Europe is becoming NAZI

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ecthy


How?

Here, check the attached article (http://www.sacu.org/versaillesdeal.html) and Articles 156-15 of the Treaty (http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/versa/versa3.html).

The attached article concludes:

"Lloyd George was heavily involved in European problems but he did not let his lack of detailed knowledge of Shandong prevent him from expediting matters. With scant regard for long term effects, he persuaded the conference to agree to the transfer of former German rights to Japan, who had promised to restore them to China. Consequently articles 156-158 were included in the Treaty of Versailles.

The Chinese delegation was not invited to the inner Council of Three when the main Powers basically decided the issue. It was kept waiting several weeks before it was told officially what had been agreed. Displeased with its terms, the Chinese delegation surprised the conference by refusing to sign the Treaty of Versailles.

The May Fourth Movement
News of the Shandong settlement had leaked out and created a movement which gave impetus to Chinese nationalism. Beginning on 4 May 1919 people took to the streets in their thousands and hostility to Japan and Britain was expressed forcibly by students. Boycotts of Japanese and British goods became common.

It would be unwise to over-estimate the effects which the May Fourth Movement had upon China's internal development, its foreign relations, and the belated change of Britain's policy towards China in the mid-1920's. But there can be no doubt that it was a strong influence upon the Nationalist Party (Guomindang) and the forces contending for power within China.

The Shandong settlement also had a harmful effect on international affairs. Anglo-American relations went through a distinctly chilly stage between Versailles and the Washington Conference of 1921-22. At the same time Japan felt let down by its British ally's reservations on its claims. Nobody seemed pleased with Britain. Although the Washington Conference made a qualified return of Shandong to China, this only delayed Japan's desire for expansion which burst forth in brutal fashion in 1931 and 1937.

Whether or not an Anglo-American confrontation with Japan over Shandong at Paris would have prevented the tragic events of 1937-1941 is one of the big questions of history. But the 70th anniversary of the Treaty of Versailles provides an occasion for reflection on this question and the opportunity which was lost for putting Anglo-Chinese relations on a new footing. "

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Ned


No doubt. But they did support euthanasia, in part, for cost reasons.

BTW, one of the laws first written down by the Romans dealt with deformed infants. The law required the Romans to kill them. I am not sure why this law existed, but they must have been concerned in part that bad genes (blood) not be allowed to propagate.

You keep mentioing cost reasons, please explain how in the superb system where the patient pays for everything what happens to premature babies of people who are unable or unwilling to pay for the cost of keeping them alive.

[Ned]

Originally posted by _BuRjaCi_


Wait what are you trying to argue here?

1. The logical conclusion that everything the nazis did was not evil (I mean thy probably had to eat and sleep, is that evil?).

or

2.That the Europeans are becoming evil?

or

3.Both!!?

The Europeans are now doing, or consider doing, that which they once condemned as barbaric. There are many in the US who would still consider the whole idea barbaric. Rush Limbaugh is one. My wife is another. I personally am not totally offended by this and might support it if the US ever adopts its own version of national health care.

Whether this was related to NAZI Germany's "national health care system," though, is now questioned by Dr. Strangelove who flatly stated that the reasons the NAZI's killed the deformed and retarded had nothing to do with cost to Germany's national health care system, but had everything to do with an effort to stop them from breeding.

[Ned]

Originally posted by TheStinger


You keep mentioing cost reasons, please explain how in the superb system where the patient pays for everything what happens to premature babies of people who are unable or unwilling to pay for the cost of keeping them alive.

I am not sure.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I'm amazed that anyone is even bothering to reply to the biggest troll/f*ckwit on poly...

Are you totally unwilling to think?

[Ned]

"These novel ideas percolated rapidly through the social and educational systems steeped in Hegelian deterministic philosophy and social Darwinism. Long lines formed to view exhibits on heredity and genetics, and scientific research, conferences, and publication on topics of race and eugenics were legion. The emphasis was often on the great burden which the chronically ill and mentally and physically deformed placed on a struggling society striving to achieve its historical destiny. In a high school biology textbook - pictured above - a muscular German youth bears two such societal misfits on a barbell, with the exhortation, “You Are Sharing the Load!–a hereditarily-ill person costs 50,000 Reichsmarks by the time they reach 60.” Math textbooks tested students on how many new housing units could be built with the money saved by elimination of long-term care needs. Parents often chose euthanasia for their disabled offspring, rather than face the societal scorn and ostracization of raising a mentally or physically impaired child. This widespread public endorsement and pseudo-scientific support for eugenics set the stage for its wholesale adoption - with horrific consequences - when the Nazi party took power."

http://docisinblog.com/archives/2004/

German Euthanasia 1938-1945

The seeds of German euthanasia were planted in 1920 in the book Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life (Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Leben). Its authors were two of the most respected academics in their respective fields: Karl Binding was a renowned law professor, and Alfred Hoche a physician and humanitarian.

The authors accepted wholeheartedly that people with terminal illnesses, the mentally ill or retarded, and deformed people could be euthanized as "life unworthy of life." More than that, the authors professionalized and medicalized the concept and, according to Robert Jay Lifton in The Nazi Doctors, promoted euthanasia in these circumstances as "purely a healing treatment" and a "healing work"--justified as a splendid way to relieve suffering while saving money spent on caring for the disabled.

Over the years Binding and Hoche's attitudes percolated throughout German society and became accepted widely. These attitudes were stoked enthusiastically by the Nazis so that by 1938 the German government received an outpouring of requests from the relatives of severely disabled infants and young children seeking permission to end their lives.

The key test came in late 1938 when the father of "Baby Knauer," an infant born blind and missing his leg and part of his arm, wrote Hitler requesting permission to have his child "put to sleep." As described by Lifton and other historians, Hitler was quite interested in the case and sent one of his personal physicians, Karl Rudolph Brandt, to investigate. Brandt's instructions from his Führer were to verify the facts of the baby's condition and, if found to be true, to assure the child's doctors and his parents that if he was killed, no one would face punishment. The doctors in the case who met with Brandt agreed that there was "no justification for keeping the child alive." Baby Knauer soon became one of the first victims of the Holocaust.

Hitler later signed a secret decree permitting the euthanasia of disabled infants. Sympathetic physicians and nurses from around the country--many not even Nazi party members--cooperated in the horror that followed. Formal "protective guidelines" were created, including the creation of a panel of "expert referees," which judged which infants were eligible for the program.

Beginning in early 1939, babies born with birth defects or with congenital diseases were euthanized. Their doctors would admit these unfortunate infants to medical clinics, where they would be killed. The practice quickly became systematized. Regulations made it mandatory for midwives and doctors to notify authorities whenever a baby was born with birth defects. These cases would be reviewed by the euthanasia referees to determine if the children were eligible for euthanasia. Those deemed killable were usually dispatched via an overdose of a drug, most typically a sedative called Luminal. The euphemism of choice for this murder was "treatment." Most, but not all, of this killing was done in secret.

It is important to note that throughout the years in which euthanasia was performed in Germany, whether as part of the officially sanctioned government program or otherwise, the government did not force doctors to kill. Participating doctors had become true believers, convinced they were performing a valuable medical service for their "patients" and their country.

Eventually, the "success" of the infant euthanasia program led to the infamous "T-4" project in which adult disabled German citizens were mass murdered. Hitler eventually canceled the T-4 program in the face of public protests but that didn't matter. From around 1943 until a few weeks after the end of the war, some doctors went on a eugenic killing rampage. Known today as "wild euthanasia," during the later war years German doctors killed any patient they pleased, often without medical examination, usually by starvation or lethal injection.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20Article&id=3384

[Cookie Monster]

There are also signs of that happening here in the USA too I'm afraid. What I mean is fascism rearing it's ugly head here....

[Barnabas]

Ned, answer me

Do you think people who cant pay for expensive surgeries should die? that people who cant pay for their medicines should die?

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Ned


Are you totally unwilling to think?

When it comes to thinking directed at your dross, then yes!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Cookie Monster
There are also signs of that happening here in the USA too I'm afraid. What I mean is fascism rearing it's ugly head here....

I really don't think this is about fascism, per se. It's more about NAZIism.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Ned, answer me

Do you think people who cant pay for expensive surgeries should die? that people who cant pay for their medicines should die?

Depends.

Cost is a factor. It has to be.

[Ned]

Provost, you do know that this issue is being widely debated and is not just my "dross." That you are unwilling to address the issue just because I raise it is sad.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Ned
Provost, you do know that this issue is being widely debated and is not just my "dross." That you are unwilling to address the issue just because I raise it is sad.

No, it's because your thread is equating having a public health service with nazism...you really expect me to enter your bizarre blinkered, right-wing trollfest?

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


No, it's because your thread is equating having a public health service with nazism...you really expect me to enter your bizarre blinkered, right-wing trollfest?

Come now Provost, you can't deny it’s entertaining.
And as long its Ned posting, there's no harm done.

And there’s the whole freedom of speech thing. Some people are just different, and like to discus politics and history form the right to the wrong side of the spectrum.


Anyway there is always the joy of Socratic irony.
Just show how his opinions contradict themselves, and you may convince him (yeah right!) or at least show your point.

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by Ned


Depends.

Cost is a factor. It has to be.

In the real world it has to be.

But why is it immoral for the state to withhold funding the treatment costs of disabled babies after a certain point while in “another” system their parents would not have the money to afford treatment even if his condition was curable.

Even with unethical choices like pulling the plug, a universal health system saves at least some lives unlike a “let the poor die” system.

BTW I think all sentient or potentially sentient life is sacred and even life that is incapable of doing so, has some instinctive value (this may sound sentimental- especially human life).
I think the state (if it had the funds) should prolong life and pay the bill, as long as it is humane to do so. It should be the person or his closest relatives who decides what is humane (with a professional committee to make sure they aren’t taking the persons life unnecessarily).

But because of our poor demographics we may be forced to choose the lesser evil.