soldierly views. This was a description that – in Heidegger’s opinion – fitted
Staudinger; the research done by the vice-chancellor produced so much incriminating evidence of this that he initiated impeachment proceedings against
Freiburg’s star chemist:
• In July 1933, vice-chancellor Heidegger contacted the physicist Alfons Bu ¨hl
(1900–1988) who had qualified to be a professor in Freiburg but was now
teaching at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, where Staudinger
used to work. Bu ¨hl was supposed to get to the bottom of “various rumours” [33,
p. 209], particularly the rumour that Staudinger had “acted as an advisor to
enemies abroad” during the First World War, with respect to “the production of
chemicals of importance to the war effort, particularly [. . .] dyes and pigments”
[33, p. 203]. This had at any rate been investigated by the German Embassy in
Bern at the time. Bu ¨hl was unable to find out anything specific and was referred
by a member of the staff of the Consulate General in Zurich to the Baden district
authorities in Karlsruhe, where “material about Mr Staudinger from the year 1919
was available” [33, p. 209]. In this context, Heidegger’s biographer, Hugo Ott,
stresses that the Staudinger affair was definitely attributable to the action taken by
Heidegger; the driving force was not, as has often been claimed, the Ministry of
Culture in Karlsruhe, which was only involved later on. Deichmann [19, p. 398]
writes: “Staudinger never found out that it was Heidegger who denounced him in
1933; his wife, Magda Staudinger, heard about it in 1982 via an article by Hugo
Ott in the Badische Zeitung newspaper.” (cf. [33], p. 207)
• On 29 September 1933, the head of the university department at the Baden
Ministry of Culture, Eugen Fehrle (1880–1957), was in Freiburg and was
“informed” by Heidegger about “incriminating political material about Hermann
Staudinger [. . .]” [33, p. 202]. Just one day later, Fehrle submitted a report to the
Freiburg police – 30 September was the deadline for the initiation of proceedings
for political reasons on the basis of the Act passed on 7 April 1933 to restore the
civil service, which enabled the Nazis to arbitrarily remove civil servants who
had made themselves unpopular from their offices. The investigations against
Staudinger were then taken over by the secret police in Karlsruhe under the
pseudonym “Sternheim Project” (cf. [34], p. 177). It says in the files that
Heidegger “was unable [. . .] to provide the secret police with any useful
information” [33, p. 202]; instead of this, he merely passed on rumours. In the
subsequent months, the secret police therefore collected “three extensive bundles of files” [33, p. 202] from documents at the Karlsruhe district authorities
(Staudinger worked at Karlsruhe Technical University until 1912), from the
German Consulate General in Zurich and from the German Embassy in Bern.
Farı ´as [34], pp. 177–178) writes: “The material obtained by the secret police
[. . .] was sufficient for a case to be initiated against Staudinger in Karlsruhe.”
Courageous Questioning of Established Thinking: The Life and Work of Hermann. . .
109
Staudinger; the research done by the vice-chancellor produced so much incriminating evidence of this that he initiated impeachment proceedings against
Freiburg’s star chemist:
• In July 1933, vice-chancellor Heidegger contacted the physicist Alfons Bu ¨hl
(1900–1988) who had qualified to be a professor in Freiburg but was now
teaching at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, where Staudinger
used to work. Bu ¨hl was supposed to get to the bottom of “various rumours” [33,
p. 209], particularly the rumour that Staudinger had “acted as an advisor to
enemies abroad” during the First World War, with respect to “the production of
chemicals of importance to the war effort, particularly [. . .] dyes and pigments”
[33, p. 203]. This had at any rate been investigated by the German Embassy in
Bern at the time. Bu ¨hl was unable to find out anything specific and was referred
by a member of the staff of the Consulate General in Zurich to the Baden district
authorities in Karlsruhe, where “material about Mr Staudinger from the year 1919
was available” [33, p. 209]. In this context, Heidegger’s biographer, Hugo Ott,
stresses that the Staudinger affair was definitely attributable to the action taken by
Heidegger; the driving force was not, as has often been claimed, the Ministry of
Culture in Karlsruhe, which was only involved later on. Deichmann [19, p. 398]
writes: “Staudinger never found out that it was Heidegger who denounced him in
1933; his wife, Magda Staudinger, heard about it in 1982 via an article by Hugo
Ott in the Badische Zeitung newspaper.” (cf. [33], p. 207)
• On 29 September 1933, the head of the university department at the Baden
Ministry of Culture, Eugen Fehrle (1880–1957), was in Freiburg and was
“informed” by Heidegger about “incriminating political material about Hermann
Staudinger [. . .]” [33, p. 202]. Just one day later, Fehrle submitted a report to the
Freiburg police – 30 September was the deadline for the initiation of proceedings
for political reasons on the basis of the Act passed on 7 April 1933 to restore the
civil service, which enabled the Nazis to arbitrarily remove civil servants who
had made themselves unpopular from their offices. The investigations against
Staudinger were then taken over by the secret police in Karlsruhe under the
pseudonym “Sternheim Project” (cf. [34], p. 177). It says in the files that
Heidegger “was unable [. . .] to provide the secret police with any useful
information” [33, p. 202]; instead of this, he merely passed on rumours. In the
subsequent months, the secret police therefore collected “three extensive bundles of files” [33, p. 202] from documents at the Karlsruhe district authorities
(Staudinger worked at Karlsruhe Technical University until 1912), from the
German Consulate General in Zurich and from the German Embassy in Bern.
Farı ´as [34], pp. 177–178) writes: “The material obtained by the secret police
[. . .] was sufficient for a case to be initiated against Staudinger in Karlsruhe.”
Courageous Questioning of Established Thinking: The Life and Work of Hermann. . .
109