Breker wrote:And so what, sir? No one denies that Germany had a euthanasia program, as do countries today. And true enough; maintaining the incurable in horrific painful and vegetative states is costly and for no gain to patient and family. Again, so what? It's called 'mercy killing' for a reason. Please note the use of "mercy death" in your document.
We are not discussing Mercy
We are discussing murder. The systematic murder of German citizens with disability , believing them to be an inferior group that would pass along undesirable genetic traits.
Poster published in Nazi germany showing disabled people as burden to society :
Thanks for your efforts, OneTruth. But your postings here are a good example how lies may arise from facts, all it takes is a well that is already poisoned (in this case your mind).
Interestingly even Breker caved in a bit on this one.
So what are the facts in the spot light?
* There was an Euthanasia decree signed by Hitler.
* !Some! medical doctors got their authority as medical professionals extended to end the lifes of uncurably sick people.
* Those doctors then screened chronically sick patients at various medical institutions in Germany.
There are some additives/alterations and omissions to that contexts.
The additives/alterations are usually:
* That this was part of some Eugenics effort.
* That this was ordered by Hitler to become a program to exterminate the disabled.
* That Hitler ordered this, because he was a cruel and heartless dictator who wanted to create an Aryan Master Race.
There are several common omissions:
* That with the beginning of WW2 Germany indeed faced a danger of resource shortages in terms of medical supplies, human labor units, housing, food, etc. That's by the way based on their experience during WW1, when many of the doctors may have started their careers.
* That seriously disabled people with incurable chronic diseases ARE indeed a major burden in terms of resources. So there was reason for concern that resources used up on too many seriously disabled people, would be missing for instance in the care of war wounded, civilian casualties, prisoners of war etc.
* That cases of suffering incurable ill patients were brought to Hitler's attention in the period before the decree from relatives requesting euthanasia.
* Those lobbying for Euthanasia were just a small faction among National Socialists, hell some of them may even not have been party members.
* Euthanasia (and Eugenics) do have (and had) many advocates in other Western countries, but also in other cultural circles.
* Not ommitted as such, but rarely seen into context is that protests lead to retraction of the decree.
With some emotional spin-doctoring the whole thing then appears as something awfully cruel in the eyes of modern day, well fed, consumerist Westerners. But the outrage is more then hypocritical. Because there are millions of perfectly healthy babies butchered in their mothers wombs before birth in the Western Nations. And it's pretty well off people doing this. I recall cases from the Netherlands were patients got injections to end their suffering (Euthanasia rational). And I think one could go on, one just needs to dig harder on this. There is protests against this as well, but guess what: The democratic leaders couldn't care less about this.
Now ONETRUTH, what's your take on this, do you also cry murder on this one?
Oh yes, while some disabilities are indeed passed on genetically, conflating Euthanasia with Eugenics is either stupid or dishonest. Strongly disabled people usually do not have children and alternatively one just could sterilize them, which wasn't only done in Germany. So that cake doesn't stick. I guess the obfuscation stems from the fact that both words start with an Eu-.
Btw. It's wrong (and dishonest) to call the Hitler decree you cited an ORDER (to kill ill people). It is not. All it does it's extending the rights of specific doctors who then may make life or death decisions. It's a bit like giving judges the right to pass on death sentences. But the motivations are quite different, since the later motivation may be characterized as revenge or retaliation. You see, there is a difference between eisegesis (what you and lots of the court historians do) and proper exegesis of a text, like I have just done. And proper exegesis is an obligatory prerequisite for passing on proper judgement, don't you think.
And the proper term is National Socialist, not "Nazi" Germany.