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.
Is there any written proof that National Socialist deduced policies directly from Darwin or social Darwinism? What I perceive is that they pretty much based it on self-assertion and common sense, which actually got a tradition far older then Charles Darwin.
hermod wrote:....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.
I suspect some reverse reasoning there. Now suddenly any notification of an intensive care person being dead, becomes proof of being a "casualty of an evil Nazi euthanasia program".
hermod wrote:....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...
Perhaps the priest should consult the bible a bit, i.e.:
Deu 28:18 Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.
incurable, feeble offspring is considered a "curse" there. And there is much more about this to be read, one just has to search. Oh, did you know that there are instructions for Eugenics in the bible? Yes, people are to be selective with whom they should produce offspring.
That's of course not taught in most churches nowadays, As Hermod pointed out, they went with Egalitarianism, since that became such a big ideology. And through the pink glasses of egalitarianism (or human rights) 20th century history is viewed as well, especially the National Socialists.Gen 24 Abraham was now a very old man, and the Lord had blessed him in every way. 2 One day Abraham said to his oldest servant, the man in charge of his household, “Take an oath by putting your hand under my thigh. 3 Swear by the Lord, the God of heaven and earth, that you will not allow my son to marry one of these local Canaanite women. 4 Go instead to my homeland, to my relatives, and find a wife there for my son Isaac.”
I think there is one essential fallacy in the debate about those matters. That's the moralistic fallacy. People already have a verdict and then they arrange the "facts" around this. Meanwhile it needs to be the other way around: First establish all the facts objectively, only then apply some judgement. I already pointed out that those courageous fighters against Hitler's ghost (Didn't he die 70 years ago?), do actually omit important facts, add unproven claims, and reinterpret statements and documents. Failed facts, failed judgement. And the later can also be seen in the funny, multiple standard ethics they do apply. "Nazis"/"Hitler" are measured against some idealistic, unrealistic, heavenly high standard of ethics, while the rest of Mankind is treated with far more leniency. It's as if they view Hitler and the NSDAP as a very special kind of person or organisation respectively. But that's just my impression.