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
The prosecution submitted the following reports of Dr. Rascher: Final
report, dated 10 October 1942, of Professor Dr. Holzloehner, Dr. Finke,
Dr. Rascher (_NO-428, Pros. Ex. 91._) Interim report, dated 15 August
1942, of Dr. Rascher. (_1618-PS, Pros. Ex. 84._) Report, dated 17
February 1943, of Dr. Rascher. (_1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105._) These reports
were sent by Rascher directly to Himmler as can be ascertained from the
documents themselves or from the accompanying letters. None of the
documents indicates that a copy of the reports went to the Ahnenerbe or
that they came to Sievers’ knowledge in some other way. Sievers denies
that he obtained knowledge of these reports.
Sievers did not take part in the conference of 26-27 October 1942, as
can be clearly seen from the list of those present. (_NO-401, Pros. Ex.
93._) Sievers, also, never received a written report on the conference.
Also the secretary of many years’ standing of the Ahnenerbe, the
witness, Dr. Gisela Schmitz, has stated that she never saw reports about
experiments of Rascher. Since all the incoming mail was delivered first
to her she would necessarily have seen any such reports. (_Sievers 45,
Sievers Ex. 46._) Even if Sievers—as he did not—should have obtained
knowledge of one or another of the reports, he cannot be expected to
have formed an independent opinion on the permissibility of human
experiments from the point of view of medical professional ethics.
Sievers had neither the power nor the opportunity to interfere with the
sub-chilling experiments, or to prevent them or bring them to a stop. It
must be pointed out again and again that Sievers was competent only for
administrative affairs.
Everything that Sievers could do for the prevention of the experiments
was done. In the cases of the experiments at Dachau, Sievers’ influence
was nil. On the other hand he was able to prevent some experimental
activity on Rascher’s part by procrastinating the dry-cold experiments
[Trockenkaelteversuche] which should have been carried out in the
mountains.
* * * * *
_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT WELTZ_
Document 343-A-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 62, is the only document
submitted in this connection [freezing experiments] and mentioning the
name of Professor Weltz. It is a letter by Field Marshal Milch, dated 20
May 1942, to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff, Chief of the Personal Staff,
Reich Leader SS. In this letter Field Marshal Milch says that the
high-altitude experiments were completed and that there was no real
reason for their continuation. The letter continues: “The carrying out
of experiments concerning the problem of distress at sea, on the other
hand, is important; they were prepared in direct agreement with the
authorities. Oberstabsarzt Weltz is instructed to carry them through and
Stabsarzt Rascher is also made available for them until further notice.”
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