Vogt also refers to the “famous Freudian statement” according to which the troubled mind flies into illness and he acknowledges that “the compulsion which originates from this is more often unconscious than conscious”. Liepmann divides the symptoms of the traumatic neuroses into the direct results of the psychic trauma and into “finally adjusted psychic mechanisms”. Schuster speaks of symptoms which are evoked by means of “unconscious processes”. You see, therefore, ladies and gentlemen, that the experiences among war neurotics gradually led further than to the discovery of the mind; they led neurologists very nearly to the discovery of psycho-analysis. When we read in the more recent literature on the subject, of the ideas and views which have become so familiar,—abreaction, unconscious, psychic mechanisms, separation of the affect from its idea, etc.,—we might easily imagine ourselves to be in a circle of psycho-analysts, and yet it has never occurred to these investigators to ask themselves whether, after these experiences in the war neuroses, the psycho-analytical concepts cannot be made use of in the explanation of the usual neuroses and psychoses which were well known to us in peace times. The specificity of the war trauma is universally denied; in general, it is said, that the war neuroses contain nothing and have added nothing new to the already known symptomatology of the neuroses; even the Munich Congress of German Neurologists formally demanded the elimination of the word and concept, “war neurosis”. If, however, the peace and war neuroses are identical in their nature, then neurologists will be obliged to make use of all these ideas of emotional shock, of the fixation of pathogenic memories, and of their continued activity in the unconscious, etc., also in the explanation of the usual hysterias, the obsessional neuroses and the psychoses. They will be astonished how easy it will be for them to traverse the path trodden by Freud, and will regret having shown such obstinate resistance to his hints.