making an indirect case for demilitarisation here, while the allies were negotiating
the Treaty of Versailles and nationalistic groups in Germany were already flirting
with another armed conflict in order to avenge the defeat in 1918.
1.6 Dispute with Fritz Haber About Chemical Warfare
Staudinger attributed the “destructive capacity of modern warfare” to “the tremendous
impact of the latest technology in military conflicts” [4, p. 38]. In this context, he
criticised not only explosives ([4], p. 40: “terrible effect”) in an essay written for the
international Red Cross magazine that appeared in Geneva [8], but also and in
particular chemical weapons, which was therefore an attack on Fritz Haber
(1868–1934), who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1918. Haber headed the
Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut fu ¨r physikalische Chemie und Elektrochemie in Berlin,
which is now named after him. During the First World War, he was involved in the
first mass use of poison gas at Ypern in Belgium and his institute received financial
backing from the German army. He defended the chemical weapons, which – in his
opinion – were “no more cruel than exploding pieces of metal”, particularly since they
did not cause any mutilation (lecture about “Chemistry in the war”; quoted by Klee [9],
p. 214). Staudinger’s article for the Red Cross enraged Haber, who wrote his colleague
a strongly worded letter, accusing him of dramatising the suffering caused by chemical
warfare, thus encouraging defamation by their country’s opponents and harming the
German Empire (see [5], p. 976). Haber felt that the concept of maintaining peace via
technical means was wrong, representing a form of idealism that was completely out of
touch with reality; what was crucial instead was attitude, a willingness to maintain
peace. Staudinger’s response was polite but without any concessions: he readily
admitted that “attitude” is essential for agreement on peaceful coexistence between
different peoples – he himself had already drawn attention elsewhere to “intellectual
forces” [4, p. 38] – but an “aspect” that was no less “necessary” was “the material
basis” [5, p. 976]. From this angle, it was Haber himself rather than Staudinger who
was an idealist, if not a political romantic. Staudinger’s analysis of the destructive
capacity of modern weapons technology, which was based on mathematical calculations, revealed to a greater extent the mind of a matter-of-fact scientist. Staudinger also
rejected the accusation that he was taking sides with Germany’s war enemies, since all
countries were the object of his criticism. It was, instead, Haber who was demonstrating bias – by making such outdated statements as “For humankind in peace, for the
fatherland in war” (quoted by Klee [9], p. 214).
1.7 Not an Uncompromising Pacifist
This argument that war is senseless in the age of technology reflects not the
spontaneous passion of an apostle but the well-considered conclusion of a
Courageous Questioning of Established Thinking: The Life and Work of Hermann. . .
87
the Treaty of Versailles and nationalistic groups in Germany were already flirting
with another armed conflict in order to avenge the defeat in 1918.
1.6 Dispute with Fritz Haber About Chemical Warfare
Staudinger attributed the “destructive capacity of modern warfare” to “the tremendous
impact of the latest technology in military conflicts” [4, p. 38]. In this context, he
criticised not only explosives ([4], p. 40: “terrible effect”) in an essay written for the
international Red Cross magazine that appeared in Geneva [8], but also and in
particular chemical weapons, which was therefore an attack on Fritz Haber
(1868–1934), who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1918. Haber headed the
Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut fu ¨r physikalische Chemie und Elektrochemie in Berlin,
which is now named after him. During the First World War, he was involved in the
first mass use of poison gas at Ypern in Belgium and his institute received financial
backing from the German army. He defended the chemical weapons, which – in his
opinion – were “no more cruel than exploding pieces of metal”, particularly since they
did not cause any mutilation (lecture about “Chemistry in the war”; quoted by Klee [9],
p. 214). Staudinger’s article for the Red Cross enraged Haber, who wrote his colleague
a strongly worded letter, accusing him of dramatising the suffering caused by chemical
warfare, thus encouraging defamation by their country’s opponents and harming the
German Empire (see [5], p. 976). Haber felt that the concept of maintaining peace via
technical means was wrong, representing a form of idealism that was completely out of
touch with reality; what was crucial instead was attitude, a willingness to maintain
peace. Staudinger’s response was polite but without any concessions: he readily
admitted that “attitude” is essential for agreement on peaceful coexistence between
different peoples – he himself had already drawn attention elsewhere to “intellectual
forces” [4, p. 38] – but an “aspect” that was no less “necessary” was “the material
basis” [5, p. 976]. From this angle, it was Haber himself rather than Staudinger who
was an idealist, if not a political romantic. Staudinger’s analysis of the destructive
capacity of modern weapons technology, which was based on mathematical calculations, revealed to a greater extent the mind of a matter-of-fact scientist. Staudinger also
rejected the accusation that he was taking sides with Germany’s war enemies, since all
countries were the object of his criticism. It was, instead, Haber who was demonstrating bias – by making such outdated statements as “For humankind in peace, for the
fatherland in war” (quoted by Klee [9], p. 214).
1.7 Not an Uncompromising Pacifist
This argument that war is senseless in the age of technology reflects not the
spontaneous passion of an apostle but the well-considered conclusion of a
Courageous Questioning of Established Thinking: The Life and Work of Hermann. . .
87