Talk:Aktion T4

Fritz Cropp

The entry for Fritz Cropp (under Aktion_T4#Other_perpetrators) seems incongrous with the other entries, which deal specifically with the punishment and fate of the perps, whereas Cropp's reads more like a general biography.

I would suggest something along the following lines (ref de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Cropp):

Fritz Cropp responsible for patient transfers (as the superior of Herbert Linden), interned in Neuengamme, deemed “politically unacceptable” by the state denazification committee in Oldenburg, banned from involvement in politics, died in 1984. 81.105.46.48 (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2023 (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)

"Murder" or "Killing"?

I reverted an uncited mass change of "killing" to "murder" and similar words following a similar mass change at Hartheim Euthanasia Centre. Editors here may be interested in the reasoning and the discussion at The verb "murder". Bermicourt (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Killing is descriptive, murder is a legal and moral label to some killings. Notice that some of the editors here accept the term "involuntary euthanasia" too. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Keith-264, murder is indeed the legal term under which the allied and German governments prosecuted these unlawful killings following the war. On the Hartheim page linked above, I outlined a number of legal cases regarding Hartheim, where personnel from T4 were convicted of murder and crimes against humanity. I have added a link to the Euthanasia Trials to the lead, mentioning the post-war trials and convictions. A few perpetrators' cases are a bit trickier, becase some T4 personnel went on to run Nazi extermination camps; a handful were sentenced to death solely for those actions without being tried for their earlier participation in T4, but there were murder convictions for T4 alone.-Ich (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Quite agree. Keith-264 (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

From a descriptive and grammar point of view, depends on the context, sometimes killing is more appropriate to be used, other times murder. It’s not a one size fits all. Kierzek (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Point is that you have to take in account the legal status at the time of the offences (legal and therefore killings) and the later opinion of the Allies who were - rightfully so - appalled by these offences and so designated them murders. The Banner talk 18:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, this leads to two points worth discussing. (These lean on my reading of the German T4 article.)

1. The German Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that the Nazi dictatorship was an Unrechtsstaat (the enwiki page uses Verbrecherstaat as well, but this is not on dewiki), in which the state pursued criminal and fundamentally unjust ends. The argument that follows is: if an Unrechtsstaat government 'legalizes' murder, this is so fundamentally anathema to the rule of law that this 'legalization' should be considered void ab initio. This mirrors the Nuremberg principle of carrying out illegal orders.
2. Even under the dubious legal framework established by Nazi Germany, it is not settled that these murders were 'legalized'. The legal basis for the program did not involve a change to the Reichsstrafgesetzbuch (un-criminalizing decidedly criminal acts), nor a directive from Hitler published in the Reichsgesetzblatt. It was a private letter from Hitler, not on official letterhead, authorizing Bouhler and Brandt to empower doctors to give "merciful deaths" to the "incurably sick" (quoted in the T4 article). There are some German jurists who deem the letter legally binding, in spite of the considerable irregularities compared to other lawmaking in Nazi Germany. (German T4 wiki cites Ernst Klee: „Euthanasie“ im dritten Reich – Die „Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens“. 2nd Edition, 2010. pp. 115 fig. 4–8.) However, because the chancellery did not want this to be public, it was administered through a secretive, quasi-official body, funded by Franz Xaver Schwarz, the national treasurer of the Nazi Party.

Both of these discussions are largely academic in nature, given the post-war prosecutions by both the allied and German governments. I don't personally find the "these legally weren't murders" case very convincing on either of the above points, but we could incorporate a translation of the appropriate section of the German T4 article and look for some English-language sources.-Ich (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I was writing in a general sense for discussion. And ofcourse, one has to take into account the legal finding/determination, but that is not the only indicator to go by. Secondary reliable sources by, especially English language historians, needs to be reviewed. I don’t have time at the moment to look into it. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

"Killing facility"?

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

"Mass murder" vs. "Genocide"

Wikipedia defines genocide as "the intentional killing of a people in whole or in part." It would be inaccurate and inappropriate to refer to the Holocaust as the "mass murder of Jewish people", because that obscures the intent not just to harm, but to intentionally eradicate, a particular group of people on the basis of some shared characteristic or culture-- hence why the page on the Holocaust accurately describes it as "the genocide of European Jews during WWII."

Multiple academics have explored disabled people as a group targeted by genocide and several have explicitly looked at Aktion T4 in this way (link 1) (link 2) (link 3). If people with disabilities were explicitly mentioned under the Genocide Convention, Aktion T4 would be unequivocally considered an act of genocide. Therefore, the mention or lack thereof of a particular people in a diplomatic document-- rather than the type and intent of acts visited upon those people-- is serving as the deciding factor on how we label their mass murder. It would probably be too contentious to replace all uses of 'mass murder' in this document with 'genocide,' but I feel the discourse around this subject at least merits mention in the article. Rhi43 (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki is not a source and original research is not valid. The term genocide has been cheapened by politicisation, ideological bias and has become a cliche. Far better to use dispassionate and descriptive words from reliable sources. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

involuntary euthanasia or mass murder

One editor is changing the term "involuntary euthanasia" to mass murder. The effect of the involuntary euthanasia may have a lot of deaths, the Germans called it euphemistic euthanasia. I don't think it is correct to call it bluntly mass murder. There are enough sources to back up "involuntary euthanasia". The Banner talk 23:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Does the article sufficiently convey that it was the German mass murderers who coined the term? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

In the early stages - killing of the handicapped - the use of the term was consistent with contemporay views in regard to euthanasia and eugenics. It was horrible, and by any reasonable standards completely wrong, but once you give the state the ability to determine what is a life worth living you can reach some awful conclusions. The fact that it was used in this way ended up greatly influencing the post-war euthanasia debate. I agree that it was a euphanism, but not at the start. - Bilby (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

How influential were contemporary views on euthanasia? I doubt that Catholics took much notice (apart from a few individuals) and working-class institutions must have been quick to see the implications. Did the perpetrators use the term or has it been projected onto them by RS? Keith-264 (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, "...once you give the state the ability to determine what is a life worth living you can reach some awful conclusions.". I couldn't agree more, the nazi regime was a pioneer in this respect, it's a rare industrial state that hasn't emulated them. Keith-264 (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)