Diskussion:Oskar Schröder

Quelle

erbeten für "als mitverantwortlich an den Experimenten zur Erforschung von Fleckfieberimpfstoffforschung. Das Urteil gegen Oskar Schröder erweist sich insoweit als Kuriosum, da er ferner für die Beteiligung Haagens und des Stabsarztes der Luftwaffe Karl Wimmer an den Lost- und Phosgenversuche im KZ Natzweiler-Struthof verurteilt wurde, obwohl gegen ihn in diesem Punkt überhaupt keine Anklage erhoben worden war." - Ich konnte dies nicht in "Medizin ohne Menschlichkeit" finden. -Holgerjan 17:32, 15. Dez. 2007 (CET)

Antwort: Originalton der Anklageschrift vom Dezember 1946:

"The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, Blome, Rudolf Brandt, and Sievers were charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving mustard gas experiment."

- Schröder fehlt! -

Petition Schröders zur Urteilsüberprüfung in den dem Punkt Lost- und Phosgenexperimente:

"To the Supreme Court of the United States of America Washington through the office of the General Secretary of the U. S. Military Tribunal I Nuernberg.

Oskar Schroeder, Petitioner

vs.

The United States of America

Oskar Schroeder, former Generaloberstabsarzt (Lieutenant General) of the Luftwaffe (German Air Force) at present in the prison of the Court in Nuernberg, Germany.

(…) the Court found that I am guilty merely because of the fact that contrary to duty I did not supervise my subordinates.

Finally the judgment found me guilty with regard to the responsibility for gas experiments. Here the judgment states: "A certain Oberarzt Wimmer, a staff physician of the Luftwaffe worked with Hirt on the gas experiments throughout the period.

"We discussed the duty which rests upon a commanding officer to take appropriate measures to control his subordinates, in dealing with the case of Handloser. We shall not repeat what we said there. Had Schroeder adopted the measures which the law of war imposes upon one in position of command to prevent the actions of his subordinates amounting to violations of the law of war, the deaths of the non-German nationals involved in the gas experiments might well have been prevented:" A further infringement against the habeas corpus is the fact that while I have been found guilty as being responsible for the Lost experiments, although I have never been indicted on this count. The verdict of the Military Tribunal I states on page 11 the names of those defendants who have been accused of having borne special responsibility for the Lost (mustard) gas experiments. My name does not appear on that list.

On page 187 of the verdict, the Court describes the importance that this enumeration of defendants has in relation to the various individual counts of the indictment. It says: "In preparing counts II and III of the indictment, the prosecution elected to frame its pleadings in such a manner [page 7 of the original] as to charge all defendants with the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, generally, and at the same time to name in each subparagraph dealing with medical experiments only those defendants particularly charged with responsibility for each particular item." The Court goes on to say:

"In our view this constituted in effect, a bill of particulars and was, in essence, a declaration to the defendants upon which they were entitled to rely in preparing their defenses, that only such persons as were actually named in the designated experiments would be called upon to defend against the specific items." As the Court repeatedly gave evidence during the course of the proceedings that it adhered to this view I did not defend myself, did not need to defend myself and could not defend myself against the accusation that I had participated in the Lost experiments.

Although the Court finds on page 187 of the verdict: "We think it would be manifestly unfair to the defendant to find him guilty of an offense with which the indictment affirmatively indicated he was not charged," it has still found me guilty because of responsibility for the Lost experiment, so that in view of the Court's own statements as contained in the verdict, my sentence constitutes, insofar as it concerns this matter, a gross injustice.

I believe that the sentence of the Military Tribunal I violates a principle insofar as each defendant must be told clearly what crime he has been charged with, and that he must have opportunity to defend himself against these accusations.

It is this principle that is being violated in the findings of the Court against me. In my opinion, it infringes thus the principle of legal heading laid down in the habeas corpus. It is therefore obviously unjust, according to the wording of the verdict itself."

(siehe http://www.mazal.org/NMT-HOME.htm ) (nicht signierter Beitrag von Nietzsche88 (Diskussion | Beiträge) )

NSDAP-Mitglied

Gibt´s da einen Beleg?--Mehlauge (Diskussion) 08:45, 9. Jul. 2013 (CEST)

Bei Klee, Personenlexikon, jedenfalls nicht. Hab's entfernt. --Hozro (Diskussion) 09:11, 9. Jul. 2013 (CEST)

Die angegebene Mitgliedsnummer gehört wohl zu einem anderen Oskar Schröder, mehr Oberwaldarzt als Oberfeldarzt: siehe Maria Wirth, Personelle (Dis-)kontinuitäten im Bereich der Österreichischen Bundesforste/Reichsforstverwaltung, 978-3-205-78482-1: Google Books --Karl Oblique 15:24, 2. Mai 2022 (CEST)