• Staudinger tried to prove the Nazis wrong in accusing him of being a pacifist by
disassociating himself from fundamentalist positions: “He was not a pacifist in
the strictly religious sense of the Quakers or conscientious objectors; he was,
instead, a pacifist ‘because of my convictions about the importance of technology in armed combat’” [33, p. 207]. To defend himself against the attempts
made to discredit him, Staudinger now followed the arguments he put forward
back then, which he insisted were strictly scientific and thus non-political, by an
article written for the Vo¨lkische Zeitung newspaper in Du ¨sseldorf, which
appeared on 25 February 1934 with the title “Die Bedeutung der Chemie fu ¨r
das deutsche Volk” (“The importance of chemistry to the German people”) [36].
He had reprints of this newspaper article sent to the Baden Minister of Culture,
Otto Wacker, and the Nazi Mayor of Freiburg, Franz Kerber (1901–1945) (see
[33], p. 207; [19], p. 398). This article includes the following statements by
Staudinger:
The German people only have two options open to them, in order to survive. On the one
hand, as many products as possible must be obtained from the land available by taking
particularly good care of it. Attempts also need to be made, on the other hand, to reduce
imports. [. . .] If German technology can be expanded [. . .] in the next few years, major
steps will have been taken to give Germany an independent position in the world. (Quoted
from [16], p. 182)
No capitulation to the Nazis, but instead – as Ott [33, p. 207] says – “a ‘goodwill
move’” by which Staudinger accepted the policy of independence adopted by the
Nazi government and tried to recommend himself as a contributor on the basis of
his scientific know-how. As a result, “he could now have ‘an extremely wide range
of possible activities’ in the Nazi state” [33, p. 207].
3.5 Sensational Turn of Events
All in all, Staudinger’s attempts to defend himself against the attacks by the Nazis
do not appear to be a particularly convincing way to avoid dismissal from the civil
service. What was, at least, dropped was “the charge of the betrayal of manufacturing secrets” to foreign enemies ([33], p. 205; cf. [19], p. 397). Staudinger himself
was not, however, in a position to save his neck completely. What helped him, in
the final analysis, was his professional reputation. Heidegger himself advised on
5 March 1934 – reluctantly – that “consideration is given to the position that the
person in question holds in his scientific field abroad”, although not without
mentioning “that there cannot of course be any change in the facts of the matter.
What is only involved here is the avoidance if at all possible of a new foreign policy
problem” (quoted from [33], p. 208). A retreat, although he continued to insist that
sanctions needed to be imposed on Staudinger, albeit in a milder form: Heidegger
suggested that Staudinger should not, after all, be dismissed without pay but be
114
M. Weber and G. Deussing
disassociating himself from fundamentalist positions: “He was not a pacifist in
the strictly religious sense of the Quakers or conscientious objectors; he was,
instead, a pacifist ‘because of my convictions about the importance of technology in armed combat’” [33, p. 207]. To defend himself against the attempts
made to discredit him, Staudinger now followed the arguments he put forward
back then, which he insisted were strictly scientific and thus non-political, by an
article written for the Vo¨lkische Zeitung newspaper in Du ¨sseldorf, which
appeared on 25 February 1934 with the title “Die Bedeutung der Chemie fu ¨r
das deutsche Volk” (“The importance of chemistry to the German people”) [36].
He had reprints of this newspaper article sent to the Baden Minister of Culture,
Otto Wacker, and the Nazi Mayor of Freiburg, Franz Kerber (1901–1945) (see
[33], p. 207; [19], p. 398). This article includes the following statements by
Staudinger:
The German people only have two options open to them, in order to survive. On the one
hand, as many products as possible must be obtained from the land available by taking
particularly good care of it. Attempts also need to be made, on the other hand, to reduce
imports. [. . .] If German technology can be expanded [. . .] in the next few years, major
steps will have been taken to give Germany an independent position in the world. (Quoted
from [16], p. 182)
No capitulation to the Nazis, but instead – as Ott [33, p. 207] says – “a ‘goodwill
move’” by which Staudinger accepted the policy of independence adopted by the
Nazi government and tried to recommend himself as a contributor on the basis of
his scientific know-how. As a result, “he could now have ‘an extremely wide range
of possible activities’ in the Nazi state” [33, p. 207].
3.5 Sensational Turn of Events
All in all, Staudinger’s attempts to defend himself against the attacks by the Nazis
do not appear to be a particularly convincing way to avoid dismissal from the civil
service. What was, at least, dropped was “the charge of the betrayal of manufacturing secrets” to foreign enemies ([33], p. 205; cf. [19], p. 397). Staudinger himself
was not, however, in a position to save his neck completely. What helped him, in
the final analysis, was his professional reputation. Heidegger himself advised on
5 March 1934 – reluctantly – that “consideration is given to the position that the
person in question holds in his scientific field abroad”, although not without
mentioning “that there cannot of course be any change in the facts of the matter.
What is only involved here is the avoidance if at all possible of a new foreign policy
problem” (quoted from [33], p. 208). A retreat, although he continued to insist that
sanctions needed to be imposed on Staudinger, albeit in a milder form: Heidegger
suggested that Staudinger should not, after all, be dismissed without pay but be
114
M. Weber and G. Deussing