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
Ruff’s and Romberg’s guilt is beyond doubt when we consider that they
did not take the opportunity to withdraw after the first death of an
experimental subject in April 1942. Romberg admitted his presence at the
death of this first subject. (_Tr. p. 6924._) He was studying the
electrocardiogram at the time of the experiments (_NO-476, Pros. Ex.
40_), but he would have the Tribunal find that he was an innocent
bystander who was privileged to do nothing. This was just another “SS
experiment” according to Romberg. But Romberg admitted that he was
working the electrocardiogram and was studying the point of light that
follows the heart. When he saw that the critical point had been reached,
he said he spoke to Rascher (_Tr. p. 6927_), but to no avail as Rascher
continued the experiment until death resulted. This testimony of assumed
impotence when a man was slowly killed before his eyes is an insult to
one’s intelligence. Romberg was the senior scientist and was fully aware
of the fact that the danger zone had been reached as he was thoroughly
familiar with the equipment being used. He has outlined for the Tribunal
the proximity of the electrocardiogram to the controls of the chamber
(_Tr. p. 6929_), and it is inconceivable that Romberg could not have
taken the necessary action to have spared this experimental subject’s
life if he had so desired. The inescapable fact is that these deaths
were part of the plan and Romberg not only had no desire to interfere
but was very much interested in the cause of death through air embolism.
Assuming that Romberg was opposed to this fatal experiment, it is
impossible to understand why he did not take the appropriate action to
have Rascher prosecuted for this premeditated murder. The fact of the
matter is that Romberg merely reported this death to Ruff (_Tr. p.
6932_), and no appropriate action was taken by Ruff either. Although
alleging an objection to this fatality, Romberg admits participation in
the autopsy of the unfortunate victim. This autopsy clearly bore out the
fact that air embolism was the cause of death. When asked if he
participated in this autopsy, Romberg answered, “Yes, I watched one
autopsy. That was my duty.” (_Tr. p. 6924._) Romberg testified that he
saw two other deaths and that air embolism also caused those. (_Tr. pp.
6925-6._)
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