Talk:Nazi eugenics/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Removal of sentence blaming the United States for the Nazis

There's absolutely no evidence that the Nazis based their eugenics program on whatever was taking place inside the United States. Nothing in Hitler's diaries or any of the other official Nazi documents every declare Americans as their role models. Every nation on earth is as culpable as the United States. I could site sources that suggest Canada was a model for the Nazis, for crying out loud.This rabid anti-American nonsense on wiki must stop. It will be the end of this insipid "source" for information unless the radical left isn't put into check. --MarioSmario (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is quite a bit of evidence. That there was an active exchange of ideas about Eugenics between Germanyand the US in the 1930es. Read for example the chapter "The Road to Auschqitz went through Cold Spring Harbor" in "The Emperor's New Clothes" by Joseph Graves. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's an exceprt of a review of the book: "One of the most engaging parts of The Emperor's New Clothes concerns the relationship between the US eugenics movement—specifically Charles Davenport and the Eugenics Records Office—Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories, and social policy in the United States and Germany. In the powerful chapter "Eugenics, Race, and Fascism: The Road to Auschwitz Went Through Cold Spring Harbor," Graves exposes how Nazi xenophobia and racism, and ultimately the planned extermination of a purported inferior race, were recast in eugenic terms as "natural" self-defense. Europe might have invented scientific racism and eugenics, but the US fined-tuned both pseudosciences."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of "Darwin to Hitler" antiscience book disputed

I removed the book "From Darwin to Hitler" from the list of scholarly works because it is a fringe anti-science publication promoting Intelligent Design that is far from scholarly. My removal was reverted and I was told to "take it to talk". How is this book even relevant to Nazi Eugenics? It's not history, it's a religious apologetic that is in no way enlightening on the subject. I would like to see the consensus that thinks differently. Ultra Venia (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems this was already discussed above, although I can't see a true consensus, the most cogent arguments are for keeping the mention out: [Darwin to Hitler] Ultra Venia (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm still opposed to it being included here. Eik Corell (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the removal as the book was published by Palgrave Macmillan, usually considered a reliable academic publisher. Having read several reviews and the Wikipedia article on the book, particularly the section on its academic reception, I am less sure it should be included. I would still be interested to hear from any editors prepared to make a case for retention. RashersTierney (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that this is not a scholarly unbiased treatment but pseudohistory. I am not sure why the publisher published it, but it's not like the publisher is a reliable peer reviewed journal such as Nature. The writer has a fringe scientific belief and has attempted to use history to denigrate Darwin simply because he was the first to describe the concept of evolution. To blame discovered science for the worst crimes of the 20th century is a travesty of the concept of academia. Ultra Venia (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There are other much better books covering the same topic, there is no reason to include this one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Consensus appears to support removal, so I have reverted my edit. RashersTierney (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

On September 1, 1939, Adolf Hitler ordered the beginning of the already planned "euthanasia" by personal Decree. In the "euthanasia" gas murder institutes and other hospitals and nursing homes, some 300,000 people by gas, drugs or targeted Verhungernlassen were murdered. //www.euthanasiegeschaedigte-zwangssterilisierte.de/

It's far more than 70,000, which only entails those killed before Hitler halted the euthanasia program - after a public outcry.Valleyspring (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_Brandt

Similar to when the action 14f13 allows also for the Aktion Brandt isn't exactly determine the number of victims because many killings as such are neither registered as such or were recognizable. In contrast to the action T4, statistical documents are not preserved. At least 30,000 victims .Valleyspring (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review

I think this article would actually benefit by splitting it up to smaller articles, there is a lot of information to parse through here and parts of it seem like they could be linked. For instance, the "Identification" section seems like it would better fit in another context about Nazi programs or even should have its own page. It doesn't really flow well with the sections before and after it in my opinion, but the information is still very interesting. Also, I know that at one point this article does link to social darwinism, but I think that many people will not immediately click on this link, so the section might benefit from stating that this idea was not supported by Darwin himself. Too many people in society believe that Social Darwinism came from Darwin himself, that he specifically supported the idea, and I think every article, literally any one that mentions the term, should point out that it had nothing to do with Darwin himself. Haley Wendt (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding a quote from Mein Kampf

Hi, if we are going to include a quote from Hitler's Second Book which was not published during the Nazi era and thus means that the average German didn't know what Hitler's thoughts were on Sparta, wouldn't it make sense to add a quote from Mein Kampf which was available for anyone to read?

The most known quote in Mein Kampf about Hitler's view of eugenics and the importance of race is:

The right to personal freedom comes second in importance to the duty of maintaining the race. Only after such measures have been put into practice can a medical campaign against this scourge begin with some hope of success. But, here again, half-measures will be valueless. Far-reaching and important decisions will have to be made. It would be doing things by halves if incurables were given the opportunity of infecting one healthy person after another. This would be that kind of humanitarianism which would allow hundreds to perish in order to save the suffering of one individual. The demand that it should be made impossible for defective people to continue to propagate defective offspring is a demand that is based on most reasonable grounds, and its proper fulfilment is the most humane task that mankind has to face. Unhappy and undeserved suffering in millions of cases will be spared, with the result that there will be a gradual improvement in national health. A determined decision to act in this manner will at the same time provide an obstacle against the further spread of venereal disease. It would then be a case, where necessary, of mercilessly isolating all incurables - perhaps a barbaric measure for those unfortunates - but a blessing for the present generation and for posterity.

The quote can be found in the Hurst and Blackett Ltd's translation of Mein Kampf (1939) on p. 201.

Although articles on build upon by adding full quotes, I think adding this quote would be beneficial.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's far too long, and as a primary source is not as useful as commentary or analysis from secondary sources. Please see WP:PRIMARY and WP:LONGQUOTE for more information on this topic. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of quote

178.223.221.246, you removed a quote because it was irrelevant and also shows twisted Nazi ideology. Per our neutral point of view policy, I'll disregard the end bit of that for purposes of discussing its inclusion or exclusion, because it's not relevant here. But I have been discussing this with some folks on IRC about this change, and we're all a bit stuck about whether to let your edit through or to disagree with it. I would be glad to hear your opinion more about this quote, and why it is irrelevant. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I've restored it, since it's sourced, and not presented in Wikipedia's voice. If we followed the precepts by which this quote was removed, Wikipedia would not accurately present the dangers and evil (for lack of a better word) of Nazism and other fascist movements. The quote does not advance the cause of Nazism, it shines a light on their thinking. That their thinking is "twisted" is undoubtedly true, but we should never shy away from showing how twisted it is, simply because doing so may be uncomfortable for some. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nazi eugenics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Checked the links (thanks, faithful bot!) and removed the one dead URL--it was in the "External Links" section, not a cite in the body of the text, so I figure we should just kill it. — Narsil (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)