The Nazi peritocide, the killing of the ‘useless’ under Nazism
- Cet article est une traduction de :
- Le péritocide nazi, ou l’extermination des « inutiles » [fr]
Résumé
Rassembler sous un seul terme les nombreuses actions entreprises par les nazis pour éliminer celles et ceux qu’ils jugeaient « inutiles » est une tâche ardue. Les différents mots aujourd’hui en usage ne suffisent pas selon nous à couvrir et à décrire légitimement le phénomène dans son ensemble. Cet article a pour but de proposer une alternative. Il s’articule en trois parties. Dans un premier temps, nous analyserons et déconstruirons plusieurs termes et définitions avancés par divers auteurs de livres, d’articles et d’encyclopédies historiques. Dans la deuxième partie, nous aborderons le cœur de notre propos en présentant une alternative logique et étayée : le « péritocide ». Un troisième et dernier volet traitera plus précisément du « péritocide nazi ».
Plan
Haut de pageNotes de la rédaction
Translation from Dutch: ElaN Languages
Texte intégral
Introduction
1It is no easy task to devise an all-encompassing term to describe, let alone educate people about the many acts of murder committed by the Nazis against those they deemed ‘useless’. There are many terms in use, which, in our opinion, do not unambiguously describe the matter as a whole and place it in context in a justifiable manner. The aim of this article is to provide an alternative.
2The article consists of three parts. In the first instance, several terms and definitions by different authors from a number of historical books, articles and encyclopaedias are analysed and deconstructed. The second part addresses the actual purpose of this article; we introduce the academically-substantiated, alternative term ‘peritocide’. This section is supplemented by the third and final part: what we understand by ‘Nazi peritocide’.
Every word has its own specific meaning and connotation
3In the first part of this article, two terms are academically deconstructed in a contemporary (Belgian) context. After all, the terms and their interpretation are largely inadequate. In some cases there is no longer a connection between the original meaning of the word and its – predominantly political and/or ideological – interpretation. Unambiguous terminology is needed.
4We focus on the two terms used most often to describe the crimes against the people deemed useless by the Nazis: ‘euthanasia’ and ‘Aktion T4’. For practical reasons, the analysis of these two terms is limited to their use in the national languages in Belgium (Dutch, French and German) and in English as the international language in which many works have been published on these subjects.
‘Euthanasia’
- 1 Law on euthanasia: https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg_2.pl?language=nl&nm=20020095 (...)
5Contemporary use of the word ‘euthanasia’ to refer to Nazi crimes is contrary to current Belgian case law. The word ‘euthanasia’ has been included in Belgian legislation since 28 May 2002 and is defined therein as the ‘intentional termination of life by a person other than the person concerned, at his/her request’.1 The emphasis must be on ‘at his/her request’. As demonstrated below, none of the interpretations of the term euthanasia in the Nazi context has anything to do with euthanasia in the current Belgian sense of the word. Therefore, it is incorrect to use the term ‘euthanasia’ in current works on Nazi crimes. Even historical works that talk about ‘euthanasia’ should be treated with caution.
6Moreover, there was no legal basis for the ‘euthanasia’ committed by the Nazis against what they considered to be ‘useless people’. The will of Adolf Hitler, as head of the NSDAP, was written without any legal force on a sheet featuring only Hitler’s heading, as follows:
- 2 Document PS-630 (In: Paul, S. & Hoosten, A. Procès des Grands Criminels de Guerre devant le Tribuna (...)
‘Reichsleiter Bouhler und Dr. med. Brandt sind unter Verantwortung beauftragt, die Befugnisse namentlich zu bestimmender Ärzte so zu erweitern, dass nach menschlichem Ermessen unheilbar Kranken bei kritischster Beurteilung ihres Krankheitszustandes der Gnadentod gewährt werden kann. – A. Hitler‘,2 with the handwritten sentence at the bottom by Dr. Gürtner (Reich Minister of Justice)‚ Von Bouhler mir übergeben am 27.8.40 – Dr. Gürtner.‘
[Bouhler and Dr. med. Brandt are ordered to extend the authority of certain named physicians so that patients considered incurable, according to the best available human judgement of their state of health, can be granted a mercy killing.
A. Hitler
[Handed over to me by Bouhler on 27.8.40]
In this letter, backdated to 1 September 1939, Hitler gave his personal physician Karl Brandt and the head of the private chancellery Philip Bouhler extrajudicial permission to grant ‘merciful death’ to incurable patients

This letter was presented to the candidates of the program to reassure them that Hitler stood behind this action.
© Bundesarchiv Berlin
- 3 Montague, Patrick, Chelmno and the Holocaust – The History of Hitler’s First Death Camp, London/New (...)
- 4 Vermaat, Emerson, Euthanasie: Herhaalt de geschiedenis zich? – Paralellen en verschillen met nazi-D (...)
- 5 Superintendent of documents. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under (...)
- 6 Vermaat, Op. cit., p. 95.
- 7 Lifton, Robert Jay, Les médecins nazis – Le meurtre médical et la psychologie du génocide, Paris: É (...)
- 8 Superintendent of documents, Op. cit., p. 893.
7Some authors incorrectly refer to this document, backdated 1 September 1939, the beginning of Nazi Germany’s war with Poland, as a law or decree. It is a unique and important document, but not a law.3 The ‘advantage’ of the document was that the participants – the Gutachters – believed, or at least felt protected, that they were acting in accordance with an order issued from above. Several draft laws were submitted to Hitler, but he feared a negative reaction from abroad and thus refused to issue a transparent law.4 Consequently, this well-known document can in no way be compared with contemporary laws on euthanasia; in Nazi Germany, ‘euthanasia’ could blatantly be called murder because of its lawlessness.5 Nazi lawyers insisted on a law, not so much because they were ideologically opposed to ‘euthanasia’, but in order to create a legal framework to act against illegal practises.6 In his inner circles, Hitler made it clear what he understood by ‘useless’ citizens in Germany.7 This was confirmed by Karl Brandt at his trial at Nuremberg.8
8Hitler’s written document was thus a Führerbefehl, the Nazi ideological concept whereby Hitler’s will had a greater value than legislation approved by a vote. Roughly speaking, it came down to a „Euthanasie“befehl, read: murder order.
- 9 Friedlander, Henry, Les origines de la Shoah – De l’euthanasie à la Solution finale, Paris: Éd. Cal (...)
- 10 Ibidem, p. 16.
- 11 Kogon, E., Langbein, H. & Ruckerl, A., Les chambres à gaz – secret d’État, Paris: Éd. De minuit, 19 (...)
- 12 Menges, J., ‘Euthanasie’ in het Derde Rijk, Haarlem: Uitgeverij Bohn, 1972, p. vii.
- 13 Ibidem, p. 61.
- 14 Thys, Erik, Psychogenocide – Psychiatrie, kunst en massamoord onder de nazi’s, Antwerpen: Uitgeveri (...)
9As mentioned above, when studying the Nazi crimes, it is striking that no unambiguous terminology exists.9 The word ‘euthanasia’ under Nazism actually referred to murder; partly because of this, the term sometimes takes on political and/or ideological connotations10 in contemporary usage, so that its interpretation differs from the legal Belgian meaning. A direct cause of this confusion lies in the ambiguous and downright unclear use of these terms by the Nazis themselves.11 These ambiguous terms remained in circulation even after the Second World War12 with all the difficulties involved in their interpretation that this entails.13 Therefore, both the terms ‘euthanasia’ and ‘Aktion T4’ (see below) are inadequate.14
- 15 Vermaat, Op. cit., p. 64.
10It is worth noting that the concept of euthanasia existed and was practised long before the rise of Nazism or eugenics.15 At the time, it referred to assisted dying, often without an explicit request by the patient. So this concept of euthanasia, too, cannot be compared with the legally regulated and controlled euthanasia in Belgium today.
11Let us first examine where and how the term ‘euthanasia’ was used at the time of Nazism and, by extension, by the Nazis themselves.
- 16 Unger, Hellmuth, Sendung und Gewissen, Oldenburg I.O./Berlin: Gerhard Stalling Verlagbuchhandlung, (...)
- 17 Goebbels, Joseph, Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels, München: K.G. Saur Verlag, 1998, Part 1, Tape (...)
- 18 Van den Berghe, Gie, “Genadeloze genadedood – Nazi-euthanasie en propaganda,” Journal of Belgian Hi (...)
- 19 Menges, Op. cit., p. 85.
- 20 Goebbels, Op. cit., Part 1, Tape 9, p. 119.
- 21 Tregenza, Michael, Aktion T4 – Le secret d’État des nazis: l’extermination des handicapés physiques (...)
- 22 Aly, Götz, Les anormaux – Les meurtres par euthanasie en Allemagne (1939-1945), Paris: Flammarion, (...)
- 23 Ibidem.
- 24 Libeer, Eddy, “Repressie ten opzichte van geestesziekten in nazi-Duitsland (1939-1945),” In: Bijdra (...)
12To avoid arousing suspicion, the term was used as little as possible. The novel Sendung und Gewissen, written in 1936 by the ophthalmologist and journalist Hellmuth Unger (1891-1953), clearly defines what is meant by ‚euthanasia‘: Euthanasie bedeutet ja auch, nicht den Tod gewaltsam, etwa durch ein raschwirkendendes Gift, herbeizuführen, sondern das möglicherweise nicht zu berechnende Ende leicht und schmerzlos zu machen.16 Euthanasia also means that death is not brought about by violence, for example by a fast-acting poison, but that the potentially incalculable end is made easy and painless. Even though some passages in the book testify to a more humane approach to human suffering, the author can be considered an important pioneer of the murder campaign; he played an active role in the child murder programme a few years after the publication of his book. His book inspired the Nazis, who made a film of it: the film Ich klage an (I accuse) premiered in 1941. Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945), Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, wrote about it in his diary: (…) „Ich klage an“. Für die Euthanasie. Ein richtiger Diskussionsfilm. Großartig gemacht und ganz nationalsozialistisch. Er wird heißeste Debatten entfachten. Und das ist sein Zweck.17 (What is striking about this film is that the word ‘euthanasia’ does not appear at all.18 The entire film focuses on ‘death by explicit requirement’.19 Even Goebbels uses ‘modified’ terminology in his diary.20) On 13 December 1940, Reichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, wrote in his diary that he had an appointment with Viktor Brack. Next to his name he mentions the word ‘Euthanasia’.21 Psychiatrist Professor Paul Nitsche (1876-1948), head of the Medical Office of the centralised murder programme, uses the letter ‘E’ to indicate that it was necessary to proceed to killing people.22 The vague and ambiguous letter usage of ‘E’ and ‘Eu’ was often used to refer to ‘Euthanasia’23, but in Nazi terminology and logic it should be interpreted as outright murder. The fact that the word ‘euthanasia’ is not used as such was intended to preserve the secretive nature of the entire murder operation; the University Clinic of Jena was even ordered by the authorities to no longer use the term ‘euthanasia’.24
- 25 Superintendent of documents, Op. cit., Vol. I, p. 794.
- 26 Superintendent of documents, Op. cit., Vol. II, p. 134.
- 27 Superintendent of documents, Op. cit., Vol. I, p. 844.
- 28 Idem, p. 839.
13During the Nuremberg Doctors Trial (December 1946 – August 1947) a term had to be found for the accusal of the accused. ‘Euthanasia Programme’ was the term selected by the US prosecutors against Brandt, Brack and Blome, among others.25 The prosecutors formulated a definition of ‘Euthanasia Program’26 that unambiguously points out the murderous nature of the operations.27 The accused also used this term in their testimonies and answers during interrogations; according to the defence of the accused, it had not been used officially before.28
14Now we can focus on the mention of ‘euthanasia’ in a number of academic studies. As it would be quite a task to include all the definitions used, similar definitions and interpretations will be grouped together with clear reference to the source.
- 29 As defined in the 18th century ‘Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers’, Dider (...)
- 30 Menges, Op. cit., p. vii, Zentner, C. & Bedurftiget, F. (eds.), Das Große Lexikon des dritten Reich (...)
- 31 Among others Klee, Ernst, “Euthanasie” im NS-Staat – Die „Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens“, Frank (...)
- 32 Formulated by Yehuda Bauer, among others in Bailer, B. & Wetzel, J. (IHRA) Mass Murder of People wi (...)
15Many authors point out that the word ‘euthanasia’ originally29 meant something completely different from how it i) was defined by the Nazis and ii) is defined in studies on the Nazi use/misuse of the word. These authors first formulate a more neutral definition before addressing the Nazi misuse of the term. We can establish three points with regard to these more neutral definitions. Whether or not referring to the Ancient Greek origin of the word ‘euthanasia’ (ευ ‘good’ and θάνατος ‘death’), all the authors state that it concerns a release from suffering.30 (While this was not the case with the Nazis). The actual German-language references use the term Sterbehilfe to explain what ‘euthanasia’ actually means.31 Secondly, they invariably state that the Nazis misused the concept of ‘euthanasia’ (in the sense of active assisted dying), and that this misused term is still used today.32 Finally, they point out the incompatible comparison with Belgian legislation, as nowhere does it state that it is carried out at the request of the patient or after any consultation. This is another reason why the term ‘euthanasia’ should be used with caution.
- 33 Among others Friedlander, Op. cit., p. 15, Libeer, Op. cit. p. 111, Thys, Op. cit., p. 270.
- 34 Dreyfus, J.-M.; Husson, E. e.a. (eds.), Dictionnaire de la Shoah, Paris: Larousse Coll. À présent, (...)
16A deeper analysis also reveals several similarities between most authors. Almost all authors write ‘euthanasia’ in inverted commas, even if prefixes and/or suffixes are added (e.g. Nazi ‘euthanasia’), and some state this explicitly in their terminological justification.33 Irrespective of the actual definition of the word, the authors state that the word should be interpreted as a euphemism; the word ‘euthanasia’ would thus be used to gloss over the ‘Gnadentod’ used by Hitler. German-language texts speak of tarnen (‘camouflage’/’disguise’) rather than ‘glossing over’, which indicates concealment of the true nature of the murder programme, rather than avoiding the word ‘murder’. Another element each author has in common is that their definition refers to the murderous nature of ‘Nazi euthanasia’.34 As justification for this murder programme, most mention the eugenic nature of Nazi ideology (see below).
- 35 Vermaat, Op. cit. p. 61.
- 36 Idem, p. 8.
- 37 Menges, Op. cit., p. 176.
- 38 Friedlander, Op. cit., p. 9.
17Some authors use other terms to describe the Nazi ‘euthanasia’ programme; however, the problem is that all these terms contain the word ‘euthanasia’, which can also afford them political and/or ideological connotations. For example, in his book ‘Euthanasie, herhaalt de geschiedenis zich?’ (Euthanasia, is history repeating itself?), Vermaat proposes the word ‘Euthanasiedienststelle’35 as a synonym for Zentraldienststelle (the umbrella organisation that ran the murder programme, see below). However, this word was never used at the time of Nazism and is also loaded. The same author calls the Nazi ‘euthanasia’ programme (discussed below) the ‘Euthanasieaktion’36. Again, this name was never used, as it would have been too revealing. The same term (but in the plural) is found in Menges.37 On the other hand, in Henry Friedlander’s case, the term ‘euthanasia’ is widely used precisely because of its loaded nature.38 It is striking that no clear distinction is made between euthanasia and ‘euthanasia’.
- 39 Montague, Op. cit., p. 9.
- 40 Libeer, Op. cit., p. 111.
- 41 Charny, Israel (ed.), Op. cit., p. 219.
- 42 Menges, Op. cit., p. vii and p. 176.
- 43 Tregenza, Op. cit., p. 11.
- 44 Thys, Op. cit., p. 278.
18A final noteworthy point that must absolutely be discussed here involves the links made in some texts between the contemporary euthanasia debate (explicitly without inverted commas) and the “Nazi ‘euthanasia’ programme”. Even if the word ‘euthanasia’ is used neutrally and interpreted in good faith, the link with Nazi ‘euthanasia’ complicates contemporary debates. The American independent researcher Patrick Montague states that euthanasia remains a controversial subject to this day, just as it was at the time of Nazism and before.39 Eddy Libeer rightly points out that Nazi ‘euthanasia’ has nothing to do with ‘voluntary euthanasia’.40 The American social scientist Barry Mehler, in his contribution in the Encyclopedia of Genocide, mentions that after World War II, ‘doctor-assisted suicide’ was increasingly used to refer to euthanasia in the sense of assisted dying, so the word ‘euthanasia’ can be omitted.41 In addition, Jan Menges states in his doctoral dissertation that the term ‘euthanasia’ has been inextricably linked to Nazi crimes since the Second World War.42 In his book, the British researcher Michael Tregenza states that one should not interpret the term ‘euthanasia’ as in the Nazi context, but rather as a medically assisted death.43 Finally, in his capacity as a doctor, the comment by the Belgian psychiatrist Erik Thys is essential: “What the Nazis called ‘Euthanasia’ is very different from what we use this word to refer to in our regions today. Indeed, it is diametrically opposed. (…) We can say that these are two completely different concepts, which happened to be given the same name, and that the Nazi term is a misleading one, because it was in no way a ‘good death’.”44
- 45 Stöckle, Thomas, Grafeneck 1940 – “Euthansie”-Verbrechen in Südwestdeutschland, Tübingen: Silberbur (...)
- 46 Sandner, Peter, „Die “Euthanasie”-Akten im Bundesarchiv,“ Vierteljahrshelfte für Zeitgeschichte, 47 (...)
19Since the crimes took place in Germany, it is especially difficult for German researchers to find a ‘neutral’ term for euthanasia in today’s context. It also makes end-of-life debates more difficult there. Since the word ‘euthanasia’ by definition refers to a ‘good death’ and this was by no means the case under the Nazis, in German literature the word is supplemented (in most cases with inverted commas). The title of the book by the German historian Thomas Stöckle, who works at the Gedenkstätte Grafeneck, is ‘Euthanasie’-Verbrechen [‘euthanasia’ crimes].45 As an academically justified extension of the term, the German historian Peter Sandner suggests the long but clear formulation: Der NS-‘Euthanasie’-Verbrechen.46
- 47 Klee, Op. cit., p. 11.
20We take the liberty of concluding the discussion of the word euthanasia with an open question concerning the term and use of the word ‘euthanasia’. Everyone agrees that the word euthanasia – whether used by the Nazis or by post-war authors – in connection with the Nazi crimes can only be understood as a euphemism. Nazi doctors, lawyers, operators, etc. knew that it referred to an outright murder programme, but the word ‘murder’ could not possibly be used given the secrecy they were ordered to observe from above. We also know that the Nazis themselves hardly used the word ‘euthanasia’47, and certainly not in public, as this was also a loaded word referring to death at that time. Also in etymological terms, the word does not fit into the Nazi context: it was definitely not a ‘good death’, people were afraid and suffered pain during the killing process, they were not in a terminal phase and had not expressed the will to die. Therefore, we allow ourselves to conclude that using the word ‘euthanasia’ in the Nazi context today is not desirable and should even be avoided, given the current legal meaning of the word in Belgium. Our open question aims to promote an open debate: why should we, as contemporary scholars, not use a more apt term for the Nazi murder programme targeting people they deemed ‘useless’ in Nazi opinion (see below)?
- 48 De Groot, Etienne, Leven tot in de dood – Omtrent euthanasie, Brussel: VUBPress, 1997 p. 129; Diste (...)
- 49 Marzano, M. (ed.), Op. cit., p. 460.
- 50 Thys, Op. cit., p. 270, Libeer, Op. cit., p. 186, Benz, W. (ed.), Op. cit., p. 11, Rezett, R. & Spe (...)
21Moreover, in our opinion, a new term would also benefit the current debate on euthanasia. Linking the contemporary meaning of euthanasia to ‘Nazi euthanasia’ is undesirable with regard to the debates on this loaded topic.48 There is no consensus on the definition of the term ‘euthanasia’; every country, every tradition, every author is influenced politically/ideologically or religiously. As a result, all sorts of ‘clarifying’ adjectives are used in contemporary (international) debates and opinions to delineate euthanasia, making definitions ambiguous. We also note that the word ‘euthanasia’ is avoided or even rejected and replaced by descriptive phrases to make it clear what they are talking about (and what they are definitely not talking about).49 As Thys, supported by Libeer and others, quite rightly states, the use of the word euthanasia under the Nazis was totally indefensible.50
22In the next chapter we propose a new academically substantiated term to delineate Nazi crimes. But first let us analyse the other term commonly used to describe Nazi crimes: Aktion T4.
‘Aktion T4’
- 51 Gutman, Israel (ed.), Op. cit., p. 452.
23Some authors argue that ‘Aktion T4’, or ‘T4’ for short, is the code name for the National Socialist ‘euthanasia’ programme.51 As demonstrated in the previous point, the term (Nazi) ‘euthanasia’ is inadequate. However, the term ‘Aktion T4’ can also cause a great deal of confusion since this term cannot be used as a synonym for the Nazi ‘euthanasia’ programme. Moreover, neither the term ‘euthanasia programme’ nor ‘Aktion T4’ makes it clear that these are Nazi crimes.
- 52 Edelheit, A.J. & H., History of the Holocaust: A Handbook and Dictionary, Boulder: Westview Press, (...)
24To refer to (an) action (in German: Aktion) in itself does not mean that much and creates a certain degree of confusion, as many operations were referred to as Aktion.52
- 53 Sandner, Op. cit., p. 385.
- 54 Ibidem.
25One of the first contemporary researchers to talk in no uncertain terms about the popular term ‘Aktion T4’ is Peter Sandner, linked to the Gedenkstätte Hadamar. In 1999, in the journal Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, he pointed out that the abbreviation (designation) ‘T4’, to denote what he called ‘Krankenmordaktion T4’53, was not used until after the fact; it would only become a term used after 1945.54
- 55 Superintendent of documents, Op. cit., p. 821.
- 56 Sandner, Op. cit., p. 395.
- 57 Aly, Op. cit., p. 171.
- 58 Idem, p. 45.
26During the Nuremberg Doctors Trial, Viktor Brack, one of the key figures, referred to the murder organisation by the largely meaningless term ‘Dienststelle T4’.55 In the above-mentioned journal Peter Sandner uses the term ‘T4-Zentraldienststelle’, which was commonly used as of August 1943.56 The same terminology is adopted by the German historian and journalist Götz Aly; at the time of Nazism, the term readily used internally was simply ‘Aktion’57 or ‘Zentraldienststelle T4’. The terms ‘Aktion T4’ or simply ‘T4’ were seldom or hardly ever used by the organisers and executors.58
27Let us now focus on several authors regarding their interpretation of the term ‘Aktion T4’.
- 59 We allow ourselves to consult Wikipedia for this article since, when entering it in a search engine (...)
- 60 [consulted on 10 November 2021, JP].
- 61 [consulted on 10 November 2021, JP].
28The Wikipedia article on ‘Aktion T4’ provides a relatively clear definition of ‘Aktion T4’.59 We will limit ourselves here to quoting the German-language version: Aktion T4 ist eine nach 1945 gebräuchlich gewordene Bezeichnung für die systematische Ermordung von mehr als 70.000 Menschen mit körperlichen, geistigen und seelischen Behinderungen in Deutschland von 1940 bis 1941 unter Leitung der Zentraldienststelle T4. Diese Ermordungen waren Teil der Krankenmorde in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus, denen bis 1945 über 200.000 Menschen zum Opfer fielen. ‘T4’ ist die Abkürzung für die Adresse der damaligen Zentraldienststelle T4 in Berlin: Tiergartenstraße 4. Zu Beginn der Aktion befand sich die Dienststelle im Colombushaus.60 The first part of this article, entitled ‘Verschleiernde Begrifflichkeit’ (‘Obfuscating Terminology’) looks at both the terminology used at the time of Nazism and the development of post-war vocabulary. The Dutch, French and English-language articles on the same subject also stress that the term ‘Aktion T4’ only came into being after the Second World War. Further reading of the German-language article on Wikipedia reveals that at the time of Nazism, the name ‘Aktion T4’ is nowhere to be found. However, the terms ‘Eu-Aktion’ or ‘E-Aktion’ were in use.61 Furthermore, the English version states that the term ‘Aktion T4’ often covers many meanings and actions that can be distinguished from each other – more on this in the next paragraph.
- 62 [consulted on 10 November 2021, JP].
- 63 Examples: Erwachsen-‘Euthanasie’ (’Aktion T4’) - ‘Häftlings-Euthanasie’ (’Aktion 14f13’) - Kinder-’ (...)
29Finally, it is useful to briefly discuss the subject of ‘Zentraldienststelle T4’62, which can be accessed from the German-language page. The article starts by clarifying the term, but later still mentions the term ‘Euthanasia’63, in stark contrast to its definition in the article on ‘Aktion T4’.
- 64 Libeer, Op. cit.
- 65 Idem, p. 117.
- 66 Idem, p. 118.
- 67 Halioua, Bruno, Le procès des médecins de Nuremberg – L’irruption de l’éthique médicale moderne, Pa (...)
- 68 Bailer, B. & Wetzel, J., (IHRA), Op. cit., p. 15.
- 69 Bensoussan, Op. cit., p. 51.
- 70 Vermaat, Op. cit., p. 55.
- 71 (As an example) Kempinski Borowicz, Anna, Dictionnaire de la période du nazisme – Des signes précur (...)
30We will now analyse a number of academic sources that provide different interpretations of the term ‘Aktion T4’. Several authors have a clear definition, delineated in time and space. The Belgian criminologist Eddy Libeer, who made an extremely interesting contribution to the quarterly academic journal of the Auschwitz Foundation in 198964, defines ‘Aktion T4’ as the code name for the ‘official’ ‘euthanasia’ campaign that ran in Nazi Germany between 1 September 1939 and 24 August 1941 and was mainly aimed at the mentally ill.65 Furthermore, when the term ‘euthanasia’ is discussed, he writes that this term does not apply at all; instead ‘Aktion T4’ must be approached from the perspective of Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens.66 Generally speaking, several authors have a number of (at times minor) inaccuracies and confusions concerning an unambiguous definition; mistakes are made against bureaucracy, figures, organisers and so on. The Nazis, as mentioned above, used unambiguous terms to safeguard the secret nature of their murder programmes, had also created fake organisations to sow confusion among the population and official bureaucracy at the time. Indirectly, this confusion has had the same effect on post-war researchers, who sometimes incorrectly interpret Aktion T4 with regard to the fake organisations involved67, the number of victims68, the various secondary campaigns69 or the organisers and persons in charge involved.70 Another observation is that in some texts overly broad definitions are used which, although they do not testify to an unscientific or malicious intent, are historically problematic because they cover much more than what took place under Aktion T4. The memorial plaque affixed to the villa, no longer existing today, and which served as the headquarters for the centralised murder at Tiergartenstraße, 4 in Berlin, incorrectly classifies the multiple acts of murder of ‘useless’ people under ‘Aktion T4’ (see illustration). This observation can also be made when consulting encyclopedias that summarise everything too concisely under the heading ‘Aktion T4’.71
In 1989, the Berlin Senate unveiled the memorial plaque with a text by Götz Aly and Klaus Hartung

Memorial plaque placed in the pavement in front of the house demolished in the 1950s, which was used as the headquarters during the centralised Nazi peritocide at the Tiergartenstraße, 4 in Berlin, where today’s Berliner Philharmonikerhalle is located. The memorial mentions in the same breath without distinction all the victims of the Nazi peritocide.
© Johan Puttemans/Auschwitz Foundation
- 72 Charny, Israel (ed.), Op. cit., p. 216.
31Unambiguous language and terminological confusion – by and even for the Nazis – leads to a lack of an academic, unambiguous definition. However, a correct analysis of the various murder campaigns allows the different components to be described in a justified manner. This article will also address a terminological clarification of ‘Aktion T4’, which in short can be described as the centralised killing of people the Nazis deemed ‘useless’, who were being cared for in institutions.72
‘Peritocide’, an unambiguous neologism
32The preceding deconstruction results in the need for a new term; one that captures the essence of the Nazi murder in its description. In this article we propose the neologism ‘peritocide’.
- 73 Bailly, A., Dictionnaire grec français, Paris: Hachette, 2000, p. 1538.
- 74 Caedo: to strike mortally, to kill, to murder. In milit. lang., to slay a single enemy; or, when a (...)
33Etymologically, the word is made up of two terms: the word ‘perittos’ (Περɩττός) from Ancient Greek, meaning ‘superfluous’, ‘unnecessary’, ‘redundant’ or ‘useless’73 and the Latin suffix ‘cide’, referring to murder – and by extension, slaughter.74 Consequently, the compound word ‘peritocide’ means killing that which has become ‘superfluous’, or ‘useless’.
34In all modesty, we propose the following definition for the new term ‘peritocide’:
- 75 Premeditated murder.
- 76 Whether or not to qualify as murder or attempted murder.
‘Murder committed/undertaken/(whether or not (pseudo) legal) ordered and executed by a governmental power at times of war or peace75 or a life threatening (negligent) act76 on one’s own nation or on an occupied people/nation, on defenceless non-consenting citizens who are deemed useless because of their age, physical and/or mental disability, for ideological, economic, geopolitical (colonialist), military or (pseudo) scientific (medical) reasons.’
- 77 Kurtz, Lester (ed.), Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, and Conflict, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2008.
- 78 Quah, S. & Heggenhouger, K., International Encyclopedia of Public Health, Amsterdam/Oxford: Academi (...)
- 79 https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder
35A ‘peritocide’ can be understood as ‘serial mass murder’ or as ‘multiple Mass Murder’77; a mass murder involves killing at least three or four people at the same time78 and a serial murder is characterised by a recurring modus operandi of the killer.79
- 80 International Criminal Court. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Hague: publishe (...)
36Under international criminal law, a ‘peritocide’ would fall under ‘crimes against humanity’ as it is understood as (art. 7): any act that is part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population which includes: murder, extermination and forced sterilisation.80
37Before moving on to a case study, namely the ‘peritocide’ committed under Nazism, an important question arises: can the Nazi crimes against people they deemed ‘useless’ be referred to using the popular concept ‘genocide’?
- 81 He stated that: “The word ‘genocide’ is a sick word. Nevertheless, that is not the reason why it sh (...)
38The late Professor Maxime Steinberg had a good habit of starting every class with a critical statement on the word ‘genocide’.81 Just as the previously discussed terms ‘euthanasia’ and ‘Aktion T4’ are used inappropriately, many authors incorrectly use the word ‘genocide’ to refer to the crimes against humanity committed by the Nazis – against people who, according to their ideology, had become ‘superfluous’.
- 82 Bailly, Op. cit., p. 396-397.
- 83 Chalk, Frank & Jonassohn, Kurt, in: Israel Charny (ed.), Le livre noir de l’humanité. Encyclopédie (...)
39First of all, let us dissect the word ‘genocide’ so that we can find some common ground that provides clarity. ‘Genocide’ consists of the following two compositions: ‘genos’ and ‘cide’ (as discussed above). The Ancient Greek term ‘genos’ (το γένος) refers to a social group/community linked by kinship.82 In other words, it refers to a ‘race’ to which someone belongs. A caveat arises here: it is not the members of that particular group who claim to be part of that group, it is imposed on them by third parties. What is important is that it is birth (the ‘ontological aspect’) that determines whether someone belongs to a group – or, more accurately, a ‘race’. There is no getting away from it; one cannot leave the ‘race’ or distance oneself from it. In committing genocide, the perpetrator has determined who does and does not belong to the ‘race’, regardless of gender, age, religious affiliation, orientation, physical and/or mental condition, and thus also – to extend it to this article – regardless of whether someone is deemed useful or useless.83
- 84 Charny, Op. cit., p. 49.
- 85 Exemple by Pieter Drost in: Idem, p. 42.
- 86 Idem, p. 36.
- 87 Idem.
- 88 Charny, 1999, p. 35.
40The term ‘genocide’ was coined by Polish-Jewish lawyer Rafał Lemkin (1900-1959) in 1944, in his work Axis rule in occupied Europe and initially meant the systematic murder of a substantial number of people on the basis of their ethnicity, religion or nationality.84 Several authors have since tinkered with the meaning of the term85 so that the word is now defined much more broadly than its etymological meaning and for which it was originally intended. Several authors describe the crimes against humanity committed by the Nazis against those they deemed useless as ‘genocide’, even though this is refuted and deconstructed by others. US-born Israeli clinical psychologist Israel W. Charny states that the concept of ‘genocide’ applies to all cases of mass extermination.86 (He even states that an attack on a bus with people who are not connected in any way can be qualified as genocide). The sociologist Helen Fein, on the other hand, warns against creating banality by erroneously expanding the notion of ‘genocide’.87 In the book Encyclopedia of Genocides, the frivolity with which the term ‘genocide’ is loaded is repeated several times, with the danger that in the end the word in itself no longer holds any meaning.88 From the above, we can conclude that ‘genocide’ has become an overused and disproportionate term.
- 89 Charny, 2001, p. 17.
- 90 Bailer, B. & Wetzel, J. (IHRA), Op. cit., p. 24.
41The same book states that the Nazi crimes against the useless cannot be genocide.89 The Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer hits the nail on the head when he states that not every atrocity has to be classified as genocide in order to be ultimately condemned.90
- 91 Thys, Op. cit., p. 269.
- 92 Idem, p. 17.
- 93 Idem, p. 25.
- 94 Idem, p. 224.
- 95 Idem, p. 270.
- 96 Idem, p. 271.
42As a final illustration to show that the ‘peritocide’ committed by the Nazis cannot be called ‘genocide’, the term ‘psychogenocide’, used by the Belgian psychiatrist Professor Erik Thys, is analysed91 with great respect for his initiative to use correct terminology for a crime that was never actually named by the perpetrators. He proposes the terms ‘psychiatric genocide’92 and ‘psychogenocide’93 since the common usage of ‘Aktion T4’ is inadequate. Erik Thys places the ‘Nazi patient murders’94 under the all-encompassing title of ‘genocide’ and finds this equally problematic to a certain extent95, but further indicates in his book that by choosing the word ‘genocide’ he is pursuing a legal goal.96 However, a mass crime does not necessarily need a heavily-loaded term to acknowledge and understand its seriousness. During the Doctors Trial, the surgeon Karl Brandt and the practical organiser Viktor Brack, among others, were sentenced to death for crimes against humanity.
- 97 Rummel, R. J. Democide versus genocide: which is what? http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/genocide.ht (...)
43A golden mean can be found in the alternative offered by the American political scientist Rudolph J. Rummel (1932-2014): ‘democide’.97
44The following arguments support the deconstruction of the use of the term ‘genocide’:
45— A genocide is teleological in nature. This means working towards a predetermined goal (extermination). Once a ‘race’ is determined, that goal is pursued on the basis of pseudo-scientific theories of kinship. When it is assumed that a ‘race’ has been exterminated, their issue is resolved; once the last member has disappeared, the ‘race’ can no longer reproduce and give birth to offspring. The ‘race’ was completely uprooted.
On the other hand, a ‘peritocide’ cannot possibly end; after killing all the people deemed ‘useless’ by the state, it can still occur in the future. Completely healthy people can give birth to a disabled child, adults can become physically disabled (due to an accident) or mentally disabled (due to psychosis) during the course of their lives and thus be labelled ‘inferior’.
46— In the case of genocide, the ‘race’ defined by the perpetrator no longer has any reason to exist. Even utilitarianism is completely eliminated; a person who could normally be useful is murdered because of his ‘race’. Let us take the example of the Treblinka extermination centre: everyone, regardless of sex, age or physical condition, was murdered immediately upon arrival because of their ‘race’. Racially speaking, the ‘race’ to be killed is itself a threat to the ‘race’ of the perpetrators, and because of this ‘threat’, genocide is carried out to the last. Children – who can give the ‘race’ a future – are exterminated, adults pose the greatest danger because they can resist, and the elderly because they can pass on the culture.
Peritocide only targets people who are no longer of any use to society. Medicine has an important role to play here; let us take the example of peritocide carried out under Nazism (which will be discussed in detail in the next chapter). Nazi doctors were considered soldiers of a biological war. As ‘Erbärzten’, they had to remove, as it were, the ‘sick’ part of the community (’race’ or ‘Völkskörper’). Therefore, peritocide should be approached from a eugenic rather than a genocidal or racial point of view.
- 98 Bailer, B. & Wetzel, J. (IHRA), Op. cit., p. 19.
47— A genocide, as demonstrated above, involves setting at least two groups (‘races’) against each other. One ‘race’ kills another ‘race’.
In a peritocide, it is difficult to speak of genocide since the killings might take place within the ‘race’ itself. If a peritocide were a genocide, it would end in an ‘autocide’; the perpetrators would have to commit suicide in the end as they themselves were part of the group to be killed. Yehuda Bauer agrees with this argument as he emphasises, from the perpetrator’s point of view, the killing of members of one’s own community for specific reasons that were included in the definition of a peritocide.98
48— In a genocide, there are only two options: either someone belongs to the race to be killed (pseudo-scientifically defined) or not. There is no alternative. Someone who belongs to the race has no chance of survival. It did occur that members of the ‘race’ to be killed were kept for slave labour. However, this can be seen as a stay of execution; the ‘race’ is to be destroyed and its reproduction made impossible.
In the case of a peritocide, the ‘degree’ of ‘usefulness’ is yet to be determined. Even if these people are denied offspring by forced sterilisation, they would not necessarily lose their lives. The decision to kill the ‘useless’ person may still be influenced by several factors and persons before the actual time of the murder, for example if a person condemned to death is declared still ‘useful’ by another person.
- 99 Kogon, Op. cit., p. 42.
49— In some observed genocides throughout history, the hostile or threatening ‘race’ is already dehumanised in the early stages of development through propaganda, so that, allegedly, no crime is committed against people but against a dehumanised ‘race’. In the case of the Judeocide, the dehumanisation of Jews had already become an ancient tradition. Their dehumanisation has the effect of taking away the right to exist of every person who belongs to this ‘race’.
Peritocide does not involve racial and total dehumanisation. The targeted group does lose certain human characteristics and thus also their right to life. But the perpetrators of peritocide see it as an ‘improvement’ of their own ‘race’ and survival. In other words, the murder is committed on the same nationality – or ideologically: on one’s own ‘race’. This is an important point within the terminology: it is about the ideological ‘purification’ of one’s own ‘race’ to ensure the survival of certain characteristics. Not every person, who by definition would fall under the peritocide, becomes a victim; for political reasons the decision could be taken not to persecute a person.99
‘Nazi peritocide’, the mass murder of ‘useless people’ by the Nazis
50After deconstructing contemporary terms and proposing an alternative term in their place, we can, by way of specification delineated in time and space, add a prefix to the previously introduced term ‘peritocide’ to denote the murder of the ‘useless’ by and under Nazism.
51After all, the term proposed by Sandner, ‘NS-”Euthanasie”-Verbrechen’, does not actually reveal what it is about; all we learn is that it is about a crime in which the adjective – through the use of inverted commas – is not to be taken literally and is delineated in time and space (National Socialism). But it reveals nothing about who or what the victimised group is; after all, so many groups fell victim to the Nazi crimes. Nor does it reveal the murderous motives behind the name. The word is unclear when taken out of its context.
52The word ‘peritocide’, on the other hand, makes the motives and the victimised group clear, and ‘Nazi peritocide’ makes it clear that a peritocide was committed under Nazism, i.e. from 1933 to 1945.
- 100 Snyder, Louis L., Encyclopedia of the Third Reich, Hertfordshire: Worldsworth Editions Limited, 199 (...)
- 101 Reichsbürgergesetz (Reichsgesetzblatt, 1935, Nr. 10, S.1146) & Gesetz zum Schutze des deutschen Blu (...)
- 102 Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses (RGBI. I 1933, S.529-531).
- 103 Aly, Op. cit., p. 22.
- 104 Milza, P. & Bernstein, S. Dictionnaire historique des fascismes et du nazisme, Brussels: Complexe, (...)
- 105 Edelheit, A.J. & H. Op. cit., p. 229.
- 106 SNYDER, op. Cit., p. 323.
- 107 Gutman, Israel (ed.), Op. cit., p. 452.
- 108 Rezett, R. & Spector, S. (ed.), Op. cit., p. 207.
53It is impossible to address the Nazi peritocide without starting with eugenics. Many good works have been published on the subject, so that in this article we can limit ourselves to the Nazi impact. It is important to bear in mind that there is a distinction between positive and negative eugenics. In short, positive eugenics can be described as favouring the desired people and, in contrast, negative eugenics as disadvantaging the people one wishes to eliminate from society. The eugenic measures taken by the Nazis were intended to ‘improve’ the quality of the ‘German race’.100 This was mainly achieved through the so-called racial laws of 1935.101 However, the Sterilisation Act102 was already in force from 1 January 1934, with about 350,000 people being forcibly sterilised until 1945.103 1939 marked a turning point in the political racial approach to people the Nazis deemed undesirable; prohibited procreation became extermination.104 The Nazis did not shy away from subjecting already sterilised people, who in themselves no longer posed a ‘danger’ to progeny, to the worst form of Nazi eugenic thinking: murder in order to create their perfect race.105 The extreme form of social Darwinism (the term social Darwinism was applied to the use of Darwin’s teachings for political and social purposes106) eugenics, called Racial Hygiene during the Nazi era, led to the Nazi peritocide.107 The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust states that in the “Nazis’ attempt to preserve the purity of the super-race [and] to create a superior group of Aryans, the Nazis found it necessary to destroy all those who deviated in terms of the race.”108
54Let us now test the new term ‘Nazi peritocide’ in relation to the existing literature. Following an extensive analysis, it becomes clear that many authors refer to the uselessness of the victimised group.
55We consider it appropriate to divide the literature that highlights this ‘uselessness’: first, several passages are cited that appeared before and during Nazism, after which, we move on to the post-war writers.
- 109 Jost, Adolf, Das Recht auf den Tod – Sociale Studie, Göttingen: Dieterische Verlags-Buchhandlung, 1 (...)
56In 1895, the German writer Adolf Jost (1874-1908) questioned the right to death in his book Das Recht auf den Tod. He does, however, argue that the state should have the right to decide on the lives of the mentally ill who cannot be cured.109 He does not literally place the emphasis on a person’s ‘uselessness’, but reading the entire book, one notices that his approaches are dominated by utilitarianism.
- 110 Binding, Karl & Hoche, Alfred, Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens – Ihr Maß und ihr (...)
- 111 Ibidem, p. 24 & p. 28.
- 112 Menges, Op. cit., p. 121.
- 113 Binding, Karl & Hoche, Alfred. Op. cit., p. 52.
- 114 Ibidem, pp. 47, 49 & 50.
- 115 Das 25-Punkte-Programm der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei [vom 24. Februar 1920] (...)
- 116 Hitler, Adolf, Mijn Kamp (onverkorte uitgave), Rotterdam: Uitgeverij Ridderhof-Ridderkerk, 1982, p. (...)
- 117 Hitler, Adolf. Op. cit., p. 352.
- 118 Unger, Op. cit., pp. 153-154.
- 119 Von Galen, Clemens (Graf), Predigt des Bischofs von Münster (1941), http://www.galen-archiv.de/inde (...)
- 120 Lifton, Op. cit., p. 84.
57After the German Empire lost World War I in 1918, the lawyer Karl Binding (1841-1920) and the psychiatrist Alfred Hoche (1865-1943) wrote Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens. The key question, what is ‘life unworthy of life’, posed by Binding refers to (a minimum) life worth living.110 Unlike Jost, who puts the utilitarian first, Binding asks the question of the existential value of a human life in society. He argues that a person who no longer has the ‘will to live’ (they are no longer conscious of whether or not they have the will to live) has no value (and no use) and therefore their death cannot be a loss.111 According to Binding, this person has a ‘life unworthy of life’. Jan Menges states that these principles were not observed by the Nazis; they also murdered people with a will to live.112 Doctor Hoche supplements the book Die Freigabe with medical observations. Not only does he take up Binding’s argument and confirm it medically113, he also refers in no uncertain terms to the people whose lives no longer have any value (or use): (…) unheilbar Blödsinns, Geistigen Todes, Vollidioten, leeren Menschenhülsen, Ballastexistenzen114 are some examples of his references to the ‘life unworthy of life’. In the same year that Die Freigabe appeared, the Nazis published their political programme. The tenth point states that in order to be a German citizen, the person must be able to contribute mentally or physically to the common good.115 After Hitler’s failed coup and conviction, he wrote his book Mein Kampf in prison. In the first part/book – entitled ‘A reckoning’ – Hitler warns of the eugenic struggle that prevails between the weak and the strong116; according to him, this corresponds to the laws of the race and its survival.117 At the time of Nazism, the previously mentioned novel by Hellmuth Unger, Sendung und Gewissen, was published. In a passage about the extermination of the ‘life unworthy of life’ because of the meaninglessness of such a life, he raises the question of the Gnadentod (literally used as such by Unger) again for discussion.118 The senselessness of this passage brings us a little closer to the final design of the organised murder programmes that would start a few years later and in which the ‘pointless and useless’ would be murdered. In his homily, once the mass murders had become widely known, Bishop Clemens von Galen (1878-1946) used clear language, which also reflected what these people were being killed for: due to ‘unproductiveness’, people were killed on a massive scale because they were no longer of any use.119 After the collapse of Hitler’s Thousand-Year Reich, a number of trials followed, including the previously mentioned Doctors Trial. One of the defendants was the psychiatrist Hermann Pfannmüller (1886-1961), who had masterminded multiple murders. The reason he gave during his testimony is not uninteresting for this article: in his opinion, mentally disabled children had no right to life, while (useful) soldiers fought at the front, were wounded and even died.120
- 121 Laqueur, W. (ed.), Op. cit., p. 167.
- 122 Libeer, Op. cit., p. 191.
- 123 Bailer, B. & Wetzel, J. (IHRA), Op. cit., p. 146.
- 124 Ibidem, p. 49.
- 125 Klee, Op. cit., p. 11.
58Thus, we find terminology among contemporary researchers and authors that argues in favour of the proposed term ‘Nazi peritocide’. The Holocaust Encyclopedia refers to murdered people who were in a physically and mentally disabled state.121 Eddy Libeer, on the other hand, says that the victims were invariably unproductive.122 Björn Felder describes people with mental illness as an unnecessary burden.123 Paul Weindling states that the Nazi murder plans were aimed at those who were labelled unfit.124 Götz Aly’s article was given the significant title of ‘Medizin gegen Unbrauchbare’, which may be synonymous with the superfluous within Nazi society. Finally, Ernst Klee’s literal statement is more than worth mentioning: it concerned people who had keinen Nutzen.125
59In our conclusion, we focus on the different aspects of the Nazi peritocide, in chronological order.
— Nazi peritocide of children
60In 1938 or 1939, Hitler sent his personal physician, Professor Karl Brandt, to Leipzig after a father wrote to the Privatkanzlei des Führers asking to be allowed to kill his deformed newborn child. After his execution, Hitler ordered the same action to be taken in similar cases. The ‘Reichsausschuß zur wissenschaftlichen Erfassung von erb- und anlagebedingten schweren Leiden’ (‘Reich Committee for the Scientific Registering of Serious Hereditary and Congenital Illnesses’) led the systematic killing of children in so-called Kinderfachabteilungen (children’s clinics or departments), where between 5,000 and 10,000 children were murdered by deprivation or medicinal poisoning until 1945.
— Nazi peritocide in (Polish) occupied territories
- 126 Bailer, B. & Wetzel, J. (IHRA), Op. cit., p. 138.
- 127 Idem, p. 175.
61After the start of the Second World War, i.e. the Nazi attack on the Second Polish Republic, the western part of the conquered country was annexed to Hitler’s Nazi Empire. Shortly afterwards, the first murders of interned psychiatric Polish patients began by shooting them, gassing them in a room, led by Herbert Lange and later by using mobile gas vans. The Polish researchers Nasierowski and Marcinowski draw attention to the fact that, organisationally, these murderous actions do not fall under (what can be considered a ‘placeholder name’) Aktion T4; after all, they were undertaken at the initiative of local Nazi authorities.126 Björn Felder specifies that these ‘extermination murders’ were more in line with the ideological colonisation plan ‘Generalplan Ost’.127
— Centralised Nazi peritocide
- 128 Klee, Op. cit. p. 232.
- 129 Libeer, Op. cit. p. 169.
62January 1940 heralded the start of the murder programme, which can be placed under the broad term of ‘Aktion T4’. From October 1939 onwards, forms were already being sent to institutions, which had to be filled in and returned. The Zentraldienststelle, located at Tiergartenstraße 4 in Berlin, sent them to three experts for assessment. When a patient was condemned to die in one of the six murder centres, his or her name was added to a list that was handed over to the GeKraT (transport of the sick), who went to pick up the patients and transport them straight to their death by gassing. Later, Zwischenanstalten were used: an intermediate site before the patient was murdered. At the end of August 1941, after 70,273128 people had been murdered, Hitler ordered the organised murder programme to stop. This form of Nazi atrocity is both organisational and practical in nature.129
— Nazi peritocide of incapacitated prisoners
- 130 Klee, Op. cit., p. 296.
63People who were insane, i.e. non-convicted criminals, who were locked up because of their (according to Nazi standards) anti-social character, were physically eliminated systematically from March 1940 onwards. Ernst Klee called this Nazi murder action ‘Aktion §42b’130
— Nazi peritocide of Jewish patients
- 131 Bailer, B. & Wetzel, J. (IHRA), Op. cit., p. 64.
64In the beginning, there was little distinction between ‘Aryan’ and ‘Jewish’ patients, even though race had to be specified. From spring 1940, the Sonderaktion zur Ermordung jüdischer Patienten131 named by Paul Weindling, took place. Jews were allegedly sent to a nursing home in Chełm, located in the east of the Nazi buffer state, the Generalgouvernement, where after a while they apparently died. In reality, they were already murdered in Germany. In specialist literature, this is known as ‘Aktion Cholm’.
— Nazi peritocide of concentration camp inmates
- 132 Ternon, Y. & Helman, S., Le massacre des aliénés – Des théoriciens nazis aux praticiens SS, Tournai (...)
65From spring 1941, concentration camp authorities had to deal with concentration camp inmates who were completely worn out. The exhausted slave labourers were sent to T4 murder centres under the totally incomprehensible code name ‘Aktion 14f13’ (also called ‘Invaliden-Aktion’, ‘Sonderbehandlung 14f13’ or ‘Aktion Heyde’132).
— Decentralised Nazi peritocide
- 133 Ibidem, p. 175.
66After Hitler ordered the halt of the centralised murders, they did not actually stop. From the autumn of 1941, the murder of psychiatric patients started again, but this time in a completely different way; both organisationally and practically – this time no longer by poison gas, but by overdoses of medication or starvation – the whole operation was completely decentralised. At his trial, Viktor Brack spoke of ‘Wilde Euthanasie’.133
— Nazi peritocide of Ostarbeiter
- 134 Klee, Op. cit., p. 299.
67Following the annexation of large parts of Poland and after the Soviet invasion, millions of local people were used as slave labour for the German war industry, called Ostarbeiter. From the summer of 1942, slave labourers who were unable to work were killed due to their ‘uselessness’.134 We suggest this can be understood as a ‘Vernichtung nach Arbeit’.
— Nazi peritocide of hospitalised people
- 135 Bovy, D., Op. cit., p. 184.
68From 1944 onwards, German cities were increasingly affected by Allied bombing raids, which resulted in many casualties. This led to overcrowded hospitals due to mass hospitalisation of the wounded. Karl Brandt, who had been promoted to Generalkommissar für das Sanitäts- und Gesundheitswesen in 1943, had to make room, in this capacity, within the Heil- und Pflegeanstalten for wounded civilians to be treated.135 This action, called Aktion Brandt, is by no means to be classified as Aktion T4.
Notes
1 Law on euthanasia: https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg_2.pl?language=nl&nm=2002009590&la=N (accessed 10 November 2021).
2 Document PS-630 (In: Paul, S. & Hoosten, A. Procès des Grands Criminels de Guerre devant le Tribunal Militaire International de Nuremberg – 14 novembre 1945 – 1er octobre 1946, Nuremberg, 1947).
3 Montague, Patrick, Chelmno and the Holocaust – The History of Hitler’s First Death Camp, London/New-York: I.B. Tauris, 2012, pp. 10-11.
4 Vermaat, Emerson, Euthanasie: Herhaalt de geschiedenis zich? – Paralellen en verschillen met nazi-Duitsland, Utrecht: Uitgeverij De Barnier, 2001, p. 90.
5 Superintendent of documents. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under control Council Law No. 10, Vol. I “The Medical Case”, October 1946 – April 1949, Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, s.d. p. 66.
6 Vermaat, Op. cit., p. 95.
7 Lifton, Robert Jay, Les médecins nazis – Le meurtre médical et la psychologie du génocide, Paris: Éd. Robert Laffont, 1989, p. 83.
8 Superintendent of documents, Op. cit., p. 893.
9 Friedlander, Henry, Les origines de la Shoah – De l’euthanasie à la Solution finale, Paris: Éd. Calmann-Lévy/Mémorial de la Shoah, 2015, p. 15.
10 Ibidem, p. 16.
11 Kogon, E., Langbein, H. & Ruckerl, A., Les chambres à gaz – secret d’État, Paris: Éd. De minuit, 1984, p. 13.
12 Menges, J., ‘Euthanasie’ in het Derde Rijk, Haarlem: Uitgeverij Bohn, 1972, p. vii.
13 Ibidem, p. 61.
14 Thys, Erik, Psychogenocide – Psychiatrie, kunst en massamoord onder de nazi’s, Antwerpen: Uitgeverij EPO, 2015 p. 270.
15 Vermaat, Op. cit., p. 64.
16 Unger, Hellmuth, Sendung und Gewissen, Oldenburg I.O./Berlin: Gerhard Stalling Verlagbuchhandlung, 1941 p. 153.
17 Goebbels, Joseph, Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels, München: K.G. Saur Verlag, 1998, Part 1, Tape 9, p. 393.
18 Van den Berghe, Gie, “Genadeloze genadedood – Nazi-euthanasie en propaganda,” Journal of Belgian History - Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Nieuwste Geschiedenis, nr. 21, 2009, pp. 227-243, citaat p. 240.
19 Menges, Op. cit., p. 85.
20 Goebbels, Op. cit., Part 1, Tape 9, p. 119.
21 Tregenza, Michael, Aktion T4 – Le secret d’État des nazis: l’extermination des handicapés physiques et mentaux, Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 2011, p. 303.
22 Aly, Götz, Les anormaux – Les meurtres par euthanasie en Allemagne (1939-1945), Paris: Flammarion, 2014, p. 232.
23 Ibidem.
24 Libeer, Eddy, “Repressie ten opzichte van geestesziekten in nazi-Duitsland (1939-1945),” In: Bijdragen tot de prijs van de Auschwitz-Stichting 1987-1988. Speciale uitgave van het Driemaandelijks Tijdschrift van de Auschwitz-Stichting, nr. 20/21, april-september 1989, Brussel, 1989, pp. 109-242, citaat p. 182.
25 Superintendent of documents, Op. cit., Vol. I, p. 794.
26 Superintendent of documents, Op. cit., Vol. II, p. 134.
27 Superintendent of documents, Op. cit., Vol. I, p. 844.
28 Idem, p. 839.
29 As defined in the 18th century ‘Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers’, Diderot and d’Alembert (http://enccre.academie-sciences.fr/encyclopedie/).
30 Menges, Op. cit., p. vii, Zentner, C. & Bedurftiget, F. (eds.), Das Große Lexikon des dritten Reiches, München: Südwest, 1985, p. 165; Baudot, M. e.a. (eds.), Encyclopédie de la Guerre 1939-1945, Tournai: Casterman, 1997 p. 194; Marzano, M. (ed.), Dictionnaire de la violence, Paris: P.U.F., Coll. Quadrige-Dicos Poche, 2011 p. 461, Kogon, Op. cit., p. 24, Libeer, Op. cit,. p. 118.
31 Among others Klee, Ernst, “Euthanasie” im NS-Staat – Die „Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens“, Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer Verlag GmbH, 1995 p. 11.
32 Formulated by Yehuda Bauer, among others in Bailer, B. & Wetzel, J. (IHRA) Mass Murder of People with Disabilities and the Holocaust, Berlin: Metropol Verlag, 2019, p. 19.
33 Among others Friedlander, Op. cit., p. 15, Libeer, Op. cit. p. 111, Thys, Op. cit., p. 270.
34 Dreyfus, J.-M.; Husson, E. e.a. (eds.), Dictionnaire de la Shoah, Paris: Larousse Coll. À présent, 2009, p. 215, Laqueur, W. (ed.), The Holocaust Encyclopedia, New Haven-London: Yale University Press, 2001, p. 167; Benz, W. (ed.), Lexikon des Holocaust, München: C.H. Beck, Coll. Beck’sche Reihe-1477, 2002 p. 65, Friedlander, Op. cit., p. 10, Libeer, Op. cit., p. 111, Bauer in: Bailer, B. & Wetzel, J. (IHRA) Op. cit., p. 23, Weindling in: Op. cit., p. 49, Charny, Israel (ec.), Encyclopedia of Genocide, Santa Barbara/Denver/Oxford: ACB-CLIO, 1999 p. 219; Aly, Op. cit., p. 19; Gutman, Israel (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 1990 p. 451, Hohendorf, Gerrit, “L’extermination de malades et handicapés mentaux sous le régime national-socialiste,” in: Encyclopédie des violences de masse (http://www.sciencespo.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance), SciencesPo, nov. 2016 (accessed on 10 November 2021), Zentner, C. & Bedurftiget, F. (eds.), Das Große Lexikon des dritten Reiches, München: Südwest, 1985, p. 165; Niewyk, D. & Nicosia, F. The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, New-York: Columbia University Press, 2000 p. 233, Montague, Op. cit., p. 9, Lifton, Op. cit., p. 37.
35 Vermaat, Op. cit. p. 61.
36 Idem, p. 8.
37 Menges, Op. cit., p. 176.
38 Friedlander, Op. cit., p. 9.
39 Montague, Op. cit., p. 9.
40 Libeer, Op. cit., p. 111.
41 Charny, Israel (ed.), Op. cit., p. 219.
42 Menges, Op. cit., p. vii and p. 176.
43 Tregenza, Op. cit., p. 11.
44 Thys, Op. cit., p. 278.
45 Stöckle, Thomas, Grafeneck 1940 – “Euthansie”-Verbrechen in Südwestdeutschland, Tübingen: Silberburg-Verlag GmbH, 2020.
46 Sandner, Peter, „Die “Euthanasie”-Akten im Bundesarchiv,“ Vierteljahrshelfte für Zeitgeschichte, 47(3), 1999, pp. 385-400, citaat p. 385.
47 Klee, Op. cit., p. 11.
48 De Groot, Etienne, Leven tot in de dood – Omtrent euthanasie, Brussel: VUBPress, 1997 p. 129; Distelmans, Wim, Een waardig levenseinde, Antwerpen: Uitgeverij Houtekiet, 2005, p. 166.
49 Marzano, M. (ed.), Op. cit., p. 460.
50 Thys, Op. cit., p. 270, Libeer, Op. cit., p. 186, Benz, W. (ed.), Op. cit., p. 11, Rezett, R. & Spector, S. (eds.), Encyclopedie van de Holocaust, Kampen and Jerusalem: Kok – Yad Vashem, 2003, p. 207; Burleigh, Michael, Death and Delivrance – Euthanasia in Germany 1900-1945, London: Cambridge University Press, 1994 p. 4; Bailer & Wetzel, in: Bailer, B. & Wetzel, J. (IHRA), Op. cit., p. 15, Bovy, D., Dictionnaire de la barbarie nazie et de la shoah, Brussels/Liège: Luc Pire/Les Territoires de la Mémoire, Coll. Voix de la mémoire, 2007, p. 186; Kammer, H. & Bartsch, E. Lexikon Nationalsozialismus – Begriffe, Organisationen und Institutionen. Hamburg: Trowhlt Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH, 2002, p. 77, Benz, W., Graml, H. & Weiss, H. (eds.), Enzycklopedie des Nationalsozialismus, München: dtv-Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1997, p. 355.
51 Gutman, Israel (ed.), Op. cit., p. 452.
52 Edelheit, A.J. & H., History of the Holocaust: A Handbook and Dictionary, Boulder: Westview Press, 1994, p. 162.
53 Sandner, Op. cit., p. 385.
54 Ibidem.
55 Superintendent of documents, Op. cit., p. 821.
56 Sandner, Op. cit., p. 395.
57 Aly, Op. cit., p. 171.
58 Idem, p. 45.
59 We allow ourselves to consult Wikipedia for this article since, when entering it in a search engine, Wikipedia is one of the first suggestions offered to an Internet surfer and is widely used (JP).
60 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4 [consulted on 10 November 2021, JP].
61 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4 [consulted on 10 November 2021, JP].
62 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zentraldienststelle_T4 [consulted on 10 November 2021, JP].
63 Examples: Erwachsen-‘Euthanasie’ (’Aktion T4’) - ‘Häftlings-Euthanasie’ (’Aktion 14f13’) - Kinder-’Euthanasie’ https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zentraldienststelle_T4 [consulted on 10 November 2021, JP].
64 Libeer, Op. cit.
65 Idem, p. 117.
66 Idem, p. 118.
67 Halioua, Bruno, Le procès des médecins de Nuremberg – L’irruption de l’éthique médicale moderne, Paris: Librairie Vuibert, 2007, p. 47.
68 Bailer, B. & Wetzel, J., (IHRA), Op. cit., p. 15.
69 Bensoussan, Op. cit., p. 51.
70 Vermaat, Op. cit., p. 55.
71 (As an example) Kempinski Borowicz, Anna, Dictionnaire de la période du nazisme – Des signes précurseurs à la Shoah (1918-1945), Brussels: Didier Devillez Éditeur / Institut d’Études du Judaïsme, 2012, p. 26.
72 Charny, Israel (ed.), Op. cit., p. 216.
73 Bailly, A., Dictionnaire grec français, Paris: Hachette, 2000, p. 1538.
74 Caedo: to strike mortally, to kill, to murder. In milit. lang., to slay a single enemy; or, when a hostile army as a whole is spoken of, to conquer with great slaughter, to cut to pieces, vanquish, destroy (…) Lewis, Charlton T., Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, 1879, Collatinus-web
Caedo, caedere: to murder, [especially] massacre, carnage (…) – To strike, beat, knock down – To shoot, kill, massacre, Dictionnaire Gaffiot, 1934, p. 238.
Caedo: slaughter – Strike, smite, murder. Oxford Latin dictionary, 1982, Old.
75 Premeditated murder.
76 Whether or not to qualify as murder or attempted murder.
77 Kurtz, Lester (ed.), Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, and Conflict, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2008.
78 Quah, S. & Heggenhouger, K., International Encyclopedia of Public Health, Amsterdam/Oxford: Academic, 2008.
79 https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder
80 International Criminal Court. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Hague: published by International Criminal Court, 2011. (Online: https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library/documents/rs-eng.pdf), p. 3.
81 He stated that: “The word ‘genocide’ is a sick word. Nevertheless, that is not the reason why it should be abandoned. It must simply be used in its context!” (Citation: JP).
82 Bailly, Op. cit., p. 396-397.
83 Chalk, Frank & Jonassohn, Kurt, in: Israel Charny (ed.), Le livre noir de l’humanité. Encyclopédie mondiale des génocides, Toulouse: Privat, 2001, p. 43.
84 Charny, Op. cit., p. 49.
85 Exemple by Pieter Drost in: Idem, p. 42.
86 Idem, p. 36.
87 Idem.
88 Charny, 1999, p. 35.
89 Charny, 2001, p. 17.
90 Bailer, B. & Wetzel, J. (IHRA), Op. cit., p. 24.
91 Thys, Op. cit., p. 269.
92 Idem, p. 17.
93 Idem, p. 25.
94 Idem, p. 224.
95 Idem, p. 270.
96 Idem, p. 271.
97 Rummel, R. J. Democide versus genocide: which is what? http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/genocide.htm
98 Bailer, B. & Wetzel, J. (IHRA), Op. cit., p. 19.
99 Kogon, Op. cit., p. 42.
100 Snyder, Louis L., Encyclopedia of the Third Reich, Hertfordshire: Worldsworth Editions Limited, 1998, p. 87.
101 Reichsbürgergesetz (Reichsgesetzblatt, 1935, Nr. 10, S.1146) & Gesetz zum Schutze des deutschen Blutes und der deutschen Ehre (Reichsgesetzblatt, 1935, Nr. 10, S.1146f).
102 Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses (RGBI. I 1933, S.529-531).
103 Aly, Op. cit., p. 22.
104 Milza, P. & Bernstein, S. Dictionnaire historique des fascismes et du nazisme, Brussels: Complexe, 1992, pp. 250-251.
105 Edelheit, A.J. & H. Op. cit., p. 229.
106 SNYDER, op. Cit., p. 323.
107 Gutman, Israel (ed.), Op. cit., p. 452.
108 Rezett, R. & Spector, S. (ed.), Op. cit., p. 207.
109 Jost, Adolf, Das Recht auf den Tod – Sociale Studie, Göttingen: Dieterische Verlags-Buchhandlung, 1895, p. 32.
110 Binding, Karl & Hoche, Alfred, Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens – Ihr Maß und ihre Form, Leipzig/Hamburg: Verlag von Felix Meiner, 1922, p. 23.
111 Ibidem, p. 24 & p. 28.
112 Menges, Op. cit., p. 121.
113 Binding, Karl & Hoche, Alfred. Op. cit., p. 52.
114 Ibidem, pp. 47, 49 & 50.
115 Das 25-Punkte-Programm der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei [vom 24. Februar 1920] (Online: http://www.documentarchiv.de/wr/1920/nsdap-programm.html) Punkt 10.
116 Hitler, Adolf, Mijn Kamp (onverkorte uitgave), Rotterdam: Uitgeverij Ridderhof-Ridderkerk, 1982, p. 347.
117 Hitler, Adolf. Op. cit., p. 352.
118 Unger, Op. cit., pp. 153-154.
119 Von Galen, Clemens (Graf), Predigt des Bischofs von Münster (1941), http://www.galen-archiv.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4&Itemid=18 (accessed 5 February 2021).
120 Lifton, Op. cit., p. 84.
121 Laqueur, W. (ed.), Op. cit., p. 167.
122 Libeer, Op. cit., p. 191.
123 Bailer, B. & Wetzel, J. (IHRA), Op. cit., p. 146.
124 Ibidem, p. 49.
125 Klee, Op. cit., p. 11.
126 Bailer, B. & Wetzel, J. (IHRA), Op. cit., p. 138.
127 Idem, p. 175.
128 Klee, Op. cit. p. 232.
129 Libeer, Op. cit. p. 169.
130 Klee, Op. cit., p. 296.
131 Bailer, B. & Wetzel, J. (IHRA), Op. cit., p. 64.
132 Ternon, Y. & Helman, S., Le massacre des aliénés – Des théoriciens nazis aux praticiens SS, Tournai: Casterman S.A., 1971, p. 149.
133 Ibidem, p. 175.
134 Klee, Op. cit., p. 299.
135 Bovy, D., Op. cit., p. 184.
Haut de pageTable des illustrations
![]() |
|
---|---|
Titre | In this letter, backdated to 1 September 1939, Hitler gave his personal physician Karl Brandt and the head of the private chancellery Philip Bouhler extrajudicial permission to grant ‘merciful death’ to incurable patients |
Légende | This letter was presented to the candidates of the program to reassure them that Hitler stood behind this action. |
Crédits | © Bundesarchiv Berlin |
URL | http://journals.openedition.org/temoigner/docannexe/image/10899/img-1.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 728k |
![]() |
|
Titre | In 1989, the Berlin Senate unveiled the memorial plaque with a text by Götz Aly and Klaus Hartung |
Légende | Memorial plaque placed in the pavement in front of the house demolished in the 1950s, which was used as the headquarters during the centralised Nazi peritocide at the Tiergartenstraße, 4 in Berlin, where today’s Berliner Philharmonikerhalle is located. The memorial mentions in the same breath without distinction all the victims of the Nazi peritocide. |
Crédits | © Johan Puttemans/Auschwitz Foundation |
URL | http://journals.openedition.org/temoigner/docannexe/image/10899/img-2.jpg |
Fichier | image/jpeg, 1,2M |
Pour citer cet article
Référence papier
Johan Puttemans, « The Nazi peritocide, the killing of the ‘useless’ under Nazism », Témoigner. Entre histoire et mémoire, 134 | 2022, 57-76.
Référence électronique
Johan Puttemans, « The Nazi peritocide, the killing of the ‘useless’ under Nazism », Témoigner. Entre histoire et mémoire [En ligne], 134 | 2022, mis en ligne le 10 avril 2023, consulté le 14 juin 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/temoigner/10899 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/temoigner.10899
Haut de pageDroits d’auteur
Le texte et les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés), sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Haut de page