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
While the previous witness Wolff was only present for 1 day during the
experiments, the witness Wilschewske, during the 2 years he spent in the
concentration camp, spoke repeatedly to inmates who “had volunteered for
the medical experiments”, and who, by reason of his repeated
conversations with the prisoners, could give the following as reason for
the willingness to volunteer for experiments “they could earn thereby
their own liberty and rehabilitation as well as privileges for their
family.” The witness Wilschewske is certainly an absolutely reliable
witness with regard to his statements. He is a Polish Communist, served
2 years in Dachau concentration camp for this, and was proved to be only
a political prisoner.
If one considers all these statements by witnesses, which certify that
the experimental subjects in the Dachau high-altitude experiments of
Drs. Ruff and Romberg were volunteers, it cannot be doubted that the
concordant statements by Dr. Ruff, Dr. Romberg, and Dr. Weltz were
absolutely true. They are defendants, it is true; but from all sides
testimony is given of their irreproachable professional integrity.
Although they are now sitting in the dock, their precise and clear
statements deserve far more belief than the changing and contradictory
statements of a habitual criminal who has committed downright perjury in
this Court, or of a murderer who is actually more deserving of a place
in this dock than these defendants are.
The correctness of this conception is confirmed again on the one hand by
the fact—already mentioned in another connection—that Dr. Romberg, as
has been proved repeatedly, actively intervened and prevented the use of
experimental subjects for experiments by Rascher when he could see that
nonvoluntary experimental subjects were to be used, and on the other
hand, it was known that in the high-altitude experiments which Dr. Ruff
had carried out with Dr. Romberg only voluntary experimental subjects
could be used, and only with voluntary experimental subjects could the
experiments succeed. The whole idea of this type of high-altitude
experiment (the Ruff-Romberg method) was based on the theory that the
experimental subject, immediately on recovering from the state of
unconsciousness—the “high-altitude malady”—reaches up with his arm and
pulls down the handle of the parachute, which in practice reduces the
speed of the fall, insuring the flier of a smooth landing on the ground.
All this necessitated active cooperation on the part of the experimental
subject; one was absolutely dependent on his cooperation, otherwise each
of these experiments would have been useless right from the start.
Naturally, Dr. Ruff knew this, as did Dr. Romberg, and therefore for
them the first and most important condition for each experiment of this
type was that the experimental subject should be voluntary (_see Ruff’s
statement in German Tr. pp. 6638-40_). There are therefore also
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