I, as a philosopher, am of the point of view that during such happenings as we have witnessed, words always come fast and these words were already being considered as dangerous by philosophers when they were poisoned; and these poisoned words which Mr. Blome expressed are contained in his biography, namely "The Physician in the Fight", and because of this mentality, the persecution of Jewish physicians, the race of the Jewish physicians into death -- Mr. Blome is coresponsible for this mentality.
Q. Can you tell us, Professor, when this book was published?
A. As far as I remember, in 1939, before the beginning of the war.
Q. That is wrong.
A. Of course, I could be mistaken about such date.
Q. I am not mistaken, Professor, because in the book itself, which, of course, I have read from beginning to end, I ascertained that approval for the printing of the book was given only at the end of 1941 and, Professor, I consider it important for the same reason as you say that it was published before 1939, because at the time that the book was published, the operation against Jewish doctors was in general concluded. I will submit the book to the Tribunal. It was published at the end of 1941. Could that be right? That must be right.
MR. MC HANEY: May it please the Tribunal, I do not like to object but it seems to me that the cross examination is getting a little bit out of bounds and instead of putting questions the defense counsel is proceeding to lecture the witness and I would ask that defense counsel be asked or ordered to limit himself to putting questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Questions propounded by defense counsel are rather argumentative in their nature. If Counsel will just propound to the witness direct questions, it will be more in accordance with the recognized procedure.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the nature of the questioning in the case of this witness in particular must, to a certain degree, be determined by the way in which he has testified.
He gives lectures of a professor, too, and not exactly what one is used to at the testimony of a witness; but that is no reproach to the witness, only a justification for the nature of my questions. Besides, Mr. President, up to now I have only touched upon points which the witness has mentioned in answer to questions of the Prosecution. May I continue now?
Q. Witness, you also said that all doctors were under the Reich Physicians Leader, Conti, with the exception of Wehrmacht and SS doctors. That is right, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. But could you not make one more exception?
A. Maybe you would ask me what exception you mean.
Q. I do not want to put the answer in your mouth. Witness, were all the official doctors, and in particular the doctors in the insame asylums, under the Reich Chamber of Physicians?
A. During my definition this morning I probably forgot these physicians and I am now including them.
Q. Official physicians and physicians in insane asylums?
A. Yes.
Q. This is important because of the question of Euthanasia. Witness, you said that in 1933 there was an Action Conti. If I understood you right, you and many other physicians too presumably were affected and placed in a subaltern position. Now will you please answer the following question. Did the Reich Chamber of Physicians have anything to do with this Action Conti, as you call it?
A. I can merely say that the order emanated from the Reich Health Office in Berlin and if it was attempted to determine who was the responsible author of that order one would arrive at a position of the Ministry of Interior at Schillingstrasse, Berlin. There was the Oberfeldarzt Dr. Bernhard, who was mentioned by me this morning already. I had this Dr. Bernhard investigated by a third party since I was interested in finding out the real sense of this action and at this opportunity Dr. Bernhard expressly declared the banishing of these physicians was not an organizational question of the war but this action was merely a political action and had as its purpose to cleanse the Reich Capital from Jews and friends of Jews.
Q. Professor, you answered a question which I did not ask. I was not trying to find out whether it was a political action but whether the Reich Chamber of Physicians and the defendant, Dr. Blome, had anything to do with it; whether you have any reason for thinking that they did.
A. Doctor; I did not mention Dr. Blome in that action. I merely tried to develop the Action Conti historically and I brought it in connection with the Ministry of Interior, of which Dr. Conti was a member, as State Secretary.
Q. But witness; you spoke of an Action Conti which might easily give the impression that this action was specifically directed against Jewish or Social Democratic physicians. Therefore I ask you to state whether you do not know that this action was also carried out in exactly the same way in other professions.
A. I know nothing about the analogical developments of action Conti.
Q. Do you know for instance that innumerable attorneys, even those with very large practices, were included by the same action, and with the explanation that they were dispensable?
A. I personally, did not experience it.
Q. And, I am interested in the use of the first name Israel and Sarah; did this apply only to physicians or did this apply to all citizens of Jewish faith?
A. It applied to all citizens of Jewish faith, since every Jew not only had to use the first name, but whenever he appeared before an office he had to name this first name, and at the same time list his identity number. If he did not do this, all sorts of things could happen to him.
Q. Professor, today you spoke of the mis-treatment to which Jewish and Socialist Democratic doctors were subjected to in Berlin on 1 April 1933. Do you have and evidence that the Reich Chamber of physicians or the defendant Blome had anything to do with this thing?
A. The Reich Chamber of Physicians on 1 April 1933 did not exist.
Q. But Doctor Blome existed?
A. I did not know Doctor Blome and I, therefore, do not know whether he was participating in this matter.
Q. This morning, Professor, you spoke of a training camp; that is, an institution for the training of practicing physicians which the defendant, Doctor Blome, had created. Are you aware that attendance at these training courses were completely voluntary, and furthermore that applications for these training courses were so numerous that not all of these could be accepted?
A. I think that is entirely possible considering the large propaganda which National Socialism seduced the young people with at that time.
Q. Now, I have one last question, Professor. As an example of how the level of the medical profession felt during the Hitler regime, you mentioned the fact that during that period a number of parties were accepted. Did I understand you correctly when you added that these men did not have medical training but had only studied two years, I believe it was, Professor. Do you know how many of those who so practiced were accepted into the Reich Chamber of Physicians?
A. That is not known to me.
Q. Then, perhaps I can tell you. Only one, a man by the name of Kersten. I do not know whether you ever heard of the name. This Kersten was formally a Finnish Medizinalrat. He had a good reputation by the treatment of the members of the English and Swedish royal families, and that was the only one doctor whom Doctor Blome told me, who in view of special circumstances was accepted in the Chamber of Physicians. If that is true then, would you really say that this one case, in view of the special circumstances, was proof of the falling level of the medical profession?
A. I did not state at all that the introduction of that spirit of time, a doctor had to study natural sciences, and I did not say that was the reason for the lowering of the standard of the medical profession. However, in addition to many ether plans, I attacked this plan, and I reported on it historically. I may bring it to your attention that it was established by literature, that in the year of 1937, in our periodicals within the Third Reich, surprise was uttered that the academic and medical studies suffered and decreased by quality and quantity.
Q. That has nothing to do with our question, Professor, but I must point out that you are again speaking of the Heilpraktiker. I want to point out quite clearly that a Heilpraktiker is what we use to call a "quack". And, I ask you if this is true, that they had nothing to do with the Reich Chamber of Physicians. From 1934 -- from there, they formed their own organization, the league of Heilpraktikers, but the physicians with the single exception of Doctor Kersten, had nothing to do with it; is that true?
A. It is correct, but I have to point out that the National Socialist would have thought it very wrong of you Doctor if you designated these Heilpraktikers as "quacks"? Therein lies the mentality of the entire structure. I admit to you that the Heilpraktikers were not subordinate to the Reich Chamber of Physicians, but the fact that there was a connection between the educated physicians and with these Heilpraktikers, which you have designated as "quacks" -- such a connection existed, and it was not the case before 1933.
Q. Professor, you are mistaken again. I asked for your opinion of the doctors, as to whether it is true, the Court may be interested in knowing it. The Heilpraktikers, since the introduction of freedom to practice, before and after 1933 -- the only difference was after 1933 -- in 1943 a league was formed and that there was certain requirements for training which did not exist before. Is that the truth?
A. Yes, before. It was attempted to ban this quack practice. This was attempted through the Reichstag in the years 1910 and 1911.
Q. And, since we are on the subject, I do not want the defendant Blome, as Deputy Reich Physician Leader to be incriminated by your statement. I would ask you to tell me, is it true and do you know, that in 1939, a law was issued that for all of Germany the number of Heilpraktikers was reduced to 3000 and that no further admissions were to be allowed so that they had to gradually die out. Do you know that?
A. Yes, that is known to me.
DR. SAUTER: Then, I have no more questions, Mr. President.
By DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. Professor, this morning, on the basis of your knowledge of the history of medicine, you gave a detailed explanation to the Court on a certain medical question. May I now ask you, on the basis of your knowledge, to tell the Tribunal where in the history of medicine or philosophy or theology for the first time the conscept of Euthanasia crops up?
A. The conscept of Euthanasia, as such, only means that to a greater or lesser extent deadly ill patients are being helped in their last hours, and it is up to the discretion of the treating physician to conduct this automatic part of dying with medical aid at his disposal and make it, so to speak comfortable. That is what Euthanasia means.
Q. But, Professor, just a minute. I did not ask you for the meaning of the word Euthanasia. Your statement was not an answer to my question. I wanted to ask you to tell me and to tell the court when you think the term Euthanasia first appeared?
A. According to my opinion, and as far as I remember it, it first crops up in the literature of the 19th century, at the moment when such things were attempted.
Q. That statement does not quite answer my question either. You remarked quite correctly that Euthanasia, in the normal sense, is the action of Doctors to make the last hours of the dying persons easier. And, I merely wanted to knew where and when in the course of your historical research you first heard this term Euthanasia used?
A. I cannot answer this question now. Just when the Greek word Euthanasia was first mentioned -- that would have to be investigated scientifically.
Q. Thank you, now, the procedure which you have just described, that is, alleviating the suffering of dying persons without actually shortening their lives. Did this correspond to the principles of Hippocrates?
A. There is nothing to be said against them.
Q. Now, will you please tell the Tribunal when the conception of Euthanasia and its demand to doctor in the course of the last century or the last decade, had been expanded and in what way?
A. We are here concerned with exactly the same problem with which I already dealt with generally this morning. That through an examination biologically throughout on one side, and through which I designated this morning is a demoniac deranged eugenic point of view became increasingly stranger in the thought of human beings and especially during the second half of the 19th century. And, that then according to these points of view, he acted and changed Euthanasia in its basic meaning in order to use it for the purpose of exterminating the so-called inferior human beings.
Q. Meaning the conception of Euthanasia, in the wider sense, not at first limited to the shortening the so-called life of worthy patients, but only those persons and with the approval of the patients?
A. At first.
Q. And, then subsequently was this effort to apply Euthanasia generally in cases when some one was suffering from unincurable diseases, who were spiritually and mentally dead, was this effort made to apply Euthanasia to those cases without the approval of the patients?
A. That is a very natural mental development, and its use, as I mentioned before, the metaphysical connections were attacked. The moral biologically reaction was exaggerated. The mere it was believed that one was justified to do this thing, and one of the most horrible examples on the propaganda field was the well known film "I Accuse" which dealt with this problem in a very unmedical and unscientific manner.
Q Perhaps we may have occasion to discuss this film later; but now I merely want to hear from you about those alleged demands of euthanasia--did they appear only in Germany or did they appear in other countries, too?
A I already mentioned this morning the questions concerning that point with reference to the historical medical effects which were in Germany; but the basic problem is not the problem of a nation but, philosophically speaking, it is an anthropological problem; that is to say, we are hero concerned with a metaphysical lowering of the standards of the modern human beings since the second half of the 19th century.
Q. Was this problem dealt with only by medical men or also by jurists and philosophers?
A What problems?
Q The euthanasia problem.
A It was dealt with by lawyers, medical men, and theologists. I have published a written thesis in that connection.
Q Is that the writing included in part in your work, "The Human Rights of the Insane"?
A Yes.
Q What argumentation did it advocate of the expanded idea of euthanasia advance quite generally?
A It was expressed in the concept of life, the concept of the unworthy of living, and the life unworthy of living. This concept in itself contains the idea that the sense of living is the life itself; and that is what I consider the lowering of the standard.
Q Were not other points of view expressed by advocates of euthanasia?
A I would ask you to make your questions a little more concrete in order to refresh my memory.
Q Was it not pointed out that these sick persons, especially those who were spiritually dead, had no capacity to realize the world situation; that they were in no relation and no contact with their surroundings; and that, consequently, it was not only expedient but necessary that these poor creatures be released from their suffering?
A Those ways of thought are naturally known to me. I think that they are the radic 1 expression of a positivistic attitude. I think they are completely one-sided; and it is impossible that as a physician one can adopt such a one-sided attitude, irrespective of your own religious or philosophical attitudes.
Q You base this on the medical point of view alone?
A Yes; considering my profession as a medical historian, which deals with medical history and medical questions, this is a matter of course.
A You admit that from the philosophical and juristic point of view such a problem might very well be discussed delege ferenda?
A I would not say delege ferenda; but I would express myself more elastically and would say according to whether this possibility should be realized in a one-sided manner is extremely doubtful since those problems are open questions which cannot be immediately solved; and delege ferenda cannot be used in the case of open questions.
Q. Then, Professor, I conclude from your statements that the euthanasia problem was considered by medical men, lawyers, theologians, literary men, for many decades, not to say for many centuries; that this problem turned up repeatedly and can be called an ancient problem?
A Yes.
Q Professor, you have mentioned your writing about the human rights of the insane. May I ask you to answer one question in this book which I have before me? You mentioned a statement of a physician in 1943-44 with the heading "The Physician in Germany"?
A Yes.
Q In this short essay you have this physician, who is not named, in connection with the visits of doctors to insane asylums--you have this physician speak as follows: "The doctor comes to visit the patients and examines the patient." And then you ask: "Who is the physician, the patient or he?" And then you say; "This antinomy was true; the doctor lerned it daily; and when he entered that room, when he was surrounded by this misery, he realized the extent of his guilt." And then you continue: "But what could he do? He could go and protest publicly; he could refuse. But what he achieved was only the removal of himself.
Whom did he help? And so he stayed; stayed with his unbearable protest."
Is it true that this quotation from your article was published in your pamphlet?
A Yes.
DR. FROESCMANN: Then I have no further questions.
JUDGE SEBRING: The Court would like to direct a suggestion to counsel who has just been interrogating the witness that perhaps for the sake of the record the title and the authorship of the book which has been referred to should be read into the record.
DR. FROESCMANN: Your Honor, I am glad to comply with this wish. The book is published by the witness who has just been examined, Werner Leibbrand, with the collaboration of five other men and women. The title is the Human Rights of the Insane, "Um Die Menschenrechte der Geisteskranken." The book was published by the publishing company, "Die Ecke," in Nurnberg in 1946. Does the President want any more information about this book?
JUDGE SEBRING: That is the information the Tribunal desired. That is sufficient.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to ask Dr. Servatius a question. Dr. Servatius, counsel for defendant Karl Brandt, referred to an article in an American magazine named "Life." It will be advisable to read into the record the date and the number of the magazine from which the doctor road.
DR. SERVATIUS: This is a copy of the magazine of the 4th of June, 1945, Volume 18, Number 23. It is an American magazine, copyright Pan American, copyright convention.
THE PRESIDENT: That information is sufficient to identify tho magazine. The Tribunal would ask the counsel whether or not he proposes to offer this magazine in evidence during the case when Karl Brandt is presenting his case.
DR. SERVATIUS: I would offer it now as Karl Brandt Document No. 1 and submit it now.
THE PRESIDENT: The magazine should at this time be marked as defendant Brandt's Identification 1.
DR. SERVATIUS: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for defendant Brandt understands that this simply identifies this document and that later on if counsel desires to offer the document in evidence it should then be formally offered into evidence?
Does counsel for defendant Brandt understand what I just said? Counsel signified that he did understand what the Tribunal meant.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. FLEMMING: (for defendant Mrugowsky)
Q. Professor, in answer to the last question of Servatius, my colleague Servatius, you asked if such experiments could be conducted on guinea-pigs. Do you remember that? Are you aware that there are quite a number of problems which cannot be solved by animal experiments but only by experiments on human beings?
A Naturally.
Q. Is the handling of such problems essential for the development of medicine and the good of humanity?
A. That is the purpose of making physiological experiments on human beings.
Q Professor, do you knew of experiments on human beings carried out in medicine? Have you studied them in enough detail to have a good knowledge of this subject, and are you able to say to what extent such experiments have been conducted so that you can judge them from the point of view of many medical men, not only from your own ethical standpoint?
A I think that this question is a question for a specialist who works on experiment, some therapeutical matters; and I don't think that I can make any final answer in that respect as a medical historian.
Q have you studied this subject in enough detail to be informed not only of what has been published on the subject but what has been published so that only an expert could understand it?
A No.
Q Professor, do you know that in the case of scarlet fever vaccines from scarlet fever toxin there is no possibility of testing it on animals and that for that reason in many foreign countries it is tested in children's clinics and on human beings?
A I think it is possible.
Q Are you aware that such decisions were not decided upon in Germany and that consequently there is uncertainty that ineffective vaccines were used and in the other hand dangerous vaccines were used: the danger of these vaccines was realized only when they were used?
Were not valuable human lives lost and was there not considerable damage to health?
A I am not quite familiar with these questions in detail. These are questions which belong to experimental therapy and I cannot say anything final about them.
Q Professor, do you know of the prophylaxis experiments in sleeping sickness? Do you know that negroes were hired as subjects?
A I don't know anything about the latter; but the first is basically right.
Q Do you know that in such an important disease as malaria, work on reagent and animal experiments are impossible because the disease cannot be transferred to the animal and the germ cannot be cultivated; and consequently in almost all civilized countries, were not experimental subjects used, experiments conducted on human beings in malaria, primarily on insane persons by therapeutic malaria infections but also on hundreds of experimental subjects?
A. Already this morning I referred to the literature of Dr. Moll and aside from that I know the malaria experiments here mentioned to me and also these examples which you have just mentioned which are quite well known to me.
Q. Professor, are you aware that in the old syphilis and gonorrhea research human experiments were primarily a part of the research, and that the French Government issued an order for experiments on human beings?
A. I know these things partly from the literature of the French Philroye.
Q. Are you aware Professor that Joseph Gruenberger with approval conducted experiments on twelve persons or prisoners, who in the case of survival were promised a pardon, and that he conducted pellegra experiments?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware that Adler, a prize winner of the Royal Society for Tropical Disease and Hygiene in 1940 infected five cancer patients with kala agar and that all five died?
A. This case occurred in 1940 and is not known to me, but it is analogous to other cases which came from the literature of Moll.
Q. Are you aware that Heymann, Heilbrunn and Gungnanu, treated three paralytics through inter-cerrebral penicillin treatment, that they treated three paralytics and that all three died?
A. I do not know about these cases. Probably I have not all of the foreign literature at my disposal.
Q. Are you aware that Vief and Stocks in the United States had infected two hundred fifty persons with hepatitis epidemica with well water, in these cases to test the role of water as a carrier of the virus?
A. No.
Q. Are you aware that in the sleeping sickness research human experiments are available?
A. I know about experiments on human beings suffering from sleeping sickness.
Q. Is it true that in sleeping sickness it is possible to experiment on animals?
A. That is a special question which I cannot answer.
Q. Are you aware, Professor, that in the case of Papatacci fever experiments can be conducted only on human beings and that there are many reports of such experiments?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware that basis yellow fever research up to 1903, in this very dangerous disease, was exclusively based on human experiments, a large number of human experiments?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware, Professor, that in typhus research aside from some old Russian experiments human experiments were conducted in Mexico by Otero, in Indo China by Yersin, in Algiers by Sergent, in Turkey by Hamdi and in Poland by Sparrow?
A. I think that is possible even though I do not know the individual disease, but it covers what I have generally told about the subject.
Q. Are you aware, Professor, that Troum infected prisoners with living plague bacilla?
A. No.
Q. Are you aware that dysentery experiments were conducted on human beings?
A. No, I don't know anything about these special cases.
Q. Are you aware or do you remember from the First World War that the official English and American commissions investigating five day fever, worked to a large extent on human beings?
A. No.
Q. Are you acquainted with any reports of infection experiments in leporsy?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware that in America internees and recruits were artificially infected with measles?
A. In all countries of the world such infection experiments were carried out in the second half of the 19th century.
Q. If all of these experiments, Professor, were actually conducted, and also as you said this morning, and as Moll's book shows, about six hundred works are published, in which there are thousands of such experiments described, must not one say that the question of experiments on human beings under certain conditions is judged differently by other circles of medical men as you judge it from an ethical point of view.
A. That I cannot say since Moll at the end of his work writes it is apart of the morality of a physician that he holds back his natural research urge in order to maintain his basic medical attitude which is laid down in the oath of Hippocrates and which may result in doing harm to his patient.
Q. But in your opinion, Professor, how should a doctor do work in the interest of suffering humanity in cases where, as you have just said, there is no possibility of experiments on humans?
A. The concept of humanity is a very dangerous concept. It is most dangerous for the physician. Above all humanity for the physician there is the individual, and the individual unfortunately was very low in these last few years.
Q. I believe that you have not quite answered my question. I asked: How do you think the doctor is to work, even in the interest of the individual, how is he to clear up questions which cannot be tested on humans and in a test tube as is the case in malaria, for instance, problems which must be cleared up if he is to help his suffering patients?
A. That is naturally a very difficult question, but it will always be of major importanqe, but there must be a certain limit to a risk.
Q. Thank you. Now I come to another point. This morning, Professor, you expressed disapproval about a book which the defendant Mrugowsky wrote. May I ask, have you read this book?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know Mrugowsky personally?
A. No.
Q. Then you do not know his ethical point of view?
A. I said that it was a joke of world history, the quite ironical joke of world history, that the medical ethics of Hufeland were quoted in the form of an excerpt from his writings with a few connecting words and that those quotations were combined in a little volume, and that on the other hand we know in what organization of degradation he was connected with these deeds, which I am questioning here, and I am only speaking about the degradation and not the objective guilt which has not been proven yet.
Q. And is there anything except the facts with which he is charged here?
A. In the final analysis he was still the Chief of the SS Hygienic System, and what the basic medical ethics for the SS were has become historically clear to me in the course of the last few years, and between these two sectors I think there is a large gap, that is the SS medical ethics of Mr. Haupthold. I may perhaps understand that a man like Mr. Haupthold could be lead to a one sided practice of police medicine and could get excited about it, but I could not understand how the SS ethics could be brought into connection with the ethics of William Christian Huefeland.
Q. Professor, you just told us you do not know Mrugowsky at all?
A. No.
Q. Then how can you express a judgment on his personal ethical attitude? You are judging only from the fact that he belongs to the SS. Before you express such a definite opinion as you are doing, as you talked of a joke of world history, must you not first know the personal attitude of the person you are criticizing, and is it not quite possible that a person personally had such an attitude as expressed in this book?
A. I don't believe that one can hold a leading position in the SS and then talk about such ethics if one does not act in ethical cases in what is called double bookkeeping?
Q. But you admitt that is a poor opinion based in no form on a personal knowledge of the person whom you criticized?
A. I do not know Mr. Mrugowsky.
Q. Thank you. I have no more questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions to be propounded to this witness by defense counsel on cross examination?
DR. TIEFENBACH: Dr. Tiefenbach, defense counsel for the defendant Dr. Schaefer.
BY DR. TIEFENBACH:
Q. Witness, I have the following questions to put to you in connection with your statements about the persecution of Jews, of Jewish physicians. In 1938, was it dangerous to quote Jewish authors in scientific writings?
A. That varied considerably. One can be fortunate and one could be unfortunate. I personally remember that as a collaborator and co-worker of the "Frankfurter Zeitung" I once made the attempt to quote the name of my Swiss friend Ludwig Binzwanger in a scientific article, who was only half-aryan, and then the editors struck out that name.
Q. Do you believe that aside from the removal of such quotations by the editors, there would have been any further consequences or had to be any further consequences for a person who cited such a Jewish author in a medical scientific writing? Can you give any examples to this?
A. As far as I take it, you are only referring to the time of 1938.
Q. Yes, that is '33, '34, but up to '38 -- I am asking specifically about such an advance period as 1938.
A. With reference to the first years, I would not think that it was so terribly dangerous; in the year of 1938 it was much more dangerous. As for individual examples as the case of Binzwanger, I cannot think of any.
Q. Would you have considered it unusual if at that time in 1938 you had seen Jewish authors quoted in a scientific writing?
A. Yes, it would have been very unusual.
Q. Yes; and would you assume that a physician who, as late as 1938 quoted Jewish authors in his writings, that this physician agreed with the National Socialist system, in particular, that he would approve of experiments on concentration camp inmates?
A. Now, Doctor, how can one answer such a question. One has nothing to do with the other since there is no such connection in the life of a personality. It is completely illogical.
Q. So that it is not absolutely necessary that the physician who quotes a Jew, who at the same time expresses that he does not identify himself with the system?
A. They are the most remarkable things which may run parallel to one another.
DR. TIEFENBACH: I have no more questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross examination of this witness by defense counsel? Do counsel for the prosecution have any matter with which they can occupy a few minutes?
MR. HARDY: I have four or five questions to put to the witness, your Honor, on redirect.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, proceed.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Professor, you have stated that the attendance of young physicians was not mandatory in the Fuehrer School of German Physicians. Now, I ask you, was it not a command performance, so to speak, for a young physician to attend Blome's school so that he might be able to proceed successfully in his profession?
A. The latter is naturally very probable. I remember similarly that the same was the case with the Reich Labor Service. There were a number of a colleagues who thought that this entire affair was very horrible but they made a show for the outside; they went there and they said it was a very nice life and knew very well that it would be advantageous for their career. I should like to see that young physician who at that time did not try to create such an impression in the interest of furthering his career.
Q. Now, Professor, you mentioned the film "I Accuse." Have you seen it?
A. I did not see the film but I know its contents.
Q. What did it show, Doctor?
A. The film showed, as far as I remember, that a human being who is suffering from an incurable multiple sclerosis should, be killed rather than kept alive and the propagandistic technique of that film was very dangerous for the reason that in a suggestive manner the public was, so-called, asked to take part in the decision so that the help of the public was enlisted in the aid of that decision and should spontaneously arrive at a decision but beyond that, I can say from my experience gained by my neurological practices, that ever since the day that film was shown, the word "multiplesclerosis" was no longer mentioned by me as a physician since I could no longer stand to mention this designation of a disease to my patients.