Talk:Germany Must Perish!

No consensus to delete

No consensus to delete at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Germany Must Parish

See this forum posting which asks when this book was published. Unanswered when last I looked. Andrewa 22:25, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Obviously lots more cleaning up to do on this article, spelling etc, if it's kept. Author apparently not an English native speaker, so that's understandable. Andrewa 23:41, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re: Publishing information: LOC says first edition was 1941: Kaufman, Theodore N. Germany Must Perish! Newark, N.J.,: Argyle press, 1941. Was apparently reprinted in 1979 as Kaufman, Theodore N. Germany Must Perish! New York: Gordon Press, 1979 (ISBN: 0849028612). --Fastfission 23:23, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

There is absolutely no reason this article should be deleted, though I see a consensus has not been attained anyway. Here is what I found on the Calvin Website:

"Theodore N. Kaufman was a 31-year old owner of a theatrical ticket agency in Newark, New Jersey who published at his own expense a 100-page book titled Germany Must Perish! in March, 1941. It called for the sterilization of the German population and the dismemberment of Germany, with its land being turned over to neighboring states. The book received no serious attention in the U.S., but the Nazis discovered it in July 1941. They played it up big, claiming that Kaufman was a close associate of Franklin D. Roosevelt, a member of his Brain Trust, and that Roosevelt himself had dictated some of Kaufman's words."

Now I don't know about you, but to me, such an explanatory and apologetic diagnosis of Kaufman and his book seems a little strange. Lets be honest: any book advertised in the New York Times is sure to get noticed.

[May I interject? This summary of Kaufman is copied from a webpage by author Randall Bytwerk, who does seem to be trying to suggest that the Nazis got all worked up over nothing. This is not quite true, however. While the reviewer in Time Magazine (March 24, 1941) subtly mocked the book (and made fun of Kaufman), it seems to have at least partly inspired Louis Nizer's book, What To Do With Germany (1944). What's more, I am aware that there were quite a few Jews in the government who were apparently in favour of implementing similarly draconian policies after Germany was defeated, of which the Morgenthau plan is by far the best known. So the Nazis were not making a mountain out of a molehill. Once America was in the war, there were certainly people taking a similar lline. I think Bytwerk would like to bury the fact that there was intense anti-German hatred in the US during the war and that sometimes it sounded 'exterminationist.']

The Calvin article seems to suggest that the book itself wasn't important and rather, it was only the Nazi propaganda that followed. This is quite a stretch. Considering the graphic descriptions in the text, "turning it into propaganda" isn't very difficult of a task. While his connection to Roosevelt was certainly exaggerated, the opinion voiced by Kaufman should not be underestimated. It is very reminiscent of the attitude during the First World War, when charges of "militarism", "German barbarianism" and a "primative and uncivilized" people became the norm. Furthermore, one only has to look to Europe now to see the comparison to Kaufman's vision - certainly not through sterilization, but undeniably due to immigration and multiculturalism.

Information such as this article should remain on wikipedia because that is the glory of public domain: people deserve to know all the details.

---

Deleting that article ? Who is crazy enough to decide such a thing ? That book existed ! That's a fact ! It has stirred debates. That is why it shall be known and discussed. Nobody can't argue about a forgotten book. Not only this wikipage must stay, a link should be provided toward a PDF of that book if that exists. Destroying this wikipage is like burning a book. National-socialists got a very bad image with their autodafé (pyres of books). First this page destroyed, next will be all Thruthers killed and burned on pyres, their ashes dispersed in the ocean. World Revolution has no need of historians said Lenin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.120.156 (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Strange Indeed

I agree the hole article is strange indeed. Certainly a violation of neutrality. It is rather another polemical attempt to strike out at critiques and Holocaust Revisionists. In fact the book is better prove for a plan to exterminate the Germans then all the documents presented trying to prove the Germans wanted to exterminate the Jews. It is also not the only Anti-German publication and agitation by influential Jews. I still remember "Judea declare war on Germany" and guess what it's high on the Agenda to be downplayed. [1]

Interesting article. Kaufman dream was taken up by the Morgenthal Plan. Morgenthal et al made Kaufman seem like a mild mannered guy. The DEF camps were one of the manifestations, along with the years of slave labor of DEFs building roads etc throughout Europe, Canada, etc for at least a decade after the war. Sterilization of the mentally ill, retarded, poor, etc had been going on in the USA and maybe other places for years before Hitler came to power. Hitler may have done it also, it appeared to be the latest trend - strange how Holland now leads the world in eugenics and euthanaisia.

Concerning the removal of David Irving

I do not agree with removing material simply because the figure in question has controversial associations. However, it is Irving, and while he is a wealth of information, the fool showed the court that he misrepresented facts on several occasions. While he is among the first historians to have their footnotes examined under such intense scrutiny, anyone has the ability to do what the court did if they really wanted to. It just requires some extra effort. So, if anyone has a question about a wikipedian's references - or the references in the source the wikipedian cites - they should do some research on their own.

In conclusion, if anybody can find notes relating to where Irving got the information, please add the original information to this article. If Irving had done his job in the first place, we wouldn't have to be doing this...but it does make you wonder how many historians are really playing by the rules. I'm sure he isn't the only one who is guilty of misusing his status.--68.45.21.204 07:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Changes by anon

An anonymous user has changed the introduction to read: "The book was used by Nazi Germany to demonstrate that the Jews were plotting against Germany. Contemporary Holocaust deniers use the book to forward their claim of a Jewish-related conspiracy. Opponents of this claim state that the book was an obscure, self-published work until the Nazis got ahold of it. They consider it to be "little more than self-indulgence in dire vituperation by a man who sees Germany as the sole cause of the world's woes." This is inaccurate and problematic in a number of ways. First, it seems to argue that there are two equal sides, the first is a group that believes that it was a sign of a conspiracy, the other, the "opponents" argue that it was not. Instead, the only people who claim it was a sign of conspiracy are Holocaust deniers who use it as propaganda -- it is not accurate to describe that there is a debate over this. Second, the changes remove the fact that the quote is actually from a 1945 discussion of books about "what to do with Germany" not some sort of view by these shadowy "opponents." Third, the fact that it was used as propangada was removed, making it sound like the book was used in good faith, rather than a concious effort by Nazi Germany to justify genocide. The changes will be reverted. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not in your position to decided whether Germany's anti-Jewish decisions were made in part because of stupid literature like this or whether it was simply exploited as propaganda. In doing so, you are making a judgement call that only reflects your world view. You say that the only people who claim it was a sign of conspiracy are Holocaust deniers who use it as propaganda, but I find your typecasting to be extremely anti-intellectual. I am not a holocaust denier - nor do I believe in a Jewish-run conspiracy theory - but I am willing to entertain any idea if you can front the evidence. You cannot polarize your opponents simply because they do not see the world in the same black and white terms as you do. (Only "COMMIES" support abortion and the welfare state!!!)

Wiki prides itself on its NPOV and my additions show my attempt to distance myself from the material, which your reversions clearly do not. While I think you primarily find it offensive that the article allows the reader to form their own judgements, you have raised several valid points. I agree with your opposition to the word "opponents" - I could not think of a better way to break in the other point of view. Would you prefer to use something else? Also, I agree that the cited statement has been taken out of its 1945 context. I'm willing to collaborate, however, that requires you to do more than revert back to your version every time.--68.45.21.204 21:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, since you have not made an argument for your connection between T-4 and the Holocaust, I am reverting this section because it is bias and untruthful.

---

Mr. anonymous, I am not sure why you are attacking me as "anti-intellectual" because I stated that the book was used only as propangada. What is your evidence that the book was actually, as you changes imply, signs of an anti-Jewish conspiracy? Certainly the few sources I have found by scholars on this otherwise unnotable book state that it was the work of an isolated author used as propaganda. In this light, it is both POV and original research to state that the book might be the sign of such a conspiracy unless some reputable source (not Goebbels!) gives some evidence that this is the case. You need to "front the evidence" as it were, or your need to not imply that the Nazis could be right on this -- that isn't having an open mind, it is distorting the truth. As for the T-4 Euthenasia program, it is generally included as an early incident of the Holocaust -- see Henry Friedlander's The Origins of the Final Solution, or Holocaust: A History by Deborah Dwork and Robert Jan Pelt. It is hardly accurate to call this "bias[ed] and untruthful." --Goodoldpolonius2 22:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

My accusation is the end result of...your argument against "Germany must perish" coming through unacceptably in your use of language. You suggest that if someone does not support the view that Kaufman's work was a muffled voice in the woods, then they are part of the holocaust denier group - the hideous "Other". Your source for the claim about Kaufman as a small-time publisher who was largely dismissed has an opinion just like anyone else. Did they conduct a survey to see how many people saw the ad and went out to buy the book? No. Likewise, the book offers the same sentiment "Judea" voiced when Hitler came to power in 1933, not to mention that this "Germany must perish" propaganda is EXACTLY like the inflammatory remarks that had an opinion-shaping effect in World War I. I find the circumstances around the book to be very odd, though I am not suggesting a Jewish conspiracy existed. There another side of the story that you are completely overlooking, probably because the world hasn't bothered to consider Germany's point of view on anything in the 20th century until very recently. Is Kaufman part of a conspiracy, Jewish or otherwise? Probably not. Is he a voice of agitation against Germany? Yes. YES! Is it work like Kaufman's that helped turn public opinion around years earlier in World War I. Incidently, Imperial Germany was also cast as evil during the war and even when I learned about these things in grade school. Sometimes its easier to construct a dramatic good vs. evil narrative rather than actually examining the potentially confusing circumstances around something like "Germany must perish". So now you know where I stand. What evidence do I need to show your bias? Back to the article, T-4 is related to the Holocaust as we see it on a timeline of historiography. The Holocaust and T-4 are not one in the same, however they are related. I have read the above mentioned text...your comparison between mass organized execution and T-4 is given credit because they were both a means to achieve a similar goal. However, they are not one in the same. Since I already mentioned the Communists, I'll use them again. The purges Lenin enacted served the same purpose as Stalin's purges, but they were completely different in character. Likewise, there is a difference between the apocalypic "means to an end" in the post-1941 period, which no longer included just persecution, sterilization, expulsion and discrimination. Our task on Wiki is to report the facts and let the reader decide for himself. My comment on your black and white view of the world - one that many historians fail to challenge - relates specifically to this. If we consider the Nazis as plotting and scheming every which way, history is easy to understand. Everything falls into place in a timelime like yours. However, if we neutralize them, things become much more complicated and require an effort to explain. I'm not defending Goebbels opinion that there was a jewish conspiracy, but rather, I am willing to look at the circumstances as they were rather than as we see them now (in connection with the Holocaust). To equate T-4 with the Holocaust is an obvious attempt to put "Germany must perish" in a context that it was never a part of, as if to say "See what is coming? The Holcaust!" With that overview, nobody will ever think twice about the book again (which I'm sure you'd appreciate). Don't forget that there was no Holocaust by Germany in WWI, yet Entente propaganda went to great lengths to mislead the public to believe in German crimes against humanity. "Germany must perish" was the attitude that was behind the entire Entente war effort, so if you want to put things in historical contexts, look backwards, not forwards. Dismissing the publication should not be the overall purpose of this article. 68.45.21.204 22:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

This is getting long so I'll start anew. Please suggest a different wording for my introduction. As is, the publication "was used" by Holocaust deniers. Where did they go? (You didn't purge them, did you?) --68.45.21.204 22:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Significance of Kaufman

Well, since I get taken to task earlier, a few comments....

First, what's the evidence that Kaufman "inspired" Nizer?

Second, all it takes to put an ad in the "New York Times" is money. The simple placement of an ad does not guarantee attention. Any advertiser will tell you that.

Third, there is practically no discussion of Kaufman after the original reviews (until the Nazis gave it a burst of publicity).

Fourth, in checking American libraries, I find less than 100 that own copies. Not much sign of influence there.

There were, in fact, a variety of proposals for what to do with Germany after the war, some rather vehement. However, none became official policy of Allied governments, whereas Nazi anti-Semitic plans were realized.

In sum, Kaufman was an insignificant figure who would have been entirely forgotten had not the Nazis found his book to be useful fodder for their propaganda.

For those interested in more detail, see my article "The Argument for Genocide in Nazi Propaganda," Quarterly Journal of Speech, February 2005. If you email me, I might send you a pdf of the thing. Bytwerk 15:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Bytwerk

This is really useful info, it is hard to research this book, because it is basically only notable to the Nazis and their supporters. Perhaps you can put this stuff in the article, and source your article on it as well? It would be terrific. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not too interested in trying to edit this at the moment, but I will add the article I mention to the article bibliography shortly, and if anyone is interested, I'll email them a pdf of the piece, which has a lot more information on Kaufman's book and its influence. Bytwerk 16:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Bytwerk

Too bad, we need more published experts willing to make changes in areas of their expertise. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Kuafman's idea of destroying germans through a genocide of breeding needs to be elaborated on.

Wow. Germany using a book like this to justify genocide of Jews would be like China using Fred Phelps' website to justify genocide of Christians.

Is the full text available online? The fact that only 100 copies seem available - on a well know book title - may mean somthing ( lousy book, unimportant history, someone isn't eager to have it weel known, etc - all kinds of reasons ). Any links? It might turn out to be interesting ( some peer reviewed historian must have a copy he could post ( if it isn't copyrighrtred etc))159.105.80.141 14:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

contradiction

"which advocates the genocide of the German nation. Kaufman founded the Argyle Press of Newark, New Jersey, USA, in order to publish his sentiments.

However, the book was most notably used by Nazi Germany as propaganda to allege that the Jews were plotting against the country "

judging by the first paragraph and by the book itself it was not simply propaganda. this whole article is simply playing dumb and being soft on the jews, as always. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.10.219.109 (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Previously- in 1933- Judea Declares War against Germany - Full Text link

this keeps getting remove:

In a 1933 newspaper with the headline Judea Declares War on Germany, calling for boykott, it was also stated that "Fourteen million Jews dispersed throughout the world have banded together as one man to declare war on the German persecutors of their co-religionists". (71.137.196.30 (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

---

Yes, and this will keep getting removed in the future. --20% 19:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

--- Image Daily Express March 1933: thumb|Front page of the Daily Express, March 24

• And it's entirely figurative. Read the full text of the artice here, as opposed to the flowery front page version. "The whole of Israel throughout the world is uniting to declare an economic and financial war on Germany." Case closed. WilliamH (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

---

This article was based on historic fact and should never have been removed by the Wikipedia Nazis: it can be found at en.metapedia(dot)org/wiki/Judea_Declares_War_on_Germany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.209.130 (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Full text of the book

Shouldn't we provide a link to the full text of the book. I have it, that this is online but I'm not sure whether these texts are accurate i.e.: http://www.ihr.org/books/kaufman/perish.html --41.16.157.246 (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Full text is at Wikipsurce: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Germany_Must_Perish! -- Matthead  Discuß   23:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

An article about Theodore N. Kaufman

Sorry, but I couldn't find an article about Theodore N. Kaufman himself in the wikipedia!--Wisamzaqoot (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Then make one!--Auric (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A page about the Author keeps getting vandalized because the topic of a Jewish businessman being responsible for such a vile publication apparently offends some people. I have been called a Nazi and the primary person responsible for this page has gotten one of his buddies to now attack the Theodore N. Kaufman page and recently removed the link from THIS article to THAT one. This is not a popular topic, but Wikipedia is NOT about censoring information.

Also, Germans DID NOT attempt a mass-relocation or murder of the Jewish people from Germany until about the time of the publication of Germany Must Perish! But, again, the attempt to edit this information into the article was reverted with a simple claim that one should look to the "Ethic Cleansing" article (which DOES NOT address the matter!) It is clear this topic is sensitive, but I suggest that those who are offended look within themselves and cease the vandalism of pages that address the topic. This is a matter that is being escalated. 216.189.209.130 (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)216.189.209.130

taken seriously?

The section "American Reaction" states the following:

The book was written by a non-notable author, and was self published; nevertheless, despite this, it was taken seriously by both public and serious agencies in the US, so serious that it was the subject of news reporting and Time, New York Times, and Washington post chose to publish reviews of it.

But this contradicts the source, which is quoted in the next paragraph as saying: 'reviews were a mix of "straight reporting and skepticism."' Reading the source, it is clear that Berel Lang is saying that American reviewers looked at this book as something "madcap". I am going to change our article to reflect this. GabrielF (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I searched the NYTimes and Washington Post archives and could not find any actual reviews of this book. For the Post, all I found was Kaufman's own advertisement and for the Times I saw a brief mention in a three page list of new books (one sentence plus price and author info). There were articles in both papers from the end of 1941 about the Nazis using the book as a pretext for actions against Jews in Hannover. GabrielF (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It's clear the source has been abused; thanks for fixing that. I've done a copyedit of the article, and some re-organization of the material, but it clearly needs more work. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed reference to genocide of Germans.

The book did NOT proffer extermination of Germans as a solution. It read, "Quite naturally, massacre and wholesale execution must be ruled out."

If you are going to take complete control of the article, at least READ the work before you write about it. 216.189.209.130 (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)216.189.209.130

Restoring Canadian Citation

I reverted the most recent edit — the link does in fact work for me. And it includes the only interview I know of with Kaufman — making it a useful source. I'll tinker with the fact that it is under the American reaction section. Bytwerk (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, you need to do something, because it's a primary source and it's not a "reaction". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources aren't ruled out — and this isn't the only source in the article. Since it is a published source, and the only interview that seems to be out there, it is a useful reference. I agree, however, that it is not a reaction. I'll think about how to recast that (or someone may beat me to it). Thanks for the suggestion. Bytwerk (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, did the tinkering. Better? Bytwerk (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

I propose enabling automatic archiving for this talk page. I don't think we really need comments from 2004. If there are no objections, I will add something like

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|algo = old(60d)

|archive = Talk:Germany Must Perish!/Archive %(counter)d

| counter = 1

maxarchivesize = 200K

--Boson (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit Explanation

First, there is no need to write "The NSDAP is said to have..." They did. In many, many places. See the references. Second, "axiom" is the wrong word. The Nazis used it as evidence, not as an axiom. The bottom quotation that was cut is relevant, but probably not essential. Bytwerk (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Another Edit Explanation

I took out a sentence that made a variety of dubious statements. For example, it did not coincide with other Anglo-American plans to dismember Germany (such plans came later, and the U.S. wasn’t yet in the war). The German population probably wasn’t mulling all that much about it. And the U.S. sanctions were surely unfriendly toward Germany, but they weren’t tantamount to a declaration of war. Bytwerk (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Nizer's book is an appropriate secondary source

Volunteer Marek claims Nizer's work is "a primary source for Nizer" and has removed reference to Nizer's work on that basis. It's true that Nizer's book is a primary source on Nizer. However, this article is not about Nizer or his book, it's about Kaufman's book and Nizer's book is an appropriate secondary source with respect to that subject.

Even if Nizer were a primary source in the context of this article (it's not) there's no blanket ban on primary source in articles. According to WP:PSTS "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." --Mox La Push (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The text is not about this article subject though. It's about Nizer. Specifically: "In his 1944 book What to do with Germany, Nizer accepted collective punishment ...." This is about Nizer hence it's a primary source. The preceding sentence is just some lame excuse to try and get Nizer into this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not about Nizer. The section where the edit appeared is entitled "American reactions to the book". The text citing and quoting Nizer is about his reaction to Kaufman's proposal just as the Time magazine article responds to Kaufman's book. Nizer's work is a secondary source according to WP:PSTS: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." --Mox La Push (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Nizer source seems acceptable insomuch as 1) it used this subject of this article as a reference to make related points 2) the author (Nizer) is notable within the subject and 3) Nizer's book was published by a reputable third-party. Discussion of Nizer's view should be limited to those directly referencing Kaufman's (more specifically "Germany Must Perish!") in Nizer's book as indicated by Nizer's bibliography; otherwise there is a possibility of WP:COATRACK. SueDonem (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to the Third Opinion Request. --Mox La Push (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yellow star

If any ethnic group of people today proposed the forced sterilization of any other ethnic group of people then that would be regarded as genocide according to United Nations definition.

Goebbels presented Kaufman's genocidal book to Hitler who then introduced the yellow star to identify people who had declared war on Germany, and who had previously changed sides and restarted WW1 at the end of 1916 after Germany had offered the most generous peace offer in history. Moreover, as I understand it, 240 of the 300 attendees at the Versailles treaties, the least generous impositions in history, were Jewish - is this correct?.

Germany did not start WW1 - it was the last to mobilize. Germany did not start WW2. After Poland attacked Germany, Germany defended itself and three days later seven countries declared war against Germany. Note that the mainstream media never mentions that Poland attacked Czechoslovakia in March 1939 and possessed the world's largest army of 1.7 million troops (Germany had 1.1 million troops). Nor does the media mention the approx. 60,000 Germans who were murdered before the war, in the region of Germany given to Poland by a Versailles treaty. The Germans complained to the League of Nations about these murders and 'ethnic cleansing' without success, and subsequently abandoned membership in it (after the US left it).

Regarding the supposedly genocidal Germans, 150,000 Jews were members of the German military, including 171 high ranking officers (Generals, Admirals, Colonels) and the second member of the SS, Emile Maurice was known by all to be Jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.97.74 (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

1) How did you jump from a book written by Theodore Kaufman, an individual, to "if any ethnic group of people today proposed.."? 2) what is your evidence that the jewish star was only introduced after Hitler was informed by Kaufman's book? 3) mobilization within one's own borders is not an act of war. many nations do it as part of annual military drills. 4) Poland did not attack Germany in WW2, the Gleiwitz Incident was a false flag operation. 5) 60,000 Germans were NOT murdered before the war, this is a neo nazi fairy tale/hoax. The "Bloody Sunday" (Bromberger Blutsonntag) happened AFTER the German invasion of Poland, and only involved a few thousand dead, part of which were part of a Volksdeutsche paramilitary unit (Selbstschutz) which had attacked the Polish Army to help the invading Wehrmacht. 6) Equally, your "150,000 Jews fought in the Wehrmacht" is another neo nazi lie. Stop watching youtube videos as "education". The overwhelming majority of these were Mischlinge (half-jews, quarter-jews, eight-jews) and so on. Not Jews, in accordance with the Nuremberg Laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:502:5080:71E4:75DE:11A9:E465 (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Sterilization of mentally ill/handicapped

Hitler, as a Catholic, who stated that he would not tolerate anti-Christian views in the NSDAP, was opposed to euthanasia until he received a letter from parents of a severely handicapped child (blind, deaf, dumb and with other disabilities) who needed constant supervision. At the time he was voted into office the majority of Germans were in a very poor state after 13 years under the glorious Weimar Republic and he wished to improve the health of the nation. He wrote that it would be meritorious and prevent ongoing suffering if a couple who suffered from genetic imperfections would forgo having their own child but instead adopt and raise a healthy child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.97.119 (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Please restrict your remarks to specific suggestions for article improvements, and omit your own opinions of the topic. See WP:TALKPAGE. Zero^talk 11:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)