Attacking the Devil: Harold Evans and the Last Nazi War Crime

The title is completely misleading. I literally had to fast forward through the first 2/3 of the movie before a single Nazi is mentioned. A very serious subject is lost in Harold Evans lengthy diatribes and just plain boring on screen talking heads.

After 45 years of the judged process, the German foundation wants to stop indemnifying the Brazilian victims affected by the drug responsible for the malformation of babies, there are 2,584 victims, 300 of whom are foreigners, and 58 in Brazil, receive a monthly pension... And continue to earn high sales de Whiskey... In 1986 Distillers Company Limited was extinguished, 1997 there was a merger of the brands belonging to Distillers Company, through Guinnes, with the creation of the company Diageo, producerSmirnoff and Johnnie Walker ...

It would be a mistake for anyone to miss this incredible and revealing documentary about a horrible pharmaceutical tragedy that could have been easily avoided.

It helps us to see just how far corrupt corporations were and may still go to protect themselves from paying for their own mistakes. But it also shows how one great man....dedicated himself to righting this horrible injustice.

There is one shocking surprise after another....but also a positive ending. I am surprised this man was not given a Nobel Peace Prize for his unselfish efforts on behalf of innocent victims.

But what is the connection to Concentration camps?

It is not a "Nazi Drug". Nor is it a "Nazi" war crime. It was not marketed until 1957. The real criminals are the people that continued to prescribe the drug whilst surpressing knowledge of its harms.

Medical professionals have been negligent? The first question will be "How do we blame someone else"? Clearly the title is misleading at best. The documentary appears to have been created to divert responsibility from those that actually caused the issue to the Nazi's. If you're looking to find the link to Nazis, save yourself 2 hours - the link is (very) tenuous at best. The actual documentary is well presented and you will gain a better understanding of the drug and it's effects. It's really rather good at doing some things, maybe just don't give it to everyone for literally any reason? The discussion of Attorney General V. The Times Newspaper (1973) would have been a more accurate title, and probably a better documentary, but Nazi's sell and the chosen title will get more attention.