The Evil Euthanasia Program

[Breker]

We are not discussing Mercy here sir.
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 :

Yes, we are discussing Mercy, the very mercy that the document that you posted refers to. You have nothing to prove otherwise, sir. Certainly not a "poster" which describes the high costs of maintaining the horrific suffering of the incurable. Again, so what? To allow people to languish in agony is truly cruel. Mercy killings are necessarily merciful, the agony is relieved. It's the norm in today's world, or perhaps you are not aware of legal euthanasia worldwide. Also, the German program was not a secret.
As for genetics, well blimey, who wants diseases passed though the gene pool? No one I know.
And speaking of genetics, be aware of Israeli law in determining who a Jew is.
B.

[onetruth]

Not all mentally ill or people with disabilities " suffer horribly " as you put it.They where not murdered to end their suffering , but because they did not measure up the Nazis concept of a "master race."

If you find nothing wrong with their murder than this discussion is no longer in the field of history but on the definition of morality :

mo·ral·i·ty
məˈralədē/
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

~

[Hannover]

Not all mentally ill or people with disabilities " suffer horribly " as you put it.They where not murdered to end their suffering , but because they did not measure up the Nazis concept of a "master race."

If you find nothing wrong with their murder than this discussion is no longer in the field of history but on the definition of morality :

- Please give us proof that those euthanized under German law were not suffering.

- Please give us original documents where 'the Nazis claimed they were the "master race".
Is that anything like the group which describes themselves as "The Chosen Ones"?

Too much TV for onetruth.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[Hektor]

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 here sir.

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.

[hermod]

We are not discussing Mercy here sir.

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 :

Ridiculous. The National Socialist government prevented the passage of undesirable genetic traits through compulsory sterilization, not through euthanasia. No eugenics involved in the NS euthanasia program. Your assertion is demolished by the posters you have kindly provided us with. Was eugenics advocated in those posters? No, it wasn't. Such posters depicted the disabled peole as burden to society IN TIME OF WAR. One must not forget that Aktion T4 was a wartime measure. 140,000 disabled people had died of war deprivations, so going through a slow and probably painful death, in the German asylums during WW1. Ironically, exactly half that number of disabled people - 70,000 - was put to death during the German Aktion T4 of WW2.

Of course, we are talking about mercy, onetruth. Do you know what life in the asylums of the early 20th century looked like? And it was even harder in times of war. What is mercy, real mercy? A slow & painful death through starvation in a sinister asylum? Or a lethal injection painlessly ending a life within a few minutes? We've already answered that one for our pets. None of us would let a dog die a painful and slow death if that can be avoided. But we can't afford to admit that Hitler could feel mercy and act accordingly, can we? That would probably damage Israel's founding myth and the Allies' 'Good War' myth. The disabled people were depicted as burden to society by Nazi propagandists because any German over 25 years old could remember the extreme hunger imposed on the German and Austrian peoples by the illegal Allied embargo of WW1 and the following months. Hundreds of thousands of Germans and Austrians had died of starvation at that time. The Germans of 1939 knew only too well what the words 'world war' implied for themselves and their children. They knew they couldn't afford such a burden without painful consequences for themselves and their beloved ones under such circumstances. History in a vacuum is always a gross distortion, especially when it is as politically-biased as the academic history writing of WW2 is...

[hermod]

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.

England faced the same issue and was compelled to act accordingly during WW1.

The Other War Dead: Asylum Patients during the First World War (http://beyondthetrenches.co.uk/the-othe ... world-war/)

[borjastick]

Even if there were some mercy killings or state sponsored euthanasia are you then extrapolating that into proof of gas chambers and six million dead? It's some jump to make and let's not forget that every country during war, in this case the second war, made some bad judgements and carried out some atrocities.

One need look no further than the US itself which decided to use atom bombs on Japan and killed 100,000 - 200,000 innocent civilians.

[onetruth]

Ridiculous. The National Socialist government prevented the passage of undesirable genetic traits through compulsory sterilization, not through euthanasia. No eugenics involved in the NS euthanasia program. Your assertion is demolished by the posters you have kindly provided us with. Was eugenics advocated in those posters? No, it wasn't. Such posters depicted the disabled peole as burden to society IN TIME OF WAR.

It is true that the Nazi party tried to promote this idea to the public by presenting disabled people to the public as a burden.

But this also corresponded with their ideas of social darwinism according to which strong annihilates the weak.

See parts from Nazi germany own propaganda clip - so the strong (asks the nurse ) pursue a proper racial policy ?

see here from minute 8:50



The end result of this idea was the murder of between 75,000 -200,000 mental patients and people with disabilities. Those people where informed that they where going to a better facility , many of them did not have the capacity to understand what was going to happen to them. Later their families would receive a note, telling them that their relative died from some disease in a natural way.

In short the Nazi leadership deceived thousand of families in order to murder their keens.

Yet their those here who try hard to excuse that , starter of this thread even found it appropriate to try and be cynical and call it " the Evil Euthanasia Program " as if he failed to find anything wrong or even slightly disturbing with it.

But again this is not a debate of history but of morality - i am sure out side this forum many would see it very differently and find it very disturbing indeed putting it mildly.

~

[Hannover]

Oh please, onetruth. You present a propaganda film with an English narrator as if it is fact. That's your best shot?

As for the 'survival of the fittest', that is exactly what defines evolution. Are you an evolution denier?
The points that the German actors laid out are accepted fact in the evolution school of thought. Perhaps you need to actually read Darwin.

Even note the sleight of hand by the English speaking narrator saying the Germans wanted eliminate the "weak", rather than the incurably ill & suffering. Note the use of the false strawman "killing the disabled" rather than merciful euthanasia. As if anyone with a physical impairment was somehow murdered.

FYI:
1935 - World's first euthanasia society is founded in London, England.

1938 - The Euthanasia Society of America is founded by the Rev. Charles Potter in New York

On the absurd claims about Hadamar:

- The narrator just recites propaganda, nothing which can be proven. In fact the claims about Hadamar have been utterly debunked, see link below.
- Why would they need to camouflage a gas chamber to look like a shower for people who were mentally incapable of noticing one way or the other? That's laughable.
- Why bother with carbon monoxide? Injections were simple, more efficient, and is what everyone has used & are using today. The Germans made no attempt to hide their legal program.

Hadamar is debunked here:
T4 euthanasia gassing?
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1129

onetruth marches to the drumbeat of his received history with not a single provable fact to support his claims while dodging the content of this thread.

Such is the 'holocau$t' storyline. Such is the slipping grip of the Zionist "holocaust" Industry.

This is too easy.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[onetruth]

~

Hannover

I specifically pointed out to the part of the film which was a Nazi propaganda clip , many such clips where produced in germany at the time change public opinion to the Euthanasia Program and other Nazi ideology aspect. I did not find it in a separate clip but there is no denying that those are original Propaganda clips from Germany. That by the way where introduced after the Nazis rose to power and not just in 39 when the war broke as some here claimed. That was the direction they where headed from the start.

Hannover wrote

As for the 'survival of the fittest', that is exactly what defines evolution. Are you an evolution denier?
The points that the German actors laid out are accepted fact in the evolution school of thought. Perhaps you need to actually read Darwin.

Yes , I deny that behavior of wild animals in the jungles should be the light that guides our way in this life. I deny that we should act like animals and prey on the weak and sick , i deny that being stronger gives us the right to murder those we view as not contributing to our selfish goals.

onetruth marches to the drumbeat of his received history with not a single provable fact to support his claims while dodging the content of this thread.

I am sort of testing the waters in this forum. That is why i chose this particular subject of Action T4 , Cause there seems to be no disagreement that those murders took place .

i could not care less if those murdered where by gas chambers or lethal injection , i doubt it changes anything regarding the basic facts that those people where in fact murdered and that the Nazi leadership deceived thousand of families in order to murder their keens.

I was interested to see how people here view that and what is their moral view on this subject ,when there is much less argument about the facts. Though i cant say i am happy with the results.

But be fair now , there is only one of me and many of you .. you cant expect me to answer every thing thrown my way.


~

[Hannover]

onetruth:

Right, an 'original propaganda clip' with an English voice over mouthing all sorts of falsities, as I noted. Some original.

And indeed, governments all over the world did and do produce what they consider to be public interests clips, Germany was not unique in the slightest.

No false strawmen arguments. Germany did not prey of the suffering, the incurable, and you have not produced a shred of proof that they did. You merely recite what you have received via racist Zionist anti-German propaganda.

As for your empty platitudes: ethical morals in this case are supported by the elimination of suffering via euthanasia, done worldwide. Get over it, euthanasia is highly moral. You have no proof the Germans engaged in anything outside of their stated, legal purposes.

I / we expect you to debate in good faith. If you 'believe' in something, but cannot support your reasoning, you are then hopelessly incompetent and / or irrational.

And don't give me this "there is only one of me and many of you" crap. The forum is loaded with those who tried and failed to prove the 'holocaust' storyline. It is a remarkably easy task to achieve, your silliness is but one example.
It's the Revisionists who are imprisoned, beaten, attacked in all ways, persecuted, fired from their place of employment, on & on.
Zionists Jews, always the "victim" while they engage in genocide. The bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral.

You said: "those people where in fact murdered and that the Nazi leadership deceived thousand of families in order to murder their keens"
Really? Talk is cheap. Again, give us your proof, no dodging.

So you're just "testing the waters" here?
Wrong, you've already been demolished at this forum. It's you who has been tested and have been shown to be incapable of supporting your '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' nonsense.
Here's the proof. You posted in the threads below and anyone can review them and see for themselves:

'1000 year old Viking mass graves excavated, identified, etc., but no such 'holocaust' mass graves. Why? / +Treblinka
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10137
this one:
'Did inmates of Auschwitz choose to be evacuated?'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1372
and this one:
'Holocaust HOAX is based almost entirely on TORTURE!'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8603

and the thread we're in now, you have come up empty on every occasion.
I really think you are embarrassed and simply trying to save face in some desperate & peculiar manner.

Here's what you have dodged in just this thread:
- The earlier posts in this thread which debunk your propaganda.
- Your inability to prove Hadamar gassings.
- Your inability to prove that merely "disabled' people were eliminated.
- Your inability to demonstrate that German thoughts on euthanasia were any different than what was common knowledge and in practice worldwide then & now.

Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[Atigun]

Something you seem to ignore, onetruth. T-4 was a public program that employed feasible means of euthanasia. Now let's look at Treblinka, for example. The claim that upwards of 900,000 people were killed with the exhaust from a diesel engine, buried in giant mass graves, exhumed with mechanical excavators, cremated on giant barbeque grills using essentially no fuel and reburied WASN'T possible. How do you connect the T-4 program to the alleged holyhoax?

[Hektor]

Oh please, onetruth. You present a propaganda film with an English narrator as if it is fact. That's your best shot?

As for the 'survival of the fittest', that is exactly what defines evolution. Are you an evolution denier?
The points that the German actors laid out are accepted fact in the evolution school of thought. Perhaps you need to actually read Darwin.

Even note the sleight of hand by the English speaking narrator saying the Germans wanted eliminate the "weak", rather than the incurably ill & suffering. Note the use of the false strawman "killing the disabled" rather than merciful euthanasia. As if anyone with a physical impairment was somehow murdered.

FYI:
1935 - World's first euthanasia society is founded in London, England.

1938 - The Euthanasia Society of America is founded by the Rev. Charles Potter in New York
...

It's actually the (too) unfit that die.... Or just those that got unlucky. The problem is that humans developed the capacity to keep the incurable alive, and they can keep on suffering for years. Now narcotics can keep the pain down, but only for a while. So there are limits to it as well.
The downside on the other hand is that allowing to kill the suffering, incurable sick opens itself up to all kind of abuses.
So it remains an ethical problem.

That problem is illustrated in the German movie "Ich klage an" quite well:
https://archive.org/details/IchKlageAn1941_839
Watch it, I shook my had when I found out that it is under censorship.

As illustrated not only Germans/National Socialist faced this dilemma. But apparently it's only evil, when they do it.

[neugierig]

onetruth

The end result of this idea was the murder of between 75,000 -200,000 mental patients and people with disabilities.

Where did you get these numbers from?

From one of my essays:

Just briefly to the numbers of the T4 action, and we seem to have the same “discrepancies” here as with Shoah numbers. Kogon et al claim 70,273 killed, based on some accounting sheets found.[10] The Kogon book was published in 1983, but only in the years following German unification were a number of the pertinent documents discovered in East German archives. But, the discovery raised more questions as were answered, according to Peter Sandner.[11] Sandner then tells us that for a long time it was assumed that 70,000 had been killed; this number was based on the so-called “Hartheim-Dokument”.[12] But newer research has shown that at most (allenfalls) 25,000 to 30,000 files are on hand, about a third of the total. The questions are, so Sandner: where are the rest of the files, and how did those files end up in the DDR (East Germany)?[13] Sandner then tells us that most of the Hartheim files have been destroyed; he doesn’t say how we know that. In an IfZ essay of 2003, we learn that 30,000 files have since been located, but that the rest were destroyed.[14] And even though it seems that only 30,000 deaths can be confirmed, Sandner hangs on to the 70,000 number, admitting only that the files found in East Germany must be evaluated and that this is happening now.[15]

In conclusion, the illegality of the T4 action was never established and there seem to be some other questions – i.e., the numbers. The many authors of the book under discussion are unable to make a case for mass gassings, and therefore need to try to make their case via T4: quite the admittance. Therefore there’s no need to waste time on this chapter, which offers no evidence at all for the alleged Shoah.

10. Eugen Kogon et al, Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas, S. Fischer Verlag Frankfurt am Main 1983, pp. 60-62
11. Peter Sander, Die “Euthanasie” Akten im Bundesarchiv, IfZ Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 1999, Heft 3, p.385
12. Ibid, p.386. The document stored in the National Archives, Washington, with a film-copy in the Federal Archive, Koblenz.
13. Ibid, pp.386/87
14. Peter Sandner, Schlüsseldokumente zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der NS “Euthanasie” Akten gefunden, IfZ Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 2003, Heft 2, p.285
15. Ibid. p.290

The claim is that documents have been destroyed, if so, why selectively? This action could not have been conducted in secrecy and public pressure did stop it. Morality? Strict guidelines had to be followed. Also, what about the dignity of the patient?

Regards
Wilf

[hermod]

Ridiculous. The National Socialist government prevented the passage of undesirable genetic traits through compulsory sterilization, not through euthanasia. No eugenics involved in the NS euthanasia program. Your assertion is demolished by the posters you have kindly provided us with. Was eugenics advocated in those posters? No, it wasn't. Such posters depicted the disabled peole as burden to society IN TIME OF WAR.

It is true that the Nazi party tried to promote this idea to the public by presenting disabled people to the public as a burden.

But this also corresponded with their ideas of social darwinism according to which strong annihilates the weak.

See parts from Nazi germany own propaganda clip - so the strong (asks the nurse ) pursue a proper racial policy ?

see here from minute 8:50

Sterilizing the disabled is enough to have their undesirable genes annihilated in the following generation. No need to kill them to 'pursue a proper racial policy' as Mother Nature's one.

There are 2 kinds of social Darwinism: a social Darwinism in which the strong individuals subdue the weak individuals, and a social Darwinism which is based on struggle between national or racial groups. The first kind of social Darwinism - Darwinism between individuals - prevailed in Capitalist countries like the United States and UK, where the economically-strong individuals should see their wealth and power increase while the economically-weak individuals should see their wealth and power decrease. This kind of social Darwinism was despised by the Nazis because it opposed their Socialist views. The Nazis viewed the world through the lens of the second kind of social Darwinism - Darwinism between national and racial groups. The Nazis worked to prevent the crushing and exploitation of weak Germans by strong Germans from taking place, to cancel Capitalist barbarity in Germany. They fought against class struggle. They fought for the unity of all the Germans, weathy or poor, weak or strong, and for the survival of the German people as a group in its struggle against other hostile racial and national groups.

The end result of this idea was the murder of between 75,000 -200,000 mental patients and people with disabilities. Those people where informed that they where going to a better facility , many of them did not have the capacity to understand what was going to happen to them. Later their families would receive a note, telling them that their relative died from some disease in a natural way.

In short the Nazi leadership deceived thousand of families in order to murder their keens.

What happened next vastly demonstrated how right they were to fear being prevented from doing what needed to be done at that time because of a thing as futile as childish Christian egalitarian sentimentalism.

Yet their those here who try hard to excuse that , starter of this thread even found it appropriate to try and be cynical and call it " the Evil Euthanasia Program " as if he failed to find anything wrong or even slightly disturbing with it.

But again this is not a debate of history but of morality - i am sure out side this forum many would see it very differently and find it very disturbing indeed putting it mildly.

Go out and find a priest telling you that such brainless biological blunders were in fact real humans, God's beloved children too after all. There's no moral injury that cute Christian fables can't heal...