

How the corpses of Hitler's victims are still haunting modern science - jseliger
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/history/2013/11/nazi_anatomy_history_the_origins_of_conservatives_anti_abortion_claims_that.html

======
JackFr
Slate -- why go to all the way tho Nazi Germany, when an ambitious promoter
and the Chinese government will bring them right to New York City:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/nyregion/30bodies.html?_r=...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/nyregion/30bodies.html?_r=0)

"Under the settlement, the exhibit must display, on its Web site and with a
sign at the entrance, a statement explaining that _it is not able to confirm
that the bodies being displayed were not Chinese prisoners who may have been
victims of torture and execution_ , the attorney general’s office said."

------
CurtHagenlocher
There's obviously nothing admirable about Dr. Stieve or his source of bodies.
But it seems a little misleading to say that these were corpses of "political
dissidents". They were executed for passing information to the Soviet Union,
with whom Nazi Germany was at war. Show me a country that doesn't execute
spies under similar circumstances.

~~~
peterwwillis
It's not misleading. It's fact.

    
    
      Political dissent refers to any expression that conveys 
      dissatisfaction with or opposition to the policies of a 
      governing body, and such expression may take forms from 
      vocal disagreement to civil disobedience to the use of 
      violence. Historically, repressive governments have 
      sought to punish political dissent. The protection of 
      freedoms that facilitate peaceful dissent has become a 
      hallmark of free and open societies. [1]
    

(edit) Oh, and I just noticed a small difference here: they used "political
dissidents", which is even more broad than "political dissenters":

    
    
      A dissident, broadly defined, is a person who actively 
      challenges an established doctrine, policy, or 
      institution. When dissidents unite for a common cause 
      they often effect a dissident movement. The word has been 
      used since 16th century in the context of religion. The 
      noun was first used in the political sense in 1940, with 
      the rise of such totalitarian systems as the Soviet 
      Union. [2]
    

And just so we're clear: the article covers many different corpses, not just
political dissidents. From the first chapter of the story:

    
    
      In the mid-1930s, British anatomists described with envy 
      the “valuable sources of material” their German 
      counterparts had.
    
      The “sources of material” included many people the Nazis 
      sentenced to death for minor crimes, such as looting, and 
      many convicted for political crimes that particularly 
      incensed the regime, ranging from treason to the vague 
      offense of “defeatism.”
    

\--

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_dissent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_dissent)
[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissident](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissident)

~~~
sp332
It's misleading to use a broad term like "dissident" instead of the more
precise word, "traitor".

~~~
peterwwillis
There were also non-political corpses used.

A dissident is by definition _not_ a traitor. From its first use in the Soviet
Union to describe political dissidents, the term was used to describe people
who would speak out against human rights violations committed by the state.
You could hardly call that traitorous.

Now can we shut the fuck up about how the people who died fighting the Nazi
regime might have been "traitors" ?

~~~
sp332
We're talking about people executed for passing information to the Soviet
Union. Those are not dissidents by your definition.

------
bediger4000
This article claims that only a single anatomist, out of all 38 schools of
anatomy in the Third Reich, left the field because of obviously executed
criminals/dissidents showing up on dissection tables.

Perhaps the USA and the NSA are lucky that they've had 4 or 5 public
dissidents/whistleblowers. Perhaps the usual response to immoral or unethical
government or corporate actions is to just live with them.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
I think there have been experiments that verify this fact: people are very
susceptible to pressure, both from authority and peers, and will generally
conform. Kind of scary when you think about it: even the anti-government
movements today stem from a me-too groupism (tea party) and an authority
trying to usurp another (right wingers).

~~~
rabidonrails
This is especially interesting when combined with this article
[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/world/middleeast/to-
shape-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/world/middleeast/to-shape-young-
palestinians-hamas-creates-its-own-textbooks.html?_r=0) about textbooks for
children. It's unbelievable to see how humans can be manipulated either as
innocent children or even as highly educated doctors.

~~~
pinko
I'll just note that the US is a world leader in this space, something the
article above failed to recognize:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/education/creationists-
on-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/education/creationists-on-texas-
panel-for-biology-textbooks.html)

~~~
sseveran
I would hardly say that article provides evidence of "being a world leader".
Curriculum selection is a highly political process across the entire country.
More generally school boards often attempt to engage in their own social
engineering of children to suit their own views.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Its not like any of these creationist measures ever survive the judicial
system.

------
Shinkei
I really don't understand how we can be the most ethical about treating people
after they are dead... especially when we don't know their wishes. For
example, my understanding is that before China was the popular source of
cadavers, medical schools in the US procured their specimens from India.
People routinely turned up downstream in the Ganges and their bodies would be
unclaimed and at least put to some good use. If we were to bury them in a mass
grave or cremate them... these would be equally offensive to many religions
and yet is society really responsible for providing a plot of land in
perpetuity for every single person who dies? Or more to the point... should a
person's wishes be trumped by the wishes of society on their death? This kind
of thing comes up (for different reasons) when discussing estate taxes and
organ donation. I don't think there is a perfect answer because it depends on
your politics.

