Ich Klage an
Pro-Genocide Nazi Propaganda or Humanitarian Masterpiece?
Part 1

2,424 words

Part 1 of 2 (Part 2 here)

While researching my essay on Die große Liebe, I learned of the infamous pro-euthanasia Nazi film Ich Klage an. I’m glad I did. Oftentimes I watch these old cinematic artifacts for solely academic purposes, but with Ich Klage an, I found myself actually being engrossed in the story.

Ich Klage an, or I Accuse, is a propaganda film about a doctor whose wife becomes ill with multiple sclerosis, a rapidly progressive disease which destroys the nerves and reduces people to paralyzed vegetables. The wife decides that she would rather die than live such an existence, and asks her husband to per her out of her misery. He complies by euthanizing her with a fatal overdose.

A public trial then ensues in which the morality of his actions is debated. In a dramatic speech, the doctor accuses the medical establishment of cruelty for forcing terminally ill people to live in pain, and insists that it should be the state’s responsibility to mercifully end the suffering of such people so that people like him shouldn’t have to.

Not only is it a good movie, but the controversy around it is almost as interesting as the film itself. The fact that it is about euthanasia is only part of the reason why it is controversial. What makes it irredeemably evil in the eyes of many is that it was commissioned by the Nazi government for the purpose of building up public support for its Aktion T4 program, which involved the involuntary killing of the mentally ill and disabled, sometimes including children.

While researching Ich Klage an, I soon noticed that there two very divergent schools of thought about it. The first is what you would expect: It is the most evil movie ever made. In the popular consciousness, Aktion T4 is seen as a sort of trial run for the Holocaust. It was when the Nazis first began dabbling in systematic mass murder. They started with the most unsympathetic members of society — those who wouldn’t be missed by many — with the intention of working their way up to anyone who did not meet Hitler’s rigid racial criteria. Action T4 was the top of the slippery slope; at the bottom lay six million dead Jews. The purpose of the program was not just to kill, but to desensitize the German public to even more killing. This is the History Channel narrative which many people believe. In this view, Ich Klage an is de facto pro-genocide propaganda. Indeed, you will hear Jews and pro-lifers invoke this film as evidence that the Democrats are the real Nazis.

The Christian podcast Breakpoint recently did an episode where they reviewed Ich Klage an. According to them:

With a few stylistic edits and updated production, one could easily imagine this compassionate appeal for “death with dignity” hitting a theater or streaming service today. It’s all there: a fresh young face full of promise shackled by an incurable disease; an earnest plea for a merciful end to her suffering; a husband’s compassionate struggle to aid his love in getting what she wants by offering nuanced counsel to not only the trial judges but the entire culture’s supposedly cold heart.

“Pro-genocide propaganda” has in fact been the dominant narrative about Ich Klage an since the end of the Third Reich. After the war, the entire cast of Ich Klage an was banned from acting in movies on the grounds that they had been complicit in the Holocaust. (At Nuremberg, it was decided that propagandists could also be charged with crimes against humanity.) While the ban was eventually lifted and several of the cast members went on to enjoy long and successful careers, the film itself is still banned in Germany today and can only be screened for academic purposes.

Swedish poster for Ich Klage an with the title Vem Dömer? (Who Judges?)

And yet there is another group of people who, while acknowledging the film’s problematic baggage, nonetheless defend this film as a great work of art — and not just “wignats” and Nazi fetishists, either. There are sincere liberal euthanasia activists who say that if you ignore all the historical context and just look at the film for what it is, Ich Klage an is a thoughtful, sensitive, and balanced exploration of the topic of mercy killing. The Hemlock Society, a right-to-die activist organization, has endorsed the film. Its director, Wolfgang Liebeneiner, who was himself a believer in compassionate euthanasia, refused to apologize for the film and continued to defend it until the day he died.

In a review on the Georgetown University library’s website, its author says the film deserves praise:

Gentle, loving, moving, the picture promotes assisted suicide, a quagmire as conflicted in the twenty-first century as it was in 1941 . . . Does Ich Klage an possess demonic qualities? It does not. It is a respectable, artistic triumph that was used to promote a program that went far beyond anything proposed in the picture. Its director later called it “a document of humanity in an inhuman time.

In France, Ich Klage an was originally to be titled Suis-Je un Assassin?, or Am I a Murderer?, but it was later changed to Suis-Je un Criminel?, or Am I a Criminal?

In the Introduction to a 1993 English translation of Ich Klage an’s dialogue, David Holm of the University of New Caledonia’s history department defends the film as a worthwhile piece of art:

Was lch Klage an a propaganda film? Certainly, it was produced with Ministry of Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda funds, for a political purpose, by a director (Wolfgang Liebeneiner) known for his interest in and support for euthanasia. But to what extent did the film promote its message by twisting the truth, misrepresenting or ignoring the other side of the argument, or using emotion to overrule reason?

More specifically, does the film’s trial scene present the best available anti-euthanasia arguments (and alternatives, such as palliative care)? Does it present them fairly? Are the opponents of euthanasia seen to be as respectable II as the proponents? Do camera angles, lighting, makeup, and expression treat both sides fairly?

 Wolfgang Liebeneiner always denied that lch Klage an was propaganda. Perhaps some current viewers will come to the same conclusion. In the matter of ulterior motive, however, the film constituted classic propaganda. Ich Klage an built a case for voluntary, compassionate euthanasia — not the merciless slaughter of mental patients, the sick and elderly, and millions of healthy Jews, gypsies, and Slavs which was the real intent of the National Socialists’ euthanasia program.

Danish poster for Ich Klage an with the title Læget der Dræbte, or The Doctor Who Kills.

However you feel about the Nazis or where you stand on euthanasia, Ich Klage an is undeniably a remarkable piece of filmmaking. I can see why some liberals are willing to claim it: it’s so good that it actually makes you forget that you are watching a Nazi propaganda movie.

Looking at the reviews on the Internet Movie Database, many of the reviewers are shocked by how good the movie is considering all the lore behind it. One review is titled “Difficult to judge, excellent film with evil intentions”; another “Excellent story in spite of its original purpose.” A third is “Propaganda aside, great film.” These viewers know they are supposed to be appalled by this film, but cannot help but give the devil his due. Even some of the negative reviews acknowledge that it is well made (“and that’s what makes it dangerous!”).

Original movie program for Ich Klage an.

The story takes place in Innsbruck, Austria. The young wife, Hanna Heyt, receives a letter from a university in Munich where her scientist husband, Thomas, has applied for a professorship. She calls her husband at work and reads him the letter. He has been accepted! Thomas is pleased, but Hanna is ecstatic, as she dreams of a new, fairy-tale life in the big city.

The Heyts throw a party at their house to celebrate the big news. Here we meet a few characters whose relationship to Hanna and Thomas becomes highly relevant later, when Thomas is on trial for euthanizing his wife. The first is Berta Link, the Heyts’ housekeeper. She was originally Hanna’s father’s housekeeper. Hanna’s mother died when she was 5, so Berta raised her, and thinks of herself as Hanna’s surrogate mother. When Hanna got married, she left Hanna’s father’s employment to become the new couple’s housekeeper.

We also meet Hanna’s brother, Edward. Edward and Thomas were rivals as children, and Thomas beat him up on multiple occasions. This is recalled in a scene where they joke about their turbulent past:

Edward: Remember how you beat me up in elementary school?

Thomas: Yes, when you called me a socialist.

Edward: You had good reason.[1]

You can buy Trevor Lynch’s Classics of Right-Wing Cinema here.

By far the most important character we meet at the Heyts’ party is Dr. Bernhard Lang. Once upon a time, Dr. Lang was romantically involved with Hanna, and Hanna’s brother and housekeeper both hoped that she would end up with Lang. Dr. Lang does not seem to harbor a grudge and has remained friends with Hanna. Dr. Lang is the closest thing to a villain Ich Klage an has. While he is a nice guy, he is adamantly opposed to euthanasia, and the conflict later revolves around Lang’s and Thomas’ opposing views on the subject.

Near the end of the party, Hanna plays some classical piano music, accompanied by some musicians playing stringed instruments. We see close-up shots of all the musicians’ hands, with their lightning-quick fingers playing intricate musical lines. The eyebrows of those present are raised after Hanna, a virtuoso pianist, makes several mistakes in her playing.

Hanna tells her husband that she has been feeling some numbness in her hands, which she believes is due to pregnancy. The next day she goes to Dr. Lang’s office. She is high-spirited: Not only has her husband just landed a dream job, she is about to become a mother as well. But as Dr. Lang conducts his tests, he become increasingly disturbed as he finds that there is nothing wrong with her muscles, but rather her nerves. She in fact has multiple sclerosis. Dr. Lang informs Thomas Heyt of his diagnosis, although they initially agree to keep the matter a secret from Hanna.

Thomas, being an exceptional scientist with access to state-of-the-art research facilities, makes it his mission to find a cure for the disease. This only compounds the tragedy, as Hanna has only a short time left, and her final days are spent in loneliness given that her husband spends all his time in his laboratory.

It is gut-wrenching watching Hanna die. At the beginning of the film she is bright, vibrant, and full of life, but as her illness progresses and the paralysis slowly takes over her body, she becomes progressively morose and afraid. The cruelest part comes when Thomas believes that he has made a breakthrough. He discovers what he believes is a pathogen. It’s not a cure, but could be a precursor to one. Hanna becomes delusionally optimistic of her chances of recovery, and even tells Berta that she expects to be on her feet and dancing again in two months. Unfortunately, it turns out that the pathogen Heyt has discovered, while a major scientific discovery in its own right, is unrelated to multiple sclerosis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmJpL3XZglE

One day, Dr. Lang comes to visit Hanna to administer her medication. This medication slows the disease, but also makes her feel worse. She tries to talk Dr. Lang into leaving the medicine so that she can kill herself with an overdose. The following exchange ensues:

Hanna: But I want to ask you for something else. Now, while I still can, because I don’t think it will happen . . . But I ask you just for the worst case . . . If I keep getting worse — I can see it coming. My legs are paralyzed, the left arm is gone . . . The right one’s starting to go. You know, I’m not afraid of dying, but I don’t want to just lie there, for years not being human, but only a lump of meat. It would only be a torment for Thomas if I deteriorated like that. And when he thinks of me . . . when I’m dead . . . He’ll be glad. And I don’t want that at all. You’re my best friend.

Bernard: Always.

Hanna: Then forget to take the bottle with you.

Bernard: You’re mad. Surely, you’re not that sick.

Hanna: Promise me you’ll help me when I am. Promise me you’ll spare Thomas and me.

Bernard: Listen, Hannah. I’m your best friend. But I am also a doctor, and a doctor is a servant of life. He must preserve it at all costs.

Hanna: May a doctor delay death if he can?

Bernard: Of course.

Hanna: But he must not shorten the pain of death?

Bernard: No.

Hanna: Why not?

Bernard: Because we don’t know what death is.

Hanna’s condition continues to worsen until one night, Thomas finally agrees to euthanize her, which he does with an overdose of medication in a scene that is very sensitively executed. Dr. Lang arrives immediately afterwards, and they have an angry confrontation. Not only did Thomas Heyt steal Dr. Lang’s girl, he has now killed her, which is moreover something Dr. Lang had refused to do. He calls Thomas a murderer.

Note

[1] It is noteworthy that August Christian Riekel, who wrote the script for Ich Klage an under the name of  Harald Bratt, was himself a former Communist before the Nazis took power. He was a card-carrying member of the Social Democratic Party, and his ideas were so radical that the other Communists forced him to retire from his teaching position in 1931. When the Nazis took over, they had Riekel’s retirement changed to a dismissal, which resulted in a greatly reduced pension. For a Communist, the guy wrote a lot of scripts for Nazi propaganda movies, including some of the most famous ones. He wrote the enormously popular Boer War epic Ohm Krüger, which Goebbels awarded the prestigious title of Film of the Nation and which would beat Ich Klage an for Best Foreign Film at the 1941 Venice Film Festival. He was also an uncredited co-writer on the 1943 German film Titanic, as well as the anti-Semitic propaganda film Leinen aus Irland (Linen from Ireland), which is about a Jewish-owned textile firm that bankrupts all the textile manufacturers in Austria by importing cheap linen from Ireland. He presumably did all of this simply for the money.