Aushwitz and The birth of Genocide

Highplainsdrifter · Post by **Highplainsdrifter** » 31 May 2003 00:22

In the book "The Nazi Doctors" written by Robert Jay Lifton he speaks to many of the doctors involved with the medical killing and mass murder that often took place in camps like Aushwitz and he (he being the doctor)
said that many of the practices employed in Aushwitz and other camps were not approved of by most other doctors ties to the Reich or no ties this not being surprising i read further and the techniques employed resulted in many modern techniques of todays medicinal prctices though they were never formally listed. my question now is: If we could undo the Holocaust but in turn lose these techniques and processes would you?

Please reply
Joshua

witness · Post by **witness** » 31 May 2003 00:34

What modern techniques are described by Robert Jay Lifton as an outcome of the medical experements conducted in Aushwitz ?
This is a very difficult moral dillemma..
In my view it is quite doubtful that there is any scientific value in these experements because it seems to me that majority ( if not all ) of these experments were initiated so that to prove the Nazi racial theories .
(Maybe I am wrong ?)
When the premises behind a research are false it is doubtful that the results would represent any value.
Regards

demonio · Post by **demonio** » 31 May 2003 00:37

As horrible as it was witness there were probably alot of benefits from the research. Companies like Bayer profited most from it if not the army in some way shape or form. Someone should make companies like these pay big time.

witness · Post by **witness** » 31 May 2003 00:45

Could be . But do you know what exactly those benefits are ?
Regards

witness · Post by **witness** » 31 May 2003 00:56

As far as I know there were several experiments involving "sulfanilamide"
(The chemical akin to Antibiotics ) .
The Nazi doctors were creating artificial wounds on the prisoners and then studying the effects of sulfanilamide.
Also some High Altittude and Freezing temperatures experiments were conducted.
But what were the results of those experiments and what are their scientific value I don't know .

Hasso · Post by **Hasso** » 31 May 2003 03:47

From another standpoint, there is little in these experiments that would hold up to serious scrutiny in terms of legitimate medical research. The conditions in which the experiments were conducted, not to mention the condition of many of the victims who endured this, would naturally lead most serious medical researchers to question their validity.

I am also interested in hearing exactly what medical breakthroughs were made, as I am in serious doubt that any truly were. Please post these breakthroughs.

Highplainsdrifter · Post by **Highplainsdrifter** » 01 Jun 2003 19:40

I agree with Hasso, in the sense that even if the nazi's gave us the cure to cancer and aids it would ethier be covered up or never presented as fact because they were the Nazis. However there would be people who believe. I'll find all the details on the experiments I can find but I don't think he went into them precisely so you'll have to gather what you can. I'll have them next time I post.

Scott Smith · Post by **Scott Smith** » 01 Jun 2003 20:36

The Luftwaffe high-altitude experiments using KL prisoners were pioneering research in aviation and space medicine, as were the hypothermia experiments, which allowed effective treatments to be devised to save downed pilots at sea. As far as the antibiotic experiments, the Nazis would hardly have needed to create wounds on concentration camp prisoners in order to study them; it was wartime after all and tests could be conducted at any hospital. Other experiments regarded radiation dosages for x-ray treatments and vaccines for typhus. The more bizarre the experiment sounds the more likely it is mere atrocity-propaganda, however. By way of comparison, the U.S. did radiation experiments on prisoners and soldiers in the 1950s and studies of syphillis in Negroes without their consent and without giving them treatment. It is said that one reason the Nazis used prisoners for experiments was because animal vivisection was not generally permitted by law. Of course, the Nazis did not practice vivisection as the Japanese are alleged to, unless the test subject happened to die. The Dachau crematorium had a morgue and autopsy room.

Luftwaffe hypothermia experiment conducted at Dachau.

Luftwaffe high-altitude experiment conducted at Dachau. The subject loses consciousness and supposedly died. It was determined that subjects and pilots who had engaged in aerobic exercise conditioning at high elevations had a greater tolerance for high-altitude survival.

witness · Post by **witness** » 01 Jun 2003 20:55

From the "OPENING STATEMENT OF THE PROSECUTION
BY BRIGADIER GENERAL TELFORD TAYLOR, 9 DECEMBER I946."

E and F. Ravensbrueck Experiments Concerning Sulfanilamide and Other Drugs;
Bone, Muscle, and Nerve Regeneration and Bone Transplantation

The experiments conducted principally on the female inmates of Ravensbrueck concentration camp were perhaps the most barbaric of all. These concerned bone, muscle, and nerve regeneration and bone transplantation, and experiments with sulfanilamide and other drugs. They were carried out by the defendants Fischer and Oberheuser under the direction of the defendant Gebhardt.

In one set of experiments, incisions were made on the legs of several of the camp inmates for the purpose of simulating battle-caused infections. A bacterial culture, or fragments of wood shavings, or tiny pieces of glass were forced into the wound. After several days, the wounds were treated with sulfanilamide. Grawitz, the head of the SS Medical Service, visited Ravensbrueck and received a report on these experiments directly from the defendant Fischer. Grawitz thereupon directed that the wounds inflicted on the subjects should be even more severe so that conditions similar to those prevailing at the front lines would be more completely simulated.

Bullet wounds were simulated on the subjects by tying off the blood vessels at both ends of the incision. A gangrene-producing culture was then placed in the wounds. Severe infection resulted within 24 hours, Operations were then performed on the infected areas and the wounds were treated with sulfanilamide. In each of the many sulfanilamide experiments, some of the subjects were wounded and infected but were not given sulfanilamide, so as to compare their reactions with those who received treatment.

Bone transplantation from one person to another and the regeneration of nerves, muscles, and bones were also tried out on the women at Ravensbrueck. The defendant Gebhardt personally ordered that bone transplantation experiments be carried out, and in one case the scapula of an inmate at Ravensbrueck was removed and taken to Hohenlychen Hospital and there transplanted. We will show that the defendants did not even have any substantial scientific objective. These experiments were senseless, sadistic, and utterly savage.

The defendant Oberheuser's duties at Ravensbrueck in connection with the experiments were to select young and healthy inmates for the experiments, to be present at all of the surgical operations, and to give the experimental subjects post-operative care. We will show that this care consisted chiefly of utter neglect of nursing requirements, and cruel and abusive treatment of the miserable victims.

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/Medic ... ution2.htm

Scott Smith · Post by **Scott Smith** » 01 Jun 2003 22:26

Or so the Allies claimed at Nuremberg...

"During the Doctors Trial, American medical expert Dr. Leo Alexander points to scars on the leg of Jadwiga Dzido. The scars were the result of medical experiments on Dzido when she was imprisoned at the Ravensbrueck concentration camp."

(Dec. 22, 1946 photo. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Photo Archives)

The Doctors Trial

witness · Post by **witness** » 02 Jun 2003 00:12

Scott Smith wrote:Or so the Allies claimed at Nuremberg...

Interesting what our Nazi -Isolationist and Theology -Victimology theorist can offer to negate the above "STATEMENT OF THE PROSECUTION .." ?
Is it Zionist-Interventionist-Capitalist-Globaloney-Depends-on-whose -ox- is being -gored Scotology again ?

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 02 Jun 2003 00:25

Please avoid personal remarks and stick to the arguments. If you find the arguments are flawed, lack any factual basis, amount to mere quibbling with a greater truth, do no more than state the conclusion over and over again, etc., point it out and tell the readers why.

witness · Post by **witness** » 02 Jun 2003 00:39

Sorry David,
I will follow you advice.
I just want to know if there is any informations which negates the findings of the Nuremberg trial on this particular question (sulfanilamide application experiments on the artificially created wounds on the prisoners of Ravensbrueck.)

The above post implicitly claims that this is a lie
I quote this claim again :

Or so the Allies claimed at Nuremberg...

I think that the posters are expected to substantiate this kind of utterances..
Otherwise it seems that these statements are made with the only purpose in mind - to propagate their political leanings.
"This is an apolitical forum " after all,is not it ?

michael mills · Post by **michael mills** » 02 Jun 2003 01:54

The prosecutor, Telford Taylor, stated, in regard to the experiments on human subjects relating to the effectiveness of sulfanilamide, bone transplantation and tissue regeneration;

We will show that the defendants did not even have any substantial scientific objective. These experiments were senseless, sadistic, and utterly savage.

No doubt animal liberationists would say the same thing about similar experiments on non-humans. But I think that most of us would agree that experiments on animals, eg pigs, designed to test the effectiveness of an anti-biotic, or the possibility of bone transplantation to repair badly damaged bones (and hence avoid amputation), or the possibility of bone, muscle and nerve regeneration, do have a scientific purpose, and could result in great benefits if the experiments were successful.

It seems to me that the central issue is not whether the experiments described had a genuine scientific purpose, but whether it is criminal to carry them out on human beings against their will, rather than carrying them out on non-human life-forms. If it is, then the prosecution of those who carried out such experiments would be justifiable, on the grounds of causing injury and death to the unwilling experimental subjects.

No doubt Telford Taylor and other prosecutors disputed the scientific relevance of the experiments in order to bolster the case against the accused. But we do not need to accept that approach; it is perfectly possible to agree that medical experimentation on unwilling human subjcts is immoral and illegal, while accepting that the experiments themselves may have a genuine scientific purpose and could well yield great benefits.

Another reason why the prosecutors sought to deny the scientific validity of the experiments was the general atmosphere in which the trials were held, with a blanket denial of any rational explanation or justification of the actions of the German Government and its agents, including their crimes.

The underlying aim of the post-war trials was to place the sole and total responsibility for the war, and all the destruction and suffering it had caused, upon the German Government. To achieve that aim, it was necessary to demonstrate that the actions of the German Government were arbitrary and unprovoked, and motivated purely by evil intentions. The crimes committed by agents of the German Government, such as the medical experiments, could therefore be used as proof of the essentially evil nature of the German Government, which in turn could be used as an explanation of why the German Government caused the war and was responsible for it.

Accordingly, in regard to the trials of German doctors for carrying out medical experiments on human subjects against their will, it was necessary to allege that the experiments had no scientific validity and were performed solely due to an evil motivation, eg sadism on the part of the experimenters. If it were admitted that the experiments had a rational and scientifically valid purpose, and that the use of human subjects, although criminal, was rational (after all, an experiment designed to test human reaction to a substance or a procedure is more effective when carried out on a human subject than when performed on a non-human surrogate), that might have detracted from the impression of the totally irrational evil nature of the German Government that the Allies wished to inculcate in the public mind.

From my own point of view, I find the transplantation experiments particularly interesting, leaving aside the question of their morality and legality. It may that those experiments carried out by German doctors were an important step in a development that has resulted in the successful transplantation of organs that is so common today, and benefits us all.

Highplainsdrifter · Post by **Highplainsdrifter** » 02 Jun 2003 01:57

It was just a question and does not call for making personal remarks of ones linneage, race, religion, or otherwise ethnicity. And on another note I have yet to read a solid answer to the question from any of you, you all seem to want to stay neutral on the subject. I think if the production from such a horrible ordeal was substantial enough than I can't say I would have it any other way.