Motivazioni dell'agire dei medici che hanno applicato l'eutanasia nel regime nazi-fascista

2009 ◽  
pp. 87-101
Author(s):  
Michael von Cranach

- Michael von Cranach in this paper reports the killing of hundreds of thousands of disabled persons, mentally or physically ill, slaughtered in gas chambers or given lethal drugs, in the Third Reich during the Nazi period. The genocide of helpless and ailing persons (in addition to that of Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals) put into operation under the principles of eugenics, defence and health of the Arian race. In reality, the genocide represented a sadistic exercise of power, that alleged itself the right to decide on citizens' life or death. Many physicians connived with the regime and were consequently considered the progressive élite of the medical profession. Keywords: eugenics, defence of the race, biopolitics, exercise of power, scientific and progressive medicine under the Third Reich.

2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 465-514
Author(s):  
Tomasz Kruszewski

The subject of this article are basic questions within the range of civil law. They concern the general position of a human and legal people in the sphere of this law on Polish territory, which was incorporated into the Third Reich. The position of individuals, the citizens of II RP, under the occupation of the Third Reich in years 1939–1945, is analysed by the author not from the perspective of literal meaning of regulations of general part of Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) from 1896, but from the perspective of their specific interpretation, congruent with strategic and ideological purposes of the Nazi regime. In the article, the following issues are touched upon in turn: 1) personal law in terms of classical civil law contra national-socialist regime; 2) racism towards civil rights of a subjective individual; 3) elimination of the Jews from the legal relationships of civil law; 4) difficulties in the sphere of access to certain professions for Polish people and some restrictions upon personal rights; 5) the dependence of possibilities of exercising the private personal right on the consent to denationalization; 6) ban concerning getting married and the right to motherhood and fatherhood; 7) legislation of sterilisation and euthanasia. The formal changes in the legislation which were in force in the Third Reich — except for personal and family law (as well as legal rules connected with it regarding health protection of offspring), and “peasant law” (Bauernrecht) — were not significant, as is proved by the author. The old legal order was reversed in the Third Reich due to its new interpretation: classical concepts and legal institutions were filled with a different content. After the formal extension of BGB to territories incorporated into the Reich, which followed the decree of 25 September 1941 introducing German civil law, these territories became a field of social-political and racial-nationalist experiments, which in fact had a little in common with the German Civil Code’s regulations. A principle of equal access to private subjective rights was respected only in case of German people, i.a. the part which passively gave up to indoctrination. In relation to Jews, racism spoiled in this case the idea and concept of private subjective rights.


2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 59-69
Author(s):  
Jacek Janusz Mrozek

The subject of this article is an attempt to analyse the religion teaching in the mandatory formguaranteed by concordats from the Third Reich (1933), Bavaria (1924) − amended in 1968 and 1974,Lower Saxony (1965), Sarah (1985), Austria (1962 ) and Portugal (1940). Concordat guaranteesprotecting the right of the Catholic Church to teach religion in public schools in these countries areexpressed primarily in the field of religion education, its time dimension, in preparing their owneducational programs, providing religion teachers a rightful position like those teachers of othersubjects, and finally in the supervision on the teaching of religion in schools.


Author(s):  
Alice Weinreb

This chapter analyzes occupied Germany between 1945 and 1949, the years that saw the transition from the Second World War to the Cold War. During this time, the country was divided into four zones, each occupied by an Allied power (the United States, the USSR, France, and Great Britain.) This chapter argues that these years, known in Germany as the Hunger Years, played a key role in shaping modern discourses of human rights through assertions of the right of all individuals to food. Specifically, in the wake of the Third Reich, the hunger of German civilians acquired a moral weight that effectively depoliticized the category of “rights.” Analyzing civilian and medical debates about the causes and consequences of German hunger, the chapter explores the ways in which the different Allied rationing programs interpreted responsibility for Nazi crimes, and the ways in which Germans reacted to, challenged, and appropriated these categories.


2010 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ari Adut

Ivan Ermakoff ’s Ruling Oneself Out focuses on two major instances of voluntary surrender of power in Western history: the March 1933 bill that empowered Adolf Hitler with the right to amend the Weimar Constitution and the transfer of full executive, legislative, and constitutional authority to Marshal Philippe Pétain in July 1940. The first event inaugurated the Third Reich, the other Vichy France. Much ink has been spilled over these events. But Ermakoff finds various problems with the existing accounts and advances his own theory of collective abdication in their stead. Moreover, his theory is geared to analyze all kinds of political crises and breakdowns where collective abdication plays a role—as it often does in such contexts. Ermakoff ’s theory is a formal one. It can hold for any situation in which a group confronts the possibility of collective persecution and has to decide whether to resist or abdicate. It is not confined to formally defined collectivities or to parliamentary settings: the dynamics that it reveals are independent of specific group configurations and institutional contexts.


2015 ◽  
Vol 46 ◽  
pp. 360-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael Milan Kropiunigg

Ladies and Gentlemen! Where are we living? What age are we living in? Is this the Democratic Republic of Austria or a part of the Third Reich? Have we got twenty years of reconstruction and new construction of our fatherland behind us, or do we stand before the year 1939, shortly before the outbreak of World War Two? Has all the terror, all fright, completely bypassed such educators of the youth? Has nothing made an impression on them that would have changed them? Just as a Socialist parliamentarian spoke these words on 31 March 1965, an affair surrounding the Viennese University Professor Taras (von) Borodajkewycz culminated in the Second Republic's most violent street fights and allegedly sole political death to date. In the course of the early 1960s, the professor's antidemocratic references and nostalgic statements on the Third Reich in his lectures had also come to the attention of the wider public. Clashes in March between Rightist and Leftist students ensued, and the Borodajkewycz Affair finally reached its height when on that last day in March the right-wing student Günther Kümel delivered a deadly blow to a 67-year-old Communist.


Author(s):  
Steven Michael Press

In recognizing more than just hyperbole in their critical studies of National Socialist language, post-war philologists Viktor Klemperer (1946) and Eugen Seidel (1961) credit persuasive words and syntax with the expansion of Hitler's ideology among the German people. This popular explanation is being revisited by contemporary philologists, however, as new historical argument holds the functioning of the Third Reich to be anything but monolithic. An emerging scholarly consensus on the presence of more chaos than coherence in Nazi discourse suggests a new imperative for research. After reviewing the foundational works of Mein Kampf (1925) and Myth of the Twentieth Century (1930), the author confirms Klemperer and Seidel’s claim for linguistic manipulation in the rise of the National Socialist Party. Most importantly, this article provides a detailed explanation of how party leaders employed rhetorical language to promote fascist ideology without an underlying basis of logical argumentation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document