Since the “betrayal theory that developed in the years after the First World War
[. . .] was later taken up again by the Nazi Party in particular” [4, p. 44], there were
irreconcilable differences between Staudinger and the Nazi authorities in this
respect too. So it is no surprise that “accusations of anti-German behaviour during
the First World War” were made against Staudinger in the course of the interrogations that were held during the impeachment procedure [19, p. 397].
3.4 “Supporter of the National Uprising”
Staudinger had nothing to win by defending his position. So he decided to say
during his hearing at the Baden Ministry of Culture on 17 February 1934 that he
“abandoned his earlier political views a long time ago” (see [33], p. 207). “The
accusation that he harboured ‘anti-national sentiments’ could not be made against
him any longer since he started working in Freiburg; on the contrary, he had
‘welcomed the start of the national revolution enthusiastically’” [19, p. 397]. A
tactical manoeuvre that the Nazis were reluctant to believe. Heidegger, for example, was very sarcastic about the fact that “Staudinger now claims to be a 110%
supporter of the national uprising” (quoted from [33], p. 205). Deichmann ([19],
p. 397) confirms this: “He was unable to refute the allegations of anti-German
behaviour during the First World War by adopting this defence strategy” (cf. [33],
p. 206). Staudinger therefore responded again by rejecting descriptions of himself
as “anti-German” and a “pacifist”:
• Staudinger was forced to contend with the accusation that he had abandoned
Germany and “had been abroad for too long” [16, p. 193] until the end of the
1930s. He tried to refute it by pointing out how he maintained close contacts to
German industry during his time at the chemical institute at the Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology in Zurich:
‘Throughout this period from 1912 to 1926, I maintained relationships to German industry
and carried out a number of major projects with the same [. . .].’ Staudinger lists: 1. Pest
control, 2. Pepper synthesis, 3. Trials to synthesise an artificial coffee aroma. All of these
projects were connected with the production of substitutes during the First World War. [. . .]
‘I would also like to note that the desire to return to Germany was the only reason for me to
accept the appointment offered (in Freiburg, editor’s note) in 1926, in order to continue my
work about macromolecular chemistry, which I considered and still consider important,
there. The Swiss educational authorities had made me attractive offers to persuade me to
stay. I doubled the size of the laboratory in Zurich during my time in office there, whereas
the Freiburg laboratory offered far less appealing working conditions in every respect at the
time – a situation that has only changed fundamentally now.’” (Letter from Staudinger
dated 7 November 1938, quoted from [16, p. 193])
Courageous Questioning of Established Thinking: The Life and Work of Hermann. . .
113
[. . .] was later taken up again by the Nazi Party in particular” [4, p. 44], there were
irreconcilable differences between Staudinger and the Nazi authorities in this
respect too. So it is no surprise that “accusations of anti-German behaviour during
the First World War” were made against Staudinger in the course of the interrogations that were held during the impeachment procedure [19, p. 397].
3.4 “Supporter of the National Uprising”
Staudinger had nothing to win by defending his position. So he decided to say
during his hearing at the Baden Ministry of Culture on 17 February 1934 that he
“abandoned his earlier political views a long time ago” (see [33], p. 207). “The
accusation that he harboured ‘anti-national sentiments’ could not be made against
him any longer since he started working in Freiburg; on the contrary, he had
‘welcomed the start of the national revolution enthusiastically’” [19, p. 397]. A
tactical manoeuvre that the Nazis were reluctant to believe. Heidegger, for example, was very sarcastic about the fact that “Staudinger now claims to be a 110%
supporter of the national uprising” (quoted from [33], p. 205). Deichmann ([19],
p. 397) confirms this: “He was unable to refute the allegations of anti-German
behaviour during the First World War by adopting this defence strategy” (cf. [33],
p. 206). Staudinger therefore responded again by rejecting descriptions of himself
as “anti-German” and a “pacifist”:
• Staudinger was forced to contend with the accusation that he had abandoned
Germany and “had been abroad for too long” [16, p. 193] until the end of the
1930s. He tried to refute it by pointing out how he maintained close contacts to
German industry during his time at the chemical institute at the Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology in Zurich:
‘Throughout this period from 1912 to 1926, I maintained relationships to German industry
and carried out a number of major projects with the same [. . .].’ Staudinger lists: 1. Pest
control, 2. Pepper synthesis, 3. Trials to synthesise an artificial coffee aroma. All of these
projects were connected with the production of substitutes during the First World War. [. . .]
‘I would also like to note that the desire to return to Germany was the only reason for me to
accept the appointment offered (in Freiburg, editor’s note) in 1926, in order to continue my
work about macromolecular chemistry, which I considered and still consider important,
there. The Swiss educational authorities had made me attractive offers to persuade me to
stay. I doubled the size of the laboratory in Zurich during my time in office there, whereas
the Freiburg laboratory offered far less appealing working conditions in every respect at the
time – a situation that has only changed fundamentally now.’” (Letter from Staudinger
dated 7 November 1938, quoted from [16, p. 193])
Courageous Questioning of Established Thinking: The Life and Work of Hermann. . .
113