You have to imagine that these men formerly occupied a very important position in their country and also had the corresponding character. I have to insert here the remark that this Minister of Justice in particular and the Lawyers and other people, with whom I spoke, were a big exception from other political prisoners in the camp. They represented a higher stage, because as far as I know, they did not ask for any advantages that they could have had, because it was their opinion that if they could get another piece of bread or additional butter, they did not want it in order not to harm their comrades. That was their basic principles.
One day I was sitting opposite these men. They had their hair shaved off, they were thin and poverty stricken and they sat opposite me in their blue striped suits. We then discussed the questions which were in our minds because of this terrible terror of the informers. I, as a lay-man, was informed by them in a manner which seemed very obvious to me. They said, first you have to see who is your superior, legal office. That was very simple, that was the highest legal office, which was my superior and also that of the inmates, it was Himmler himself and his deputies. That we could not expect any justice from them was clear to everybody. We did not even have to talk about that. In addition, the paradoxial and unique feature of that was that Himmler in particular and his associates, who had established the concentration camps, who were the superiors of the guards, were also the highest judges. Himmler and his plenipotentiaries held these combined positions. This informer system and this killing system through the combination of criminally charged persons and the political Inmates who were not considered criminals, they had thought out this mean and complicated system for the camps which held about 15,000 people.
They had then under their control by this method and besides certain groups, which later combined a resistance group, no inmates could trust another one.
Therefore, one was confronted with the question what one should do next. Not a single inmate, either a political prisoner or a foreigner, was sure of his life and he never knew whether he should live to see the next day. These political prisoners, who agreed to be informers, were those professional criminals or some others who agreed to fulfill this task. They did this in order to receive a reward or because of personal hatred of the representatives of the bourgeois circles.
These facts existed and the officers of the justice administration said that no help was to be received from the legal officers, they would not do away with the conditions, therefore one would have to form an illegal committee which would then have to decide what was to be done with these informers. They did not feel entitled to judge the acts of such informers, but they told me there would only have to consider those cases in which they were forced to prevent further crimes that would cost the lives of a large number of other prisoners.
The other credible thing and the terrible thing that even today seem to be unbelievable to me was that political prisoners, be they Germans or foreigners, who fought against the SS, also assumed the risk that they would be discovered or their movements would be discovered and that they should be shot or hanged. But among them there were also some whose principle was, "I don't care about any one, I do not take any active part and I do my work in a way that nobody notices me." It was possible and it could happen that an informer happened to see this person's name on a list or heard from another inmate and put him on such a list, and the inmate then disappeared.
In such a manner, he was reported and innocently was accused.
The terrible thing was that this system had become some sort of home remedy. Individual blocks in which the prisoners lived five hundred together, there chief officer was an. inmate who was called the block eldest or the block trustee.
When I was working with the illegal camp administration and committee, the conditions were as follows: These block trustees, if they were professional criminals or if they had been condemned before, had the following system:
(1) they needed money and (2) they needed food. They had no other means at their disposal than taking the daily food which the prisoners got three times a day, they took 20 to 50 portions away, especially from prisoners who had been newly delivered into the camp.
Q. Dr. Hoven, I only wanted to know with whom you discussed the justification of the killings?
A. I talked with legally trained persons.
Q. Can you name one of them?
A. I named thos one Minister of Justice of Holland.
Q. Do you still remember his name?
A. At the moment I cannot recall it, but it is known.
Q. When was he Minister of Justice in Holland?
A. It must have been before 1959.
Q I now come to another point that was discussed here, that once you were in the horse stable where Russians were being shot. Were you there in capacity as physician or on order of the illegal camp administration?
A I was there only on the order of the illegal camp administration.
Q What was the purpose of your visit there?
A To observe Kuschnir Kuschnar and to observe what he did. This was impossible for the camp inmates. They were not admitted. Naturally the political prisoners were very interested in finding out what happened to their associates there.
Q Did you observe Kuschnir Kuschnar there?
A Yes, only for a short time.
Q I now submit to you again document 2312, that was submitted as Prosecution Exhibit No. 524.
A I have it here.
Q No, please at the original. Please pay attention to the dates. When was the document composed?
A 22 - no Buchenwald 6 August 1942.
Q When was the penalty with twenty five lashes executed?
A On the 6th of August 1942.
Q Now please turn the document over and read when the permission was granted?
A 10 August 1942.
Q Do these dates give you any reasons for knowing whether you signed this document before the execution of the penalty or after?
A It must have been after the execution. I don't quite understand what you mean counsel.
Q When was the document composed?
A 6th of August 1942.
Q When was Woidelek delivered into the concentration camp Buchenwald?
A On the same day - 6 August 1942.
Q When was this penalty executed?
A On the 6 August 1942.
Q When was the permission granted?
A That can be seen on the back of the page.
Q On the 10th August 1942?
A On the 10th of August 1942.
Q What results as a conclusion from these dates?
A That on the 6th of August while on his flight he was returned to the camp and on the 6th of August 1943 he was given the punishment.
Q Does the possibility exist that the document was submitted to you only after the punishment was Carried out so that you could no longer prevent this punishment when you see this date?
A I said this already before. I said it was submitted to me afterwards.
Q Can you give a reason for this?
A Well certainly, if he was brought back to the camp, I can give the best reason. It won't be a legal one but from experience I assume that after he fled he was brought back to the camp. He came into the camp and on the order of the commander he was immediately given 52 laches. That is my experience. It is not a legal reason but that usually took place without long discussions, that is what I assume, and I do know actually that orders existed that prisoners who fled should be shot and this commander Pister who signed this, had a somewhat softer heart and changed it by placing instead the death penalty, he had 25 blows administered to them, which essentially was much pleasanter, I assume that from the fact he was delivered on the same day that he got the blows on the same day.
Q Could you have prevented the carrying out of this penalty?
A I certainly could not have done so.
Q Now to speak about the category of professional criminals, what kind of inmate are we concerned with here, to what category did he belong?
A To the professional criminals, the green ones.
Q What can be concluded from that as to the nationality of the inamte?
AAt least he was a German, a Volksdeutscher.
Q Where was he born?
A I sec in Berlin, he was a German.
Q So what was he?
A He was a German professional criminal.
Q In regard to the carrying out of the penalty of the beating, I would like to call the attention of the Tribunal to the statements which I shall submit, especially the affidavit by Gottschalk, document Hoven 2, Exhibit No. 14, on page 11 of the English document book. Gottschalk takes an attitude in regard to the carrying out of his punishment, especially to the fact that Hoven did everything in his power to prevent this punishment and it shows in particular that political prisoners, especially the illegal camp committee, also interfered the matter, end that the illegal camp committee were present during the investigation. May I quote:
"When Dr. Hoven became physician and thus came under the influence of Walter Kraemer, Karl Peix - the underground movement - a change set in. Hoven refused his signature under influence and as the first of all the doctors had the courage to demand and carry out a medical examination before the whipping. Since we prisoners were present" -- and Mr. President I think this is decisive - "at these examinations we were able to save quite a number of political prisoners, and also some others who were all right, from the whip. We could not save them all but so far as I remember from that tire until my release scarcely a political or otherwise prisoner from conviction went to the whipping post."
The same can also be been by Richart's affidavit to which I would like to call the attention of the Tribunal, document Hoven No. 5, Exhibit Hoven No. 15, pages 18 to 22 of the document book. I beg your pardon, your Honors, it is not Richart's affidavit, it is the affidavit of Schaeuben, document Hoven No, 19, Exhibit No. 4, No. 2 and 3. In No. 2 Scheublen describes his own case:
"Easter 1941 was reported for punishment by the camp leader of his time, Plaul, for alleged laziness. In consequence of this report I was supposed to be dealt 25 strokes 2 days later. My comrades and acquaintances advised me to see Dr. Hoven and to ask his help. I thereupon petitioned Dr. Hoven. Dr. Hoven made inquires regarding the incident and in some illegal way prevented the execution of the punishment."
Them Schaeublen describes another case where the witness, Dr. Hoven in 1942, prevented the carrying out of the punishment with flogging of two Polish prisoners. This was supposed to be a public flogging.
In the affidavit of Schaeublen I would like to call the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that Schaeublen was a professional criminal. This can be seen on the first page of the affidavit where he says, "I received the green triangle because of some previous convictions, and I belonged to the category of professional criminals." This shows that Dr. Hoven did not only prevent the flogging of political inmates, but also of professional criminals who wore the green triangle unless they were informers or traitors.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, how much longer do you anticipate your redirect examination of this witness will require?
DR. GAWLIK: About fifteen minutes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Witness, during the cross examination Document NO-265, the diary of Ding was discussed. Dr. Hoven, do you have that?
A Yes, I have the document book.
Q Page 36 of the German. It is the entry of the 17th of March 1942. By means of referring to the document please find out when the experiments took place and when, the illness of Ding you once exceptionally were supposed to supervise Blocks 44 and 49.
A I supervised 44 and 49, yes, that is correct, but during that time no experiments were carried out.
Q When were the experiments carried out, on what date?
A By Dr. Ding, you mean?
Q Yes, when? You can see that on page 37.
A On the 6th of January 1943 and 1 February 1942.
Q Please repeat. I didn't understand.
A On 3 March 1942.
Q When did it become apparent that Ding was sick?
A On 17 March 1942.
Q And when was the nest experiment carried out?
A On 19 August 1942.
Q Now, I am going over to another point, to Document NO-2366. Do you have that before you? It is the report by Dr. Morgan.
A No, I don't have it.
Q Please tell the Tribunal what we are concerned with here, whether it is a sentence or a judgment or what kind of a document it is.
A It is an investigation, the final report on an investigation.
Q Please, what does it say on the first page?
A Indictment, indictment, it says.
Q And who wrote the indictment?
A Dr. Morgen.
Q Please turn to page 46 where Dr. Morgen gives his opinion about the legal situation of the killings. Do you have that paragraph? Please read what legal opinion Dr. Morgen had about a killing of inmates.
A On page 48?
Q It is page 46.
A Oh, 46.
Q The legal situation.
A I can't see anything.
Q The typewritten page 46.
A Yes, it says about an embezzlement. The numbers are at the right upper corner of the page.
Q In typewritten -- not handwritten 46.
A Oh, with the typewriter -- there is a hole here.
Q 53 in handwriting.
A "The right"--shall I read?
Q Yes please.
A "The right to decide about life and death of concentration camp inmates is transferred to the Reichsfuehrer SS. He, for certain categories of inmates, especially members of the Easter peoples, has delegated this power to central offices of the RSFA."
Q All right, thank you. Now please turn to page 67, typewritten page 67.
A I can't read it.
Q Page 74 in handwriting.
A Page 74, yes.
Q In that middle of the page, what Dr. Morgen wrote about you. Please start with the sentence, "His large achievement in Buchenwald"-it says here "direction" Leitung, but it must mean Leistung, achievement.
A "His great achievement in Buchenwald is that among the inmate nurses and physicians he recognized the really able persons and left them free play. Through his good connections of official and private nature he also secured for the hospital all kinds of advantages and prevented disturbing interruptions. Due to that - and this is a personal achievement of Hoven's -- the camp remained free of pests and with in the scope of what is humanly possible everything was done for the sick people that was possible at all when one takes into consideration the temporal and camp conditions."
Q Please continue.
A "This attitude of Dr. Hoven's already also had some disadvantages since he relied blindly on political inmates. It is to be assume with certainty that this key position which they had because of that, they misused for the purpose of camp administration."
AAll right, then please turn three pages over.
A Page 76?
Q No, 70, page 70, what he says about Kuschnir Kuschnarev, page 77 in handwriting.
A Page 77?
Q Yes, in handwriting.
A I don't see page 77 in handwriting.
Q I think you confuse the figures - the handwritten figure 77 and typewritten page 70.
AAll right.
Q What does Dr. Morgen say about Kuschnir Kuschnarev?
A "The inmate, Kuschnir Kuschnarev"
Q I do not want to take up the time of the Tribunal. Begin with the sentence, "SS Standartenfuehrer Koch"-
A "SS Standartenfuehrer Koch used him as camp informer against the Communist cliques among the concentration camp inmates."
Q Thank you, that is all.
A But not only Koch did that, but it was done in agreement and on or of Heydrich. Because of this man he reproached me especially. He described him as the most devoted and helpful assistant of the SS.
Q Please look at the affidavit of Ackermann again.
A I don't have it.
Q Please turn to page 2. Did you ever have a conversation of that kind with Ackermann?
A I never had such a conversation with Ackermann. What surprises me most in this matter is how a man can get this idea at all. It is just about the most absurd thing that I have ever heard and everyone who knows me would laugh about it. Moreover, I never had a skull on my desk. The only thing that the inmates put on it was a bunch of flowers every day. I could have obtained such things for some medical interest from prisoners who had died if I had been interested in it, but I didn't have any interest in it at all.
Q. Finally, the following. Is it correct that you killed two informers and traitors who were described to you as such by the illegal camp committee, is that correct?
A. Yes. I had to kill them because no one else could do it.
Q. Is it correct that you had knowledge about the killing of about fifty further informers and traitors?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. And is it furthermore correct that with the last - the ninety you had nothing to do?
A. No, I only found out about the killing afterwards.
Q. And if the killing of these informers and traitors would have been reported by you to the SS what would have been the result?
A. A very welcome action against political German and foreign prisoners. At least, would have had reason for their actions.
Q. Do you have anything more to say to the question of the Prosecution, namely why you will not mention the names of the illegal camp committee who carried out the killing of about 50 informers?
A. That would not lessen my responsibility. I said already that there was no other possibility. I understood that and there were no ethics in a concentration camp - only the naked life of the inmates was concerned. And I do assume the responsibility for that.
Q. And what were the further motives that are decisive here?
A. That a smaller number of other inmates would be killed.
Q. No, you misunderstood my question, Dr. Hoven. What motive is decisive for your not naming these names?
A. My case has not yet been decided and as long as it has not been decided I do not have the right to name these names because it is my opinion that if I did name them I would not better than the traitors and informers against whom I fought.
Q. I have one more question. With regard to Ackermann's affidavit. Can you make some statements to the effect whether it is possible at all to prepare a skull from day until tomorrow. That is, within 24 hours.
Don't you know that?
A. I can't answer that from my own experience. But I really can't imagine it and I believe if he would be such an honorable person as he tried to describe himself he would at least had tried to convince me not to give such terrible awful order, even considering conditions in a concentration camp regardless of the fact that I never even thought of saying such a thing.
Q. Mr. President I have no further questions to the witness but I have to submit three further documents.
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I ask the Tribunal to excuse the defendant Mrugowsky tomorrow afternoon from the session. A witness which the Tribunal permitted me to call arrived in the prison yesterday. I do not intend to summon him here on the witness stand but if possible shall submit an affidavit from him. For the preparation , however, I have to discuss a number of questions with Mrugowsky, Therefore,I ask that he be excused by the Tribunal during the afternoon session tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: Pursuant to the request of counsel for the defendant Mrugowsky the defendant Mrugowsky may be excused from attendance before the Tribunal during the session tomorrow afternoon counsel desiring to consult with his client concerning the latter's defense. Counsel for the defendant Hoven may proceed to offer the documents.
MR. HARDY: It is my understanding that the testimony of Hoven has been completed?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The defendant Hoven may be excused from the witness stand.
DR. GAWLIK: The next document which I submit as Document Hoven No. 11, Exhibit Hoven # 17, that is page 38 of the Document Book. It is an excerpt from one of the documents submitted by the Prosecution in Case IV, 499PS, Exhibit 123. By this document I want to prove what means were used by the defendant Dr. Hoven or with his knowledge the the informers used who were killed, and what means they had to kill the decent inmates, especially political German and foreign prisoners.
The next document I want to submit as Document Hoven 15, as Exhibit Hoven. No. 18 on page 54 of the Document Book. This document, your Honor, is a supplement to Pieck's testimony, page 4785-86 of the German transcript and page 4725-26 of the English transcript and a supplement to the affidavit of Pallandt van Eerde, page 45 of your document Book, Document Hoven #13, which I already submitted as Exhibit Hoven No. 10. From this affidavit by Palland as well as from Pieck's statement results that Hoven maintained his contact with the Netherlands hostages. Document Hoven No. 15, that is Exhibit 18, you see this was strictly forbidden and that the defendant Hoven by that acted contrary to existing regulations. Inmates of the camp under Keitel decree, NN-decree, as it is known were forbidden every correspondence with others.
And as a further document in the same connection I submit Document Hoven #16 as Exhibit Hoven 19. It is an excerpt from a document which the Prosecution submitted in case 4 -- Document NO 1553, Exhibit 69, in that case. The 2 paragraph says, "In the case of NN inmates, care must be taken that they do not get into touch with their relatives or any other authority." And from the first paragraph, I submit that as evidence to the subject: Releases from the camp. From this it appears that it was even forbidden to make application for discharge to RSHA or RKPA. In spite of that the defendant Hoven acted contrary to those regulations and illegally especially with the help of his office, succeeded in having large numbers of inmates discharged in this manner. With this I have concluded my submission of evidence for the defendant Hoven for the time being. However, I reserve the right to submit further evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: The right to offer further evidence is reserved to counsel for the defendant Hoven. The Tribunal will now be in recess until 0930 o'clock tomorrow morning.
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al; defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 25 June 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I. Military Tribunal I 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, you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court. Counsel for the prosecution.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, unless I haven't carefully perused the papers in my desk, as yet I haven't received the notice of the call of the witnesses for the defendant Pokorny, and I should like to receive those notices as to name, and so forth, the regular form. In addition to that, Your Honor, it may be possible that the prosecution will have some of their rebuttal witnesses here by the end of the week and we may be able to put some of them on the stand Friday or Saturday, as the case may be. In the event that we do have rebuttal witnesses ready and available, the prosecution requests permission at that time, or will request permission at that time, to call the rebuttal witnesses and interrupt the presentation of the supplementary documents on behalf of the defendants, if that is permissible by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be permitted by the Tribunal. We will hear the witnesses when they are ready.
The Tribunal has on its desk this morning the list of witnesses, at least two witnesses for the defendant Pokorny - just a list of names. We have not received the statement as to each individual witness. The witnesses are Rudolf Trux and Dr. Ernst Koch.
MR. HARDY: May I ask, does defendant Pokorny's attorney intend to call his witnesses after he has called the defendant?
DR. HOFFMAN (Counsel for the defendant Pokorny): Mr. President, I believe that I submitted my witness list in time. First, I wanted to call the defendant Pokorny to the witness stand, then the witness Trux as the next one, to prove the assertions of the defendant Pokorny about the motive behind his letter. Then, in the matter of the experiments with palladium, the witness Dr. Koch will be called from Madaus and Dresden-Radebeul; and, finally, the lecturer in pharmacology at the University of Wuerzburg, Dr. Jung, as general experts on the sterilization questions on a pharmacological basis.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal now calls the case against the defendant Pokorny. At the request of defendant's counsel, the defendant Pokorny will take the witness stand.
(ADOLF POKORNY, a defendant, took the stand and testified as follows:)
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q. Please hold up your right hand and be sworn:
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.)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. HOFFMAN (Counsel for the defendant Pokorny):
Q. Witness, when and where were you born?
A. I was born in Vienna on 26 July 1895.
Q. Witness, please tell the Court something about your parents and the external circumstances under which you grew up in your parents' home.
A. My father was a farmer's son. He studied technics and then he graduated from the Farmers' Agricultural College. Upon request of the Ministry of War in Vienna he accepted a position as a military official in Austria. When Czechoslovakia was created, he was taken over and the Republic continued to pay his pension.
My father thus was not only an officer but, having studied at college, he was especially educated in general subjects. My mother was a daughter of a physician. Her father had been as assistant of the famous Czech oculist des Purkiny. Her essential characteristics were an extraordinary knowledge of languages - she spoke seven languages - and her understanding of music and literature. My parents, because of the position of my father as a military official, lived in Austria, Herzegovina, Bosnia, Dalmatia, Poland and, finally, in Bohemia. I, myself, in addition also lived two years in Hungary - that was conditioned by the World War. The consequence of this soldiering, I would like to say, in all of Europe was an exact knowledge of European conditions, furthermore, an understanding and a love of the different peoples and, therefore, a tolerant attitude politically.
Q. Witness, what was your formal education?
A. I went to public school partly in Galicia, that was a military school which taught in the German language. My further education I got in Bohemia in the Gymnasium in Prague.
Q. At what universities did you study?
A. I studied at the German University in Prague-I studied medicine there. I began approximately at the beginning of the World War. Since I was drafted into the Austrian Army, I lost four years which I could make up for only in part, namely, only one year. Due to the loss of these semesters, I was forced to work day and night since my parents too had lost all their property due to tho war. Therefore, I worked simultaneously, in addition to my study, at the Institute for Experimental Pathology, the chief of which was the famous Professor Biedl, who was not only my chief but also a fatherly friend to me. Then I worked at the Institute for Physiology with Professor TcermakZeiseneck, and for an especially long time in tho Institute for Anatomical Pathology under Professor Ghon, a well-known tuberculosis and cholera research man. At this Institute, I studied especially pathological histology and this resulted in the fact that Professor Kreibich, who needed a histologist, called me to the skin clinic.
Politically, as a student, I was democratic and liberal in accordance with the atmosphere and conditions in Prague. I was also not a member of ay national fraternity.
Q. Witness, why did you study medicine?
A. The beginning of the World War in Serbia was a very shocking experience for me and, since I was leaning anyhow in a pacifistic direction, the World War convinced me that war is a condition that one should not strive for and, due to these spiritual experiences, of the World War, I felt the call to become a physician in order to help humanity.
Q. Witness, in the medical field did you also get a specialized training in a specialty?
A. After I went to the skin clinic I soon become an assistant of Professor Kreicick who, at that time, was probably one of the leading dermatologists of the world. He gained a particular confidence in me, and soon I became as assistant, one month after I graduated. He put me in charge of the infirmaries. I was in charge of two departments. He charged me with the responsibility for the lectures that everything was prepared, that the charts and exhibits would be ready and he charged me finally to lecture during the summer semester myself. He only reserved the winter semester to himself, and I lectured in the summer. I was, in other words, so to say, a scientific assistant and private assistant.
In addition, I studied X-ray, because my financee was an X-ray specialist, at the Second University Clinic for Internal Diseases under Professor Jabsch Wartenhorst, who was a leading man, at the beginning of X-ray and especially toxicology. His X-ray assistant was Professor Herrnhaeuser. I was especially interested in X-ray diagnosis as a borderline field of my field of specialization. I then went to Vienna, where my wife worked at the Central X-ray Laboratory of Professor Holzknecht. I was in the Urological Station of the Second Surgical Clinic where Professor Honig was in charge. In the Urological X-ray station, Professor Pallogey, and in the Dermatological, Richl and Arz. Later, there were short sojourns at other universities for certain specialized studies which are not very important.
Q. After finishing your medical study, did you want to remain at the University or did you want to establish your own practice of medicine?
A. There were certain factors which favored me at the University of Prague. In addition, I had worked scientifically. Therefore I wanted to become a University professor. Professor Kreicich had also promised me to help me and informed me that the preliminary question in regard to fifty-four professors had resulted in fifty-two positive answers, one vote against me, and one who had refrained from voting.
Due to the selection of a Jewish Rector, Professor Steinherz, there were student riots in Prague against this selection and we assistants in the skin clinic did not participate in this strike. Therefore, we were described as scabs and this put us in a rather bad light. The National, course at the University began, at that time, to take form rather intensively, supported by Professor Oeschneck, who was in charge of the Eye Clinic, and Professor Schloffer in Surgery, and others. My chief, who was otherwise liberal, could not also avoid this influence entirely and, since my wife was Jewish, I saw that I might not get my assignment as lecturer.
Q. How and where did you then create your own medical practice?
A. I then was called to Komotau and there I took over as first consulting physician at the Hospital, but, in 1927, I gave it up for external reasons. Simultaneously, I founded my own practice for dermatology and urology and my wife founded a practice for X-ray diagnosis and X-ray therapy.
Q. During the years when you were a practicing physician, did you also work scientifically?
A. Scientific work, especially in the pathological histological field, of course. Also in the dermatological field. I composed these papers at the clinic alone, as well as with the assistants, as well as with my wife. On the basis of my experience in practice, I also wrote some papers, mainly together with my wife. The subject was dermatology or X-ray diagnostics or concerned with X - ray therapy. Since 1923, due to a personal connection, I worked also in the pharmacological clinical field for the Prague pharmaceutical firm, Neugine. Altogether I wrote about twenty papers, of which I would like to mention only two. Namely I described, at the International Dermatological Congress in Munich, in 1922, a new disease, dermatitis rubra (pemphius vulgaris), which got my name.