Is this image real or propaganda?
Did the Nazis really just kill people who they thought cost money or didnt serve direct purpose during Aktion T4?
>These films includedThe 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, andI Accuse(Ich klage an, 1941) which was based on a novel by Hellmuth Unger, a consultant for "child euthanasia".[53]
Has anyone watched these?
Those were individuals with severe and hopeless inflictions that lived miserable lives in asylums. Hitler's euthanasia order authorized "mercy-killing" in such cases. It may offend some Christians who believe even the braindead should be kept alive by artificial means as long as possible but ask yourself, would you want to prolong your existence indefinitely if you had to live like that with no hope of recovery, knowing at the same time that you would be a burden on your family and your community?
>no hope of recovery
Seemed like their definitions were pretty lose
>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':idiocyandDown syndrome(especially when associated with blindness and deafness);microcephaly;hydrocephaly; malformations of all kinds, especially of limbs, head, and spinal column; and paralysis, includingspasticconditions".[61]
>Children's brains were preserved in jars of formaldehyde and stored in the basement of the clinic and in the private collection ofHeinrich Gross, one of >the institution's directors, until 2001.[59]
>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.
>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'.[66]By 1941, more than 5,000 children had been killed.[45][j]The last child to be killed underAktion T4was Richard Jenne on 29 May 1945, in the children's ward of theKaufbeuren-Irseestate hospital inBavaria, Germany, more than three weeks after U.S. Army >troops had occupied the town.[67][68]
Considering the numbers sounds like way more than just the super severe were killed
>He described how the inmates of various asylums were removed and transported by bus to Hartheim. Some were in no mental state to know what was happening to them, but many were perfectly sane, and for them various forms of deception were used. They were told they were at a special clinic where they would receive improved treatment, and were given a brief medical examination on arrival.
I just don't see the point in keeping alive, often at great cost, the permanently and severely retarded, malformed etc. That's no way to live, it sounds like a nightmare for everyone involved. In ancient times they would have been put out into the woods instead, an injection is more humane.
In non ancient times you can afford to be more humane. The super severely ill is one thing but lying to their families and killing even for seemingly what isnt as huge of a deal is not right.
Would Goebbels had been killed as an infant because of his leg?
I don't agree that letting them live is necessarily more humane. That's a bit like saying life in a tiny prison cell is more humane than a quick execution. It depends on the circumstances. Certainly being a drooling retard in an asylum is not what life should be about and there is nothing noble in prolonging the existence of such a person just for the sake of keeping them breathing
>lying to their families and killing even for seemingly what isnt as huge of a deal is not right.
Of course, to the extent that happened I am also opposed to it. Personally I think the T4 program had good intentions but was poorly implemented.
euthanasia was progressive thinking for the time
imagine all the money spent on them to keep them alive, with no return on it, probably a dumb waste of money that people virtue signal about while wiping said persons buttocks
they lethally injected them sure, but other who got carbon monoxide poisening probably wouldn't have felt anything besides sleepyness
afterwards they told their families they died of pneumonia and sent the ashes to them
its easy to feel bad about people when you're the one who doesn't take care of them
Naturally it depends on the condition. Youre speaking as if they were all functionless vegetables.
I agree that , especially with consent, euthanasia is fine.
Life and people is more than money. Reducing people to monetary figures is the most jewish thing imaginable and entirely subhuman.
As to your last line thats rich considering many families pulled them out to take care of them best they could once they found out what was happening, and lying to the families is scummy.
Also some got starved to death because they erroneously apparently thought it was more painless than poison.
This is a more slippery slope than you realise. It's getting to the point that the LGBT community dehumanises straight, white males so much that they might campaign for the euthanasia of everyone they think are born "evil". If true healing can't occur, it may have to be one or the other.
Are you saying what I'm saying is slippery or the Nazis?
Well, if i'm being honest, probably both. Killing undesirables is always a grey area with contradictions in philosophy. Don't forget that the LGBT community openly calls for all white people to be killed, and the leftist social media sites allow them to do so.
I mean I agree that killing "undesirables" is a slippery slope. I would rather have consent from the parents if the person is incapable or guardian whatever at the very least.
I do think the christian ideal of thinking someone always has to choose life and death is always bad of dishonorable is incorrect.
what difference does it make if they're alive or dead?
their families abandoned them and they did not work nor have the capacity too
cull the herd
No. Their families didnt always abandon them read the posts. Many times their families were blatantly lied to.
Euthanasia of the mentally and physically disabled is a good thing. I support this. Especially for retards and potato children.
Obviously if you end up without a limb or blind or whatever due to an accident this doesn't count, that's just life being shitty for you and society should help you. But those who are born deformed and/or mentally deficient should be killed. It's basic hygiene.
Yep. I wouldn't want a down syndrome child. I think you're right. Most parents don't. The big thing about taking care of severely disabled people is they actually don't have parents or guardians. This means the state has become their parents. Government should never be about the sick and frail. It should only be about allowing people to develop. This means those people in that category of no family should probably be euthanased.
Yes I think its a better argument if they have no family.
Hopefully in the near future these things become moot and we eliminate such deformities and defects with genetic engineering and the like.
and lots of adults (in certain demographics) would be better for society if they were sterilized!
Thats another issue their sterilization program was even more vast, I think it is much better if you give those people options to move or something other than sterilizing
>In non ancient times you can afford to be more humane
As the guy you're replying to JUST stated:
>an injection is more humane
Your argument is completely nonsensical. We CAN afford to be more humane in modern times, and they WERE being more humane in modern times by using injections instead of exposure.
Leaving those people alive is not humane by any definition. It's heinous. Can you imagine being trapped in a body or brain that was severely dysfunctional while being smart enough to understand that you will NEVER fit in or live a fulfilled life, or that even if you did manage to reproduce you'd likely only be damning some other soul to a life of similar torment? Euthanasia is compassionate and humane, as anyone who has truly suffered in this world can tell you.
I completely agree. And that's something white nations will have to talk about openly. For me: anyone schizo, coal burner or nasty women, etc.
I meant you can afford to take care of people who wouldnt make it was well in ancient times, just like you can treat cancer to an extent today.
i'm schizo-ish but I would never tell anyone in the first place, that'd be like giving myself a chemical lobotomy, which they practiced during that time period in britain and the u.s.
Yeah I'd rather be killed than lobotomized
Absolutely true, but you've AGAIN completely misunderstood the point being made. So, AGAIN, while the modern world can afford to take care of these people, prolonging their lives is NOT mercy. It is not humane. You are not a good person for wanting that, despite how desperately you need to show the world that you are. You're a deranged asshole who wants to force suffering souls to remain trapped in a dysfunctional body.
There are NO good life outcomes for people with certain conditions. Forcing souls to remain trapped in bodies with those conditions is evil, particularly when your soul motivation is self-aggrandization and you have no concern at all for the experiences of those people.
yeah i think they killed like 240k people in a country of 30 million but if something like that was just being practiced for the first time, i'd imagine because of alcohol,drugs and tobbacco there'd be a crap ton of disabled people
Thats just your opinion as a person who isnt in that case without mental or other issues. In many cased I'd agree with you, in the case of total vegetables for instance, but not always.
Again, look into how this policy was actually applied from everything we know. It wasnt some rare thing under specific circumstances, it had more victims than it probably should have.
well i mean the gays and schizophrenics obviously could work but they didn't want them in society, the man who coined the term autism came up with a fake category aspergers to prevent some of the higher functioning ones from being gassed
if they attempted it today there'd be millions of people thanks to phoney diseases like depression, bipolar
Why did you bring up gays. Literally nowhere did I see any mention of gays at all.
You have no idea what conditions I do or do not have, or have or haven't seen in person. How could you make such a statement then? You're fundamentally dishonest.
I never said this should be applied to 'all cases', which of course would be everyone. It should be applied in severe cases where there is no hope of leading a satisfying and independent life.
I mean if you had conditions that warranted death and you're defending them id just question why you're still here then. Makes no sense if you have those conditions.
No one is disagreeing that in severe cases euthanasia shouldn't be an option.
No, it is a moral obligation for the retarded, mongrelised and hereditarily unfit to be euthanised or at least sterillised. Anyone who wants to sustain the existance of such horrific abominations is a dysgenic sociopath themselves and should be killed with them.
How retarded? How mongrelized? How unfit?
Nazis had social welfare for blind, deaf, dumb and old should that just be regarded as a lie or what?