Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume IIVarious
Philosophy
Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume II
Various
Nuremberg Trial of Major German War Criminals, Nuremberg, Germany, 1945-1946; War crime trials -- Germany -- Nuremberg
“As for medical secrets in this collection”, one Army surgeon has
remarked, “some of them will save American medicine years of research;
some of them are revolutionary—like, for instance, the German technique
of treatment after prolonged and usually fatal exposure to cold.”
This discovery—revealed to us by Major Alexander’s search already
mentioned—reversed everything medical science thought about the
subject. In every one of the dread experiments the subjects were most
successfully revived, both temporarily and permanently, by immediate
immersion in hot water. In two cases of complete standstill of heart and
cessation of respiration, a hot bath at 122° brought both subjects back
to life. Before our war with Japan ended, this method was adopted as the
treatment for use by all American Air-Sea Rescue Services, and it is
generally accepted by medicine today.
EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY[18]
_DIRECT EXAMINATION_
* * * * *
DR. FLEMMING: I further submit an excerpt from the testimony of
Generalarzt Dr. Schreiber which he made on 26 August 1946 before the
International Military Tribunal. This can be found in the transcript of
the International Military Tribunal for that date. This is Mrugowsky
Document 27. I offer it as Mrugowsky Exhibit 45. Answering the question,
“What scientific value did the experiments [typhus experiments in
Buchenwald] of the specialist Ding have”? Generalarzt Dr. Schreiber
answered, “In my opinion they had no scientific value at all because
during the war we had already gained much experience and collected a
great deal of data in this field. We were thoroughly acquainted with the
composition and qualities of our vaccine and no such tests were required
any longer. Many of the vaccines examined by Ding were not used any more
at all and were rejected.”
Would you define your position to that statement?
DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY: I do not know how Schreiber could have expressed
that opinion, nor do I know whether he is in possession of full
knowledge of the results of this work. I never discussed this question
with him and I therefore cannot examine it. This much is clear, however,
that Schreiber is speaking of a later period of time, for the vaccines
that were no longer produced were not produced because the experiments
of Ding had proved their inferiority. The epidemiological examination of
the various vaccines during the war only originates from a later period,
in particular the years 1943 and 1944. The exploitation of these
experiences only originates from the last years of the war and it is,
therefore, my opinion that this testimony of Schreiber is incorrect.
Q. I am interrupting you and I shall have Handloser Exhibit 14 shown to
you. We are here concerned with an excerpt of a scientific thesis by
Geheimrat Otto. Do you know Geheimrat Otto?
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