|
|
 |
| Dr Robert Jay Lifton |
THE NAZI DOCTORS:
Medical
Killing and
the
Psychology
of Genocide © |
|
|
| Page
85 |
Back |
|
Contents |
Index |
Home
Page |
|
Forward |
|
| |
| Resistance to Direct Medical
Killing |
| |
And Ewald stressed that he spoke from many years of close
professional observation, as a man who has had the opportunity “to really
look into the psyche of his patients and of the people” to a much greater
extent than “the best theorist . . . [or] statistician” concerned
with hereditary research.12*
Ewald
had been initially sympathetic to the Nazis, according to his widow, whom I
interviewed in a nursing home: “He said his Heil Hitler
enthusiastically like everyone else.” Nazi Party, documents confirmed this
attitude, describing him, in 1939, as politically “reliable” and as
having a “positive political attitude toward the Third Reich.”13 Yet Ewald’s persistent attempts to gain
Party membership during the 1930s were repeatedly refused for what were always
described as merely “formal” reasons. Those formal reasons turned out
to be related to Ewald’s First World War injury, which had led to
amputation of one of his forearms. As a “militarily disabled one-armed
person” (as one investigation put it),14
he was prevented from serving actively in the SA or an equivalent organization;
he joined the SA Reserve so as to engage in their military maneuvers despite
his handicap, as he had earlier those of the since-dissolved völkisch
Freikorps “Oberland” which he joined in 1923. In being approved
for renewal of his Göttingen professorship, Ewald was described in 1939 by
a local Nazi personnel officer as “completely sympathetic to the
aspirations of the NSDAP [the National Socialist German Workers’, or Nazi,
Party].”15
The Party documents
further explained that an exception to formal requirements could be made for
certain outstanding people considered “particularly desirable and regarded
as a particular prize for the work of the Party,” but that Ewald did not
meet this criterion. The possible implication is that his professional
standing, though certainly solid, was not outstanding; or that his Nazi
identification, though strong, was not absolute. The latter
“shortcoming” is suggested by his having placed (in late 1938, when
he was director of the Göttingen State Hospital and after these judgments
had been made) a Jewish. patient eligible for work rehabilitation with a German
farm family — an incident that outraged Party officials.16†
Yet he had what his widow called a
“kind of connection“ with Hermann Göring through having treated,
and kept in the Ewald home, one of the |
__________
* Ewald received replies to
the letter from his dean, Dr. Stich (cautious agreement and return of
documents), from Conti (friendly disagreement), and from the state official,
but apparently none from Heyde or Matthias Göring.
† The
local Nazi leader in Mengershausen reported to the district leader in
Göttingen that this Jewish patient had been observed at church festivals
dancing with “German girls.” This official then wrote to Ewald:
“The understanding of the Third Reich of agrarian estate does not allow
under any circumstances the presence of Jews on German farm land.”
Moreover this Jew’s appearance in public had caused offense. Ewald
returned the patient to the state hospital immediately, after explaining that
he had been pressured by the government of Hanover to put as many patients as
possible in home care because it reduced the burden to the state. Also, farmers
were short of help and competed for such patients. However, no more Jews would
be sent to farms.17 |
|
| |
THE NAZI DOCTORS:
Medical Killing and the
Psychology of
Genocide
Robert J. Lifton
ISBN 0-465-09094
©
1986 |
|
Back |
Page 85 |
Forward |
|
|
