T-4 and Euthanasia: an understated problem for Revisionism?

[Butterfangers]

While looking into the larger sphere of research surrounding AR camps, one inevitably comes back to the T-4 euthanasia program (from which much of the AR staff were previously employed). What is important to note about the T-4 program is that Revisionist work addressing this is relatively limited, likely given the fact that many of the documents which relate to this program were not available until Soviet archives opened up in the 90s. Since then, however, there has been some significant interest in the T-4 program among certain establishment historians.

Their consensus seems to be:

- A children's euthanasia program began in late summer of 1939. The program expanded to include a much larger, adult population shortly thereafter, which is known as the T-4 program.
- The program was kept secret. "Front" organizations and addresses were created, administrators of the program used pseudonyms. While the program later became public knowledge, there was little documentary trail to prove it. Much was shared by word-of-mouth.
- Family of those euthanized often were not informed and had no idea that this fate was intended or carried out for their disabled family member.
- Those who were euthanized in the program were commonly referred to as "unworthy of life" by T-4 and euthanasia staff.
- The criteria for who would be included was relatively loose, included anyone at an institution who had been institutionalized for 5+ years as well as those of less than five years but who were either unable to work or could only do very simple, manual tasks; those who were criminally insane; and those who were non-German (either by race or nationality). Among these, very few exceptions were ultimately made by doctors who made the determinations for euthanasia.
- Carbon monoxide gas chambers were ultimately a primary method for administering the euthanasia.
- Hitler kept the program a secret until enough information "leaked", public pressure resisted the program, at which point the T-4 program was discontinued (child euthanasia continued, however, through the end of the war)
- Some staff who worked in the children's euthanasia program were transferred to the adult T-4 program. Later, some staff who were working the T-4 program were transferred to the AR camps.

Implications for Jewish extermination are suggested to include:

- This provides obvious precedent of Germans using homicidal gas chambers to kill en masse
- This shows that programs of a controversial, mass homicidal nature were intended to be kept secret and documentation would not necessarily be clear or explicit with such a program
- Demonstrates some continuity of staffing through similar "killing" programs which led into AR camps
- Shows that Hitler (and the NSDAP) were morally capable of administering large-scale "killing" operations of those they considered "unworthy of life".

One of the most often-cited works on this topic is "The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution" by Henry Friedlander, particularly chapters 3 and 4. It can be viewed here (free account may be required to borrow/view): https://archive.org/details/originsofnazigen0000frie

As already mentioned, based on what I have found, there has been relatively little Revisionist discussion on this topic (relative to other topics of similar importance). Mattogno tackles this topic somewhat in chapter 4 of "Inside the Gas Chambers", linked here: https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/25-itgc.pdf

Mattogno's view, as I understand it, is that documents and physical evidence do not necessarily support the view that there were CO gas chambers used in the T-4 program at all. He also addresses and demonstrates that the claim of continuity between T-4 and AR camps is not so clear as it is often claimed, and that the overall structure of the claimed directives toward Jewish extermination in Auschwitz vs. AR camps is senselessly disjointed, among other important points.

In 2017, however, John Wear published an article where he concedes entirely that the T-4 euthanasia programs did occur (including CO gassing), but demonstrates how there are critical differences between the evidence for T-4/euthanasia programs and the Jewish 'extermination' programs, as alleged. Wear's article is here: https://codoh.com/library/document/evid ... rogram/en/

Here are my thoughts:

- It does appear the "homicidal gas chamber" precedent, if accepted that similar technology was used at T-4, does indeed provide a reasonable precedent for Germans having the ideation to use such a technology against Jews later on. However, it also provides a precedent or reference for those designing a narrative to use against Germany in their propaganda effort. The T-4 program ultimately became public knowledge in Germany which means it absolutely would have been known to spies or other international observers around the same period, or sooner.
- The secrecy of this T-4 program (particularly it's limited documentary trail and use of pseudonyms) may bolster arguments of exterminationists who suggest that documentation for a Jewish extermination program should also be very limited and that "code words" may be used. Nonetheless, claims of murder (let alone mass murder), especially in politically-charged cases, will require material or documentary evidence. A lack of documentary proof does not prove an event occurred and was covered up, unless other evidence is sufficient to demonstrate this as such. No such evidence exists for Jewish extermination.
- Staffing the T-4 (adult euthanasia) program with child euthanasia staff makes obvious sense; it's nearly the same program in its structure and environment. Duties included registering patients, reviewing and documenting their condition, as medical staff and professionals within a medical environment and context. Being then shipped off to assist with medical treatment to soldiers in the Russian East, then to AR "death camps", then to an Italian island to fight partisans, does not show real continuity with any of this (as Mattogno outlines in the work cited, above).
- The T-4 "precedent" perhaps does demonstrate that Hitler and his administration were "morally capable" of facilitating a program that resulted in the death of those who they considered "unworthy" (and I would suppose that Jews might fit into this category, according to popular opinion at the time) however it is absurd to think that a secret "death" program would be shut down due to public outrage, only to immediately be followed by an even larger, more controversial program, conducted in a similar way.

Overall, I think this is an extremely important topic and warrants greater investigation from a Revisionist perspective. With limited resources, we are always lagging behind the universally-funded and promoted exterminationist narrative, so it's not surprising there are areas of the narrative still under-explored but hopefully the growing interest in Revisionism, generally, in recent years will help to accelerate the efforts in terms of research and analysis, new investigation and written works, etc.

[Lamprecht]

It supports the revisionist position, actually.
First, if they already had set up a system to kill people with CO, why would they use instead the much inferior Zyklon-B at Auschwitz?
Second, there's a clear paper trail with the T4 program. No such paper trail exists for the alleged gassing of Jews
Third, the T4 workers did not at all deny their involvement when put on trial. They said it was justified. In contrast, those accused of being involved in mass exterminations of Jews either emphatically claimed it didn't happen, or said it did (as a defense strategy) with wildly contradicting testimony.
Fourth, using the T4 staff at the AR camps made sense as terminally ill/dying Jews were to be euthanized rather than continue the resettlement program. This was a measure to reduce death and stop the further spread of disease
Fifth, there was widespread knowledge of the program. That's how people turned against it. In contrast, the alleged gassing of Jews was claimed to be so top secret that fewer than 100 even knew about it. All of the war-time "testimony" we have of it is overwhelmingly contradictory
Sixth, there is no deceptive paper trail of "code words" for T4. Discussion of it is frank. The documents on the Final Solution are also frank, and if interpreted literally, supports the revisionist position. But we are expected to believe in "code words" here
Seventh, there was discussion of the method of euthanasia for the disabled. There is no such authentic documentation on the alleged gassings of Jews

[fireofice]

Involuntary euthanasia is something that happens today in the Netherlands.

https://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/04/tho ... anasia-ok/

[Lamprecht]

Involuntary euthanasia is something that happens today in the Netherlands.

https://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/04/tho ... anasia-ok/

Technically, abortion is involuntary euthanasia. And in nearly every case the fetus is perfectly healthy. One could easily argue that abortion of perfectly healthy fetuses is a more serious moral conundrum than euthanasia of the handicapped / terminally ill

[hermod]

Is there any reliable and palpable evidence that some of the personnel involved in the T4 program actually worked at the AR camps later? Or was it also a "fact of common knowledge" needing no proof (article 21 of the London Charter of August 8, 1945) but testimonial BS, like so many things at the Nuremberg show trials?

[Lamprecht]

Is there any reliable and palpable evidence that some of the personnel involved in the T4 program actually worked at the AR camps later? Or was it also a "fact of common knowledge" needing no proof (article 21 of the London Charter of August 8, 1945) but testimonial BS, like so many things at the Nuremberg show trials?

Why Aktion T4 (euthanasia) workers involved in Aktion Reinhard(t) also?
viewtopic.php?t=12810

The Jews transited through AR would have undergone some medical examination, and unlikely to have been transited on if it was found they were terminally ill. Putting them on trains to continue the journey would have put others at risk of getting disease.

See:
Prisoners dying in transit to the AR camps (Sobibor, Belzec, Treblinka) / other deaths / expected death tolls
viewtopic.php?t=12910

On 7 September, some 300 Jews – old and weak, ill, frail, and no longer transportable were executed.

Mattogo, Graf & Kues (text quoted in first link):

In such a case, however, the deportees in the camps would not all have been assassinated (except for a handful selected for work), but only a small fraction of them. One could thus no longer speak of pure extermination camps. Bełżec, Sobibór, and Treblinka would thus have had a double function: a principal function as a transit camp for the resettlement to the East, and a secondary function as a euthanasia center for the mentally ill or the incurably sick.

According to the "Holocaust" narrative, effectively 100% of Jews sent to these 3 camps were gassed. Only a handful were ever spared, just long enough to be used as workers to keep the gassings, cremations, and mass graves going.
If that was the case, there's no reason that these euthanasia doctors would be employed at these camps, at least in any large numbers. The gas chamber system would have been designed so that it would not require any special medical knowledge to use.
The "old and weak, ill, frail, and no longer transportable" would also not be a meaningful category at all, since we are supposed to believe that everyone was getting gassed.

[Merlin300]

Is there any reliable and palpable evidence that some of the personnel involved in the T4 program actually worked at the AR camps later?

The euthanasia program started with a petition to Hitler from the parents of a severely handicapped child.
The procedure to kill a human required the declaration of two doctors that the patient was
incapable of recovery and severely affected. The program shows a rational and well documented process of dealing with human
frailty. As a point of full disclosure, I support the right to die laws.

[borjastick]

Excuse my ignorance on the T-4 issue as, though I have heard of it of course, I am not well read on the matter.

But in a state delivered T-4 programme in hospitals and state owned buildings in cities was there never one of these CO chambers found, filmed and photographed?

[Butterfangers]

Excuse my ignorance on the T-4 issue as, though I have heard of it of course, I am not well read on the matter.

But in a state delivered T-4 programme in hospitals and state owned buildings in cities was there never one of these CO chambers found, filmed and photographed?

Just speaking from memory, I recall reading that existing rooms had modifications installed (airtight doors, etc.) which were later disassembled and removed once the T-4 program was ended in 1941. I do remember seeing a photograph of a room which was alleged to have been used for this purpose (taken post-war) but there was nothing in it that could indicate a homicidal function, if I recall correctly. Just a room.

[Hektor]

Involuntary euthanasia is something that happens today in the Netherlands.

https://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/04/tho ... anasia-ok/

It's something that probably happens more often than people think. And if abortion is legal, it's even worse, since perfectly healthy babies will be killed as well.

There was also no "Euthanasia Order" "(Euthanasiebefehl") by Adolf Hitler. What he signed was an allowance for some doctors to allow for Euthanasia, if patients were incurably sick. That's hardly an order to kill anyone that was handicapped or permanently sick. Now one can argue that Dr. Brandt & Co. took the whole thing a bit too far. But what do people think happened with incurable sick patients in Germany between 1945-1949 many were probably neglected and starved to death thanks to Allied policies.

The fact that Euthanasia is well documented and that it was actually abandoned after protest from the population and the churches is not a problem for Revisionism. It's a problem for the Holocaust narrative.

[Archie]

While looking into the larger sphere of research surrounding AR camps, one inevitably comes back to the T-4 euthanasia
Implications for Jewish extermination are suggested to include:

- This provides obvious precedent of Germans using homicidal gas chambers to kill en masse
- This shows that programs of a controversial, mass homicidal nature were intended to be kept secret and documentation would not necessarily be clear or explicit with such a program
- Demonstrates some continuity of staffing through similar "killing" programs which led into AR camps
- Shows that Hitler (and the NSDAP) were morally capable of administering large-scale "killing" operations of those they considered "unworthy of life".

Here are my thoughts:

- It does appear the "homicidal gas chamber" precedent, if accepted that similar technology was used at T-4, does indeed provide a reasonable precedent for Germans having the ideation to use such a technology against Jews later on. However, it also provides a precedent or reference for those designing a narrative to use against Germany in their propaganda effort. The T-4 program ultimately became public knowledge in Germany which means it absolutely would have been known to spies or other international observers around the same period, or sooner.
- The secrecy of this T-4 program (particularly it's limited documentary trail and use of pseudonyms) may bolster arguments of exterminationists who suggest that documentation for a Jewish extermination program should also be very limited and that "code words" may be used. Nonetheless, claims of murder (let alone mass murder), especially in politically-charged cases, will require material or documentary evidence. A lack of documentary proof does not prove an event occurred and was covered up, unless other evidence is sufficient to demonstrate this as such. No such evidence exists for Jewish extermination.
- Staffing the T-4 (adult euthanasia) program with child euthanasia staff makes obvious sense; it's nearly the same program in its structure and environment. Duties included registering patients, reviewing and documenting their condition, as medical staff and professionals within a medical environment and context. Being then shipped off to assist with medical treatment to soldiers in the Russian East, then to AR "death camps", then to an Italian island to fight partisans, does not show real continuity with any of this (as Mattogno outlines in the work cited, above).
- The T-4 "precedent" perhaps does demonstrate that Hitler and his administration were "morally capable" of facilitating a program that resulted in the death of those who they considered "unworthy" (and I would suppose that Jews might fit into this category, according to popular opinion at the time) however it is absurd to think that a secret "death" program would be shut down due to public outrage, only to immediately be followed by an even larger, more controversial program, conducted in a similar way.

Overall, I think this is an extremely important topic and warrants greater investigation from a Revisionist perspective. With limited resources, we are always lagging behind the universally-funded and promoted exterminationist narrative, so it's not surprising there are areas of the narrative still under-explored but hopefully the growing interest in Revisionism, generally, in recent years will help to accelerate the efforts in terms of research and analysis, new investigation and written works, etc.

There are actually some ways in which the euthanasia program could be seen as helpful to revisionists. For one thing, the documentation is actually much stronger for the euthanasia program than for the establishment version of the "Final Solution." For example, there is a signed a Hitler order from late 1939, something that is famously lacking for the supposed Jewish extermination program. Also, the point about secrecy you raise I think is quite important. There were rumors about the program throughout 1940 and the Vatican condemned the practice in December of 1940. There was never Vatican statement like this about "the Holocaust." The question of whether the Holocaust was kept secret is an interesting one. On the one hand, we have lots of atrocity propaganda regarding the camps (2M steamed to death at Treblinka etc) but at the same time we don't see any convincing acknowledgement of the reality of these claims from the Allies, the Vatican, or even Jews themselves who are generally said to have been unaware that they were being sent to gas chambers (if they were aware then their lack of resistance to being exterminated is curious). But if we consider that the euthanasia program is only claimed to have killed some 70,000 people (the usual establishment figure), how is it that the Germans completely failed to keep it a secret yet they were able to keep "the Holocaust" more or less secret even though it was approximately 85 times larger in scale?

That all said, if it could be confirmed that they were gassing people in the euthanasia program, this would present a difficulty for revisionism but not an insurmountable one. The significance of this would be that it would undermine the usual revisionist position that the gas chambers were legendary or mythical. If it could be shown demonstrably that there was a small gassing program, this would make the suggestion that it happened elsewhere more plausible, but the matter of scale is still important. If it were absolutely proved that 10 people were gassed at some point, this would not prove millions were gassed. It would just increase the probability somewhat that other gas chamber stories are true.

Whether euthanasia program executions were done in gas chambers is far from given. There were gassing rumors in association with the euthanasia program from at least early as Nov 1940, however these were based entirely on speculation over the practice of cremated remains being sent back to the families without explanation. It was assumed that the cremation was to cover up disfigurement from gassing or "death rays" or other tortures. There are testimonies from war crimes trials that describe euthanasia gassings but these show very clear influence from the concentration camp gassing stories. Many of them feature "fake showers" etc. But in a euthanasia context where you are killing invalids and people with severe disabilities, what need is there to trick people with a fake shower? It does not make sense. We have people repeating concentration camp stories in a context were it doesn't really work. For more on this see Samuel Crowell's The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes, especially chapter 10 which is on the euthanasia program. Crowell says the method of execution was likely via injections.

Crowell also quotes and interesting bit from the NMT I case where the judge asked Brack how the gas chambers were designed and built and Brack's answers were not very coherent. The judge is rightfully confused.

Q. Now, how would the heads of each of these institutions know how to install a gas chamber unless there were certain plans and specifications given to them?

A. I never saw any such plan. I don't know of any.

Q. Would you know how to go out and build a gas chamber unless some engineer or planner had told you? Certainly I wouldn't.

A. I don't know whether I would either. Presumably he called in an engineer.

Q. That's what I'm trying to say. What engineer or group of engineers was responsible for seeing that these gas chambers were built so that they would do the job they were supposed to do?

A. There was certainly no group of engineers. I presume there was somebody at the institutions who had enough technical ability to do it. I don't know.

Q. Then, so far as you know, someone at one of these institutions would be told by Bouhler to construct a gas chamber and he would call the head of the institution then would call on someone, you don't know whom, to go out and build the chamber Is that correct?

A. That is how I imagine it.

Q. Well, wouldn't it make a considerable difference whether the chamber was to be constructed for euthanasia by carbon monoxide or by some other means? Wouldn't there have to be some technical information available to the head of the institution so that he could give directions to his mechanic to build the thing to do the thing it was supposed to do?

A. I must say honestly I really don't know anything about that. I can't judge.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/testimonies/Brack1947.html

Additionally, the second Leuchter report features an analysis of the facilities at Hartheim Castle, one of the main euthanasia sites. See the Holocaust Handbook Leuchter Reports. It points out problems with the supposed "gas chamber" there.

[fireofice]

According to Wikipedia:

The killings took place from September 1939 until the end of the war in 1945; from 275,000 to 300,000 people were killed in psychiatric hospitals in Germany and Austria, occupied Poland and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (now the Czech Republic). The number of victims was originally recorded as 70,273 but this number has been increased by the discovery of victims listed in the archives of the former East Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4

The projected death total for the T4 programme of 70,000 deaths had been reached by August 1941.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4 ... continuity

From what I'm getting from this, 70,000 were euthanized as part of the "official" T4 program. But apparently the 300,000 number comes from when it was no longer "official". How documented is this and what supposed "archives" lead them to conclude this? From what I've seen so far (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) the "unofficial euthanasia" isn't any more particularly well documented than the holocaust. I'm sure we can infer that some euthanasia happened, but if the whole point of discontinuing the official program was to get away from public controversy, it's hard to imagine it would be well documented. In fact, it seems like it would be about as well documented as "the holocaust", which apparently they wanted to keep secret. After all, if they wanted to keep "the holocaust" secret, it seems like they would want to do that with euthanasia too, which they already got into a bit of trouble with the public with. If it was well documented even after it stopped being official, that would be even more of a problem for the mainstream holocaust position. But since euthanasia after the official program seems to probably be about as well documented as "the holocaust" (which isn't necessarily a problem if you claim just some were euthanized with injections, but if you are going to claim gassing operations that killed up to 300,000 with no post 1941 documentation, that becomes a bit problematic), I'm going to remain agnostic on the actual number of deaths until it is demonstrated with documentation and treat the 300,000 number as unfounded in the meantime.

[Hektor]

According to Wikipedia:

The killings took place from September 1939 until the end of the war in 1945; from 275,000 to 300,000 people were killed in psychiatric hospitals in Germany and Austria, occupied Poland and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (now the Czech Republic). The number of victims was originally recorded as 70,273 but this number has been increased by the discovery of victims listed in the archives of the former East Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4

The projected death total for the T4 programme of 70,000 deaths had been reached by August 1941.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4 ... continuity

From what I'm getting from this, 70,000 were euthanized as part of the "official" T4 program. But apparently the 300,000 number comes from when it was no longer "official". How documented is this and what supposed "archives" lead them to conclude this? From what I've seen so far (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) the "unofficial euthanasia" isn't any more particularly well documented than the holocaust. I'm sure we can infer that some euthanasia happened, but if the whole point of discontinuing the official program was to get away from public controversy, it's hard to imagine it would be well documented. In fact, it seems like it would be about as well documented as "the holocaust", which apparently they wanted to keep secret. After all, if they wanted to keep "the holocaust" secret, it seems like they would want to do that with euthanasia too, which they already got into a bit of trouble with the public with. If it was well documented even after it stopped being official, that would be even more of a problem for the mainstream holocaust position. But since euthanasia after the official program seems to probably be about as well documented as "the holocaust" (which isn't necessarily a problem if you claim just some were euthanized with injections, but if you are going to claim gassing operations that killed up to 300,000 with no post 1941 documentation, that becomes a bit problematic), I'm going to remain agnostic on the actual number of deaths until it is demonstrated with documentation and treat the 300,000 number as unfounded in the meantime.

They assume that this was still done after it wasn't 'official' any longer. But that's getting into the field of innuendo there. If it doesn't have records... You can twitch all kinds of death cases into it. Natural cases, disease, bombing, etc. Since they claim that it was kept secret, you can now pick up death certificates and then declare that the person didn't die from the attested cause of death but from Euthanasia. It seems the subject got more attention recently again. And I wonder, if that isn't done, because the Holocaust narrative is falling apart.

Interestingly Euthanasia was never really in dispute (except for the extent perhaps), because the 'paper work' is there and one can actually point to cases - with evidence - and investigate them. This wasn't pushed as much as the Holocaust though... I think it's because it is a touchy subject, given that it will bring up present day medical practices like abortion, but also what happens, when keeping someone on life support isn't profitable anymore. As for Euthanasia in war time, I suspect it was practiced in Allied countries as well albeit not official. When the rationing cut short letting patients starve is one way of doing it.

[curioussoul]

-There is no evidence that CO chambers were used within the T-4 program

-The T-4 program is actually well-documented and is therefore an objective fact of history, unlike the Holocaust

-Revisionists have posited that there is reason to believe that sick Jews and Jews who were otherwise unable to carry on the journey to the occupied eastern territories were in fact "mercy-killed" in the Reinhardt camps

-This is supported by the very small-scale mass graves discovered in these camps, which probably also include dead Jews from the trains

-This also explains why some T-4 staff was tangentially involved in the Reinhardt camps

-There are a very scattered documents that allude to the fact that some Jews did die in the Reinhardt camps, but that they were sick/elderly/criminals/partisans

-There is no evidence whatsoever that these Jews were killed in gas chambers - on the contrary, they were most likely shot

[hermod]

Is there any reliable and palpable evidence that some of the personnel involved in the T4 program actually worked at the AR camps later? Or was it also a "fact of common knowledge" needing no proof (article 21 of the London Charter of August 8, 1945) but testimonial BS, like so many things at the Nuremberg show trials?

Why Aktion T4 (euthanasia) workers involved in Aktion Reinhard(t) also?
viewtopic.php?t=12810

The post below answers my question...

How informative that http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... rship.html does not actually show the material listed as "sources" for it's claims about these people.
They rather appear to be just making empty claims to suit their biased agenda. Of course that surprises no one.
B.