Aktion T4, What is true and what is not?

[Zeno]

Aktion T4 has been one of the harder things to discuss and debate, for me personally.

I will say that I am definitely not one of the most well-read on this forum, about WW2 or the holocaust, which is why I would like to get a few answers to some pertinent questions, or be given some quality references I should be checking out to learn more.

What do we factually know about Aktion T4, and the involuntary euthenasia that is claimed to have happened, with a death toll of ~300 000.

• What source documents are used to reach this death toll figure?

• Were neither patient, nor parents, informed of the event and gave their consent?

• Are the claims of gas chamber use true, and does it have any scientific or quality evidence supporting it?

• Did this practice continue even after claims that it had been stopped? What proof of this exist?

Thanks.

[Archie]

I haven't looked into the death toll very much, but I have seen mainstream sources that give lower figures in the 70,000 range. Whatever the number, it is a tiny fraction of the usual "holocaust" body counts.

The killings were not voluntary. Typically, a vaguely worded death notice would be sent out to the family along with the ashes of the deceased. As early as 1940, there were rumors and speculation about the killing method.

So what was the killing method? There are some differing views. At the Hadamar trial of 1945, the accusation was that several thousand tubercular Russians and Poles had been killed, but the method was said to be morphine injections and tablets of barbital, not gassing. Though in the concentration camp propaganda films the Americans claimed some thousands had been gassed at Hadamar earlier. So the claim is then that the method was gassing and at some point they switched to injections and tablets, at least at that location.

The Holocaust Controversies site has a list of carbon monoxide documents (compiled by Hans). The first document is the only explicit one. It's some sort of film script from 1942. I would like to see more research on this document. The microfilm (NARA T1021) it's sourced from is very generic (US Army investigations) and doesn't seem to give any context for the document, and it's not even clear from that source if or when it was actually used at a trial. If it was used, it would be good to follow up with it. If not, then we might ask why.

The other documents are all references to CO bottles (i.e., circumstantial). The question would be if there were other potential uses for CO (like there is for Zyklon). I can't comment on the authenticity of the any of these.
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... arbon.html

A few revisionists seem to accept limited CO gassings in the euthanasia program. John Wear for example seems to accept it (although he argues that this effectively disproves "the Holocaust" since we should expect proportionate evidence for that much larger killing program, yet we see the exact opposite).
https://codoh.com/library/document/evid ... a-program/

Other revisionists have argued against the CO euthanasia gassings. See for example the Second Leuchter report which argues that the room claimed to be a "gas chamber" at Hartheim Castle was not technically equipped for gassings. There's also Samuel Crowell's book The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes. He has a chapter on this. He argues that the gas chamber testimonies at NMT Case I etc were clearly influenced by the concentration camp gas chamber stories which were publicized earlier. Witnesses describe mass gassings in fake showers, the same story as the concentration camp gassings, but Crowell points out that this makes very little sense if you're trying to kill invalids and the mentally handicapped. He also quotes an interesting part in Brack's testimony where he is asked how the gas chambers were designed and he gives a totally incoherent answer that rightly baffled the judge.

For background, see the Encyclopedia
https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/event/euthanasia/502/

Here's a relevant old thread.
https://archive.codohforum.com/20230609 ... =2&t=14748

[Callafangers]

I haven't looked into the death toll very much, but I have seen mainstream sources that give lower figures in the 70,000 range. Whatever the number, it is a tiny fraction of the usual "holocaust" body counts.

Yes, we know their pattern for stretching any interpretation to the extreme as well. If a given estimate is "somewhere between 5,000 and 20,000" on paper or in demonstrable fact, we can expect that the consensus of official sources will float around 15,000 or higher, since after all, we 'just know' what those Germans were morally capable of.

The killings were not voluntary. Typically, a vaguely worded death notice would be sent out to the family along with the ashes of the deceased. As early as 1940, there were rumors and speculation about the killing method.

Indeed, there is no question of this being a harsh policy but it was a different time period and context, dealing with scarcity and wartime, in a nation which recognized that one must put the survival of the nation ahead of the individual. Germany was in a life-or-death struggle for all of its people, such that every resource which could preserve and maintain its strength in overcoming external (and internal) threats was precious and indispensable. If one could not give back to the nation, but only consume resources (which was sadly the state of affairs for many disabled persons at that time), Germans would often reluctantly agree that it was most compassionate for that individual and for the nation to euthanize these individuals via painless methods.

There are countless cultural practices in history that we can look upon with a biased lens and in shock and awe at the decisions made of that time, but this is not an objective approach to understanding history, which requires nuanced interpretations of the circumstances, needs, values, etc. held by the people of that period. Germany was genuinely in a struggle for its existence and that of its people. They were not lying about this, they were not confused or mistaken. There were nations surrounding and threatening them, with Jews at the helm, who also threatened them internally. They were facing yet another major world war, with Germans on the chopping block. Resources (nurses, etc.) were far too precious to spare on those who could not give anything back to the German people. These were extremely desperate times.

So what was the killing method? There are some differing views. At the Hadamar trial of 1945, the accusation was that several thousand tubercular Russians and Poles had been killed, but the method was said to be morphine injections and tablets of barbital, not gassing. Though in the concentration camp propaganda films the Americans claimed some thousands had been gassed at Hadamar earlier. So the claim is then that the method was gassing and at some point they switched to injections and tablets, at least at that location.

The Holocaust Controversies site has a list of carbon monoxide documents (compiled by Hans). The first document is the only explicit one. It's some sort of film script from 1942. I would like to see more research on this document. The microfilm (NARA T1021) it's sourced from is very generic (US Army investigations) and doesn't seem to give any context for the document, and it's not even clear from that source if or when it was actually used at a trial. If it was used, it would be good to follow up with it. If not, then we might ask why.

The other documents are all references to CO bottles (i.e., circumstantial). The question would be if there were other potential uses for CO (like there is for Zyklon). I can't comment on the authenticity of the any of these.
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... arbon.html

There were indeed other uses for CO by Germany during WW2, most prominently in the production of synthetic fuels. Germany lacked petroleum resources, so this became essential. There is no question that vast quantities of CO bottles were therefore floating around Germany during WW2.

The Fischer–Tropsch process (FT) is a collection of chemical reactions that converts a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, known as syngas, into liquid hydrocarbons. [...]
The F-T process attracted attention as a means of Nazi Germany to produce liquid hydrocarbons. The original process was developed by Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, working at the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut for Chemistry in 1926. They filed a number of patents, e.g., U.S. patent 1,746,464, applied 1926, published 1930.[20] It was commercialized by Brabag in Germany in 1936. Being petroleum-poor but coal-rich, Germany used the process during World War II to produce ersatz (replacement) fuels. FT production accounted for an estimated 9% of German war production of fuels and 25% of the automobile fuel.[21] Many refinements and adjustments have been made to the process since Fischer and Tropsch's time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E ... ch_process

The exterminationist view then begs the question as to why CO bottles might be received and/or used by the Criminal Technical Institute of the Security Police (KTI), as Hans references at HolocaustControversies. But not only can these bottles have, in some cases, merely pass through this organization for logistical reasons (e.g. holding or transferring for another agency) but, furthermore, even in cases where actual use of these bottles of some kind is indicated (and assumed used by the KTI itself), it seems the KTI (likely in partnership with other departments in the RSHA) had various plausible uses for CO in the alleged quantities, including (AI analysis):

1. Research and Development

Activities:
- Toxicology Studies: The KTI might be conducting detailed studies on the effects of carbon monoxide poisoning on various materials, biological samples, or even in controlled animal experiments. These studies would require significant quantities of CO to ensure accurate and reproducible results.
- Environmental Analysis: Research into the behavior of carbon monoxide in different environments (e.g., enclosed spaces, industrial settings) could involve the controlled release of CO to study its dispersion, detection, and impact.

Example Scenario:
The KTI is conducting a long-term study on the toxicological effects of carbon monoxide on various tissue samples. They use multiple bottles of CO over several months to ensure consistent and accurate data collection.

2. Equipment Testing and Calibration

Activities:
- Gas Detection Equipment: The KTI might be involved in testing and calibrating gas detection equipment used by law enforcement and emergency services. This would require the use of significant quantities of CO to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the devices.
- Protective Gear Validation: Testing the effectiveness of gas masks, respirators, and other protective gear in controlled environments would necessitate the use of CO to simulate real-world conditions.

Example Scenario:
The KTI is tasked with validating a new line of gas detection equipment for police use. They conduct a series of tests using multiple bottles of CO to ensure the equipment accurately detects and measures carbon monoxide levels.

3. Forensic Reconstruction and Investigation

Activities:
- Major Incident Reconstruction: In cases of large-scale industrial accidents or criminal incidents involving carbon monoxide, the KTI might need to reconstruct the events in detail. This could involve the use of significant amounts of CO to recreate the conditions and understand the dynamics of the incident.
- Controlled Experiments: For complex forensic investigations, the KTI might conduct controlled experiments to test hypotheses about the cause of death or the behavior of gases in specific environments.

Example Scenario:
The KTI is investigating a major industrial accident that resulted in multiple fatalities due to carbon monoxide poisoning. They reconstruct the incident using multiple bottles of CO to understand how the gas spread and identify the factors that contributed to the accident.

4. Training and Education (with Safety Measures)

Activities:
- Controlled Demonstrations: While live CO would not be used in a way that risks poisoning participants, it might be used in highly controlled demonstrations with strict safety protocols. These demonstrations would be conducted in specialized training facilities equipped with ventilation systems and safety equipment.
- Scenario-Based Training: The KTI might use small, controlled amounts of CO to enhance the realism of training scenarios, but this would be done in a manner that ensures the safety of all participants, such as using sealed chambers or remote monitoring.

Example Scenario:
The KTI organizes advanced training sessions for law enforcement personnel on the detection and management of carbon monoxide incidents. They use small, controlled amounts of CO in a specialized training facility to demonstrate the proper use of detection equipment and safety procedures.

Conclusion

The most feasible and probable uses of carbon monoxide by the KTI in the quantities mentioned would likely involve research and development, equipment testing and calibration, forensic reconstruction and investigation, and highly controlled training and education scenarios. These activities would justify the use of significant amounts of CO while ensuring the safety of personnel through strict protocols and controlled environments. The KTI's expertise in forensic science and criminal investigation would be crucial in conducting these activities and providing valuable insights and support to other agencies.

Another key point I find it crucial to consider with regard to T-4 is the proportion of overall evidence which is anything near contemporary and explicit, versus that which (as we have seen in so many other cases of the "Holocaust"), a postwar 'reconstruction of events'. The bottom-line is that these 'reconstructions' have shown to not be trustworthy.

That said, if 'gassing' of any kind were indeed happening in 1940-41, and if any such rumors or truths started making themselves public, this does far more to explain the ideation behind a 'Jewish gassing' narrative (and Allied emphasis and "running with" such a narrative in their own proaganda) than it does to prove Jewish gassing ever actually occurred. Germany halted this euthanasia program (with only limited application, at most, thereafter) in 1941.

A few revisionists seem to accept limited CO gassings in the euthanasia program. John Wear for example seems to accept it (although he argues that this effectively disproves "the Holocaust" since we should expect proportionate evidence for that much larger killing program, yet we see the exact opposite).
https://codoh.com/library/document/evid ... a-program/

Indeed, some make concessions when the evidence seems, in their impression, more strongly aligned in one direction. There were some questions I had struggled with regarding T-4 when first learning about transports of CO bottles, realizing the extent of documentation surrounding euthanasia programs, etc. But par for the course on the 'Holocaust', it is the most sinister elements of the narrative which are the least explicit in terms of evidence and the least likely to have any contemporary documentation or other verifiable proof of any kind. We can now reasonably establish some euthanasia campaign had taken place, but things like the scope/nature of its continuation past 1941, its methodology (as a rule or in exceptional cases), the breadth of its application, its motives, etc., are regularly falsified, exaggerated, misunderstood, assumed or embellished by exterminationist historians on this matter.

Other revisionists have argued against the CO euthanasia gassings. See for example the Second Leuchter report which argues that the room claimed to be a "gas chamber" at Hartheim Castle was not technically equipped for gassings. There's also Samuel Crowell's book The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes. He has a chapter on this. He argues that the gas chamber testimonies at NMT Case I etc were clearly influenced by the concentration camp gas chamber stories which were publicized earlier. Witnesses describe mass gassings in fake showers, the same story as the concentration camp gassings, but Crowell points out that this makes very little sense if you're trying to kill invalids and the mentally handicapped. He also quotes an interesting part in Brack's testimony where he is asked how the gas chambers were designed and he gives a totally incoherent answer that rightly baffled the judge.

For background, see the Encyclopedia
https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/event/euthanasia/502/

Here's a relevant old thread.
https://archive.codohforum.com/20230609 ... =2&t=14748

Great points here, as well. I particularly enjoy Crowell's analysis.

[borjastick]

Just for balance this needs to be put into context of the era and compared with the deeds of a good number of other countries who euthanised their sick/terminally ill or disposed of them such as the British youngsters who were collected and sent away to Australia, many of whom were abused and had a terrible life due to the trauma and unloving imposition of lifestyle they had. Ireland too has had to deal with children and babies sent into care by nuns and the Catholic church who then killed them and disposed of the bodies etc.

The T4 programme is highlighted and focused on just because of Hitler and the holocaust when in fact it was sort of the norm in quite a few countries.

[Callafangers]

Just for balance this needs to be put into context of the era and compared with the deeds of a good number of other countries who euthanised their sick/terminally ill or disposed of them such as the British youngsters who were collected and sent away to Australia, many of whom were abused and had a terrible life due to the trauma and unloving imposition of lifestyle they had. Ireland too has had to deal with children and babies sent into care by nuns and the Catholic church who then killed them and disposed of the bodies etc.

The T4 programme is highlighted and focused on just because of Hitler and the holocaust when in fact it was sort of the norm in quite a few countries.

This is definitely a relevant point. Jewish author Edwin Black, in 2003, wrote a book highlighting how much of the National Socialist policy on euthanasia was influenced by American views at that time. His goal was, of course, to show how "hateful" Americans were, perhaps to show the 'evil of the white race' as so many Jewish authors and academics have attempted in the last century, but what he actually demonstrates is the reality of just how widespread and under serious contemplation views toward euthanasia were at that time, throughout various parts of the West.

Black's narrative also carries the usual assumptions about a "Holocaust", for which it is safe to say he has added nothing to the historical record, in terms of evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Against_the_Weak

[Archie]

Thanks for bumping this, 'fangers. I had meant to return to it, but Zeno had lost interest.

Here is a testimony on euthanasia gassings from August Becker.

I was ordered by Brack to participate in the first euthanasia trial run in the Hospital at Brandenberg, near Berlin. It was in the first part of January 1940 that I traveled to the hospital. Special apparatus had been constructed for this purpose at the hospital. A room, similar to a shower with tile floors, had been set up, approximately three by five meters and three meters high. There were benches around the edge of the room, and on the floor, about ten centimeters above the ground, there was a water pipe approximately one centimeter in diameter. In this tube there were small holes, from which the carbon monoxide gas flowed. The gas containers were outside the room and were already attached to one end of the pipe ... In the hospital there were already two crematoria ovens ready to go, for burning the bodies. At the entrance to the room, constructed similar to that of an air-raid shelter, there was a square peep hole through which the behavior of the subjects [Deliquenten] could be observed. The first gassing was administered personally by Dr. Widmann. He operated the controls and regulated the flow of gas. He also instructed the hospital physicians Dr. Eberl and Dr. Baumhardt, who later took over the exterminations in Grafeneck and Hadamar ... At this first gassing, approximately 18-20 people were required to undress in another room until they were completely naked. The doors were closed behind them. They entered the room quietly and showed no signs of anxiety. Dr. Widmann operated the gassing apparatus; I could observe through the peep hole that, after a minute, the people either fell down or lay on the benches. There was no great disturbance or commotion. After another five minutes, the room was cleared of gas. SS men specially designated for this purpose placed the dead on stretchers and brought them to the ovens ... At the end of the experiment Viktor Brack, who was of course also present (and whom I'd previously forgotten), addressed those in attendance. He appeared satisfied by the results of the experiment, and repeated once again that this operation should be carried out only by physicians, according to the motto: "The needle belongs in the hand of the doctor." Karl Brandt spoke after Brack, and stressed again that gassings should only be done by physicians. That is how things began in Brandenburg.

Quoted from Robert Proctor, Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis, Harvard University Press, 1988, pg. 189-190
The endnote says: Cited in Kaul, Nazimordaktion T-4, pp. 77-78

It's annoying how the Holocaust literature tends to cite a lot of secondary sources like this without telling the actual source. In this case, Proctor does not even tell us the date of the testimony.

I was thinking this was ultimately from NMT Case I, but based on the Wikipedia page for August Becker, it seems it's actually from the trial Werner Hyde from 1964. So it's quite late.

August Becker was one of the two correspondents on the famous gas van document PS-501 (the other being Walter Rauff).

As far as the substance of the testimony, the major problem I see with this is the part about the fake showers. This appears to be borrowed from the concentration camp gas chamber stories. With bedridden invalids, this fake shower idea makes no sense at all. Why schlep them into a gas chamber when you could just give them an injection or something without having to move them at all? There would seem to be no need for the fake shower ruse in this context.

It also seems surprising to me that they would buy pure bottled CO and fill up an entire room of 45 cubic meters just to kill 20 people. The idea of using CO is not crazy at all (objectively speaking it would be reasonably humane), but why not administer it like anesthesia? Then you don't have to bother with the complication of rigging up a gas chamber and pipes, or ventilating a big room afterwards without harming other people in the building. Generally speaking, physicians would absolutely not know how to do something like that.

Later I will post Brack's strange explanation for how the gas chambers were designed.

[Archie]

These seem to be the main orthodox sources on the euthanasia program. (At least in English. There appear to be some German texts as well.)

• Kogon, Langbein, and Ruckerl (ed), Nazi Mass Murder: A Documentary History of the Use of Poison Gas, Yale University Press, 1993 (German edition from 1983)
• Robert Proctor, Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis, Harvard University Press, 1988
• Michael Burleigh, Death and Deliverance: 'Euthanasia' in Germany 1900-1945, Cambridge University Press, 1994
• Henry Friedlander, The Origins of the Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution, University of North Carolina Press, 1995

The last one seems to be more about the supposed connection between the euthanasia program and the Holocaust, so that might be the most relevant to the Holocaust debate.

[Nazgul]

The last one seems to be more about the supposed connection between the euthanasia program and the Holocaust, so that might be the most relevant to the Holocaust debate.

I find no difference between konzentrationslager euthanasia aka 14f13 and the alleged holocaust. 14f13 certainly happened at Sobibor; most witnesses describe the decrepit being put on tippers and taken away, they heard shots shortly afterwards. Others presumed they were gassed. T4 personnel were needed to carry out these legal killings of the time as they were qualified. Those members did not wear SS runes on their right lapel. The left dog handler (Scharführer) has no rune and would be T4. The officer to our right is Untersturmführer Johann Niemann deputy commandant of Sobibor, murdered by escapees 14 October 1943.

[curioussoul]

The thing about Aktion T4 is that it's only tangentially related to the Holocaust in the sense that the German government is accused of having murdered innocent people. But the more you think about it, the more this comparison becomes ridiculous.

Unlike the Holocaust, the T4 programme is a well-documented political policy for which innumerable documents and proofs exist. So we know that the T4 programme was a real thing. The question then becomes, why did it happen and what was its purpose? Contrary to popular belief, the T4 programme was not based on National Socialist ideological beliefs. The purpose was not to murder the mentally ill because they wer "sub-human". Rather, the policy arose from economic pragmatism related to the war effort. It became necessary for Germany to empty out the massive insane asylums and convert them to military hospitals for the Wehrmacht. As sad as Aktion T4 was, it wasn't some bloodthirsty plot to erradicate the mentally ill.

It's also worth noting that the T4 programme was shut down due to public outrage. It simply was not a popular solution to a serious problem, so the government shut it down.

Because there's so much evidence for the T4 programme, Holocaust historians have for years attempted to draw a parallel between it and the Holocaust. Their most popular argument is that Aktion Reinhardt drew personnel from the "experienced executioners" at Aktion T4, but as Carlo Mattogno has demonstrated, this alleged relation is largely imaginary. The argument has also been made that the T4 programme involved gas chambers, but as Mattogno has once again amply demonstrated, there is no evidence for these alleged (CO) gas chambers, and T4 victims were not executed by gas.

[fireofice]

I came across this thread on euthanasia in the Netherlands:



He cites this article:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/euth ... voluntary/

I'll quote the relevant bit:

Since the publication of the Remmelink Report in 1991 into the medical practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands, it has frequently been said that the Dutch experience shows that legally protecting voluntary euthanasia is impossible without also affording shelter to the non-voluntary euthanasia that will follow in its train (see, e.g., Keown 2018). In the period since that report there have been regular national studies of the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands (see, e.g., Rietjens, et al. 2009; Onwuteaka-Philipsen, et al. 2012; van der Heide, et al. 2017). The findings from these national studies have consistently shown that there is no evidence for the existence of such a slippery slope. Among the specific findings the following are worth mentioning: of those terminally ill persons who have been assisted to die about sixty per cent have clearly been cases of voluntary euthanasia as it has been characterised in this entry; of the remainder, the vast majority of cases were of patients who at the time of their medically assisted deaths were no longer competent. It might be thought that these deaths ought to be regarded as instances of non-voluntary euthanasia. But, in fact, it would be inappropriate to regard them as such. Here is why. For the overwhelming majority of these cases, the decisions to end life were taken only after consultation between the attending doctor(s) and close family members, and so can legitimately be thought of as involving substituted judgements. Moreover, according to the researchers, the overwhelming majority of these cases fit within either of two common practices that occur in countries where voluntary euthanasia has not been legalized, namely, that of terminal sedation of dying patients, and that of giving large doses of opioids to relieve pain while foreseeing that this will also end life. In a very few cases, there was no consultation with relatives, though in those cases there were consultations with other medical personnel. The researchers contend that these instances are best explained by the fact that families in the Netherlands strictly have no final legal authority to act as surrogate decision-makers for incompetent persons. For these reasons the researchers maintain that non-voluntary euthanasia is not widely practised in the Netherlands.

The doctor from the thread I posted points out that although this paragraph does its best to deny involuntary euthanasia, what it actually describes is clearly at odds with that conclusion. The reasoning that "it's OK because a family member said it's OK" I find rather odd. There are two different ways of approaching moral questions and rights, individual and collective. If we take an individual rights approach, then what the family says is irrelevant. You are violating the patient's rights by euthanizing them regardless of what the family says. If you take a collective rights approach, then you could conceive of the family's rights and interests preceding the individual's. But why stop at the family? You could just as easily expand that to the nation. The nation's interest and rights taking precedence over the individual or even the family's rights. We know that the Nazis did take the collective of the nation very seriously (although the claim they didn't care about individuality at all is false, Hitler said quite a bit in Mein Kampf and in speeches about the importance of the individual in regards to achievement and some have even argued that Ayn Rand plagiarized those aspects here).

Callafangers already pointed out the dire situation that Germany was in that caused this policy to be implemented and how many disabled patients around the western world at that time were pretty badly mistreated. That being the case, it could potentially be argued that the euthanasia program was more humane than these other practices. This isn't necessarily to deny that general mistreatment of the disabled didn't happen in Germany at the time, but the euthanasia program did specifically focus on giving its subjects a "mercy death", as it says in the euthanasia order Hitler signed.