testified during his interrogation in the stand. (Records page 842 of the German, page 835 the English text). made a withdrawal impossible. Already for this reason therefore he cannot be punished because of membership in a criminal organization. NAUMANN had any knowledge of the fact that the SD intelligence service was employed for the perpetration of any war crimes or crimes against humanity. This was also set forth by NAUMANN during his interrogation in the stand. (Records page 842 of the German, p. 835 of the English text).
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
(The hearing reconvened at 1540 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Durchholz for the defendant, Schulz.
May it please the High Tribunal! opinion as the greatest murder trial of all times. The prosecution declared right at the beginning of its opening statement that it intends to describe the intentional massacre of more than one million innocent and defenseless men, women and children. correct, according to the evidence, - facts have been submitted and it also has been proved from what sources the numbers mentioned in the reports of the prosecution, characterized by it as incriminating evidence, were arrived at, and why it is impossible that those numbers can be correct, besides all this, it has to be established whether murders actually were committed. of a human being for debased reasons, originating merely from the lust and desire to kill. them really constitute killing in this sense, that is murder? Generally speaking, what did the men of the Einsatzgruppen actually do?
All those men were committed to war service. They were soldiers, soldiers like other soldiers in every other country of the world. called upon to do so. The soldier is obliged not to evade this duty and has to be obedient to his superiors. The latter implies that he has to obey all orders and instructions of his superior. If he does not do so, he will be punished. If this happens even in war time, he has to suffer the most sevre penalty it is immaterial whether it is a war of defense or a war of aggression It is absolutely feasible and possible even necessary that an attack provides the best form of defense.
And old proverb states: "The best defense is attack." with which he is commissioned, especially as it is impossible for him as a soldier to realize what kind of a war is being conducted, especially since the modern means of propaganda of both belligerents are apt to confuse the issue. However, we do not have to examine, with regard to this one case as to whether or not the defendants here have made themselves guilty of having started or instigated a war of aggression.
As already stated, those men were engaged in war. Their activities, which constitute the subject of this trial, extended exclusi vely to war commitments against and in the Soviet Union.
It was a war which broke out ultimately in order to bring about a final settlement of the controversies of two indeologies, which were so contradictory that they never could be reconciled. It is not only the controversies between these ideologies of Germany and Russia which are concerned, because these controversies, these divergencies existed then and are still spreading today and, have now engulfed wider and wider circles, is clearly shown by the present world situation. gical controversies. It might be possible that the controversies originally were of an ideological nature. However, later on, they touched all spheres of life, both materially and ideologically. These controversies were not reconciled even after the last fatal war as may be soon by the various warlike conflicts going on in different parts of the world in spite of all efforts at peace and pacification moreover, they have now engulfed the entire world and divided it into two fronts which have become more and more clearly defined.
And in addition each party considers its concept the only right and only true one for the future welfare of all mankind.
For this aim the battle was waged and is till going on. If in the beginning the struggle was restricted to spiritual weapons it ultimately degenerated as a result of human failures, to a struggle with material weapons and developed into a struggle for existence or elimination of one of the two opponents. will take is impossible to predict with certainty, it can only be visualized. And it is good that we are unable to foresee the future. out ideologically or materially, it is the method which counts. this method and ultimately, how these powers had been mobilized by propaganda. But here again it is of importance to consider what kind of men disseminate such propaganda and what kind of people are influenced by it. And here it is significant in what specific psychological, mental and physical condition these people were. I have here no intentions whatsoever of defending or representating a racial theory of any kind. And intensive war of propaganda is being used on both sides. Who is able to say which of the two dies succumbed or had to succumb to its own propaganda? Under those circumstances, is it permissible to make the individual responsible, considering his diversified disposition for whatever he did or still does? Which of the two parties succeeded by its propaganda in honestly convincing the people that its respectively conception of matters and events of this or of the opposing camp was ultimately correct? Which party believes in having to fight for its own convictions until the last?
to you. you will give. opposing ideologies in order to reach a general evaluation of the attitude of these men. You yourself, without being or becoming prejudiced, may give preference to one of the two ideologies. Communism. In this struggle the German soldiers had to fulfil their duties. Communism remains the crucial problem of our time. attitude is now assumed with regard to this problem, without having to discuss the basic points of view of leading politicians renowed and well known scholars of national and international law and without having to quote the opinion of the head of the supra-national Catholic Church, the Pope, who as a Prince of Peace always carefully tried to reconstruct and preserve world peace. I repeat only a few statements which have been published by the world press. The British Prime Minister Attlee made a speech over the British radio on 3 January 1948, in the course of which he sharply criticized Communism. He said other things, that the expansionist aims of the Soviets must be stopped. Soviet Communism endangers the welfare of the European countries by a new kind of ideological, economical and strategical imperialism. The history of the USSR is a warning example of the fact that political of the USSR is a warning example of the fact that political collectivism without political freedom can rapidly deteriorate and may lead to subjugation and uinjustice. Therefore it became necessary to contemplate measures against Communism in England.
Furthermore: at present books and memoirs are often published in the Western World, propagating tendencies inimical to the Soviet-Union. They represent; according to reports of the press, the consequences of the Soviet-Russian expansionist policy and the understandable reaction of those affected by the Soviet-Russian methods. Among others it is announced that also Farenzc Navy, Premier Minister of Hungary until last year, will also publish shortly a book at a New York publishing house concerning the condition in Hungary after the war and his enforced resignation. I may quote even now what Nagy has already stated, namely "Now after it is too late, I realize that I am a living example of the thesis, that no compromise is possible with Communism". (End of quotation.) from Washington of 9 January 1948, a sub-committee of the House of Representatives for the investigation of un-American Activities, resolved. To start on 9 February 19148 with the work on a bill which aims to outlaw the Communism Party of th e United States, by declaring that membership in the Communist Party can be termed an act of high treason.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Durchholz, I don't want to interrupt you, and I certainly don't want to cause you to present your case in any way different from which you wish to present it, but we can't help but comment at this very juncture that what you are now telling the Tribunal is entirely irrelevant and we don't want you to assume that it is having any effect on the Tribunal whatsoever in so far as the issue is concerned. What happens in 1948 has nothing to do with 1941.
I only said that, Dr. Durchholz, so that if there is anything you wish to omit in order to present your entire argument within the hour and a half which has been allotted you, you might omit such arguments as you are now presenting, because I am afraid with the sixty pages or more that you have that you can't read it all within that time anyway.
We, of course, will read the entire summation, regardless of its relevancy or irrelevancy, but this was so far afield that we couldn't help but make some comment on it, and we don't want you to believe that anything we say is in any way prejudicial to the merit of your case.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: There is only one more quotation, Your Honor and I would like to ask you whether I may read this quotation, and then the quotations are at an end.
THE PRESIDENT: You may.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: I may refer to the fact that according to a report from Washington, I quote:
"Italy's Communists are ready" According to this report, the American foreign policy and especially the European Relief Program was sharply criticized at a congres of the Italian Communist Party in which well-known international Communist leaders participated. Among others it had been declared that the USA together with the Holy see tries to attain world domination, that those two are the biggest war mongers. However, tens of thousands of Comminists, trained in guerilla warfare were said to be ready to resist this force of arms." (End of quotation.)
Now I come back to the methods of this struggle. Both parties have again announced that they will be locked in the most intensive struggle. at was like that also in the past-and there it came to open battle. It has been already proved by a series of defense documents and by other evidence how ruthlessly this fight was waged by the opposing camp. Men, women and even children were mobilized to participate in this fight and took part in it either openly or secretly- Is it then surprising that in such a fight for life fire was used to fight fire? Was not the old maximum valid and is it not still valid: "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"? If one party is to be condemned for that reason, then the other one must be tried with the same severity according to the commonly valid principles of justice.
If this concerned a measure applied only against the enemy in the East but not against the enemy in the West then it had and must have had its significant reasons. Regarding the reasons of those measures which were applied against the enemy in the East I have already made detailed statements. introduce the methods which are now termed criminal and damnable? As soldiers they received orders. The question of thebasix significance of an order, of whatever kind it might be, has already been discussed. an order is viewed, whether from the point of view of natural law, national or international criminal law, or from the point of view of constitutional or international law, it is a matter for the individual, to determine his personal views regarding an order, in this case the often discussed Fuehrer Order. In this connection I may state and presuppose that the killing of human beings demanded by the Fuehrer order should not mean the exterminations of human beings for political, racial or religious reasons and with it the systematic execution of a program of genocide - at any rate the defendants were not informed of this implication. order may have been shown unequivocally by the evidence. None of the defendants were confronted by this Fuehrer order without having to overcome inner conflicts. The evidence has also proved how different the solutions of these conflicts were. individual it is import for the facts which have to be established first to determine the so-called external facts, i.e. to establish the the acts which the individual committed or did not commit and then the so-called spiritual guilt, i.e. if he did commit an act, why he did so.
questions of this trial, which affect the interests of all defendants and therefore also those of my client. the related unfolding of problems, I now have to deal in my case, with the defendant Erwin S c h u l z. I wish to precede this with a few essential points. this frankly - so deeply affected by its contents that I had to deliberate profoundly whether I could reconcile with my conscience the taking over of a defense in the face of such grave charges. When going to my first confenrece, I believed I would find my future client to be at least - ruthless and relentless person. Here I had my first surprise, because I learned to know a man whom I soo liked on account of his str aight-forwardness and politeness. vity as a police official, extending over a period of almost 25 years I had my second surprise, because I hardly believed it possible that a man could be able to adhere to such an unblemished course in a difficult vocation and unless extremely difficult circumstances; a position whose heavy responsibilities were all known to me from my own experience. I must candidly confess in his presence, that I was unable to believe everything although he gave his explanations in every respect in anobjective and modest manner. I could irrefutably esyablish by virtue of the currently incoming affidavits of friend and foe, that everything without exceptions of what the defendant Schulz told me not only corresponded to the facts, but that he also explained ot ot me with an exaggerated modesty.
the former political enemies actually volunteeered to help a man to whom they owed respect and gratitude. and addressed or approached third persons, so much so, that strangely enough, I received statements from people without having to ask for them. the assertion that it actually became a necessity for them to render assistance to a man, whose hohesty, humane feelings and chivalry they had personally experienced. It was not necessary for me to go after one witness or to visit one internment camp, in order to assemble the evidence for my defense. As I have already explained when submitting my document books, I could have furnished far more documents, but I intentionally refrained from doing so, because I consider the documents submitted sifficient ecidence to prove that the defendant Schulz is nov even capable of committing a crime. it became a personal necessity for me to be of assistance to this defendant and to relieve him from the monstrous accusation of having committed crimes against humanity. In the same open and sincere manner as he described his profession life to me, he told it to all american authorities including the prosecution, who wanted to know details about it, in the course of his almost three years imprisonment He concealed nothing because he had nothing to conceal. In the same open and sincere manner as he performed his duty he conducted himself from the very first day toward the victorious enemy. It is a fact that he reported personally and voluntarily on the first day of surrender, 8 May 1945, to the American Headquaters at Zell am See; he was in full uniform, submitted all his personal papers and made himself available to account both for his person and the cause which he had to represent.
which the American Officer in Salzburg made out about this fact. It might be that this report also contains the sentence which the defendant spoke to that officer, convinced of the principle that every man should be aware of his own value, namely; "I was the same man before 1933 as after 1933 and if I remain now what I was before then even the discerning enemy will not refuse to pay me his respect." here in Nuernberg towards the prosecution. He voluntarily submitted a voluminous handwritten report of more than 50 pages, a fews days after his first interrogation by Mr. Wartenberg in the presence of Mr. Walton, even before he was acquainted with the indictment and before he had knowledge of even one of the documents exhibited. And everything he submitted in his draft repeated almost verbatim on the witness stand. Not only that, his statements and data correspond in almost every detail to the documents although the latter have been given from memory after nearly 6 years. establish with it right at the start that the statements of the defendant Schulz have not been conceived for the specific purposes of to the truth, openly and honestly without adding any embellishments. Although his membership in the SS and Gestapo up to 1 September 1939 does not constitute a count of the indictment, I have to stress this period too, in a short and concise manner, in order to present a generally comprehensive picture. After the end of thefirst World War from which the defendant returned as a 17-year old soldier and fater passing examination (Abiturientexamen) Schulz had to face a situation which had destroyed his life ambition to become a Physician.
The sudy of law which he had taken up without any inward inclination also and to be interrupted. After a period of practical work in a bank and in a business enterprise he entered the Bremen police force on 5 November 1923. For this vocation he possessed three very essential qualifications: in the first place, his education in the home of his parents. His father was a soldier of long service and subsequently a civil servant. By him he was educated to a sense of duty, conscientiousness, and straigthforwardness of character. Secondly, his inward inclination and disposition towards helping in distress who need assistance, which had manifested itself in his wish to become a doctor and thirdly his study of law. Even though this study had not been completed it had taught him to think and reason along legal lines. These basic principles he always applied as the guide of his actions regardless of the situation in which he was placed. and activity during the first years since they are immaterial to this trial and were described in detail by the defendant on the witness stand. sents an important event which was to determine his life decisively. With reference to his activity here until 1933 Alfred Faust, at that time Social-Democratic member of the Reichstag and chief editor of the Social-Domocraticnewspaper "Bremer Volkszeitung", states in Exhibit no. 35, Scgulz Document No. 11.
I quote: "Long before HITLER'S usurpation of power under the Weimar Republic Schulz was an officer in the Bremen Political Police."
"During the period of my political activity in Bremen I knew Herr Erwin Schulz. I never knew him as a Nazi. He is the typical decent German officer". End of quotation.
On page 31 he continues: I quote:
"In my overall judgment I can only rmember Hauptmann Schulz with respect and gratitude. During his entire term of office in Bremen he always treated correctly and I have no cause whatsoever to bring accusations and charges against him." End of quotations. Reich Banner Black-Red-Gold," the militant organization of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany, and at present leader of all sports activities in Bremen, says in Schulz Exhibit No. 30, Schulz Document No. 2 Volume I, p.7: I quote:
"I know the subsequent official in charge of the State Police office Bremen, Erwin Schulz, already from the time before 1933. Herr Erwin Schulz was at that time First Lieutenant of the Police and was employed in the Polizeidirektion in the department political police. At that time I was the leader of the Reichsbanner (para-military organization of the democratic parties) Bremen and therefore I had to contact him several times when I was making preparations ofr political demonstrations and meetings. Already that time I came to know Herr Erwin Schulz as a quiet and prudent who always endeavoured to balance political emotions and to prevent clashes of a political nature". - End of quotation.
In his statement in Schulz Exhibit No. 21, Polizeisenator Theodor Laue explains as follows: I quote:
"I was known that Police Captain Schulz already before 1933 fulfilled his duties quite objectively assiting members of all political parties if he though it right and necessary out of human considerations." End of quotation.
Schulz did not change his attitude after 1933. Experiencing how for opportunistics reasons now many persons in responsible positions became obedient instruments of the Party outdoing each other in courting it and uncritically not only tolerating but even supporting what was considered right by ill-advised fanatics.
He on the contrary was opposed to all this ad because he was unable to reconcile such behavior with his inner attitude and with his relief in the purity of the National Socialist movement. Thus in indignation he approached the responsible Polizeisenator in Bremen with a public report ruthless disclosing to him the abuses going in the temporary concentration camp in Bremen established at the request of the Party of which he had been confidentially informed.
Here I again refer to the Schulz Exhibit No. 21 Schulz Document No. 60, where the witness Theoder Laue states: I quote:
"In 1933 Schulz submitted t me a report on his then chief Captain Kruse, concerning the temporarily protective custody camp in the Missler Halls in Bremen which had been established in Bremen and in which the SS-guards had resorted to exesses. His report enabled me to take immediate action and to stop the reported shortcomings. The SS-guards were immediately relieved of their duty and the Police first Lieutenant who was responsible was also, immediately transferred as a disciplinary measure. This incident proves, too, that Schulz did not approve of any incorrect actions, not even then as has been unfortunately noticed so frequently when it was a matter of "expediency considerations." -End of quotation. the consequences resulting thereform. Schulz took a heavy burden on himself, for he had to know that he made enemies with such behavior. But he accpeted this consequence without hesitation. already quoted, above says in Schulz Exhibit No. 35, as follows, and I quote:
"Thus it required a good deal of pluck to oppose the hatred of subordinate departments. "End of quotation.
When I single out Schulz' behavior immediately following the so-called seizure of power. I do so because this period in particular with its first ugly appearances of political opportunism gives the best possibility of appraising persons value. But in order to deal moredirectly with the main subject I an not able, unfortunately to discuss in detail the defendant's Bremen period in the time at my disposal especially as - as stated by the Prosecution - this period is not refer red to in the indictment. What kind of difficulties he will have to overcome at a later date, he himself possibly have to account for in Bremen. But I would like to state that when he took over his office in 1934 as the responsible official, he conducted a ruthless purge and at all times supported straightforwardness and justice, which course he also taught his subordiantes.
As for sixteen years without any interruptions, Schulz owrked in the Bremen police force, I deliberately collected a great number of affidavits dating back to that period and submitted them to the court. I did this not only because it was a matter of course that I could obtain the greatest possible number from those sources, but also because I am of the opinion that the person who conducted himself unimpeachably and in an exemplary fashion for sixteen years in one and the same town will by necessity act in the same manner in thesubsequent years, which is also incontestably proved by the documents of that particular period. person as is the case here. In another part of my plea I shall refer to the essential points in those affidavits and proceed to summarize them. Oberlandses erischtsrat Dr. Stegemann as public prosecutor with the Hansatic Court of Appeals at Hamburg, Dr. Stegemann was in charge of the Bremen high treason cases. From those activities he knew the defendant in the period from 1934 to 1939. He states in Schulz Exhibit No. 28, and I quote:
"In the then Captain Schulz I found a man with a complete understanding of the requirements of justice who differed in a very advantageous way from many of the State Police Leaders likewise known to me though his always equitable, humane, and decent manner. Herr Schulz was free from any strict, narrow, fanatical disposition . He never took part in the war of the State Police against the department of justice which was waged by many State Police officers. At that time I learned to appreciate Herr Schulz especially for his frank, straightforward and decent character, his brave, fearless masculinely strong personality." End of quotation. friendly or intimate relations between Dr. Stegemann and the defendant Schulz, outside their official intercourse which could favorably influence the evaluation of the defendant.
During my client's stay in Bremen, he was appointed in the spring of 1938 to take up duties in Graz following the occupation in Austria. For this period, too, I have submitted a considerable number of affidavits which were mostly given by such persons as had been in protective custody, and which consitute a unanimous eulogy for the defendant, unreservedly praising his humane feelings, his chivalry, and his kindness. I deem these documents particularly important because they prove that even in the year 1938 the defendant did not change his attitude and never made nay concessions to the party for opportunistics reasons or even vain ambitions, which he could not reconcile with his conscience and his professional ideals. Apart from this humane a ttitude, the documents prove that his measures and decisions were definitely not favorably received by the Party.
5 Feb 1943_A_MSD_24_1_Gross (Hildesheimer) account who, as an official, parson or convinced Party follower, acted in accordance with the dictates of duty and conviction, and he applied this maxim to his own action. Only an offense against the existing laws or any preceding arbitrary actions could make it necessary to call a person to account. Whoever violated that principle acted, in the defendant's opinion, from reprehensible motives of revenge, which were to be rejected as unjust. mention in particular the testimony given by the Jewish professor, Professor Dr. Loewi, who is now working in New York as professor at the New York University College of Medicine. This is the Schulz Exh. No. 91, Professor Loewi says, and I quote:
"On 6 May 1938 Herr Schulz discharged me from protective custody. The discharge tood place in the kindest form in the presence of my wife whom Herr Schulz on his own initiative had invited to be present." dealing with Jewish persons, had no other guiding principles than that of justice. And quite determinedly he saw to it that his views prevailed although it was especially this release from detention which after a short time was responsible for its turning into a highly controversial matter. In this case, too, it required his personal intervention and all his skill to justify and motivate those measures. by Dr. Loewi's assistant, Dr. Hellauer, in Schulz Exh. No. 99. article in the "Tagespost", a Graz paper, dated 2 July 1938, which the witness Schmid had in her possession and the original of which has been submitted to the court. In this article, the defendant quite frankly announces his professional ideals by asking his officials and employees to allow humane feelings to assert themselves in thier particular 5 Feb 1948_A_MSD_24_2_Gross (Hildesheimer) work, regardless of likes or dislikes.
This does not show sentimentality. If one was not sure that humane sentiments should be permitted expression in a particular job, one had better refrain from that job. Although applying strict rules in the execution of one's duties, this would not exclude a certain amount of chivalry. but also to all those present of whom many had critized the defendant's measures which were motivated by kindness and justice. I consider this newspaper article particularly important, because it proves which ideals guide the defendant, and that he cannot be swayed from this course. Openly defending his views; for there can be no more pronounced action than announcing one's views in the press in order to stamp them as one's beliefs. However, these declarations are really a profession of belief, because word and deed coincide quite difinitely, a fact which is again evidenced by the statements of the political opponents who, according to their positions in life, which they held at that time and are holding again today, must be considered persons whose judgment is both substantial and valuable, because they are excluded from all suspicion or superficiality or an unjustified favoritism. assigned to Assig in the former Sudeten province, which took place in the fall of 1938, and to Olmuetz in the former Protectorate in the spring of 1939. These events are important because the Einsa zgruppen for these assignments had already been activated, and Schulz had been commissioned to lead an Einsatzkommando. A I have only a limited amount of time at my disposla, I can only briefly deal with those periods. the Einsatzkommandos were merely assigned to the primary task of arranging for working space with its necessary billets and providing 5 Feb 1948_A_MSD_24_3_Gross (Hildesheimer) technical means for the regular offices, which were to be set up subsequently, and securing the operations of the invading troops by establishing a communication service.
This is proved by the aforementioned article in the Graz "Tagespost" Schulz Exh. No. 74 in which reads, and I quote:
"He - the defendant - expressed his happiness that he was able to conclude his four months of building, which had created the outer form by being able to turn over this neat building to its function........ Now there follows the second part of the task, the development of the contents, which he unfortunately could not do himself." As in Graz, the same also applied in Olmuetz. And as in Graz, his arrival in Aussig and Olmuetz also meant the arrival of justice, humane feelings, and genuine friendship, which the documents of his former political opponents prove unanimously. include many tasks for the defendant, as the planned setting up of a state police branch office in Aussig had been dropped. Aussig became only a secondary branch of the Reichenberg State Police exactly according to the scheduled three stages, as provided by the Munich agreement, in which after the departure of the Czech troops and authorities, the German troops and administrative offices followed according to a mutual understanding. The whole operation rolled off smoothly under the supervision of Lord Runciman, who had been appointed for this task. That in this instance, too, the defendant Schulz proceeded according to his principles of chivalry is proved by the fact of his attitude towards the Czech Police Chief, Dr. Benda, whose planned arrest he not only prevented, but beyond this even initiated a certain release procedure for the public which had as its aim removing this sting from this action against Herr Dr. Benda. I refer to the affidavit by the defendant, 5 Feb 1948_A_MSD_24_4_Gross (Hildeshimer) Schulz Exh.
No. 88 and the newspaper attached to this affidavit. This action on the part of the defendant could not have been achieved either if he had not personally intervened, for he was obliged to give a motive whenever he deviated from the given orders. As in this case, he never chose the convenient course of blindly obeying orders, but he wanted to be just. His efforts overcame the difficulties and were also successful for the simple reason that a well-meaning man backed them up. It should be obvious, however, that his attitude towards "the smaller fry" was not less well-meaning, even though he protected them "big-shots". The above mentioned newspaper article also proves, as it shows, that the Oberlandrat was the superior authority for Schulz in the Protectorate. Yet another action on the part of the defendant signifies his chivalrous attitude. Completely ignoring the wish of his superior authorities, he did not billet the men in his office in the city hall rooms of Olmuetz, but he allowed the Czech authorities to stay there without imposing any changes, and he soon established cordial relations with them on the basis of mutual respect. He himself only claimed two modest rooms, while members of his Kommando were billetted in the vacant floor of a nearby private house. He replied to the charges of authority and representation brought against him by stating that according to his opinion, authority and representation did not depend on external matters, but were based on behavior and results. After having taken over as ordered, he returned to Bremen in the following weeks, in order to hand over his office there to his successor and to his subordinates to whom he was for many years both a respected and much-liked leader. However, the actual transfer was delayed because hes successor was taken ill, so that he did not return to Reichenberg before July of 1939, approximately. The office he found there required a thoeough reorientation if it was to be in accordance with his views. As a primary measure, therefore, he introduced his 5 Feb 1948_A_MSD_24_5_Gross (Hildesheimer) new subordinate to his professional ideals.