Talk:Racial policy of Nazi Germany

Jewish response

I added the Jewish response to the laws. It is my goal add some NPV to the essay. DarkCorners 11/28/04 10.41pm I would like to have a source about the Jewish reaction of the Laws. .. whilst i accept that this topic is highly emotive, i am a little concerned about the the author's editorialisations. As a highly-cited information source i dont think it is professional to be describing the laws as 'outrageous' and 'ridiculous'. The final paragraph "in conclusion..." seems particularly prone to this.

I will delete them on the base of the information being none representative for "jewish" or even some closer investigation of what organisation these were. http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/ch12.htm

I do agree with this assessment. Further, very, very little actual information regarding the laws themselves is found in this essay (it is certainly not an article). Most is a general discussion of Third Reich policy which is already located in that article. Why are the laws themselves not explicitly detailed?

The Nuremberg laws are very essential to the topic. You can find the original German law text at [1]. Some important points are summarized at [2]. ben 13:15, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think the article should begin with Hitler's ideology as of Mein Kampf at the beginning. ben 13:15, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think the Laws merit a separate article (they're an important antecedent to be never repeated again). User: Horzer

"hereditary asocial"

Can somebody describe this term? What does it mean?--I'll bring the food 15:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

About "Who did it"

I personally agree with this paragraph: "In conclusion, we find that Nazi-German racial policy grew increasingly violent and aggressive through the years 1933 and 1939. This, in many ways, was Hitler's aim; he wanted the German populace to accept and support his outrageous theories and, in order for this to happen, he had to implement the regime of terror gradually. It worked fantastically, and the vast majority of Germans essentially agreed with his policies or kept silent. Those who disagreed were prevented from occupying prominent positions in politics and industry through laws and decrees passed during these years. Possibly the most important action that Hitler undertook was the Reich Citizenship Law, in which Jews were stripped of all Citizens' rights and officially segregated from German society. It also paved the way for other laws to come in the near future." ...but there are some problems and it should be changed. Because, it is very controversial, who committed the crimes. The paragraph states basically it was Hitler who seduced the people. This view is generally adopted in America. But this is only one of several hypotheses. Many people assume a collective guilt of all Germans. That's why Germans speak of the "Gnade der späten Geburt" (lit. "mercy of later birth"), when talking about that issue, stating that only those who were too young or born after the Third Reich can be sure to have nothing to do with it. The paragraph ought to balance or at least mention that. It would be a good idea to have even a separate article about that. see e.g. the German wikipedia: [3]. ben 12:57, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be good to set the scene a bit more: for example that the intitial law enacted in 1933 ie. Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring, was based on a voluntary sterilization law drafted by Prussian health officials in 1932 (http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10007057), that eugenics was mainstream science across the world, and oddly that some eugenisists still admired (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Stopes). I know that the article takes more of a politcal approach, but i think that adding some science would be illuminating. Tim

Student paper?

Is it just me, or does it seem like this entire article was a copied word-for-word from a student essay for Ethics class? Even if not, it sounds too much like one, so I edited it a bit to make it sound like an encyclopedia entry. Kakashi-sensei 02:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

This article is very misleading, why not title it "racial policy of the general gov't during world war 2 as dictated by the Soviets and Americans"

This article is incredibly misleading. First, it doesn't even resemble the true german "race theory". Why not cite actuall documents like "Glauben und Kampfen" , and describe what it was like in germany before the war. Presenting the "general gov't" as being some kind of a planned envisage of 1000 years to come is absolute non-sense. Why if this was his evily contrived plan were they trying to make peace with france and england with the beleif that they would agree cede to the germans demand of danzig? Surely they wouln't have kept all of poland under the "general gov't" if there was a treaty signed to pull out! christ, it's absolute rubbish. and yet you have people explaining propaganda as thoroughly engrained into the nazi's psyche, when clearly it wasn't, it was propaganda! They told the germans's they were superior for the same reason the commissars told the russians the nazi's thought they were inferior, when infact both were highly twisted by the other so as to create bitter conflict between the ancient enemies, since it was the war of total anhilation and was absolutely imperative to have such hate. It's very clear the germans had seen the russians as being taken over and oppressed by the asiatic jewish communist movement, which was what the wehrmacht justified it as well. Just read some of the many letters written by soldiers on the eastern front explaining to family at home the downtrodden situation of the so called "workers paradise" clearly emapathizing greatly with the "untermesche" as being fellow european aryans under the yoke of jewish bolshevism.

The above statement shows an utter lack of understanding of the political, and perhaps more importantly, economic imparatives that faced the Third Reich. The period of rapid militarization through which the Nazi's had taken the country, had left the economy on the brink of ruin. The invasion of France might not have been seriously considered by a few indivigual soldiers, but for you to doubt Hitler's goal of capturing France is revissionism at its worst. Hitler didn't just plan to capture and France when the war was declared, he had planned it from the time he re-militarized the Reich. There was simply no other way to pay for the country, then by raiding the economies of other countries. While it is true he probably would have preferred to expand his empire to the east first, make no mistake all of Europe was his goal. Fieldinj 20:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

minor notes

Two things, (1) is "the right to vote" really the best example of basic citizens' rights in Nazi Germany? (2) Why is Göring commented on after the Night of the Long Knives; Hitler was always head of the SS, right? I'm not an expert here so I don't want to make the changes... Ak13 07:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

---

As this article covers Nazi racial policy, it isn't complete until it covers other races who were persecuted and murdered during this period. e.g. Gypsies.

non-Germans?

The article opens with: "German nationalists who blamed non-Germans for the loss of the war." I would have to object to that. Jews were also Germans. When the German Imperial Government disbanded and fled in the final days of WWI, those left who assumed power (and subsequent blame) included liberal Jews. But they were Germans too.

Is there a better way to word this?

Inaccurate statement

"The Nazis used the religious observance of a person's grandparents to determine their race."

The Jews were a minority ethnic group, not only a religious group, so in reality, the Nazis were determining race according to the ethnic descent of a person's grandparents.

Merge tag

I removed the merge tag from "The Nuremberg Laws". It has been sitting there from the time the Nuremberg Laws article was split off. -- Petri Krohn 01:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy

I challenge the accuracy of this entire page. It seems geared more towards making Nazism synonymous with white supremacism. For those of you who've actually read Mein Kampf and SS Racial Theory, you'd know that this is most certainly not the case (although these neo-Nazis runnin' around yelling slurs aren't making the line any clearer)...

---

There are a number of deeply misleading impressions one could get on reading this article. For instance, the section on Jewish responses gives only the most favorable reactions to the Nazi race laws. Many, however, did condemn these laws.

Moved passage

I moved this: "The origins of the policy lay with the Dolchstoßlegende ("betrayal legend"), whereby disgruntled German nationalists blamed non-Germans for the loss of World War I. The Nazis exploited these sentiments and later developed them into the "Nuremberg laws"."

This is a questionable interpretation. What is to be understood by "the origins of the policy lay with the Dolchstoßlegende"? This "betrayal legend" may be cited, but to call it the "origin" of the Nazis racial policies is a bit akward. There is much debate about the "origins" and historical "causes" of these racial policies. Tazmaniacs 12:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The statement you removed is shallow in the extreme; it is also unconsciously racist. Some of the people blamed for the 'stab in the back' legend were indeed Jewish; but they also happened to be German. It was the Nazis who separated Jewish people from the German national community as a whole. White Guard 00:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Rhineland Bastards section

I removed this statement

• Despite this there was never any systematic attempt to eliminate the black population of Germany, though mixed marriage remained illegal.

because it contradicts the previous statements

• Of particular concern to the Nazi scientist Eugen Fischer were the "Rhineland Bastards": mixed-race offspring of black soldiers who had been stationed in the Rhineland as part of the French army of occupation. He believed that these people should be sterilised in order to protect the racial purity of the German population. At least 400 mixed-race children were forcibly sterilised in the Rhineland by 1938, while 400 others were sent to concentration camps.

Notice in bold the contradictions. If you still dispute this, let me clarify it for you, so in case you are as dense as a rock it's crystal clear.

• At least 400 mixed-race children were forcibly sterilised

contradicts the statement

• never any systematic attempt

Do not revert. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition the "Rhineland Bastards" article also refutes the statement "never any systematic attempt" with the following

• The program began in 1937, when local officials were asked to report on all "Rhineland Bastards" under their jurisdiction. All together, some 400 children of mixed parentage were arrested and sterilized. This order only applied in the Rhineland. Hans Massaquoi, a German-Liberian from Hamburg, wrote in his autobiography that mixed raced Rhinelanders were rounded up and exterminated in Nazi death camps.

I happen to study this, there were only 3000 Black and mixed people in the Rhineland at that time, which would be equivalent to about 1000 families. Since about 800 children were sterilized/concentration camped, that comes to about the same number. It is misleading therefore to say "there was no systematic attempt".

I conclude that the previous wording was done by someone who wants us to think that the black population of Germany was not marked for destruction as the Jews and others were. The blacks were also, make no mistake. Sometimes contributors have a kind of anti-black bias that revolves around inappropriately implying black favoritism where none actually existed. Rhineland BASTARDS? Do not revert doubly so! --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Despite this there was never any systematic attempt to eliminate the black population of Germany, though mixed marriage remained illegal.

For something to be illegal means that it is part of a systematic attempt to elimate it. Marriage was considered the legitimate form of continuing procreation and families. The sentance even refuted itself. THREE reasons not to revert it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The statement was accurate and there was no contradiction. The point is that while all Jews were eliminated from the German population, all black people were not. This is a fact. You weren't arrested and sent to Auschwitz simply because you were black. Black people continued to live openly in Nazi Germany. Mixed marriage was illegal. No one is saying that Nazi Germany was paradise for black people, but it is false to suggest that there was any real comparison to the treatment of Jews. Mixed marriage was illegal, not marriage. Black people could legally marry each other and have children. Paul B 20:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-Aryans

Let's not get confused about the difference between non-Aryans and non-Nordics. The Sorbs were not "non-Aryans", but in some cases were characterised as non-Nordics. The Aryan Laws were directed against Jews, and only secondarily included other people who could be characterised as non-Aryan, usually through legal rulings interpreting the law, rather than direct legislation. Racial policies directed against Serbs and other non-Nordics did not arise from the Nuremberg laws but from wartime resettlement policies designed to increase the German populations in conquered areas. These were based partly on language and culture but also on Nordicist anthropometrics. There's a good case for including a section on this issue. Paul B 21:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Not enough focus on "Other Non-Aryans"

As much as I find this article informative, it doesn't really indicate other discriminatory taken by the Third Reich against groups other than Jews. I mean the Jews did constitute the larger number of people who were persecuted and subsequently killed. Everybody knows about how the Jews suffered, yet hardly any people know of how other groups suffered, such as Roma, or Poles and Slavs. I think the article doesn't need to edit any of the parts about Jews, rather extend the parts of the article about non-Jews. Ahadland 13:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

To repeat the point above, we have to be clear about the meaning of "non-Aryan" in Nazi legislation. Slavs and Poles are not non-Aryan. They are non-German and, subject to anthropmetric evaluation, probably non-Nordic. Also non-Aryans could be given the position of Honorary Aryan, meaning that the legal restrictions on non-Aryans did not apply to them. Roma, though literally of Aryan extraction, were given the exception of being as-it-were honorary non-Aryans, being excluded from that staus in 1937. Paul B 13:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I came to this article in the hopes to learn more abou spanish, african, and oriental oppression in nazi germany. Only wound up with a few points on the matter. Would love to see more on this. Debeo Morium 06:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Nazi Race policy

An anonymous editor has made a number of unreferenced edits to the page in which claim that the Nazis produced a systematic racial hierarchy at the bottom of which were

"Hungarians, Serbs and Croats (may include Albanians of non-Jewish faiths, Romanians and Bulgarians).

Italians (Northern regional groups from Tuscany or Lombardy on top, but darker-skinned Sicilians and southern regional groups treated as least)."

In fact the Nazis were in alliances with Hungary, Italy, Croatians, Romanians etc. What "scholarly" race theorisers may have thought is one thing, but actual policy is something else. Please provide evidence that the Nazis discriminated against their allies in the way you claim. Paul B 08:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

For now, keep the new edits...it also signified why the anti-Nazi resistance (In France, the Free French Forces or Le Resistance Francaise, and the Yugoslavian Partisans under Josip Tito) in these countries developed over time, when the Nazis became powerful and widely disliked, because Nazi officials have regarded their subjects in Eastern and Southern Europe, even they were part of the pro-Nazi Axis pact, aren't "superior" enough in the eyes of Nazi racial policy. + 63.3.14.1 06:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

But we need actual evidence, not just assumption. Nazi Germany had, for example, a very longstanding alliance with Hungary despite the fact that it is technically "non-Aryan" in the linguistic sense - a fact which seems to have had no actual effect on the relations between the two countries. Likewise, the Italian army was, afaik, not separated into "good" troops from the north and "bad" troops from the south. Given that the French are in Western Europe and that the very name "France" derives from the Franks - a German tribe - I don't see how your argument adds up. The same is true of Norway, which had an active resistence movement, but which Nordicist theory placed at the top of the race hierarchy. Paul B 07:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My point is at times the Nazis turned against people, even their own German citizens. When Hitler committed suicide rather to face defeat by the Soviets in April/May 1945, he send an order to close off Germany, then said into wanting to destroy Germany and starve every one of his own people to death. Hitler agreed with most racial anthropology on all European peoples are from the same "Aryan" or Indo-European stock, but not equally the same.

I can offer abit of proof on Heinrich Himmler, Alfred Rosenberg and Adolf Eichmann made personal comments on the possible "inferiority" of their subjects (i.e. on the "gibbon" appearance of French, Sicilians and North Africans) in Eastern and Southern Europe, since Hitler assumed in many occasions that Semites (Arabs), Slavs (Poles), Hungarians and "Tartars" from the east are "backward, unhygienic and docile".

Of course the Nazi racial policy put Scandinavians high on the list, as well the Germanic Dutch and though Britain wasn't occupied (thank goodness), the British (since Anglo-saxons came from Lower Germany in the 8th century, and the great worldwide British empire "dominated" the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, India/south Asia and elsewhere) are placed in the top category, but Great Britain is an enemy and all British in Germany are "enemy nationals".

Hitler actually admired the "racial selective nature" of the development of North America and Australasia, began as English/British colonies included Northern or western European immigrants (esp. Germans, Swedes, Scots and Irish he refered them as "Aryans" or high-ranked "Nordics"), but Hitler scorned Italians, Poles and Greeks "are lesser peoples" and read much on the Ku Klux Klan, a hate group who had Nazi sympathizers as the two distant political fringes equally hated Jews, Communists and non-whites (Africans).

But in later years, Hitler wrote in his rough draft notes about the racial rise and fall of America: because of "Jewish Russians", "too many Negroes ran loose when they were freed from slavery", American Indians he said are "lower savages destroyed by white settlement", and negatively said "Chinese yellows" and "Mexican browns" threaten the "white Aryan" racial fabric build by "the best, strongest and highest selected Europeans to what the United States (or America) became". I believe he worried on changes of US immigration laws in 1924 will make the US very powerful and threaten a remilitarized Germany.

Hitler's ill-spirited statements are indeed very racist and shown Hitler's deep hatred of the US and mankind. The Nazis hated democracy, moderation and equality of people, no matter what race or religion the person belonged to. If these additions in the article are myths, rumors or speculation, I say the edits shall be deleted or examined carefully to get rewritten in a better detail. The most reliable source is right from Hitler's book Mein Kampf. + 63.3.14.1 07:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No one, of course, is denying that Hitler was a racist! Nor is anyone denying that the Nazis theorised about superior and inferior poeples and that this affected attitudes towards different nations. You really don't need to inform me where Anglo-Saxons came from. The question is where and when this actually defined policy, and if so how. Hitler, Rosenberg et al did, of course, think that southern Italians were inferior to the Lombards (less Nordic), but that's quite different from saying that there was any specific discrimination against them. Mussolini's Italy had very different ideas about race (see Gilette, Racial Theories in Fascist Italy). Hitler's problem with the Italian army was its incompetence, not its racial make up. That's what decided how Italian and German troops were integrated in North Africa. In Hungary there was even a Turanian Society that was parallel to the Aryanist Thule Society, but instead of being at daggers drawn - as 'racial theory' should dictate - they were in effect allied in their ethno-nationalist ideology. Whatever some theoretical hierarchy might say, Hitler needed support and troops from fellow-fascists. He wasn't going to present Horthy and Mussolini with a list putting Hungarians and Italians at the bottom of a hierarchy and telling them to like it! That's what we need here, a sense where and when racial theory and actual policy both meshed and diverged. We also need sources for this list. Where does it come from? Paul B 08:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Plagirization?

I'm not entirely sure if this is an issue, but I noticed that the "1933 to 1940" section is almost a direct copy of another website. Other parts may be the same as well. This is the website in question: http://www.answers.com/topic/racial-policy-of-nazi-germany

This is not cited as a source in the article. Could anyone explain this? If it's nothing, just delete this thread. L.Crono 00:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Amnswers.com is a copy of Wikipedia. All its articles copy ours. Paul B 08:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

african germans

is this just trying to be politically correct? i found it very confusing, I'm assuming it refers to black people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.70.36.204 (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Why is it any more confusing than African Americans would be, or "Jewish Germans"? Paul B 17:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Order of importance of ethnic groups

This stuff really needs citations:

• Germans from Germany (Reichdeutsche) - Nordic Germans are said most favorable, but all German citizens are in the top category.
• Germans from outside, active ethnic Germans, honorary "Aryans" from axis European countries in Volksliste category 1 and 2 (see Volksdeutsche).
• Germans from outside, passive Germans and members of families, handicapped, political dissidents, common criminals in Volksliste category 3 and 4.
• Other Germanic peoples closely related to Germans (Norwegians, Danes, Swedes, and Dutch) but treated as categories 1 and 2 in most privileges, especially pro-Nazi sympathizers).
• Spaniards, Basques and Italians (Northern regional Italian groups from Tuscany or Lombardy and Spaniards treated as category 1 and 2, but darker-skinned Sicilians and southern regional Italian groups treated as least. May include Greeks also).
• Britons from the British islands. Includes Irish, Scots and Welsh (The English would be treated as Germanic people)
• French people in France (except German speaking Alsatians, and pro-Nazi French supporters in categories 1 and 2).
• Highlanders (Goralenvolk): an attempt to split the Polish nation by using local collaborators.
• Poles, Czechs and Slovaks (include non-Germans: Estonians, Lithuanians and Finns from the Baltic states).
• Hungarians, Albanians and Croats (may include Serbs of non-Jewish faiths, Romanians and Bulgarians).
• Ukrainians, Russians and Belarusians (may include Ruthenians and Armenians).

Enemy nationals who happened to fall under the "Aryan" racial category, but were living in Germany at the time, were treated with suspicion by legal restrictions. Non-Aryan allies of the Nazi government could be classified as honorary Aryans.

--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I asked for a source for this back in January (see above). I got no reply about the source from the ip who added it. See "Nazi race policy" section. Paul B 11:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nordic race.jpg

Image:Nordic race.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced claim about Hans Asperger

Racial policy of Nazi Germany #1933 to 1940 contained this unsourced claim, which was introduced by this change from an IP address:

It's well-documented on Nazi State hospitals studied autistic adult patients and how one doctor, Hans Asperger discovered Asperger's Syndrome from his research to the neurological disorder as part of the Nazis' plan to exterminate the mentally disabled.

However, Hans Asperger wrote in his original 1944 paper on Asperger syndrome (as translated by Frith):

We are convinced, then, that autistic people have their place in the organism of the social community. They fulfil their role well, perhaps better than anyone else could, and we are talking of people who as children had the greatest difficulties and caused untold worries to their care-givers.

Frith comments on this passage as follows:

The historical background to this passionate defence of the social value of autism was the very real threat of Nazi terror which extended to killing mentally handicapped and socially deviant people.

These two quotes are taken from pages 89–90 of: Asperger H; tr. and annot. Frith U (1991). "'Autistic psychopathy' in childhood". In Frith U (ed.). Autism and Asperger syndrome. Cambridge University Press. pp. 37–92. ISBN 0-521-38608-X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Given Asperger's evident opposition to the Nazi policies with respect to autism, the unsourced claim seems implausible, so I removed it. Someone with more expertise in this area may want to look at all the changes introduced around that time by that IP address; if one part was questionable, others might be as well. Eubulides (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

According to this article in German by Brita Schirmer from 2002 Autismus und NS-Rassengesetze in Österreich 1938: Hans Aspergers Verteidigung der »autistischen Psychopathen« gegen die NS-Eugenik (Autism and Nazi-Race laws in Austria 1938: Hans Aspersgers defence of the "autistic psychopaths" against Nazi eugenics), Asperger had discovered and published the syndrom allready in a lecture in 1938, after the unification of Austria and the German Reich, but before the Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses (Law for the Prevention of Hereditarilly Diseased Offspring) which was enacted in Germany in 1934 would be enacted in Austria in 1940. Schirmers article is written in defence of Asperger. Indeed there is no reason to doubt that his intention was to protect his patients against sterilization and euthanasia. On the other hand, Asperger adopted rethorics and rational of the Nazis to explain his point of view.

"Wieviel können wir für diese Menschen leisten? soll die Frage sein. Und wenn wir mit all unserer Hingabe ihnen helfen, so tun wir damit auch unserem Volk den besten Dienst; nicht nur dadurch, daß wir verhindern, daß jene durch ihre dissozialen und kriminellen Taten die Volksgemeinschaft belasten, sondern auch dadurch, daß wir zu erreichen suchen, daß sie als arbeitende Menschen ihren Platz in dem lebendigen Organismus des Volkes ausfüllen." (Quote by Asperger, taken from Schirmer's article)

"The question should be: How much can we do for these humans? And when we help them with all our devotion, than we also do the best service to our people; not only by preventing that those burden the people's community through their dissocial and criminal acts, but also by trying to achieve that they occupy their place in the living organism of the people."

Here A. justifies the care for autistic persons not by their value as individuals but by the valuable role which they could play for the people's community.

In another quote, A. describes another type of psychopaths as almost the opposite of autism: while their abstract intelligence is developed below the average, their practical reason, their instinct, their usability and their values of temper are developed much better.

"Diese letzten Fälle sind wichtig – oder werden es bei uns werden, wenn das ‚Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses’ auch bei uns in Kraft tritt. Wird der Arzt als Begutachter in solchen Fällen vor eine Entscheidung gestellt, so wird er diese nicht allein nach dem Ergebnis der Beantwortung eines Fragebogens oder nach der Ziffer des Intelligenzquotienten treffen dürfen, sondern in erster Linie nach seiner Kenntnis der kindlichen Persönlichkeit, eine Kenntnis, die alle Fähigkeiten des Kindes, nicht nur die abstrakte Intelligenz in Rechnung stellt."

"Those cases are, or will become important for us, when the 'Law for the Prevention of Hereditarilly Diseased Offspring' will be enacted here, too. If the doctor is posed to a decision as an expert in such cases, then he won't take it solely by the answering of a questionaire, or by the figure of the Intelligence Quotient, but first of all by his knowledge of the infantil personality, a knowledge which takes into account all of the children's abilities, not just the abstract intelligence."

A. does not oppose doctors giving expertises about patients, but reminds them to carefully apply their professional knowledge.

Schirmer justifies A. as a defender of the patients against the fascists, by noting that at the time of 1938, the adherents of euthanasia were allready very present and active at the Vienna university too, which forced him to argue from a defensive position in the public.

--Schwalker (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for all that research. The most natural interpretation of these quotes is that Asperger was arguing as forcefully as he could, within the constraints imposed by the Nazi terror, that his patients should be spared. This rejects the claim that Asperger was "part of the Nazis' plan to exterminate the mentally disabled". Eubulides (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned-up a bit, but this article is still an almost total mess

How about almost not mentioning Jews 1940-45 (even Final Solution is mentioned once and not even linked)? How about not copy-pasting stuff from the other, already exisiting articles? Or not fixating on the one's nationalist agendas? Maybe I should rather place "rewrite" tag. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

By cleaning up if you mean delete everything then yes you did clean it up, stop going around and deleting everything you seeAheadnovel55 (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop going around and reverting everything you see. And welcome to Wikipedia. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)