Why the Jews and the gas chambers?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Mercy-Killings...

#31

Post by Scott Smith » 04 May 2002, 21:23

MaPen wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:

Well, the Churches are against euthanasia, including mercy-killing. I just want to know how you know that all of these people don't want to die... Dr. Kevorkian is in prison now and probably none of his patients/clients wanted to die, but under the circumstances all of them did.
:)
Kevorkian helped 33 people to die. He wasn't choosing his victims but he rather assisted those people to die. He didn't choose them but they approached him and asked him to help them die. That makes it rather voluntary, I guess. Kevorkian's patients weren't killed. They made suicide.

On the other hand the Nazi doctors didn't ask their "patients" if they want to die. And that makes it mass murder.
I don't think so necessarily. It may have been more HUMANE than wasting-away in an institution, which will only delay the inevitable, and by spending as few resources as possible in either case.

And why should heroics be allocated in medicine anyway? In the Democracy-Capitalist USA a fair portion of productive workers don't even have any healthcare at all. Nobody ever wants their own taxes to go up yet they demand to be taken care of when they get sick. Lower labor costs keep financial markets buoyed, which is supposed to be better for the competitiveness of the country, yet how much unseen suffering does this cause?
In all the books I read so far about this topic there is not even one prove that Nazi euthanasia programme was voluntary. Looks like you have different sources. Could you point them out?
I'm not saying the nazi euthanasia wasn't forced, which I am against.

My question is how Medo can be sure that none of it was unwanted.

Just because the Churches are opposed to euthanasia (voluntary or not) does not necessarily make it bad; they don't speak for me. Kevorkian was trying to force a debate on this issue, which nobody wants to talk about, and which the Churches bitterly oppose as much as abortion--with proponents of the later being better organized, however.
:)

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#32

Post by Roberto » 04 May 2002, 21:46

My question is how Medo can be sure that none of it was unwanted.
It may incidentally have been desired by the victims in some cases. But those were the exceptions:
Bei den meisten der in diesen Gruppen Angeführten handelte es sich keineswegs um Todkranke. Sie litten "keine Schmerzen, waren weit überwiegend nicht sterbenskrank und wünschten auch nicht den Tod."
Kogon/Langbein/Rückerl et al, Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas, page 37; quote reference is the Frankfurt County Court's judgment of 6.6.1972, GStA Franfurt/M. AZ: Ks 1/66.

My translation:
Most of those mentioned in these groups were by no means dead sick. They suffered "no pain, were in their majority not dead sick and didn't wish to die either."


User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

#33

Post by Scott Smith » 04 May 2002, 23:43

medorjurgen wrote:
Scott wrote:My question is how Medo can be sure that none of it was unwanted.

Most of those mentioned in these groups were by no means dead sick. They suffered "no pain, were in their majority not dead sick and didn't wish to die either." (Kogon)
I don't see how Comrade Kogon can know this without examining each case in detail. Nevermind.
8O

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:06
Location: California

#34

Post by Dan » 05 May 2002, 00:30

Benoit, Le Pen said that the gas chambers were a detail, not the whole holocaust. By changing his words, journalist are lying, because the amount of victims increases by several million.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

#35

Post by michael mills » 05 May 2002, 06:25

I will refrain from posting the sharp reply I had just prepared to yet another hint at my supposed need to "expunge" a "past flirtation with National Socialism" and further nonsense that, very frankly, I consider to be far below the intellectual level of Michael Mills.
The sole reason why I harp on the few details of his past that Mr Muehlenkamp has revealed to us is that I am puzzled by the aggressiveness with which he flings the accusation of anti-Semitism at some contributors to the forum who question certain aspects of the establishment history, even if only marginally, in particular those who question the concept of all Jews as purely passive victims and posit an active role by some Jews, eg various leaders or activists, in creating the chain of events that culminated in the destruction of a large part of European Jewry.

(I do acknowledge that Mr Muehlenkamp has retracted some of his overhasty judgements).

I find Mr Muehlenkamp's aggressiveness puzzling, in that he himself has accepted certain analyses, such as those put forward by the historian Christian Gerlach, which deviate to some extent from the establishment history (which essentially sees the mass-killing of Jews as an irrational act driven solely by a murderous, insane ideology), and which posit a certain brutal and inhumane rationality to the killing of millions, not only Jews.

I also think that Gerlach's general approach to the motivations for German exterminatory policies in the Occupied Eastern Territories is essentially correct. However, I believe that Gerlach has exaggerated the significance of whatever it was Hitler said to his assembled Gauleiters in early December 1941, an assessment that has also been made by a number of historians.

With regard to Sanning's book, I actually thought that his chapter on Poland was one of the better ones, and one containing few outright distortions. I was actually puzzled why Professor Zimmerman spent so much effort criticising it, when the real distortions lie elsewhere in the book.

Sanning's figure for the number of Jews in Poland in 1939, 2.7 million, is only 600,000 less than the POlish Government's official estimate of 3.3 million. If Sanning is correct, it would mean that the total number of Polish Jews killed was some 600,000 less than has been estimated (since they were not there to kill), and the total death-roll would need to be adjusted downward by that number, ie from 6 million to 5.4 million.

It should be noted that Hilberg, who most certainly accepts the 3.3 million estimate of the size of Polish Jewry in 1939, estimated the total Jewish death-roll at 5.1 million. If 0.6 million is deducted from that figure, it is reduced to 4.5 million, or very close to Reitlinger's higher estimate of 4.6 million.

Accordingly, Sanning's estimate of the size of pre-war Polish Jewry is not really a dishonest manipulation. Such manipulations occur later in the book, where Sanning's purpose is to reduce the number of Jews who died as a result of German activity to an insignificant level.

Sanning's thesis is presented in summary in Table 21 on page 199 of his book, in which he claims that the total decline in Jewish World Population between 1941 and 1945 was 1.237 million, of which he claims 1.030 million died in the Red Army and in Siberian labour and concentration camps, and the remaining 0.207 million are statistically unaccounted for. In other words, he is saying that whatever Jews died in the Second World War were primarily victims of the Communists, an absurd suggestion that is reached by a patently obvious manipulation of the statistical data.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

#36

Post by michael mills » 05 May 2002, 06:40

The communists shot and buried thousands of Polish military officers at Katyn. The graves were opened and inspected by the germans. Later on (1990?) the russians acknowledged the deed.

This horrible action makes military sense. The military leaders of an occupied country are obvious and dangerous enemies to an occupying power.
There is some support for the above view.

In February 1940, the French Government proposed to land the Polish refugee army that had formed on French soil under the command of the Polish Government-in-Exile, in the Murmansk region, in order to help the Finns then at war with the Soviet Union.

France was until May 1940 a strong proponent of military action against the Soviet Union, which it saw as an ally of Germany in the war, and hence an enemy of the Allies. One of the actions it proposed was an aerial attack on the Baku airfields mounted from Syria.

Britain by contrast, always opposed France on that point, and rejected any attack on the Soviet Union. It saw that country as a potential ally, that could be won away from its position of neutrality favouring Germany. When Soviet forces entered Eastern Poland on 17 September 1939, France wanted to have that action declared an invasion comparable to that mounted by Germany, and to declare war on the Soviet Union. Britain however refused to classify the entry of the Soviet forces as aggression.

Although the landing of the Polish Army in the north of the Soviet Union advocated by France never took place, it seems to have been the trigger for the Soviet decision to liquidate the Polish officers taken prisoner by them, an action carried out in April 1940. However, after the initial executions, including that at Katyn, the Soviet Government appears to have changed its mind (perhaps because it became obvious that Britain would not permit an attack on the Soviet Union), and the killings stopped. The great majority of the Polish soldiers held in Soviet camps survived to be released in 1941 and absorbed into the Anders Army which formed on Soviet soil and later was sent to the Middle East.

MaPen
Member
Posts: 219
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 19:40
Location: Europe

Re: Mercy-Killings...

#37

Post by MaPen » 05 May 2002, 08:49

Scott Smith wrote:
MaPen wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:

Well, the Churches are against euthanasia, including mercy-killing. I just want to know how you know that all of these people don't want to die... Dr. Kevorkian is in prison now and probably none of his patients/clients wanted to die, but under the circumstances all of them did.
:)
Kevorkian helped 33 people to die. He wasn't choosing his victims but he rather assisted those people to die. He didn't choose them but they approached him and asked him to help them die. That makes it rather voluntary, I guess. Kevorkian's patients weren't killed. They made suicide.

On the other hand the Nazi doctors didn't ask their "patients" if they want to die. And that makes it mass murder.
I don't think so necessarily. It may have been more HUMANE than wasting-away in an institution, which will only delay the inevitable, and by spending as few resources as possible in either case.
Sure. As long as you are not one of them, right? 8O

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Mercy-Killings...

#38

Post by Scott Smith » 05 May 2002, 09:54

MaPen wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
MaPen wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:

Well, the Churches are against euthanasia, including mercy-killing. I just want to know how you know that all of these people don't want to die... Dr. Kevorkian is in prison now and probably none of his patients/clients wanted to die, but under the circumstances all of them did.
:)
Kevorkian helped 33 people to die. He wasn't choosing his victims but he rather assisted those people to die. He didn't choose them but they approached him and asked him to help them die. That makes it rather voluntary, I guess. Kevorkian's patients weren't killed. They made suicide.

On the other hand the Nazi doctors didn't ask their "patients" if they want to die. And that makes it mass murder.
I don't think so necessarily. It may have been more HUMANE than wasting-away in an institution, which will only delay the inevitable, and by spending as few resources as possible in either case.
Sure. As long as you are not one of them, right? 8O
No, quite the reverse. Why should someone suffer in an institution when life is not worth living? Just food for thought.
:)

MaPen
Member
Posts: 219
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 19:40
Location: Europe

Re: Mercy-Killings...

#39

Post by MaPen » 05 May 2002, 10:09

Scott Smith wrote:
MaPen wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
MaPen wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:

Well, the Churches are against euthanasia, including mercy-killing. I just want to know how you know that all of these people don't want to die... Dr. Kevorkian is in prison now and probably none of his patients/clients wanted to die, but under the circumstances all of them did.
:)
Kevorkian helped 33 people to die. He wasn't choosing his victims but he rather assisted those people to die. He didn't choose them but they approached him and asked him to help them die. That makes it rather voluntary, I guess. Kevorkian's patients weren't killed. They made suicide.

On the other hand the Nazi doctors didn't ask their "patients" if they want to die. And that makes it mass murder.
I don't think so necessarily. It may have been more HUMANE than wasting-away in an institution, which will only delay the inevitable, and by spending as few resources as possible in either case.
Sure. As long as you are not one of them, right? 8O
No, quite the reverse. Why should someone suffer in an institution when life is not worth living? Just food for thought.
:)
But do you really think that the state has the authority to decide who's life is worth living and who's not. I can't believe that you honestly think so. What if some "supreme" authority decided that the life you're living is not worth it? Would you apply those rules to yourself? :)

And what does "which will only delay the inevitable" mean? In the end we will all die. Does this mean that life is not worth living?

regards

Erik
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 03 May 2002, 17:49
Location: Sweden

#40

Post by Erik » 05 May 2002, 11:47

Guess who said this?
Scepticism is as much the result of knowledge, as knowledge is of
scepticism. To be content with what we at present know, is, for the
most part, to shut our ears against conviction; since, from the very
gradual character of our education, we must continually forget, and
emancipate ourselves from, knowledge previously acquired; we must set
aside old notions and embrace fresh ones; and, as we learn, we must
be daily unlearning something which it has cost us no small labour
and anxiety to acquire.

And this difficulty attaches itself more closely to an age in which
progress has gained a strong ascendency over prejudice, and in which
persons and things are, day by day, finding their real level, in lieu
of their conventional value. The same principles which have swept
away traditional abuses, and which are making rapid havoc among the
revenues of sinecurists, and stripping the thin, tawdry veil from
attractive superstitions, are working as actively in literature as in
society. The credulity of one writer, or the partiality of another,
finds as powerful a touchstone and as wholesome a chastisement in the
healthy scepticism of a temperate class of antagonists, as the dreams
of conservatism, or the impostures of pluralist sinecures in the
Church. History and tradition, whether of ancient or comparatively
recent times, are subjected to very different handling from that
which the indulgence or credulity of former ages could allow. Mere
statements are jealously watched, and the motives of the writer form
as important an ingredient in the analysis or his history, as the
facts he records. Probability is a powerful and troublesome test; and
it is by this troublesome standard that a large portion of historical
evidence is sifted. Consistency is no less pertinacious and exacting
in its demands. In brief, to write a history, we must know more than
mere facts. Human nature, viewed under an introduction of extended
experience, is the best help to the criticism of human history.
Historical characters can only be estimated by the standard which
human experience, whether actual or traditionary, has furnished. To
form correct views of individuals we must regard them as forming
parts of a great whole--we must measure them by their relation to the
mass of beings by whom they are surrounded; and, in contemplating the
incidents in their lives or condition which tradition has handed down
to us, we must rather consider the general bearing of the whole
narrative, than the respective probability of its details.
A POPE!!!

Here is the link:

ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gu ... ssy10b.txt

Erik
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 03 May 2002, 17:49
Location: Sweden

Correction

#41

Post by Erik » 05 May 2002, 11:55

PS!

There should have been question marks after "pope", of course.

Pope didn't write this introduction.

THEODORE ALOIS BUCKLEY, Christ Church, did. He was no pope.

But the wisdom applies here, just the same, doesn't it?

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Mercy-Killings...

#42

Post by Scott Smith » 05 May 2002, 12:38

MaPen wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
MaPen wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
MaPen wrote: Kevorkian helped 33 people to die. He wasn't choosing his victims but he rather assisted those people to die. He didn't choose them but they approached him and asked him to help them die. That makes it rather voluntary, I guess. Kevorkian's patients weren't killed. They made suicide.

On the other hand the Nazi doctors didn't ask their "patients" if they want to die. And that makes it mass murder.
I don't think so necessarily. It may have been more HUMANE than wasting-away in an institution, which will only delay the inevitable, and by spending as few resources as possible in either case.
Sure. As long as you are not one of them, right? 8O
No, quite the reverse. Why should someone suffer in an institution when life is not worth living? Just food for thought.
:)
But do you really think that the state has the authority to decide who's life is worth living and who's not. I can't believe that you honestly think so. What if some "supreme" authority decided that the life you're living is not worth it? Would you apply those rules to yourself? :)
I said that I was NOT in favor of forced-euthanasia. But I think we are kidding ourselves that we have as much individualism as we think we do. Laws are made that regulate every aspect of our lives from cradle to grave and our influence is minimal to negligible. Justice and medicine are largely outcomes based on the thickness of our wallets.

I'm afraid those rules would apply to myself. What choice would I have? Life sometimes deals bad cards.

What I would resent infinitely more than the State telling me what to do is the Churches doing the same. The former are based on propertied interests and other social factors which I can logically influence somewhat, even if only by voting. The later are based on Belief and Groupthink, what everyone "knows" about the nature of God, sin, morality, existence, the cosmos, and so on. These are irrational factors which purport to be real but are ultimately things that we cannot universally know. That is a dangerous combination: Ignorance AND Dogmatism.
MaPen wrote:And what does "which will only delay the inevitable" mean? In the end we will all die. Does this mean that life is not worth living?
That is a subjective thing that individuals and families need to decide, with the help of medical and other experts within legal framework to reduce the possibility of fraud and abuse. I would say lifelong institutionalization is a good candidacy for that category.

But the Churches have their own ideas. At one point this kind of superstition meant that in medicine you could not turn off a respirator, even if the patient would never recover but might take years as a vegetable to die. It took endless litigation to address this concern, and in the end it boiled down to the economics of long-term intensive care.

No, the doctors could not "play God." The Hippocratic Oath became the Hypocritical Oath. Apparently at some time it was suddenly okay for them to "Play God" when the first physician learned how to thwart God's Will by setting a broken bone, and thus progress commenced its shaky but stalwart advance.

It is unfortunate that the Nazi doctors had to do things in secret. That was not the proper approach. But the power of the Churches could not be addressed at that time.

Dr. Kevorkian's approach was wrong, too. Nobody cares if one guy is in prison. And it may be that the tough issues are beyond discourse anyway. Thus, we let others make decisions for us. My government and my Pope always know what is best for me.
:wink:

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#43

Post by Roberto » 05 May 2002, 18:57

Scott Smith wrote:
medorjurgen wrote:
Scott wrote:My question is how Medo can be sure that none of it was unwanted.

Most of those mentioned in these groups were by no means dead sick. They suffered "no pain, were in their majority not dead sick and didn't wish to die either." (Kogon)
I don't see how Comrade Kogon can know this without examining each case in detail. Nevermind.
8O
Idiocy never dies. Poor Reverend.

The source referred to by the author of the euthanasia chapter (Willi Dressen, public prosecutor at the Zentrale Stelle der Landesjustizverwaltungen für die Aufklärung nationalsozialistischer Verbrechen in Ludwigsburg, Germany), is the mentioned judgment by the Frankfurt County Court.

Knowing how the court arrived at this conclusion takes a reading of the judgment, of course, but even without that we can make assumptions which are probably not far away from reality: to the extent that the defendants did not admit to the disposition of their victims themselves, eyewitness testimonials, including such of relatives who testified that murdered members of their family had not exactly been crazy about dying the last time they had seen them, are likely to have completed the picture.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#44

Post by Roberto » 05 May 2002, 20:09

Quote:
I will refrain from posting the sharp reply I had just prepared to yet another hint at my supposed need to "expunge" a "past flirtation with National Socialism" and further nonsense that, very frankly, I consider to be far below the intellectual level of Michael Mills.

The sole reason why I harp on the few details of his past that Mr Muehlenkamp has revealed to us is that I am puzzled by the aggressiveness with which he flings the accusation of anti-Semitism at some contributors to the forum who question certain aspects of the establishment history, even if only marginally, in particular those who question the concept of all Jews as purely passive victims and posit an active role by some Jews, eg various leaders or activists, in creating the chain of events that culminated in the destruction of a large part of European Jewry.

(I do acknowledge that Mr Muehlenkamp has retracted some of his overhasty judgements).

I find Mr Muehlenkamp's aggressiveness puzzling, in that he himself has accepted certain analyses, such as those put forward by the historian Christian Gerlach, which deviate to some extent from the establishment history (which essentially sees the mass-killing of Jews as an irrational act driven solely by a murderous, insane ideology), and which posit a certain brutal and inhumane rationality to the killing of millions, not only Jews.
I see that Michael Mills still can’t help being himself and is unable to kick the habit of grossly misrepresenting his opponent’s statements. Mr. Mills is obviously intelligent enough to recognize that the issue is not questioning certain aspects of the “establishment history” (a term that tells me nothing and obviously describes something which exists only in the minds of those who would like to see themselves as “dissident historians”), but the lack of substantiation of such questioning and an obsessive and telling preoccupation with Jews and “Zionism” that pervades the questioners’ stance. He is also well aware that, even though I had observed such tendencies in him for a long time, my conclusion on his anti-Semitism only came in the sequence of the persistent and rather absurd accusations of “judeocentrism” he leveled against me. The intellectual dishonesty thus becoming apparent from his above statements again confirms my view of him as someone pursuing not historical truth and honest debate, but an ideological agenda.
I also think that Gerlach's general approach to the motivations for German exterminatory policies in the Occupied Eastern Territories is essentially correct. However, I believe that Gerlach has exaggerated the significance of whatever it was Hitler said to his assembled Gauleiters in early December 1941, an assessment that has also been made by a number of historians.


Largely moved by envy that a relative newcomer had found the missing link they had so long been looking for in vain, no doubt. As to what Michael Mills thinks, it is nothing other than his own opinion as long as he can’t demonstrate the substance of his thesis – something I don't consider him to have accomplished in the course of our various discussions on the issue, last on the thread

Holocaust Documents
http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... 32268f9a50

of this forum.
With regard to Sanning's book, I actually thought that his chapter on Poland was one of the better ones, and one containing few outright distortions. I was actually puzzled why Professor Zimmerman spent so much effort criticising it, when the real distortions lie elsewhere in the book.

Sanning's figure for the number of Jews in Poland in 1939, 2.7 million, is only 600,000 less than the POlish Government's official estimate of 3.3 million. If Sanning is correct, it would mean that the total number of Polish Jews killed was some 600,000 less than has been estimated (since they were not there to kill), and the total death-roll would need to be adjusted downward by that number, ie from 6 million to 5.4 million.
There is no point in speculating what would have to be concluded from Sanning’s being correct, as he is obviously not. He gratefully grabbed Graml’s figures that most probably resulted from a misunderstanding of Graml’s sources and ignored all indications that these figures couldn’t possibly be correct, namely the official emigration statistics of Poland and the immigration statistics of various countries.
It should be noted that Hilberg, who most certainly accepts the 3.3 million estimate of the size of Polish Jewry in 1939, estimated the total Jewish death-roll at 5.1 million. If 0.6 million is deducted from that figure, it is reduced to 4.5 million, or very close to Reitlinger's higher estimate of 4.6 million.
Hilberg estimated up to 3,000,000 Jewish dead in Poland but only 700,000 in the USSR. Reitlinger’s figures, on the other hand, were 2,350,000 to 2,600,000 for Poland and 700,000 to 750,000 for the USSR. Reitlinger’s higher figure for Poland seems to be closer to the actual figure, which can be obtained by deducting the 73,955 Jewish survivors registered on the territory of Poland by the Central Commission for the Investigation for German Crimes in Poland after the war from the 2,790,000 Polish Jews which, according to the Korherr Report, came under German rule in the various German-dominated areas that made up the former Polish Republic. In the chapter on Poland of Dimensionen des Völkermords by Benz et al, Frank Golczewski also arrives at a death toll of ca. 2,700,000 for the Jews of Poland. Both Hilberg and Reitlinger were far below the mark, however, in what concerns the Jews of the Soviet Union, the death toll among which on the territory of the USSR as of September 1939 has been estimated at 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 by subsequent researchers. In the chapter on the Soviet Union of Dimensionen des Völkermords, Gert Robel plausibly calculates a total of 2.8-2.9 million Jewish victims for the Soviet Union within the borders as of 22. June 1941 and ca. 2.1 million dead for the Soviet Union without the territories annexed in 1939/40.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

NAZIS BAAAD--KOGON GOOOD...

#45

Post by Scott Smith » 06 May 2002, 03:34

medorjurgen wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
medorjurgen wrote:
Scott wrote:My question is how Medo can be sure that none of it was unwanted.

Most of those mentioned in these groups were by no means dead sick. They suffered "no pain, were in their majority not dead sick and didn't wish to die either." (Kogon)
I don't see how Comrade Kogon can know this without examining each case in detail. Nevermind.
8O
Idiocy never dies. Poor Reverend.

The source referred to by the author of the euthanasia chapter (Willi Dressen, public prosecutor at the Zentrale Stelle der Landesjustizverwaltungen für die Aufklärung nationalsozialistischer Verbrechen in Ludwigsburg, Germany), is the mentioned judgment by the Frankfurt County Court.

Knowing how the court arrived at this conclusion takes a reading of the judgment, of course, but even without that we can make assumptions which are probably not far away from reality: to the extent that the defendants did not admit to the disposition of their victims themselves, eyewitness testimonials, including such of relatives who testified that murdered members of their family had not exactly been crazy about dying the last time they had seen them, are likely to have completed the picture.
So the West Germans held a trial and examined all the cases individually and whether euthanasia is bad or not never entered into it, I suppose. We necessarily know it was bad because they were Nazis, right?

Just wondering how broadly you are drawing your atrocity claims.
:wink:

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”