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
“I consider them to be dangerous because of the prolonged period
of unconsciousness to which the subjects were exposed. For
example, they were unconscious for periods of around twenty
minutes, and they were disoriented for periods of around thirty
to ninety minutes. That is a dangerous period of oxygen lack to
which to expose the brain. I agree that * * * the
electrocardiogram demonstrates that the heart of these subjects
was not momentarily affected or significantly affected by this
prolonged exposure to oxygen lack. But these experiments do not
show, or the results do not show that the cells of the brain
were not injured. One of the higher faculties of the brain is
learning, and we know that the learning process is rather
sensitive to oxygen lack, and the only way to check against the
possibility of damage of the learning mechanism by prolonged
exposure to oxygen lack would have been to have determined the
I. Q. of these subjects or the ability of these subjects to
learn before and after the subjects were exposed to such a
prolonged period of oxygen lack.” (_Tr. p. 9036._)
Dr. Ivy testified that the experiments described in the final report had
reached the physiological limit and that work was being done in a very
dangerous and hazardous zone as far as the welfare of the experimental
subjects was concerned. He said that he should be reluctant to perform
such experiments even on himself and that he would prefer to depend upon
that degree of accuracy which could be obtained from calculations of the
results of animal experiments. (_Tr. pp. 9081, 9112, and 9197._)
Finally it should be noted that the experiments were neither necessary
nor a scientific success. “Necessity of the State” has been much used by
the defendants as if it were a defense. This is clearly unfounded even
though necessity, military or otherwise, be assumed. It is to be
supposed that each defendant _thought_ there was some necessity to what
he was doing. This is no defense. Rascher thought the same thing. It was
deemed necessary to incarcerate hundreds of thousands of persons in
concentration camps. It was deemed necessary to murder millions of Jews.
The slave labor policy was bottomed on necessity. If that is a defense,
then these trials lose all meaning. But, on the other hand if it is
proved that these experiments were not necessary, not of scientific
value, then it makes the guilty even more guilty. The brutal sacrifice
of human life was to no avail. And such was the case here. Hippke, Chief
of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, when writing his thanks to
Himmler on 8 October 1942 said the following:
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