Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume IVarious
Philosophy
Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume I
Various
Nuremberg Trial of Major German War Criminals, Nuremberg, Germany, 1945-1946; War crime trials -- Germany -- Nuremberg
In this connection, we must consider the convenient line of the defense.
By limiting the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher experiments to the 10 subjects, we
find that they further allege that no deaths occurred in those
experiments as opposed to a considerable number of deaths in the Rascher
work. But the witness Neff, in describing the first day of the
experiments, emphatically stated that the first series of experiments
_was not carried out on volunteers_. Furthermore, the defendant Ruff was
also present during these experiments. (_Tr. p. 622._) The defendants’
contention that the experiments were in two groups is _explicitly
denied_ by Neff. He testified that Romberg not only experimented with
Rascher on the original 10 subjects, but also on a large number of other
prisoners. The distinction fabricated by the defendants cannot possibly
be credited in the light of Neff’s testimony. On being asked the
question whether Romberg experimented only on the 10 original subjects,
Neff replied:
“Experiments were conducted not only with these ten persons but,
for example, in a series of experiments which Romberg also
conducted on a large number of other prisoners. The distinction
which the defense counsel tries to make between experiments
included in the report to the Luftgau or of death—it is
impossible for me to make this distinction and to distinguish
between those which fell into one category or the other.” (_Tr.
p. 691._)
Which is to be believed, the testimony of Neff, plus one’s common sense,
or the self-serving statements of the defendants? This is a question the
Tribunal must answer. There is no such thing as half a murderer. These
defendants are responsible for those murders or they are not
responsible. There is not one scintilla of evidence to support the
ridiculous contention that a group of volunteers, segregated for use by
Romberg, wore different colored shirts so he could tell them apart and
were treated with the greatest deference. But that is just what Ruff and
Romberg ask the Tribunal to find. It is absolutely impossible in the
face of the record.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account