The Nazi murder of 6 million non-Jews

[Thunder]

The Nazis killed millions of Poles, Gypsies, Russians, homosexuals, blacks, democrats, liberals, Communists, Socialists, handicapped, retarded, and lots of other folks.

Where did the 6 million round number come from?

ooooh!! Wikipedia I love you. There is no 6 million figure. its between 5 and 7 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Non_Jewish_victims

[Skeptic]

By the way: nobody I know, including holocaust survivors, had ever claimed that the Nazis had not killed other people. Indeed, www.nizkor.com for example is explicitly dedicated to the memory of Hitler's "12 million" victims -- the 6 million Jews and 6 million non-Jews.

[MG1962]

parky - I can not speak for now, but in the 60's and 70's the standard number quoted was 6 million. I can even direct you to memorials of the time with that number on it.

However historians freely admit they will never pin the number to anything exact, and I have seen figures as low as 4 million by the most conservative of scholars

Also you need to add Catholics to your list of victims

[JJM 777]

... and a few soldiers in the armies of various countries.

This is the most disgusting thing in modern news reporting, so-and-so many "civilians" died. As if soldiers were lesser human beings than civilians.

[Bikewer]

Total casualties for the Soviets were in the area of 24,000,000. It's estimated that from 6-8 million Germans, both civilian and military died.

The Chinese...Between 10 and 20 million.

From the Wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

[geni]

Where did the 6 million round number come from?


Probably Adolf Eichmann.

[plumjam]

Probably Adolf Eichmann.

I'd be skeptical of Eichmann's numbers; he was on Performance Related Pay.

[Lonewulf]

... and a few soldiers in the armies of various countries.

This is the most disgusting thing in modern news reporting, so-and-so many "civilians" died. As if soldiers were lesser human beings than civilians.

It's expected to kill soldiers or PoWs (even if it doesn't really make you the popular kid on the block). It's not expected to systematically wipe out civilians.

[Damien Evans]

It's expected to kill soldiers or PoWs (even if it doesn't really make you the popular kid on the block). It's not expected to systematically wipe out civilians.

Soldiers yes, but you're not expected or supposed to kill prisoners of war, where did you get that idea from?

[Lonewulf]

Soldiers yes, but you're not expected or supposed to kill prisoners of war, where did you get that idea from?

Well, not "expected", but it wasn't anything unique to WWII, I meant. The allies weren't big killers of PoWs, but the Japanese weren't exactly taking them out for cookies and ice cream. The Vietnamese were about the same way during the Vietnam War. And even if they didn't kill them off right away, they put them in conditions that would usually do it for them.

Although I could see how the Japanese were about as bad as the Nazis during the Rape of Nanking, although again, that's because of the systematic killing of civilians as well as soldiers, and not just soldiers alone.

(Although if you listen to some people in this forum, Ike also starved to death about a million Germans to "teach them a lesson", but let's leave out the conspiracy theory nonsense...)

[Thunder]

I am curious as to how our local Neo-Nazis feel about the Nazi murder of Aryan German citizens who suffered from various mental diseases, physical handicaps, and other conditions considered a "burden upon society" by der Fuhrer.

[gtc]

Parky,

Probably the same way you or I feel about pruning a tree.

[Lonewulf]

I am curious as to how our local Neo-Nazis feel about the Nazi murder of Aryan German citizens who suffered from various mental diseases, physical handicaps, and other conditions considered a "burden upon society" by der Fuhrer.

Including homosexuality, of course.

[Thunder]

Including homosexuality, of course.

its a long list, sorry.

[Lonewulf]

That it is.

[I Ratant]

Soldiers yes, but you're not expected or supposed to kill prisoners of war, where did you get that idea from?
.
John Keegan wrote a book on the sorry state of being a POW in the past, where frequently fighting to your death was much better than surrendering.
Aztecs and Mayas consumed thousands of POWs in their sacrifices.
Becoming a slave was normal in the Middle East, with death at the end of extremely barbarous treatment.
Galley slaves went down with the ship.
The various Greek city-states treated their captives like animals.
It's only recently (compared to the length of time there's been warfare) that POWs had any chance at all of surviving the experience.

[I Ratant]

I am curious as to how our local Neo-Nazis feel about the Nazi murder of Aryan German citizens who suffered from various mental diseases, physical handicaps, and other conditions considered a "burden upon society" by der Fuhrer.
.
Badges specified to be worn by the "undesireables".

[Ove]

I saw a documentary some years ago, about the German "Euthanasia Clinics" where mentally ill people were killed. It was horrifying. They even convinced parents that their mentally ill children were better off dead. How ANYBODY in this day and age can support Nazism is beyond my belief.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The Nazis killed millions of Poles, Gypsies, Russians, homosexuals, blacks, democrats, liberals, Communists, Socialists, handicapped, retarded, and lots of other folks.

What about a retarded black liberal gay cripple? Would they be counted once or five times?

[a_unique_person]

.
Badges specified to be worn by the "undesireables".

So Hitler had to wear a black star?

[a_unique_person]

I saw a documentary some years ago, about the German "Euthanasia Clinics" where mentally ill people were killed. It was horrifying. They even convinced parents that their mentally ill children were better off dead. How ANYBODY in this day and age can support Nazism is beyond my belief.

People are the same now as they were then.

[headscratcher4]

The Euthanasia programs were important because they were the "Beta" version of later systematic murder of civilians used in the camp and the camp system. Of course, the state attempted to keep the program secret but in one of the few instances where Christian churches actually stepped up, there was certain exposure of the program which had to be burried even deeper.

My guess that the Nazi apologists react to this in either one of two ways.

Some may deny it...because to admit that it occured is to admit that there was a program of killing that was the blueprint to the greater murder machine errected in the concentration camps. Since they don't admit that that machine existed, the inconvience of having a documented Beta version of the killing machine must also be denied.

Or, in the alternative, I suspect that they could come to the logical conclusion (logical for murderous Nazs-symps) that the logic of the Nazi program was sound. These were lives not worth living, not worth having the state support. So, finding "humaine" ways of reducing this burdensome population was not only an act of kindness, it was also an act of racial purification.

In any event, the program is problematical for deniers and I don' think you hear them talking about it much....

[HansMustermann]

So Hitler had to wear a black star?

AFAIK Hitler was explicitly exempt from most of his own laws, most notably from the racial purity laws.

[HansMustermann]

.
John Keegan wrote a book on the sorry state of being a POW in the past, where frequently fighting to your death was much better than surrendering.
Aztecs and Mayas consumed thousands of POWs in their sacrifices.
Becoming a slave was normal in the Middle East, with death at the end of extremely barbarous treatment.
Galley slaves went down with the ship.
The various Greek city-states treated their captives like animals.
It's only recently (compared to the length of time there's been warfare) that POWs had any chance at all of surviving the experience.

I wouldn't even see a need to say "compared to the length of time there's been warfare", because it's really a very recent development anyway. I could extend your list well past the ancient times with such examples as:

- after the Battle of Kleidion in 1014, the Byzantine emperor blinded 99% of the captured Bulgar soldiers, with every hundredth left to lead the other 99 home. A fate worse than death, I would say.

- in the third crusade, after the siege of Acre, Richard I of England ordered te execution of all 3000 or so Muslim prisoners, including women and children. Not one to be outdone by the western infidels, Saladin's answer was to execute all western prisoners.

- the soldiers at Agincourt being motivated by a royal speech that told them flat out that while nobles would be held for ransome, the common soldiers would be executed on the spot, so they damn better fight for their lives. And that was, what, 1415?

And to prove him right, the French managed to capture the English baggage train there (in spite of otherwise losing the battle) and promptly executed everyone there. Mostly children.

But Henry himself takes the cake there in that, when he thought that the French are regrouping, he ordered the killing of the captured French knights. So while the French would have "only" executed the common soldiers, the English killd the nobles too. Harsh but equal ;)

- until quite late the rules of chivalry said that you had to offer a chance to surrender when the walls of a castle were breached. If the defenders however chose to keep fighting, no mercy would be given after that, and all captives could be executed.

[Simon39759]

I don't know if the idea was that these victims would be 'better of dead', I think that the idea was more that they were a burden on the states, a stain on the nation's perfection and a risk of them polluting the gene pool with their deficient genes.
Hence, '--ck them', and to the wide beyond they go.

I am not sure the actual wellfare of the victims was ever a concern in the institution of this policy.

[Chaos]

I saw a documentary some years ago, about the German "Euthanasia Clinics" where mentally ill people were killed. It was horrifying. They even convinced parents that their mentally ill children were better off dead. How ANYBODY in this day and age can support Nazism is beyond my belief.

According to Lawrence Rees´ "The Nazis", the whole child euthanasia thing got started because one father wrote a letter to Hitler, petitioning to be allowed to have his physically and mentally handicapped child put down.

Just when you thought it couldn´t get any more repulsive... eh?

[cornsail]

Eugenics wasn't limited to Germany at the time, although they certainly took it the furthest. The reason it cropped up all over the west around the same time is that Darwinian evolution had just become mainstream. Several US states had laws about neutering criminals and mentally handicapped people of certain variates. Other European countries, I recall had similar things going on.

[Simon39759]

Except for the fact that eugenic is the opposite from Natural selection, and that it was Charles Davenport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Davenport) that popularized the concept.

[Thunder]

Many countries had Eugenics programs, including the good ol' US of A. But we did NOT murder anyone!!

The Germans made that gigantic leap into cruelty.

"He is Aryan...but he is a cripple. Therefore, he must die!!!!"

So what do you say, JREF Neo-Nazis? What do you think about the murder of hundreds of thousands of Aryans who suffered from physical handicaps and mental diseases? Were they a burden upon Aryan society and therefore had to be destroyed??

[Lonewulf]

It's hard enough to get a neonazi into a thread by choice, much less get them to answer difficult questions that puts their morality into question.

[cornsail]

Except for the fact that eugenic is the opposite from Natural selection,
So? Are you saying an understanding of natural selection can't influence a practice of artificial selection?

and that it was Charles Davenport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Davenport) that popularized the concept.
Again, so? I never made any claims about who popularized the concept. Darwin and Mendel were obviously huge influences on Davenport.

[Hokulele]

Except for the fact that eugenic is the opposite from Natural selection, and that it was Charles Davenport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Davenport) that popularized the concept.


It is also amusing that the origin of eugenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Francis_Galton#Heredity.2C_historiometry_and_e ugenics) (which is indeed tied to Darwin's work) was almost entirely focused on promoting the marriage and mating of "able people" rather than weeding out any undesireable.

[cornsail]

I guess it's amusing considering the stigma associated with "eugenics". It's fascinating how memes transform in strength and nature over time.

What I find more amusing is when people think the film "Idiocracy" is full of fresh ideas.

[Budly]

The 6 million number was floated out by Jewish groups promoting the holocaust myth as a way to get Israel, and to encourage revenge against the Germans. Here are two examples of the 6 million number being used before anyone could have known it was that number:

1) The Reader's Digest episode of the video One Third of the Holocaust (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/videos/09_readers_digest.wmv) shows the 6 million number being used in February 1943, by Ben Hecht, connected with the Irgun Zvi Leumi, in a Reader's Digest article.

2) Joseph Thon's speech to a Congressional Hearing (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/nazishrunkenheads/foreign_affairs_2.jpg) where he mentions the murder of 6 million Jews. (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/nazishrunkenheads/thon_12.jpg) Other parts of Thon's speech points to it being propaganda encouraging punishing the German people. See part of the speech 1, (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/nazishrunkenheads/thon_01.jpg) 2, (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/nazishrunkenheads/thon_02.jpg) 3, (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/nazishrunkenheads/thon_03.jpg) 4, (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/nazishrunkenheads/thon_04.jpg) 5. (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/nazishrunkenheads/thon_05.jpg) Thon was president of the National Organization of Polish Jews in America. He gave his speech in March 1945.

In both cases the number was mentioned before anyone could have known it was the number, which shows that the number was anti-German, pro-Zionist propaganda to begin with.

[Thunder]

The 6 million number was floated out by Jewish groups promoting the holocaust myth as a way to get Israel, and to encourage revenge against the Germans. Here are two examples of the 6 million number being used before anyone could have known it was that number:

nobody actually argues that 6,000,000.000 Jews died in the Holocaust. 6 million is just a nice round number.

the actual death tolls of civilian Jews in Europe is likely somewhere between at least 4.5 million to as much as 7 million. it all depends on the population data from before and after the war one looks at.

AFAIK, the Nazis did not keep detailed counts of how many Jews they shot to death in Russia, Poland, and Ukraine. But we know that there were 3.3 million Jews in Poland in 1938 and only 300,000 left in 1948...so thats 3 million dead Jews right there alone. another million dead in Ukraine and u got 4 million. 1.5 million in the rest of Europe and Russia and you hit 5.5 million.

but all major census data puts the world Jewish population before WW2 at around 18 million, and after WW2 around 12 million. even today, there are still no more then 15 million Jews on Earth.

[timhau]

... and a few soldiers in the armies of various countries.

This is the most disgusting thing in modern news reporting, so-and-so many "civilians" died. As if soldiers were lesser human beings than civilians.

I'd say it sort of depends on the soldier. If you're a professional soldier who's freely chosen that line of work, then it is to some degree a foreseeable occupational hazard. It doesn't make them any less human or their lives any less valuable, but when making their choices they should have known that should the poo hit the fan, they would be expected to put their lives on the line.

Conscripts are different. They're basically just civilians in a uniform, and they rarely had any choice whether to fight or not (at least, any choice where the non-fighting option didn't include death or lengthy incarceration).

[timhau]

The Nazis killed millions of Poles, Gypsies, Russians, homosexuals, blacks, democrats, liberals, Communists, Socialists, handicapped, retarded, and lots of other folks.

Where did the 6 million round number come from?

ooooh!! Wikipedia I love you. There is no 6 million figure. its between 5 and 7 million.


Name them or it didn't happen.

[HansMustermann]

It is also amusing that the origin of eugenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Francis_Galton#Heredity.2C_historiometry_and_e ugenics) (which is indeed tied to Darwin's work) was almost entirely focused on promoting the marriage and mating of "able people" rather than weeding out any undesireable.

In all fairness, the Nazis did have a breeding program too :p

[cornsail]

I'd say it sort of depends on the soldier. If you're a professional soldier who's freely chosen that line of work, then it is to some degree a foreseeable occupational hazard. It doesn't make them any less human or their lives any less valuable, but when making their choices they should have known that should the poo hit the fan, they would be expected to put their lives on the line.

Killing soldiers in battle, killing POWs/deserters, non-deliberate civilian casualties and civilian executions are all different... Civilian executions are generally accepted as the most morally reprehensible and the most tragic, right or wrong.

Personally, I think it's civilian casualties that get taken way too lightly out of those categories. I remember watching a lot of TV between 9/11 and our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and can't remember once hearing concern expressed over civilian casualties. I do remember a guy talking about "we've got to be careful not to bomb any oil!"

[timhau]

Killing soldiers in battle, killing POWs/deserters, non-deliberate civilian casualties and civilian executions are all different... Civilian executions are generally accepted as the most morally reprehensible and the most tragic, right or wrong.

Yeah, but if the powers that be take those civilians, put them in uniform and say "Fight or we'll shoot you and burn your village", why do their deaths suddenly become so much less tragic?

[ponderingturtle]

So? Are you saying an understanding of natural selection can't influence a practice of artificial selection?

Broadly no. Why should the idea of breeding humans like cattle need evolution instead of practice breeding cattle?

You know artificial selection was understood for thousands of years right?

[ddt]

In all fairness, the Nazis did have a breeding program too :p

Yes, Lebensborn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn). If you looked Aryan enough, you could even participate. For a dramatization see, e.g., the movie Sophie's Choice.

[woolfe99]

1) The Reader's Digest episode of the video One Third of the Holocaust shows the 6 million number being used in February 1943, by Ben Hecht, connected with the Irgun Zvi Leumi, in a Reader's Digest article.

Ooh, I just love the Ben Hecht Reader's Digest gambit. It goes way back in HD, prior to the Denier Bud video. Those who actually clicked "Budly's" link and listened to this part of the video will note that Denier Bud says that in this article, Ben Hecht's citation of the number 6,000,000 was a "prediction." He is lying to you, counting on you not reading the actual article, of course. He wants you to believe that Hecht predicted 6 million Jewish deaths in 1943. In fact, here is the article, wherein Hecht predicts 4 million deaths, and the number 6 million was given as Hecht's estimate of the then total number of Jews under Nazi control:

There will be no representatives of the 3,000,000 Jews who once lived in Poland, or of the 900,000 who once lived in Rumania, or of the 900,000 who once lived in Germany, or of the 750,000 who once lived in Hungary, or of the 150,000 who once lived in Czechoslovakia, or of the 400,000 who once lived in France, Holland and Belgium.

Of these 6,000,000 Jews almost a third have already been massacred by Germans, Rumanians and Hungarians, and the most conservative of the scorekeepers estimate that before the war ends at least another third will have been done to death.

These totals will not include Jews who died in the brief battles of the German blitzes; nor those who figure in the casualty lists of the Russians. Of the 3,000,000 Jews in Russia, more than 700,000 have entered the Soviet armies and fought and bled on all the valorous battlefields of the Muscovites. These are the lucky Jews of Europe and are not to be counted in the tale of their nightmare.

[cornsail]

Broadly no. Why should the idea of breeding humans like cattle need evolution instead of practice breeding cattle?
Are you suggesting that Darwin and Mendel weren't huge influences on Galton and Davenport and those who supported their ideas? You seem to be making normative arguments against a historical claim, which I find puzzling.

You know artificial selection was understood for thousands of years right?

It wasn't understood as well pre-Mendel and it wasn't connected with macro-evolution the way it was in the early 1900s.

[ponderingturtle]

Are you suggesting that Darwin and Mendel weren't huge influences on Galton and Davenport and those who supported their ideas? You seem to be making normative arguments against a historical claim, which I find puzzling.

I think it is more that they brought the ideas from the lowly farmers and animal breeders into being intelectual areas. It is not that strange historicaly for tradesmen to be useing a principle before the intelectuals of the time caught onto it.


It wasn't understood as well pre-Mendel and it wasn't connected with macro-evolution the way it was in the early 1900s.

And yet people had been so good at it. The thing is that this is not so much the mendel dominant and recesive trait issue, but a more practical issue. YOu are claiming that dog breeders and the like had no idea what they were doing?

[cornsail]

And yet people had been so good at it. The thing is that this is not so much the mendel dominant and recesive trait issue, but a more practical issue.

Either way Darwin's work had a big influence on the early 20th century eugenics movement.

YOu are claiming that dog breeders and the like had no idea what they were doing?

No. I'm claiming that Darwin's work had a big influence on the early 20th century eugenics movement.

It's not clear to me whether there's actually anything we disagree on...

[ponderingturtle]

Either way Darwin's work had a big influence on the early 20th century eugenics movement.

And what about earlier ideas? Did people try to breed their slaves like they bred their horses?

[Ashles]

Either way Darwin's work had a big influence on the early 20th century eugenics movement.

Newton's work had an equally big influence on the Nazi bombing of London.

Which is to say the word 'influence' is rather a misleading way of wording it.

Darwin and Newton (and countless others) formulated theories regarding how nature operates which appear correct (or at least correct enough to use with predictable results).

How these theories are subsequently applied does not make any moral or intellectual connection between their work and later applications.

Marie Curie could be said to have 'influenced' or 'inspired' the bombing of Hiroshima. Does this add anything to understanding the motivation behibnd or social history surrounding the bombing? No.

So for all the use it is to any conversation I think the fairest answer to the question "Did Darwin's work have a big influence on the early 20th century eugenics movement?" would be simply
"No, not really."

Although this answer is not technically accurate and a little misleading, so is the question.

[Simon39759]

Either way Darwin's work had a big influence on the early 20th century eugenics movement.



No. I'm claiming that Darwin's work had a big influence on the early 20th century eugenics movement.

It's not clear to me whether there's actually anything we disagree on...


Laws banning interracial marriage had existed since the 17th century in the US, they were established in 1691 in Virginia and 1962 in Maryland.
By 1863 the term 'misceneration' was invented to qualify the idea of 'polluting' the white race with black heredity.
Galton's work date from 20 years after that. He invented the term eugenic, not the concept.

And, yes, it seems like Galton indeed was partly inspired by Darwin. But Darwin only treat tangentially about selective breeding to compare this already old concept to his own newer one of natural selection.
This inspiration, then, was not more direct or natural than Newton being inspired by the fall of the apple.

[HansMustermann]

The Greeks had them in BC times. E.g., Neaira was put on trial IIRC in the 4'th century BC for being a non-greek who married a greek.

Also, reading Aristotle's defense of slavery, it's clear that the idea already existed that ancestry plays _some_ role in your phsyical and mental prowess. I.e., they already had _some_ idea of heredity, even though it would be over 2000 years until anyone figured out evolution or genetics. Although Aristotle himself argues that, yes, nature generally intends that to be the case, but doesn't always quite manage it.

[Cainkane1]

I wouldn't even see a need to say "compared to the length of time there's been warfare", because it's really a very recent development anyway. I could extend your list well past the ancient times with such examples as:

- after the Battle of Kleidion in 1014, the Byzantine emperor blinded 99% of the captured Bulgar soldiers, with every hundredth left to lead the other 99 home. A fate worse than death, I would say.

- in the third crusade, after the siege of Acre, Richard I of England ordered te execution of all 3000 or so Muslim prisoners, including women and children. Not one to be outdone by the western infidels, Saladin's answer was to execute all western prisoners.

- the soldiers at Agincourt being motivated by a royal speech that told them flat out that while nobles would be held for ransome, the common soldiers would be executed on the spot, so they damn better fight for their lives. And that was, what, 1415?

And to prove him right, the French managed to capture the English baggage train there (in spite of otherwise losing the battle) and promptly executed everyone there. Mostly children.

But Henry himself takes the cake there in that, when he thought that the French are regrouping, he ordered the killing of the captured French knights. So while the French would have "only" executed the common soldiers, the English killd the nobles too. Harsh but equal ;)

- until quite late the rules of chivalry said that you had to offer a chance to surrender when the walls of a castle were breached. If the defenders however chose to keep fighting, no mercy would be given after that, and all captives could be executed.
Thats what happened at the Alamo except the defenders knew they would be executed whether they surrendered or not.

[Praktik]

I posted this in the "pissing contest" thread but its relevant here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22875

and well worth a read

[HansMustermann]

Thats what happened at the Alamo except the defenders knew they would be executed whether they surrendered or not.

Well, I'm not sure it's the same. My point was that as late as late renaissance, it was considered _proper_ and chivalrous to execute the defenders who continued fighting after the wall was breached.

[cornsail]

Clarification: In my first response I mentioned “eugenics cropping up” all over the west. I did not mean to imply that eugenics as a concept was “invented” in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Ideas that could be called eugenics go back to ancient times as others have pointed out. It’s within convention for the term “eugenics” to refer to modern eugenics, which started in the early 1900s. However, you may note that in later posts I have been saying “the 19th century eugenics movement”. For that reason I'm puzzled by all the posts that seem to indicate I'm saying otherwise.

And what about earlier ideas? Did people try to breed their slaves like they bred their horses?
I said in my last post “It's not clear to me whether there's actually anything we disagree on...” Please give a proper response before throwing vague and seemingly irrelevant questions at me.

Newton's work had an equally big influence on the Nazi bombing of London. Which is to say the word 'influence' is rather a misleading way of wording it.


For Francis Galton, approaching middle age, the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859 "made a marked epoch in my own
mental development, as it did in human thought generally." He "devoured its contents and assimilated them as fast as they were devoured.”

...

Later on it would be Darwin’s Origin of Species that would turn Galton from travel, writing, geography, and meteorology toward the improvement of mankind through selective breeding.

-Sir Fancis Galton: From African Exploration to the Birth of Eugenics by Nicholas Gillham

note the title also supports my earlier claim about conventional use of the term “eugenics” even if it is unfortunate that this is the case since it’s somewhat misleading

The publication by his cousin Charles Darwin of The Origin of Species in 1859 was an event that changed Galton's life. He came to be gripped by the work, especially the first chapter on "Variation under Domestication" concerning the breeding of domestic animals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galton#Heredity.2C_historiometry_and_eugenics]

How these theories are subsequently applied does not make any moral or intellectual connection between their work and later applications.
Of course. This is not under contention, although your implication that it is is telling. This guy said Darwin influenced eugenics, he must be a Darwin-hating creationist with ulterior motives (or something)!

I'm a fan of Darwin and I don't even consider eugenics to necessarily be an immoral concept. Things like sterilizing criminals and severely mentally handicapped people is not really something I find offensive, although I don't support it either. It only became a bad word after Germany pushed it to the extreme.

Although this answer is not technically accurate and a little misleading, so is the question.
Err, what? First of all, you’re admitting your post is innacurate and misleading… In that case what was the point of making it? To make me go reference hunting? Second, what question are you referring to and how is it “misleading”?

[Morrigan]

This is the most disgusting thing in modern news reporting, so-and-so many "civilians" died. As if soldiers were lesser human beings than civilians.

Um, no. There's a damn good reason why the slaughter of civilians is considered more tragic and morally wrong than the deaths of soldiers, especially those who volunteered.

[Ysidro]

Yeah, but if the powers that be take those civilians, put them in uniform and say "Fight or we'll shoot you and burn your village", why do their deaths suddenly become so much less tragic?

It doesn't, but it's a slightly different tragedy. I didn't think anyone was talking about forced conscription backed up with threats of violence. Was I wrong?

[timhau]

I don't know about that, but forcefully conscripted soldiers are counted as non-civilian deaths. For example, you seldom see papers making a difference between truly volunteer Taleban fighters and those they've picked up from local villages and forced to fight.