed only on paper; its mailing address was a post office box.” (Friedlander, 44.) The KdF needs to be included in order to understand the chain of events that would eventually lead to the Holocaust. I’d also like to include another agency crucial in the process: RMdI, or Reich Ministry of Interior, which was created by the KdF because only a ministry could enforce compliance. It was the RMdI who issued the 1939 decree that got the program started.

Although the Aktion T4 page breaks down the various disabilities that were included in the decree—from idiocy to missing limbs (ironic, given Hitler’s right hand man Joseph Goebbel’s had a deformed right foot), I would like to broaden this section to show just how wide the net was cast. As Friedlander writes, “diagnosis for inclusion was often imprecise,” “inaccurate,” or sometimes “simply because they were slow learners with behavior problems.” (Friedlander, 61.) The horror for the parents of babies born with a disability during these years was that they were led to believe that the government was on their side, when, in fact, they were on the side of a master race in which their child had no place.

The method by which the children were killed is also worth including on the Aktion T4 page. Currently, the authors have written, “Pfannmuller (an old Nazi Party member) advocated killing by a gradual decrease of food, which he believed was more merciful than poison injections.” However, a more in-depth analysis reveals that starvation, “was not the method generally adopted in the killing wards for children.” (Friedlander, 54.) Medication, in fact, was the most common method and even Pfannmuller adopted it, preferring the barbiturates luminal (a sedative) and veronal (sleeping tablets), to morphine scopolamine, another commonly used means. The Aktion T4 does include the more hideous ways in which children were killed, including physical abuse.

The above changes I’ve mentioned should run somewhere around 300 words. I’d like to invite the Wiki editors to let me know if these additions are fair, reasonable and worthy of inclusion.

Respectfully,

Julian Davis — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulianDavisFilms (talk • contribs) 12:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 16 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JulianDavisFilms.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Gassing

Under Gassing the statement "(random ashes, since the victims were cremated en masse)" needs "citation needed" as citation 86 does not support this statement. Whereas in Witold's report on page 58, it states, referring to the Birkenau new crematoriums: "each crematorium had eight stands, two corpses to be put into each stand." If Birkenau's new crematoriums where a solution to create expedient cremations(with no ashes returned to loved ones)and they where cremating 2 corpses per stand. It makes the uncited claim that "random ashes, since victims were cremated en masse" dubious. Please either find a citation or remove that claim as I believe there is no citation and its a presumptive statement based on "common sense", rather than a citable fact. However a locked article with presumptive uncitable claims can be dangerous. As they can add fuel to the other side of the pendulum to add fuel to a claim of lack of credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A0C6:1200:E87D:A37F:5FCA:AE81 (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

For clarity this statement is referring to cremations occurring in "special treatment (Sonderbehandlung) centres.". Not Birkenau. In Witold's report. It states cremains of people that where cremated in concentration camps where spread in fields to be used as fertilizer. Not returned to loved ones. Which makes the original statement even more dubious. Since you first have to answer the question of which "special treatment center"? Where? before you could fact find a citation for their cremation procedures to prove the cremains returned where random.

In conclusion: Dont do that big dog. It can only help to split the camp into various states of delusion rather than help create a consensus based on fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A0C6:1200:E87D:A37F:5FCA:AE81 (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

"Killing facility"?

Killing is unambiguous but facility isn't. Keith-264 (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aktion_T4/Archive_5&oldid=1240121905"