MR. MC HANEY: It is the last document which Defense Counsel has not received. I may be mistaken about that. I am not certain. However, I am sure there will be no dispute as to the next three documents that are to be offered.
THE PRESIDENT: It was understood, at the time, that Defense Counsel would urge any objection they might have later. They are received now only provisionally. It is expected that the Tribunal will recess at the close of this afternoon's session until Monday, January 27, 1947. At that time Defense Counsel may urge their objections.
MR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, we will be working on the documents during the adjournment. We shall be at a disadvantage since we shall not be in a position to know what the documents contain. We will not know whether they are finally admitted or not.
THE PRESIDENT: The documents will not be finally admitted until counsel for the defense have had an opportunity to object to them. I understand Defense Counsel will be furnished with copies of these documents.
MR. MC HANEY: I will again continue to read from the affidavit which is Prosecution's Exhibit 432.
"On 1 April 1933 I joined the NSDAP and held party number 1706063; in 1936 I became a member of the NSV. Early in 1941 I was drafted into the Wehrmacht in the Grenadie Replacement Unit 588 in Elberfeld but after three weeks was again classified as deferred. On December 1, 1943, I was again taken into the Infantry Replacement Unit 488 in Hannover; in February 1944 I came to the Medical Replacement Unit 11, in Bueckeburg and from there was summoned by teletype in March 1944 to the Reich Chancellory and had to report there to Herr von Hegener. My last rank in the army was that of Medical Soldier (Sanitaetssoldat.) From May 1944 till the entry of the American troops, I worked, in the Mental Rehabilitation Institution (Heilerziehungsantalt) Kalmenhof in Idstein. During this time I was Chief Medical Officer of the above mentioned institution. In my capacity as Chief Medical Officer of the Mental Rehabilitation Institution Kalmenhof, as well as expert for the Reich Committee for Research on Hereditary Diseases and Constitutional Susceptibility to Severe Diseases as well as my professional connection with Herr von Hegener, I am in a position to make the following statement:
"2) In March 1944 I was summoned by teletype to the Reich Chancellory and had to report there to Herr von Hegener. Herr von Hegener informed me about the so-called 'Euthanasia Program' and swore me to silence about it. It was made absolutely clear to me that the Euthanasia Program was carried out along two separate lines, namely, the killing of mentally ill adults who were unfit for work on the one hand, and the killing of mentally inferior and asocial children on the other. I heard the name of Professor Dr. Karl Brandt for the first time in this connection. It was made clear to me that Brandt was one of the leading personalities of the entire Euthanasia Program.
"3) I know for sure that the Euthanasia Program, for children was carried on until six weeks before the Americans marched in."
This affidavit is signed by Herman Wesse.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I should like to reserve the right to cross-examine that witness, that is, I should like to reserve that right for Karl Brandt.
THE PRESIDENT: The prosecution will cake available in court the Affiant, Hermann Wesse, M.D., if possible, in due time, when the defense case is over.
MR. MC HANEY: Defense Counsel will file an appropriate application?
THE PRESIDENT: The Defense Counsel will file such an application. They will request that the witness will be called for cross-examination.
At this time the Tribunal will recess until Monday morning, January 27 at nine-thirty o'clock. This recess is taken in order that the defendants may have suitable time within which to prepare their defense. During the coming week, Defense Counsel will advise the Tribunal as to whether or not they have agreed upon the time to be allocated to each counsel for the purpose of making his opening statement. Defense counsel will be allowed two days to make their opening statements.
If Defense Counsel cannot agree upon the allocation of time, the Tribunal will be allocate the time when the Tribunal re-convenes on Monday morning, January 27.
The Prosecution will continue its case until it is completed; the Defense Counsel will open. Are there any questions on the part of anyone?
I would like to ask the Prosecution how long it anticipates it will take to close after the Tribunal re-convenes?
MR. MC HANEY: If the Tribunal please, I am quite sure that it will not take more than one trial day. I might state briefly what we have to do before we close our case. We have to present three documents with respect to additional proof on membership of the defendants charged in Count IV.
THE PRESIDENT: I was merely asking counsel for a general statement. Prosecution will not be limited. I desire that Tribunal and Defense Counsel have a general idea as to what to expect.
MR. MC HANEY: The only difficulty is the length of cross-examination of the Leibrand, Professor Leibrand. I do not think direct examination will take more than an hour or an hour and a half. I am unable to say how long Defense Counsel plan to cross-examine Professor Leibrand. Except for that open problem, I should think we certainly should finish on Monday.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I have only a technical question in connection with the translation. The Document Book which we want to submit must be delivered to the Translation Division in advance. In the trial before the International Military Tribunal, this took from five to six days. That would mean that approximately on the 22nd or 23rd, we would have to submit all documents which we want to submit in evidence. The adjournment cannot be used to advantage for the Defense.
The next question-
THE PRESIDENT: Let me answer your first question. Would it be necessary that all documents to be offered by all the defendants be submitted at that time?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendants will naturally present their cases separately. Could not the documents which will be required later be submitted later?
DR. SERVATIUS: The first defendants are in a greater hurry than those whose case comes up later. Of course the first defendants have the most extensive proof.
The second question, which refers to everyone, is whether statements and briefs have to be submitted for translation so they can be read by the interpreters, and will be available in writing before the member of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand that before the International Military Tribunal, the preliminary statements of counsel for the defendants were translated before they were delivered before the Tribunal?
DR. SERVATIUS: According to the Charter, such opening statements were inadmissable. At that time, it only referred to document books and to the final plea. If this is applicable here, it would mean that the adjournment, for technical reasons, would be too short.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem if the opening statements by Defense Counsel, will have to be translated, then that presents a new problem to this Tribunal.
DR. SERVATIUS: The Language Division asked me when I would submit these statements. I said it would take two or three days. It has yet to be written. It must be assembled and distributed. If Saturday and Sunday be excluded, there is not much time left, and I would have to be finished by Wednesday at the latest.
THE PRESIDENT: Has Counsel for the Prosecution any suggestion in connection with this matter?
MR. McHANEY: I should think that if Defense Counsel could prepare their opening statements, which I assume will not be too extensive, in time, and present them to the interpreters before hand, so they can become familiar with them, in order to give a coherent and logical interpretation here in court, as it is read in German; I should think it would be satisfactory for them to prepare these statements in German and then have them translated by the translation department. I should think there might be some difficulty getting them processed and ready in time. As far as getting the documents translated, I seem to have a fairly good recollection that the International Military Tribunal required something more than five days' notice be given to the translation department.
I have in mind two weeks. Be that as it may, I can here and now advise defense counsel that as a practical matter they will not be able to get translations returned in five days especially if there is to be a considerable number of documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Has not the defense already submitted documents which they desire translated to the Translation Department?
DR. SERVATIUS: So far as I have been informed, no documents have yet been submitted for translation. The affidavits are not yet available and in many cases we have not yet received them. We are in many cases concerned with affidavits or short excerpts of medical literature. If altogether we had a 12-day adjournment, we could well manage. We had really assumed that the Prosecution would finish my the middle of this week. Then, of course, we could have managed by the 27th.
The Language Division suggested that if it were necessary they would work Saturday and Sunday so that the documents would be ready in time. If, for instance, we would start on the 29th, then we would have Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. That could be taken up with the opening statement and then the following monday we could start with the real submission of evidence. I think that could well be managed by the defense and also by the Language Division.
MR. MC HANEY: If it please the Tribunal, the prosecution certainly would not look with favor upon any delay beyond Monday, a week. I have stated that we will take up approximately one full trial day to close our case. It was made perfectly clear two weeks ago, at least almost that long, that this adjournment would take place and that it might be as little as one week.
The material which has been going in the last week approximately concerned 4 of the 23 defendants. I am at a loss to see any ground for further delay. These gentlemen do not have any affidavits yet. They do not have any documents yet. Quite frankly, I do not know how it is all going to match together in these next seven days but, be that as it may, I think we should attempt to get the defense under way and see how it goes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, my suggestion was to have two more days, that is, I ask that you start on Wednesday instead of Monday. The way it would happen would be as follows: The Prosecution would start for one day and then the defense. All we really want is an extra two days. That would give us Thursday and Friday.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it might be possible for defense counsel to be adequately prepared if the Tribunal would meet on Monday, January 27, at the closing of the case of the prosecution. Defense counsel might then be prepared to make their opening statements during the next two days. Then if further time is required for the translation of the documents, a recess of two more days could be taken at that time.
DR. SERVATIUS: That is a suggestion which is acceptable. We would prefer taking the time all at once.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands the defense counsel would prefer the other method but the Tribunal will follow the method just outlined. You may have this assurance: If it definitely appears the defense will be prejudiced by this proceeding, they may have a further recess.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I have another question. I stated that my most important witnesses are in Holland. I understood the Tribunal to say that I make application for questionnaires to be sent to Holland by way of a commissioner.
THE PRESIDENT: That matter may be taken up informally before me in my office in the morning. We will consider it and see what can be done in order to satisfy defense counsel.
The Tribunal will now recess until Monday morning, January 27, 1947.
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 27 January 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Court Room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1.
Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all defendants are present in the Court Room.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
The Tribunal this morning will recess at approximately 15 minutes after 12 o'clock and will reconvene for this afternoon's session at 2:30 o'clock.
The Tribunal having taken under advisement the admission in evidence of Prosecution's offers Number NO 1063, a document containing the results of investigations carried out in the Netherlands as to experiments and tests made by German medical practitioners on living prisoners, and the resultant War Crimes committed in the following concentration camps, this exhibit having been offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 328, and defense counsel having objected to the admission of this exhibit in evidence, the Tribunal now rules that defendant objections to the admission of this document are overruled and the document will be admitted in evidence. Defense counsel, will, of course, be permitted to argue as to the weight to be given to the matters contained in this document but it is admitted in evidence as Prosecution's Exhibit 328.
The prosecution may proceed.
MR. McHANEY: May it please the Tribunal, the prosecution requests that the witness, Dr. Werner Leibbrand, be summoned to the stand to testify.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will summon the witness, Werner Leibbrand, to the stand.
MR. McHANEY: The examination will be conducted by Mr. Hardy.
WERNER LEIBBRAND, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q. You will hold up your right hand and be sworn, repeating after me, I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Your name is Werner Leibbrand, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. You were born on 23 January 1896?
A. 1896.
Q. Where were you born?
A. In Berlin.
Q. You are a German citizen?
A. Yes.
Q. Professor, what is your present address?
A. Erlanger, Maximilian Place 2.
Q. You are a doctor of medicine?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you receive your medical degree?
A. In 1920.
Q. From what university, doctor?
A. Berlin.
Q. Now, Doctor, will you kindly outline for the Tribunal what position you held after the completion of your medical studies in 1920, that is, outline either by year what jobs you held, what hospitals you worked in, and so forth, up until the present day.
A. 1919 to 1920, University clinics of Berlin. 1920 to 1927, assistant medical officer and chief medical officer at the Sanatorium, Westend, Berlin, which was a psychiatric sanatorium. 1927 to 1933 I had a practice of my own in Berlin and apart from that I was one of the co-founders of the Psychiatric Welfare Institute of the Municipality of Berlin in the district Tiergarten, and partly also in the North of Berlin, at the Wedding district. 1933 I was released from all my official and semi-official positions for political reasons and racial reasons. I was removed. From 1933 on until the end of the Third Reich I first of all had my private practice and then apart from that I was doing research work on medical history and I wrote a number of important historical works. In 1943 the so-called Action Conti, affected me, that is to say, by means of the so-called civil service duty it resulted in my being posted to the municipal town hospital in Nurnberg, to the Nerve Ward, where I had to occupy a subordinate position as a medical expert. There I was forced, and this was approximately in September 1944, to escape from the arm of the Gestapo which was reaching out for me. My wife, for the same racial reasons, had to escape, and for 7 months we had no food ration cards which continued until the allied troops arrived. We were in flight and we were being pursued in the south of Germany. After the arrival of the allied troops, on the strength of my scientific qualifications I was in June 1945 called upon by the military government at Erlangen and made a director of the municipal hospital at Erlangen. The German government took over my employment and the University of Erlangen, on the 13th of May 1946, nominated me Honorary Professor for History of Medicine. That is the faculty which I am representing now, together with the work of being in charge of the municipal sanatorium.
Q. And, Doctor, at the present time you are a professor of the History of Medicine, Chief Physician of the Municipal Hospital at Erlangen University, is that correct?
A. It is not the university clinic as you said, but the Heil und Pflegeanstalt, the sanatorium of the district government.
In my capacity of a university professor I am reading medical history.
Q. Now, Doctor, you state that you have written several books. Will you kindly tell us the titles and subjects of those books.
A. The first more important work which I wrote was a medical history of the German period of romaticism, that is to say, I wrote a medical historical book covering the periods 1790 to 1830. In 1939 I wrote a principal works which was the History of Medical Metaphysics beginning with the antique period, ending with our present period. In 1914 I wrote as a German the first basic and principal work about the French scientist and priest, Vincent von Paul. He was founder of the French lunatic asylum at St. Lazare. In 1945 and until 1946, I together with my students here at Erlangen, wrote a memorandum in commoration of the 100 years existence of the lunatic asylum, at Erlangen, in order to underline the human rights of the insane. Besides that there is an ethical dialogue about the health. And then just lately I have written a shorter book about pre-Socrates medical men, that is to say, doctors who lived before Socrates time and the time of Hippocrates and Plato.
Q. In the course of this examination I shall ask you to outline in sequence far the Tribunal, the German Medical Organization prior to 1933 relative to the German Medical Association, the Hartmann Bund, professional ethics and mal-practice procedure, certification and licensing of physicians, medical education and then the effect of the Nazi Government on the German Medical Organization after 1933. Now, Professor, was there a National German Medical Association prior to 1933?
A. I shall attempt to describe as briefly as possible the history of the medical profession and its organization in Germany. In Germany, even as early as the middle of the 17th Century, there were individual cases of the forming of unions of medical men, such as, for instance, the so-called Collegium Medicum or the Collegium Chirurgicum, which were organizations formed in various towns such as Schweinfurth, Nurnberg, Bamberg, and other towns; but generally speaking you can consider the personal medical officer Stieglitz at Hanover as being right in saying that the German Medical profession was one of isolation, living in returement and rather like a spider in its web. Later on, for social and political reasons, these matters began to change. The German doctor was, of course, originally living, shall we say, dependant upon the absolutistic order of the State. Consequently, the German medical profession was sub-divided into different classes, strictly separated from each other. For instance, there were surgeons of the first and surgeons of the second class. There were about 20 such groups of general practitioners and wound doctors who were strictly separated from the others and consequently the medical man was, in principle, dependent upon the absolute powers of the State.
There is a famous story of the year 1845, approximately, according to which a doctor in Berlin was called to a patient's bedside and that he thought, from a medical point of view, that the visit was not urgent. Half an hour later a policeman appeared at his bedside and forced him to carry out the visit to this patient. All these matters brought it about that the Western ideas of freedom, beginning with the great Revolution of 1789 and coming from France, spreading to Germany, too, particularly in the case of the medical profession, found a great deal of benevolent interest. It appears to me that from the point of view of historic truth there is no doubt whatever that the medical profession in Germany in particular absorbed the democratic ideas of freedom and human rights with particularly great intensity.
This, in order to be brief, led to unions in which the difference of classes were meant to be removed and in which surgeons, doctors, general practitioners, even the students of medicine, were meeting in so-called medical clubs; but the success of these attempts at a unification was, at least first of all, politically much impeded. That, however, was not even changed by the fact that as great a man as Rudolf Virchow, when he was a young doctor, participated in this political movement for the fight for freedom in a very active manner. He was demanding independence for the medical profession, absolute freedom for that profession, independence from all other institutions of the State, such as, for instance, the Profession of Lawyers had, and he demanded, in addition to that, an organization of its own for the medical profession which would be confined to the basis of expert knowledge and the right to issue its own laws.
The Prussian State, after the Revolution of 1848, had considered these ideas as most suspicious. That State was not at all willing to allow such demands to become successful. It impeded the corresponding applications made by this freedom movement and only in 1873 did success come to Dr. Richter in Dresden to unify the existing doctors' clubs, numbering 111, in one great union. That was the German Medical Doctors' Union and that Union, until the Third Reich continued to exist and it was only in 1936 that Conti dissolved it.
Q. Well, witness, you say that the National German Medical Association was formed in the early 1870's, which tied together all the old local medical associations, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. If I understand correctly, the nature of this organization was democratic and its interests included problems of hygiene and public health, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now what was its express purpose -- what was the purpose for forming this organization? Was it to improve public health and hygiene, to foster medical education and science -- is that a correct assumption, Professor?
A. Yes. First of all there was an attempt to shape a union according to the example of the Lawyer's Union, in order to maintain the moral liberty of the medical profession. Lawyers were used as an example for that, and then there was discussion about the social demands of hygiene which, after all the attacks of the industrialization of the 19th century, and considering its rapid development, demanded very considerable steps, both on the part of the doctors and also for poor patients and the general grain proletariat, in the sense of hygiene.
Q. Professor, are you familiar with the organizations known as the American Medical Association and the British Medical Association?
A. Oh yes.
Q. Are these organizations similar and comparable in purpose to the German Medical Association?
A. That is not to be expressed as simply and straightforward as all that. Principally speaking, in America historical developments were different. I mean by that the development from the pioneer doctor, the craftsman of the old days of the 18th century until the formation of the State was in existence. It is for that reason that the medical profession in the United States developed somewhat differently. I mean because the social revolutionary trend such as was in existence among doctors in Germany after their liberation from absolute suppression to a free democracy in 1848, whereas no such development occurred in the United States. But there are certain boundaries to the history of the medical profession in the States, too. The German Doctors' Union which I have mentioned can, up to a point, be compared with the formation founded in 1847 in Philadelphia, which was called the American Medical Association, which on the other hand, later on, and today, bear a different character, such as the one which is shown by the joint organization of medical officers in Chicago today, which simultaneously issues the most important literary periodicals. That is a development which we in Germany did not experience.
Q. Now, Professor, what happened to this National German Medical Association in 1933?
Did it continue to exist in practice or merely in theory? Did the Nazi Government have any influence upon it?
A. No.
Q. Then there was complete disruption among the members of the Medical Association in the advent of the Nazis, is that correct?
A. The German Doctors' Union and the so-called Hartmann Union, which I must mention yet, were, either on the 1st of April 1933 or just a few days later, dealt with by Dr. Gerhardt Wagner, who was appointed State Commissar and coordinated with the so-called National Socialist leadership principles; that is to say, the liberal state development of that union and the Hartmann Union ceased in the course of the general co-ordination(gleichschaltung) under the leadership principle, -- ceased to exist as an independent liberal organization of the German Medical Profession.
Q. Professor, what was the Hartmann Bund and why was it organized?
A. Owing to Bismarck's law of insurance issued in 1882-1883, rather contrary to the development in the United States, the health insurance system developed in Germany. This health insurance system produced a most severe social revolutionary disturbance among the health insurance organizations on one side and doctors and their organizations on the other side. The result was that the very powerful health insurance companies were bullying, socially speaking, the medical profession in Germany and exposing them to a certain amount of a crisis. I shall not go into these facts which ensued in detail because it would be a lengthy story, but the final outcome, from the point of view of organization, was the foundation of a union for the taking care of the economic interests of doctors in Germany by means of the very successful and hard-fighting Dr. Hartmann, so that that union then was named after him, Dr. Hartmann, or Doctors Union, and it was founded in 1900. Once again, it continued to exist until 1933 and once again the Leadership Principles of the State Commissar, Gerhardt Wagner, resulted in its being dissolved.
Q. Professor, now were matters of professional ethics and mal-practice considered and settled prior to 1933?
A. To begin with, even in the unions and clubs which I have mentioned, there were naturally certain general ethical and medical principles which, in the Medical Society of Berlin and its predecessors, during Albrecht von Grace' time, led to a special Council of Honor.
But the professional ethic was not brought into being until, by law, in 1887, the medical chambers were put on a legal basis and when, in 1899, the so-called Courts of Honor for doctors, with their own disciplinary system were being introduced, they had a Chamber of Appeal, too. It was the so-called Court of Honor and in both these disciplinary instances there was one legally trained judicial official. The disciplinary punishments of these Courts of Honor, and this is important from the historical point of view, consisted of the following measures which could be introduced: first of all, monetary fines; secondly, reprimand; and thirdly withdrawal of the active and passive right to vote. These disciplinary courts on the other hand, before 1933 at any rate, did not include questions of a general moral nature, which were matters for the Penal Courts to deal with, and most certainly not religious questions and not political questions.
Q. How ware these matters of professional ethics and malpractice considered and settled after 1933?
A. This question can be answered on the basis of a statement of the ethical change in the medical profession. The Doctor, who for thousands of years, even before the Christian era, had the duty of treating the individual patient to the best of his ability; this doctor was now made a biological state officer by the National Socialist system. This is, he no longer decided according to the ethical principals of pre-Christianity and the pre-Christian world in the interests of the individual patient, but he was the agent of a class of leaders who did not concern themselves with the individual, but considered the individual only as an expression of the maintenance of fictitious biological developments of racial ideas and thus tore the heart out of the medical profession, The doctor, who has no primary interest in the patient, who only gives out orders on behalf of a fictitious collective economy, according to the law of the Hippocratic oath, is not a doctor.
Q. Professor, were the medical societies prior to 1933, representing the various specialties, such as internal medicine, surgery, obstetrics, gernotology dermatology, pathology, physiology, etc., as are found in other countries?
A. There were in Germany various medical associations, which one must organize first and there were some professional organizations. These had scientific interests and they discussed the practical questions of medical sci ce. In addition, there were purely scientific organizations of a highly scientific state and high international reputation, such as the Berlin medical Association, the Chemnitz Association, the Fatherland Association in Silesia and the Specialist Scientific Associations for the various specialists. These associations originally, that is in the 1850's and. 1060's of the past century, relied upon professional politics, but in the last decade they withdrew from these politics and essentially devoted themselves to International science.
Q. What happened to these various medical societies after 1933; were they disbanded?
A. They were not disbanded, but their contents changed. The scientific societies, which I have just mentioned, continued to hold meetings until the last years of the war and within the limits and scope of their possibilities continued to do good work, which could have been possible if a free scientific opinion could have been expressed in these societies, but one could not trust one's neighbor. One belonged to the SS, another belonged to the SA and a third might be a spy. Above all, there were a number of scientific subjects, which could not be touched upon at a 11, because they were too dangerous. However, one could not say if one accepted these subjects. All remained at a low level, but it is a matter of course that the scientist, who Was accustomed to servo the cause of trust sincerely, had to lose interest in participation in these societies and consequently in any special field, the attendance at these meetings was reduced an the course of the years.
Q. Professor, how were physicians licensed before and during the Nazi administration?
A. Before 1933, the medical licensing of doctors corresponded to a ruling, which applied since before 1878; that is after graduating from a secondary school there were premedical studies and an examination after five semesters for the so-called Tentamen physician, the Tentamen physician was introduced instead of the Tentamen philosopnicum, which had been used before. The Tentamen physician dealt with medical science, antiseptics, chemicals, zoology, etc. After having passed this examination, the candidate went into the clinical emasters. He went for five semesters and then passed the state examination. After he passed the state medical examination, no became a medical practitioner for one year. After that period, he was licensed as a physician by the Ministry of the Interior and now he could take the Doctor's examination. The Doctor's examination could be taken only after this period.
Q. How was this medical education and training influenced by the Nazi administration?
A. The big structure, which I have just described, did not change essentially after 1933; that is the physician was divided into two parts for a while but otherwise the duties remained the same.
It seems to me, however, to be somewhat synonymous that from the very beginning, after 1933, an attempt was made to shorten the medical studies an, for a very characteristic reason the students would be permitted to marry as quickly as possible. The so-called young marriage was encouraged at the expense of scientific studies; and that is very typical. At the same time, subjects were introduced into the state examinations, such as racial hygiene and hereditary psychology. Also the history of medicine was introduced, but not for purely scientific reasons, but because instructions an medical history were, of course, a fertile field for propaganda in order to indoctrinate the students with typical National Socialistic ideas. There was another very important change in the first semester, there was an organization, the National Socialistic League of Students, a group called National Health or Popular Health. Its purpose was in the first two or three semesters to determine the suitability of the medical students from an ideologi point of view and imports were made. After two semesters, the students would be advised that he was suited or unsuited.
Also there was an essential technical change in the university holidays, which helped the student to digest what he had learned during the course of the year, but duties of the students to participate in work in the country in agriculture and later in factories. Each one included Hitler youth and Service, and S. A. Service and other duties. All these activities did not help to promote scientific studies. But I will not counsel the fact that of course there were other things, those were the arrangements suck as for example the fact that the students were exchanged and spent time there before beginning their studies to take a course in practical nursing, and that other similar students were obliged to work for the Red Cross.
Q Now, Professor, how did did agitation of National Socialism prior to the Third Reich influence physicians' organizations?
A Before 1933 which has not been mentioned yet, and consequently it must be explained, there were political medical organizations. First, the Union of Social Democratic doctors; that was an organization predominately of Socialist Colleagues of a medical class and character, the aim of which was to promote social hygiene among the working class to extend the work of the health officials to hold popular medical lectures. This group was directed by Dr. Kollwitz, the husband of the famous German sculptor, Kaothe Kollwitz, who was famous for her statues of proletarian life. The more radical organization, which was the Socialist League of doctors, the purpose of this League was ideology. The Socialist Democratic and the Marzist doctors, who were doctors with Socialistic ideals who wore independent of any party affiliation, but who believed in Socialist development, they were to be included in this League. The head of this organization was the psychoanalyist, Dr. Simmel, who later immigrated to America, as well as a colleague who had practical experience on hygiene in Russia, whose name was Lothar Wolff. Unfortunately, it must be said historically that this association in the last years before 1933, carried out the struggle between the S.P.D. and K.P.D., the Socialist and Communist parties, and that in this struggle they overlooked one thing, that the danger came from a different side, from National Socialism.
In 1929 at a Nurnberg party rally, the National Socialist League of Physicians was founded, which in 1933 became an executive force of the NSDAP, and assumed the work of terror against doctors with other ideas.
Q Who was the leading character or personality of teat organization?
A The later State Secretary, Dr. Leonardo Conti.
Q What did this all lead to in Berlin on April 1, 1933, after the establishment cf the Third Reich?
A On the 1st of April 1933, I unfortunately was obliged to experience the efforts in Berlin, which is the greatest disgrace of the medical profession which I have been obliged to witness in my life. I had to see colleagues supply their own cars in order to have Socialist doctors and Jewish colleagues pulled out of their beds in the morning, mistreated, taken to an open space near the Lehrter Station, and the Nationalist Socialist colleagues, together with the S. A. men in uniform had the doctors whom they had arrested run around as if in a hippodrome. They laughed about this. Old non of 70 and even older were running around with their tongues hanging out, because they were threatened with revolvers, because they were hit with sticks and because there were shots now and then. They were left without any care. Some of them stayed for 24 or 48 hours, and were then sent home, but many of them were sent to the notarious S. A. Collars in Hedemann Strasse. They returned home after sometime physically and spiritually broken.
Q Did I understand you to say, Professor, that medical men were taken out of their beds in this manner by other medical men?
A It is unfortunately true. And a few days before the first of April it happened that Jewish. colleagues under the pretext that they were being called for consultation were called for in cars which they did not know, were taken to the woods, thrown out of the cars and left there bleeding.
Q Now, Professor, prior to 1933 did men in the medical profession believe that Nazism would load to the disorganization and downfall of the then medical organizations?
A Cf course there were such doctors, for the terror originated from the small group at that time. The majority of the doctors realized that this development had to load to a production of the level of morality.