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
On 17 February, Rascher forwarded his report on the results of the
experiment in which animal warmth was used for the rewarming of severely
chilled persons. (_1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105._) In his accompanying letter
to Himmler, he informed him that he was conducting dry-cold experiments
in Dachau. Thirty experimental subjects had been experimented upon and
had been exposed to cold out of doors from 9-14 hours, thereby reducing
their body temperature to 27°-29° C. The extremities of the experimental
subjects were frozen white. Rascher suggested a large series of
experiments in the Auschwitz concentration camp. This place would be
suitable for such experimentation because it was colder there, and the
spacious open country within the camp “would make the experiments less
conspicuous, as the experimental subjects _yell_ when they freeze
severely.” [Emphasis supplied.] (_1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105._) Himmler gave
Rascher permission to carry out additional freezing experiments in the
concentration camps Auschwitz and Lublin. (_1615-PS, Pros. Ex. 109._)
Rascher’s letter to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, dated 4 April 1943,
reveals that another series of dry-freezing experiments had been carried
out on inmates of the Dachau concentration camp during a period of heavy
frost weather. Some of the experimental subjects were exposed to cold
of -6° C. in the open air for 14 hours and had reached an internal
temperature of 25° C. (_NO-292, Pros. Ex. 111._) The three fatalities
which, according to Neff’s testimony, resulted from the dry-freezing
experiments, apparently occurred during this series of experiments.
(_Tr. pp. 637-8._)
On 11 April 1943, Rascher submitted to Himmler a brief report concerning
“freezing experiments on human beings exposed to the open air.”
(_NO-240, Pros. Ex. 112._) The report itself is not available, but the
letter of the defendant Rudolf Brandt of 16 April to Rascher proves that
the defendant Gebhardt received it from Himmler for study. (_NO-241,
Pros. Ex. 113._) A conference between Rascher and the defendant Gebhardt
took place in Hohenlychen on 14 May in the presence of the defendant
Fischer. Gebhardt discussed with Rascher the freezing experiments and
other experimentation carried out in the Dachau concentration camp and
invited Rascher to collaborate with him. Rascher feared to lose his
independence and turned to Sievers to settle this affair in a tactful
way as Gebhardt was a very close friend of Himmler, and Rascher,
therefore, feared his eventual enmity. (_NO-231, Pros. Ex. 116._)
Sievers, in turn, approached Brandt in this matter on 22 May and
requested information whether Himmler had given any definite directive
to Gebhardt in regard to Rascher’s sphere of action and work. He further
asked Brandt’s intervention on behalf of Rascher by saying:
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