Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Sunday, January 27, 2019
The Talmud - Part II
Part II
M. H.DE HEEKELINGEN, in Israel: Son Passe, Son Avenir: „The former Rabbi Drach, converted to Catholicism, says that the Talmud
contains „a large number of musing, utterly ridiculous extravagancies, most
revolting indecencies, and, above all, the most horrible blasphemies against
everything which the Christian religion holds most sacred and most dear.“
„In the matter of the translation of the Talmud by non-Jews, we have
always preferred that of Luzsensky, whose accuracy has been established by the
Courts. In 1923, the Public Prosecutor of Hungary caused his Hungarian Talmud
to be seized on account of „attack on public morals“ and „pornography.“ In
delivering its verdict, the Court declared ‘INTER ALIA:’
„The horrors contained in the translation of Alfred Luzsensky are to be
found, without exception, in the Talmud. His translation is correct, in that it
renders these passages, which are actually to be found in the original text of
the Talmud, after their true meaning.“
The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia states that „The Talmud is the real „bible“
of the Jews and that it supersedes the Old Testament. This volume has been
condemned down through the ages for preaching hatred for Christ and all
Christians. Read „THE TALMUD UNMASKED“ for the full shocking details.
NESTA WEBSTER, in Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, page 370: „The Jewish conception of the Jews as the Chosen People who must
eventually rule the world forms indeed the basis of Rabbinical Judaism... The
Jewish religion now takes its stand on the Talmud rather than on the Bible.“
F. TROCASE, in Jewish Austria: „No obstacle
discourages them; they persevere throughout the world, throughout the
centuries, the unity of their race. The Talmud has given them a powerful
organization which modern progress has been unable to change. Deep,
ineradicable hatred of everything that is not Jewish stimulates them in war
which they wage against Christian Society, which is too divided to be able to
fight with the necessary energy.“
GREGORY IX. Condemned the TALMUD as containing „every kind of vileness and blasphemy against Christian doctrine.“
BENEDICT XIII. His Bull on the Jewish issue (1450) declared: „The heresies, vanities and errors of the TALMUD prevent their knowing
the truth.“
JULIUS III. Contra Hebreos retinentes libros (1554) ordered the TALMUD burned „everywhere“ and established a strict
censorship over Jewish genocidal writings - an order that has never been
rescinded and which presumably is still binding upon Catholics.
SOMBART, WERNER. 20th century German economist: „Capitalism was born from the money loan. Money lending contains the
root idea of capitalism. Turn to the pages of the TALMUD and you will find that
the Jews made an art of lending money. They were taught early to look for their
chief happiness in the possession of money. They fathomed all the secrets that
lay hid in money. They became Lords of Money and Lords of the World...
Thursday, January 24, 2019
Tuesday, January 22, 2019
Sunday, January 20, 2019
Shakespeare and Democracy: Our Culture is Not Being Passed on to Future Generations
Source: Free Speech – March 1997 – Vol. III, No. 3
by Dr. William L. Pierce
William
Shakespeare is out. Maya Angelou, Frantz Fanon, and W.E.B. DuBois are in. I’m
talking about fashion at American universities.
There’s been some discussion in the
mass media recently about the fact that American universities are phasing out
Shakespeare and the other creators of our European culture and replacing them
with non-Whites of various stripes, such as the three Black writers I just
named. The impression is left by the media discussion that this is some sort of
fad, which, hopefully, will pass soon. The discussion was sparked by a decision
on the part of the faculty at Georgetown University, the prestigious Jesuit
school in Washington, to drop the requirement that their English majors study
the works of at least two authors from among Chaucer, Milton, and Shakespeare.
Now Georgetown’s English majors can graduate without ever having read anything
by Shakespeare. I’m not talking about Georgetown’s basketball players or her
business majors. I’m talking about the students who are seeking degrees in
English literature. An acquaintance with Shakespeare is no longer necessary.
Nor is an acquaintance with the writings of any other dead White European
males, or “dwems,” as they are referred to contemptuously by the Politically
Correct elements at our universities these days.
And this is not a fad, nor is it
restricted to Georgetown University. After Georgetown made its move, a survey
was conducted among the top 70 universities in America by the National Alumni
Forum, and it was found that two-thirds of them have made similar moves.
Instead of studying Hamlet or Julius Caesar or
Macbeth. . . or Milton’s Paradise Lost or Il
Penseroso or the works of any other great writers of
English literature . . . students of English literature are studying the
scribblings of miscellaneous non-White non-entities, or they are taking courses
in such pop-culture topics as “The Gangster Film,” which is now offered to
English majors at Georgetown in lieu of Shakespeare, or “Melodrama and Soap
Opera,” which Duke University offers to its English majors instead of Milton
and Chaucer.
Other universities have courses on
comic books or checkout-stand tabloids or rap ditties. The ones with real
pretensions to seriousness have scraped together English literature courses
which actually require the study of books written in the English language, so
long as they were not written by a White male — at least, not by a White male
who has been dead for a long time. Jewish males, of course, are A-OK, and so
the students spend plenty of time with the works of J.D. Salinger, Saul Bellow,
Bernard Malamud, Herman Wouk, Norman Mailer, Philip Roth, and scores of other
Jews. Unfortunately, the students are taught that the books of these Jews
constitute serious English literature. It was a little harder to convince students
of that when they also studied Shakespeare and Milton and could compare their
writing with that of the aforementioned Jews. Now it will be easier.
As I said, this is not just a
passing fad, something very trendy and liberal to suit the Clinton era. It is
the outcome of a campaign which goes back more than 30 years. In the 1960s,
when I was a university professor myself, anyone who had suggested that Shakespeare
should be phased out of university teaching would have been thought crazy — at
least, he would have been thought crazy at the university where I was teaching,
which was a bit more conservative than some. But even at my university there
were faculty and administration people pushing for more democracy and more
“diversity.” They were promoting the idea that universities were too White and
too elitist, that we needed more “diversity” among students and professors and
that we should give the students more of a say in the running of the university
and not leave it all to the professors.
It was really very subtle. It wasn’t
until they had established their idea about the need for more democracy and
more “diversity” that they moved to the next phase and began suggesting that
the traditional courses in history and literature were actually a bit . . . ah
. . . racist and needed to be, well . . . cleaned up a bit.
And then a few years ago you had
groups of the more trendy students marching around on some campuses and
chanting, “Ho, ho, ho, Western culture has got to go.” They wanted the
traditional courses in Western civilization to be replaced with courses which
treated all cultures equally, instead of focusing primarily on European
culture. And, of course, all along Shakespeare was gradually being eased out
the door. It’s just now that a few people have noticed it and raised the alarm.
And even now the anti-alarmists are
telling us that it’s all much ado about nothing: that English literature students
still can study Shakespeare if they want to — and that some universities still
require their English literature majors to study Shakespeare — so stop
worrying. And, of course, that is true: students still can study Shakespeare if
they want to — but there’s no denying the trend. There’s no denying that
Shakespeare actually is being eased out the door, and that the curricula at our
universities are being filled with courses which at best are worthless and at
worst are destructive of the central purpose of a university, which is the
training of an elite to carry on and enhance the cultural traditions of our
people. Our universities actually have been subverted. They actually are being
turned against us and used as weapons to destroy the civilization of which they
used to be a part.
How did that happen, and why did it
happen? There still are many bright people, as well as honest and well-meaning
people, on the faculties of our universities. How could they let anyone subvert
their institutions without noticing what was happening and opposing them?
First, I’ll give a very brief
answer, and then I’ll go back and explain it in detail.
Our universities were subverted
without any effective opposition because, first, the subversion was done very
gradually, over a period of more than three decades, and it was done by a very
clever group of very determined and very well organized people who already had
infiltrated our university faculties and administrations. Second, the people
who should have opposed the subversion already had been morally and
ideologically disarmed, so that they could only fight tactically, but not
strategically. They could oppose the details of the subversion, but they could
not oppose the overall campaign of subversion — and in particular, they could
not attack the subverters themselves. They were fighting the subversion, in
other words, with both hands tied behind their backs.
Now I’ll explain this answer. Before
this century, our universities more or less served their two basic purposes, one
of which is to train scholars in a technical sense — the mathematicians, the
chemists, and the physicists — and the other of which is to instill in a
leadership elite of our young people an understanding of and a sense of
commitment to our civilization, so that they can maintain that civilization and
add to it. The civilization that our universities were a part of was
unmistakably and unapologetically Western, which is to say, European — or if
you prefer, White.
This fact did not suit some people.
In particular, it did not suit the Jews, a people of Semitic origin with quite
different traditions and a quite different way of looking at the world. To them
our universities were an obstacle which stood in the way of their penetration
and domination of our civilization. And so they set about eliminating this
obstacle, in their usual very carefully planned way. They were very unobtrusive
at first, just infiltrating themselves gradually into university faculties and
more or less behaving themselves, trying hard to convince the people at the
universities that they were harmless. They worked to get rid of the
restrictions the better universities had to limit their numbers, and they very
cautiously pushed such ideas as democracy and equality.
It was only after the Second World
War that they really came out of the closet and began pushing hard for the
changes they wanted in the universities. The Second World War, after all, had
been fought for the sake of democracy and equality, we all were told. We had
killed millions of people in Europe in the name of democracy and equality and
had turned half of Europe over to Bolshevik butchers to kill millions more
after the war. After that, how could we oppose democracy and equality in our
universities? We needed to open the doors of our universities to everyone,
regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, national origin, et cetera. We
not only needed to open the doors, we needed to reach out and pull in hundreds
of thousands of young people who before never would have thought of attending a
university.
Of course, there was some opposition
to all of this. Some university people expressed concern about the lowering of
standards required to accommodate all of the new students, especially the Black
students. And they were assured by the proponents of democracy and equality
that standards would not be lowered: that the universities could absorb Black
students and all sorts of other students without lowering their standards at
all. To suggest that they couldn’t was tantamount to racism; it was tantamount
to claiming that Black students could not graduate in significant numbers
unless standards were lowered. And this was where the people who should have
defended our universities against the subverters were stuck. They didn’t want
to admit to racism, so they really couldn’t fight effectively to
maintain standards that clearly worked to the disadvantage of Blacks. And they
didn’t want to admit to anti-Semitism, so they couldn’t really take off the
gloves against the ringleaders of the subversion. So they retreated, step by
step.
Of course, pretty soon many more
people than the original Jews were involved in the subversion. As the number of
students at the universities increased enormously, many empires were built and
many vested interests established. The salaries of many people at the
universities have become dependent on how many students they have. Professors
who teach courses in basket-weaving or golf or the-comic-book-as-literature
become fiercely defensive and can give you all sorts of reasons why their
courses are important. And there has been a growing tendency to cater to the
desires of the students: not to teach them what the professors know they ought
to be taught, but instead to teach them what they think they want to learn. For
young people raised on television and permissiveness, what they often choose
are fun courses, trendy courses, trivial courses, and what they often neglect
are the serious and more demanding courses. Universities, instead of scholarly
institutions, have become to a large extent economic enterprises: that is,
commercial institutions selling education, and the customers all too often are
assumed to be right. Sometimes when a university offers a huge assortment of
Mickey Mouse courses, it’s hard to separate the economic motive of wanting to
keep the customers coming in the door and lining up at the cash register, from
the ideological motive of wanting to be democratic by having curricula that
will be easy enough for everybody.
But despite the economic factors and
other factors which have degraded American universities, the motive to destroy
our culture and undermine our civilization continues to provide a powerful
driving force for subversion. Political Correctness was born at our
universities, and it reigns supreme there. University professors must toe the
party line on race, on equality, on history, and on matters relating to sex and
sexual orientation. And the party line is anti-White, anti-European,
anti-Western. It is strongly influenced by the interests of feminists,
homosexuals, and Jews.
One factor which obscures the
seriousness of this problem is its uneven effects. It has devastated some
academic disciplines and left others relatively undamaged. If one wants to
become a mathematician, for example, there are many universities which still
offer top-quality mathematics curricula. The Red Guards have not yet gotten
around to applying the canons of Political Correctness to mathematics. It
helps, of course, that most basketball players don’t care much for math.
But if a young person is interested
in literature or history, he is likely to be badly shortchanged at most
American universities. These are subjects on which the Red Guards have left
their mark, and it is easy to understand why.
History is an inherently racist
subject, although I can hear the gutless wonders who try to teach it squealing
in protest at that verdict. History is racist because, in the first place, it
involves the study of what various peoples and individuals have actually
done, not what the theorists of democracy and equality would like us to
believe they have done. History gives us a continuing proof of the fact that
there is no equality in the world. It is a record of heroic accomplishment and
outstanding virtue on the part of some, contrasted with chronic ineptitude and
appalling iniquity on the part of others.
In the second place it provides the
indispensable basis for a sense of peoplehood, a sense of rootedness, a sense
of racial identity. It is not something you want spread around when you are
trying to reduce a population to a mass of rootless, cosmopolitan,
interchangeable human atoms.
Finally, history gives us some very
inconvenient truths, especially about the origins and conduct of the two world
wars in which we have participated in this century. Perhaps the undergraduates
will sit meekly in their classrooms and soak up whatever lies the professor
dishes out, but it’s still dangerous because some of the students may develop a
real interest in the subject and do some reading or real research on their own,
and there’s no telling what sort of Politically Incorrect things they may
discover.
And literature . . . well, that’s at
least as dangerous as history. Who can read the Iliad without his
blood beginning to race and without feeling a connection to those ancient
people and events? Who cannot be moved by the same spirit which moved Homer?
And that spirit has nothing to do with the sickly spirit of democracy and
equality. Dangerous stuff, indeed!
And then there’s Shakespeare! There
was never a man who observed the human condition with truer eye than he. He
stripped away every pretense and showed us as we are, the good and the bad —
but hardly equal! The great danger in literature — in real literature, in great
literature — for the democrats and the egalitarians is that it helps us to
understand ourselves and to place ourselves in the context of our people. It
helps us to complete ourselves and to become whole. It expands our horizons,
helps us to see the big picture. It gives us ideals, models — and those ideals,
in our literature, are not egalitarian ideals. Nor are the models Politically
Correct: in fact, they are much more likely to be heroes than democrats.
And the people who run most of our
universities these days are frightened by that prospect. In their view it is
much better to feed our young people the sick, Semitic, anti-heroic blather of
a Bellow or a Malamud or a Mailer than to let them get carried away with the
dangerous, undemocratic ideas of Homer or Shakespeare.
And so our universities have become
what they have become. And the people who should have stopped it from happening
didn’t, because they were afraid to deal with the fundamental issues. They were
afraid to deal radically with the problem.
And now, looking at the situation
objectively, it is still possible to study hard and to learn at our
universities — at least, in most curricula. That is undeniable. But it also is
undeniable that the average graduate of our universities is seriously deficient
in the arts of civilization. And that’s the way the subverters of our
universities want it.
It’s a serious problem. We have a
job to do at our universities someday which will make Hercules’ cleansing of
the Augean stables seem like good, clean fun. Let’s hope that we can begin that
job before Shakespeare has disappeared completely down the Memory Hole.
Thursday, January 17, 2019
The Untold Story of White Slavery in Europe
Renegade Editor’s Note: This article does not even
cover the White slavery in the New World!
The Ottoman penetration into Europe in the 1350s and their capture of
Constantinople later in 1453 opened new floodgates for slave-trade from the
European front. In their last attempt to overrun Europe in 1683, the Ottoman
army, although defeated, returned from the Gates of Vienna with 80,000
captives.874 An immense number of slaves flowed from the Crimea, the Balkans
and the steppes of West Asia to Islamic markets. BD Davis laments that the
‘‘Tartars and other Black Sea peoples had sold millions of Ukrainians,
Georgians, Circassians, Greeks, Armenians, Bulgarians, Slavs and Turks,’’ which
received little notice.875 Crimean Tatars enslaved and sold some 1,750,000
Ukrainians, Poles and Russian between 1468 and 1694. 876 According to another
estimate, between 1450 and 1700, the Crimean Tatars exported some 10,000
slaves, including some Circassians, annually—that is, some 2,500,000 slaves in
all, to the Ottoman Empire.877 The Tatar slave-raiding Khans returned with
18,000 slaves from Poland (1463), 100,000 from Lvov (1498), 60,000 from South
Russia (1515), 50,000–100,000 from Galicia (1516), during the ‘harvesting of
the steppe.’ Numbers from Moscow (1521), 800,000 were taken and from Valynia
(1676), 400,000 were taken. 800,000 from Moscow (1521), 200,000 from South
Russia (1555), 100,000 from Moscow (1571), 50,000 from Poland (1612), 60,000 from
South Russia (1646), 100,000 from Poland (1648), 300,000 from Ukraine (1654),
400,000 from Valynia (1676) and thousands from Poland (1694). Besides these
major catches, they made countless more Jihad raids during the same period,
which yielded a few to tens of thousands of slaves.878 These figures of
enslavement must be considered in the context that the population of the Tatar
Khanate was only about 400,000 at the time. (1463-1694) while sources are
incomplete, conservative tabulation of the slave raids against the Eastern
European population indicate that at least 7 Million European people-men,
women, children were enslaved by Muslims.
Sources suggest that in the few years between 1436-1442, some 500,000
people were seized in the Balkans. Many of the captives died in forced marches
towards Anatolia (Turkey). Contemporary chronicles note that the Ottomans
reduced masses of the inhabitants of Greece, Romania, and the Balkans to
slavery eg from Moree (1460)-70,000 and Transylvania (1438) – 60,000-70,000 and
300,000-600,000 from Hungary and 10,000 from Mytilene/Mitilini on Lesbos island
(1462) (Bulgaru p 567) and so it continued.
Barbary Slavery
Ohio State University history Professor Robert Davis describes the White
Slave Trade as minimized by most modern historians in his book Christian
Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast
and Italy, 1500–1800 (Palgrave Macmillan). Davis estimates that 1 million
to 1.25 million white Christian Europeans were enslaved in North Africa, from
the beginning of the 16th century to the middle of the 18th, by slave traders
from Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli alone (these numbers do not include the
European people which were enslaved by Morocco and by other raiders and traders
of the Mediterranean Sea coast), 16th- and 17th-century customs statistics
suggest that Istanbul’s additional slave import from the Black Sea may have
totaled around 2.5 million from 1450 to 1700. The markets declined after the
loss of the Barbary Wars and finally ended in the 1830s, when the region was
conquered by France.
In 1544, the island of Ischia off Naples was ransacked, taking 4,000
inhabitants prisoners, while some 9,000 inhabitants of Lipari Island off the
north coast of Sicily were enslaved.870 Turgut Reis, a Turkish pirate chief,
ransacked the coastal settlements of Granada (Spain) in 1663 and carried away
4,000 people as slaves.
The barbaric slave-raiding activities of the Muslim pirates had a telling
effect on Europe. France, England, and Spain lost thousands of ships,
devastating to their sea-borne trade. Long stretches of the coast in Spain and
Italy were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants until the
nineteenth century. The finishing industry was virtually devastated.
Paul Baepler’s White Slaves, African Masters: An Anthology of American
Barbary Captivity Narratives lists a collection of essays by nine American
captives held in North Africa. According to his book, there were more than
20,000 white Christian slaves by 1620 in Algiers alone; their number swelled to
more than 30,000 men and 2,000 women by the 1630s. There were a minimum of
25,000 white slaves at any time in Sultan Moulay Ismail’s palace, records Ahmed
ez-Zayyani; Algiers maintained a population of 25,000 white slaves between 1550
and 1730, and their numbers could double at certain times. During the same
period, Tunis and Tripoli each maintained a white slave population of about
7,500. The Barbary pirates enslaved some 5,000 Europeans annually over a period
of nearly three centuries.
Monday, January 14, 2019
Saturday, January 12, 2019
Medical Experimentation at Dachau
They
All Did It - Those Who Could, at Least
By John Wear
Published: 2018-12-31
The onset and
escalation of World War II provided the rationale for most of Germany’s illegal
human medical experimentation. Animal experimentation was known to be a poor
substitute for experiments on humans. Since only analogous inferences could be
drawn from animal experiments, the use of human experimentation during the war
was deemed necessary to help in the German war effort. Applications for medical
experimentation on humans were usually approved on the grounds that animal
tests had taken the research only so far. Better results could be obtained by
using humans in the medical experiments.[1]
Inmates at the Dachau Concentration Camp were subjected to medical
experimentation involving malaria, high altitudes, freezing and other
experiments. Such has been documented in the so-called Doctors’ Trial at
Nuremberg, which opened on December 9, 1946, and ended on July 19, 1947. Also,
Dr. Charles P. Larson, an American forensic pathologist, was at Dachau and
conducted autopsies, interviews, and a review of the remaining medical records
to determine the extent of the medical experimentation at the camp.
Malaria Experiments
The malaria experimentation at Dachau was performed by Dr. Klaus Karl
Schilling, who was an internationally famous parasitologist. Dr. Schilling was
ordered by Heinrich Himmler in 1936 to conduct medical research at Dachau for
the purpose of immunizing individuals specifically against malaria. Dr.
Schilling admitted to Dr. Larson that between 1936 and 1945 he inoculated some
2,000 prisoners with malaria. The medical supervisor at Dachau would select the
people to be inoculated and then send this list of people to Berlin to be
approved by a higher authority. Those who were chosen were then turned over to
Dr. Schilling to conduct the medical experimentation.[2]
Dr. Schilling at Trial
At the Doctors’ Trial it was determined that Dr. Schilling’s experiments
were directly responsible for the deaths of 10 prisoners.[3]
Dr. Charles Larson stated in his report concerning Dr. Schilling:
It was very difficult to know where to draw the line as to whether or not
Dr. Schilling was a war criminal. Certainly he fell into that category inasmuch
as he had subjected people involuntarily to experimental malaria inoculations,
which, even though they did not produce many deaths, could very well have produced
serious illness in many of the patients. He defended himself by saying he did
all this work by order from higher authority; in fact, Himmler himself.
In my report, I wrote: “In view of all he has told me, this man, in my
opinion, should be considered a war criminal, but that he should be permitted
to write up the results of his experiments and turn them over to Allied medical
personnel for what they are worth. Dr. Schilling is an eminent scientist of
world-wide renown who has conducted a most important group of experiments;
their value cannot properly be ascertained until he has put them into writing
for medical authorities to study. The criminal acts have already been
committed, and since they have been committed, if it were possible to derive some
new knowledge concerning immunity to malaria from these acts, it would yet be
another crime not to permit this man to finish documenting the results of his
years of research.”
But my attempt to save Dr. Schilling’s life failed. Our High Command felt it
had to make a public example of him – most of the other high-ranking Nazis
connected with Dachau had already been executed – and made his wife watch the
hanging. I did everything I could to stop it. I implored our military government not to pass sentence on him until
he’d had a fair hearing, because I was just beginning to win his confidence,
and get through to him. Looking back, I am sure that the execution of Dr.
Schilling deprived the world of some very valuable scientific information – no
matter how distasteful his research and experimentation may have been.[4]
Dr. Larson concluded in regard to Dr. Schilling: “…Dr. Schilling, who was
72 [actually 74], should have lived. He never tried to run. He stayed in Dachau
and made a full statement of his work to me; he cooperated in every way, and
was the only one who told the truth…”[5]
The defense in the Doctors’ Trial at Nuremberg submitted evidence of
doctors in the United States performing medical experiments on prison inmates
and conscientious objectors during the war. The evidence showed that
large-scale malaria experiments were performed on 800 American prisoners, many
of them black, from federal penitentiaries in Atlanta and state penitentiaries
in Illinois and New Jersey. U.S. doctors conducted human experiments with malaria
tropica, one of the most dangerous of the malaria strains, to aid the U.S.
war effort in Southeast Asia.[6]
Although Dr. Schilling’s malaria experiments were no more dangerous or
illegal than the malaria experiments performed by U.S. doctors, Dr. Schilling
had to atone for his malaria experiments by being hanged to death while his
wife watched. The U.S. doctors who performed malaria experiments on humans were
never charged with a crime.
High-Altitude and Hypothermia Experiments
Germany also conducted high-altitude experiments at Dachau. Dr. Sigmund
Rascher performed these experiments beginning February 22, 1942 and ending
around the beginning of July 1942.[7] The experiments
were performed in order to know what happened to air crews after failure of, or
ejection from, their pressurized cabins at very high altitudes. In this
instance, airmen would be subjected within a few seconds to a drop in pressure
and lack of oxygen. The experiments were performed to investigate various possible
life-saving methods. To this end a low-pressure chamber was set up at Dachau to
observe the reactions of a human being thrown out at extreme altitudes, and to
investigate ways of rescuing him.[8] The victims were
locked in the chamber, and the pressure in the chamber was then lowered to a
level corresponding to very high altitudes. The pressure could be very quickly
altered, allowing Dr. Rascher to simulate the conditions which would be
experienced by a pilot freefalling from altitude without oxygen.
Dr. Rascher received authority to conduct these high-altitude experiments
when he wrote to Heinrich Himmler and was told that prisoners would be placed
at his disposal. Dr. Rascher stated in his letter that he knew the experiments
could have fatal results. According to Walter Neff, the prisoner who gave
testimony at the Doctors’ Trial, approximately 180 to 200 prisoners were used
in the high-altitude experiments. Approximately 10 of these prisoners were
volunteers, and about 40 of the prisoners were men not condemned to death.
According to Neff’s testimony, approximately 70 to 80 prisoners died during
these experiments.[9] A film showing the complete
sequence of an experiment, including the autopsy, was discovered in Dr.
Rascher’s house at Dachau after the war.[10]
Dr. Rascher also conducted freezing experiments at Dachau after the
high-altitude experiments were concluded. These freezing experiments were
conducted from August 1942 to approximately May 1943.[11]
The purpose of these experiments was to determine the best way of warming
German pilots who had been forced down in the North Sea and suffered
hypothermia.
Dr. Rascher's subjects were forced to remain outdoors naked in
freezing weather for up to 14 hours, or the victims were kept in a tank of ice
water for three hours. Their pulse and internal temperature were measured
through a series of electrodes. Warming of the victims was then attempted by
different methods, most usually and successfully by immersion in very hot
water. It is estimated that these experiments caused the deaths of 80 to 90
prisoners.[12]
Dr. Charles Larson strongly condemned these freezing experiments. Dr.
Larson wrote:
A Dr. Raschau [sic] was in charge of this work and…we found the records of
his experiments. They were most inept compared to Dr. Schilling’s, much less
scientific. What they would do would be to tie up a prisoner and immerse him in
cold water until his body temperature reduced to 28 degrees centigrade (82.4
degrees Fahrenheit), when the poor soul would, of course, die. These
experiments were started in August, 1942, but Raschau’s [sic] technique
improved. By February, 1943 he was able to report that 30 persons were chilled
to 27 and 29 degrees centigrade, their hands and feet frozen white, and their
bodies “rewarmed” by a hot bath….
They also dressed the subjects in different types of insulated clothing
before putting them in freezing water, to see how long it took them to die.[13]
Dr. Rascher and his hypothermia experiments at Dachau were not well
regarded by German medical doctors. In a paper titled “Nazi Science – The
Dachau Hypothermia Experiments,” Dr. Robert L. Berger wrote:
Rascher was not well regarded in professional circles…and his superiors
repeatedly expressed reservations about his performance. In one encounter,
Professor Karl Gebhardt, a general in the SS and Himmler’s personal physician,
told Rascher in connection with his experiments on hypothermia through exposure
to cold air that “the report was unscientific; if a student of the second term
dared submit a treatise of the kind [Gebhardt] would throw him out.” Despite
Himmler’s strong support, Rascher was rejected for faculty positions at several
universities. A book by German scientists on the accomplishments of German
aviation medicine during the war devoted an entire chapter to hypothermia but
failed to mention Rascher’s name or his work.[14]
Blood-Clotting Experiments
Dr. Rascher also experimented with the effects of Polygal, a substance
made from beet and apple pectin, which aided blood
clotting. He predicted that the preventive use of Polygal tablets would reduce
bleeding from surgery and from gunshot wounds sustained during combat.
Subjects were given a Polygal tablet and were either shot through the neck or
chest, or their limbs were amputated without anesthesia. Dr. Rascher published
an article on his use of Polygal without detailing the nature of the human
trials. Dr. Rascher also set up a company staffed by prisoners to manufacture
the substance.[15] Dr. Rascher’s nephew, a Hamburg
doctor, testified under oath that he knew of four prisoners who died from Dr.
Rascher’s testing Polygal at Dachau.[16]
Obviously, Dr. Rascher’s medical experiments constitute major war crimes.
Dr. Rascher was arrested and executed in Dachau by German authorities shortly
before the end of the war.[17]
Infectious Diseases, Biopsies and Salt-Water Tests
Phlegmons were also induced in inmates at Dachau by intravenous and
intramuscular injection of pus during 1942 and 1943. Various natural,
allopathic and biochemical remedies were then tried to cure the resulting
infections. The phlegmon experiments were apparently an attempt by National
Socialist Germany to find an antibiotic similar to penicillin for infection.[18]
All of the doctors who took part in these phlegmon experiments were dead or
had disappeared at the time of the Doctors’ Trial. The only information about
the number of prisoners used and the number of victims was provided by an
inmate nurse, Heinrich Stöhr, who was a political prisoner at Dachau. Stöhr
stated that seven out of a group of 10 German subjects died in one experiment,
and that in another experiment 12 out of a group of 40 clergy died.[19]
Official documents and personal testimonies indicate that physicians at
Dachau performed many liver biopsies when they were not needed. Dr. Rudolf
Brachtl performed liver biopsies on healthy people and on people who had
diseases of the stomach and gall bladder. While biopsy of the liver is an
accepted and frequently used diagnostic procedure, it should only be performed
when definite indications exist and other methods fail. Some physicians at
Dachau performed liver biopsies simply to gain experience with its techniques.
These Dachau biopsies violated professional standards since they were often
conducted in the absence of genuine medical indication.[20]
The Luftwaffe had also been concerned since 1941 with the problem of
shot-down airmen who had been reduced to drinking salt water. Sea water
experiments were performed at Dachau to develop a method of making sea water
drinkable through desalinization. Between July and September 1944, 44 inmates
at Dachau were used to test the desirability of using two different processes
to make sea water drinkable. The subjects were divided into several groups and
given different diets using the two different processes.[21]
During the experiments one of the groups received no food whatsoever for five
to nine days. Many of the subjects became ill from these experiments, suffering
from diarrhea, convulsions, foaming at the mouth, and sometimes madness or
death.[22]
Most Deaths from Natural Causes
Dr. Charles Larson’s forensic work at Dachau indicated that only a small
percentage of the deaths at Dachau were due to medical experimentation on
humans. His autopsies showed that most of the victims died from natural causes;
that is, of disease brought on by malnutrition and filth caused by wartime
conditions. In his depositions to Army lawyers, Dr. Larson made it clear that
one could not indict the whole German people for the National Socialist medical
crimes. Dr. Larson sincerely believed that although Dachau was only a short
ride from Munich, most of the people in Munich had no idea what was going on
inside Dachau.[23]
Dr. Larson’s conclusions are reinforced by the book Dachau, 1933-1945:
The Official History by Paul Berben. This book states that the total number
of people who passed through Dachau during its existence is well in excess of
200,000.[24] The author concludes that while no one
will ever know the exact number of deaths at Dachau, the number of deaths is
probably several thousand more than the quoted number of 31,951.[25] This book documents that approximately 66% of all
deaths at Dachau occurred during the final seven months of the war.
The increase in deaths at Dachau was caused primarily by a devastating
typhus epidemic which, in spite of the efforts made by the medical staff,
continued to spread throughout Dachau during the final seven months of the war.
The number of deaths at Dachau also includes 2,226 people who died in May 1945
after the Allies had liberated the camp, as well as the deaths of 223 prisoners
in March 1944 from Allied aerial attacks on work parties.[26]
Thus, while illegal medical experiments were conducted on prisoners at Dachau,
Berben’s book clearly shows that the overwhelming majority of deaths of
prisoners at Dachau were from natural causes.
Allied Medical Experimentation
Dr. Karl Brandt and the other defendants were infuriated during the
Doctors’ Trial at the moral high ground taken by the U.S. prosecution. Evidence
showed that the Allies had been engaged in illegal medical experimentation,
including poison experiments on condemned prisoners in other countries, and
cholera and plague experiments on children.[27]
Dr. Bettina Blome, the wife of the defendant Dr. Kurt Blome, meticulously
researched experiments that were conducted by the U.S. Office of Scientific
Research and Development (OSRD) during the war. In addition to malaria
experiments on Terre Haute Federal Prison inmates, she also uncovered Dr.
Walter Reed’s 19th-century yellow fever research for the U.S. Army,
in which volunteer human test subjects had died. Blome’s research was entered
into evidence at the Doctors’ Trial.[28]
Defense attorney Dr. Robert Servatius expanded on the theme of U.S. Army
human experimentation. American journalist Annie Jacobsen writes:
Servatius had located a Life magazine article,
published in June of 1945, that described how OSRD conducted experiments on 800
U.S. prisoners during the war. Servatius read the entire article, word for
word, in the courtroom. None of the American judges was familiar with the
article, nor were most members of the prosecution, and its presentation in
court clearly caught the Americans off guard. Because the article specifically
discussed U.S. Army wartime experiments on prisoners, it was incredibly
damaging for the prosecution. “Prison life is ideal for controlled laboratory
work with humans,” Servatius read, quoting American doctors who had been
interviewed by Life reporters. The idea that extraordinary times call
for extraordinary measures, and that both nations had used human test subjects
during war, was unsettling. It pushed the core Nazi concept of the Untermenschen
to the side. The Nuremberg prosecutors were left looking like hypocrites.[29]
The U.S. prosecution flew in Dr. Andrew Ivy to explain the differences in
medical ethics between German and U.S. medical experiments. Interestingly, Dr.
Ivy himself had been involved in malaria experiments on inmates at the Illinois
State Penitentiary. When Dr. Ivy mentioned that the United States had specific
research standards for medical experimentation on humans, it turned out that
these principles were first published on December 28, 1946. Dr. Ivy had to
admit that the U.S. principles on medical ethics in human experimentation had
been made in anticipation of Dr. Ivy’s testimony at the Doctors’ Trial.[30]
ENDNOTES
1] Kater, Michael H., Doctors under Hitler,
Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1989, p. 226.
[2] McCallum, John Dennis, Crime Doctor,
Mercer Island, Wash.: The Writing Works, Inc., 1978, pp. 64-65.
[3] Berben, Paul, Dachau, 1933-1945, The
Official History, London: The Norfolk Press, 1975, p. 125.
[4] McCallum, John Dennis, Crime Doctor,
Mercer Island, Wash.: The Writing Works, Inc., 1978, pp. 66-67.
[5] Ibid., p. 68.
[6] Schmidt, Ulf, Karl Brandt: The Nazi Doctor,
New York: Continuum Books, 2007, p. 376.
[7] Spitz, Vivien, Doctors from Hell: The
Horrific Account of Nazi Experiments on Humans, Boulder, Colo.: Sentient
Publications, 2005, p. 74.
[8] Berben, Paul, Dachau, 1933-1945, The
Official History, London: The Norfolk Press, 1975, p. 126.
[9] Ibid., pp. 127-128.
[10] Ibid., p. 130.
[11] Spitz, Vivien, Doctors
from Hell: The Horrific Account of Nazi Experiments on Humans, Boulder,
Colo.: Sentient Publications, 2005, p. 85.
[12] Berben, Paul, Dachau, 1933-1945,
The Official History, London: The Norfolk Press, 1975, p. 133.
[13] McCallum, John Dennis, Crime
Doctor, Mercer Island, Wash.: The Writing Works, Inc., 1978, pp. 67-68.
[14] Michalczyk, John J., Medicine,
Ethics, and the Third Reich: Historical and Contemporary Issues, Kansas City,
Mo.: Sheed & Ward, 1994, p. 96.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Berben, Paul, Dachau,
1933-1945, The Official History, London: The Norfolk Press, 1975, pp.
133-134.
[17] Ibid., p. 134. See
also Michalczyk, John J., Medicine, Ethics, and the Third Reich:
Historical and Contemporary Issues, Kansas City, Mo.: Sheed &
Ward, 1994, p. 97.
[18] Pasternak, Alfred, Inhuman
Research: Medical Experiments in German Concentration Camps, Budapest,
Hungary: Akadémiai Kiadó, 2006, p. 149.
[19] Ibid., pp. 134-135.
[20] Ibid., p. 227.
[21] Berben, Paul, Dachau,
1933-1945, The Official History, London: The Norfolk Press, 1975, pp.
136-137.
[22] Spitz, Vivien, Doctors
from Hell: The Horrific Account of Nazi Experiments on Humans, Boulder, Colo.:
Sentient Publications, 2005, p. 173.
[23] McCallum, John Dennis, Crime
Doctor, Mercer Island, Wash.: The Writing Works, Inc., 1978, p. 69.
[24] Berben, Paul, Dachau,
1933-1945, The Official History, London: The Norfolk Press, 1975, p. 19.
[25] Ibid., p. 202.
[26] Ibid., pp. 95, 281.
[27] Schmidt, Ulf, Karl Brandt:
The Nazi Doctor, New York: Continuum Books, 2007, p. 376.
[28] Jacobsen, Annie, Operation
Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program that Brought Nazi Scientists to
America, New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2014, pp. 273-274.
[29] Ibid., p. 274.
[30] Schmidt, Ulf, Karl Brandt:
The Nazi Doctor, New York: Continuum Books, 2007, pp. 376-377.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)