(1881–1943; quoted from [19], p. 404), “one of the directors of I.G. Farben, who
[. . .] was in charge of the Alizarin Department at the Hoechst factory” [19, p. 399].
Following the collapse of the “Third Reich”, Staudinger was to accuse the Nazis –
in a memorandum submitted in July 1945 – of weakening Germany’s position as a
scientific location and of causing the country to fall behind in the international
competitive environment:
Party considerations [. . .] prevented a major new area of German research
(i.e. macromolecular chemistry, editor’s note) from being represented adequately abroad;
this is a particularly unfortunate fact, because this area has been given particularly strong
support in England and America due to its technical and scientific importance. [37, p. 11]
3.6 Anti-Semitic Pretence
In order to be able to carry out scientific research undisturbed, Staudinger tried to
make sure that he did not give the authorities any new targets for political attacks or
that such attacks were ineffective. He developed a strategy of ingratiating himself
with the Nazis, taking a variety of different actions in this context. In view of the
rejection of his macromolecule concept in the early stages, he claimed – for
example – that he was a “victim of Jews” [19, p. 404], criticised their alleged
dominance in the scientific world and was even willing to use anti-Semitic cliche ´s
and slogans.
In a letter written on 9 June 1941 to the Cologne businessman Wolfgang Klever
(1881–1970), a personal friend and former student, Staudinger spun a yarn about “a
completely self-contained clique [. . .], which formed earlier on before 1933 and
still sticks together today. It is very difficult to prevail against these Jews abroad and
here in Germany” (quoted from [15], p. 329). What Staudinger failed to mention
here was, on the one hand, the fact that it was a Jewish winner of the Nobel Prize in
Chemistry, Richard Willsta ¨tter (1872–1942), who was the first to subscribe to his
macromolecule theory. On the other hand, he dug up the hatchet, which had really
been buried for years, and attacked his former opponents Kurt Hans Meyer and
Hermann Mark (see Sect. 2: “1920–1932”), because they were the target of the
criticism he expressed. Jaenicke [35, p. 604] talks in this context about “bogeymen”. There can be question of the two chemists ever conspiring to oppose
Staudinger and there was certainly no threat to him from them since they emigrated:
from 1932 onwards, Meyer taught at Geneva University, after his appointment to
Berlin Technical University, which was certainly thwarted by Staudinger himself
(see [15], pp. 306–307, and [19], p. 255). After permission for him to teach at
Vienna University was withdrawn and he was imprisoned for a time, Mark escaped
from the Nazis by moving to the USA in 1938, where he started working at the
Polytechnic Institute of New York in Brooklyn in 1940 (cf. [15], p. 327, and [19],
p. 183). Staudinger did not stop presenting himself as a victim even so. In June
1938, for example, he wrote “in a distortion of the truth” [19, p. 406] the following
116
M. Weber and G. Deussing
[. . .] was in charge of the Alizarin Department at the Hoechst factory” [19, p. 399].
Following the collapse of the “Third Reich”, Staudinger was to accuse the Nazis –
in a memorandum submitted in July 1945 – of weakening Germany’s position as a
scientific location and of causing the country to fall behind in the international
competitive environment:
Party considerations [. . .] prevented a major new area of German research
(i.e. macromolecular chemistry, editor’s note) from being represented adequately abroad;
this is a particularly unfortunate fact, because this area has been given particularly strong
support in England and America due to its technical and scientific importance. [37, p. 11]
3.6 Anti-Semitic Pretence
In order to be able to carry out scientific research undisturbed, Staudinger tried to
make sure that he did not give the authorities any new targets for political attacks or
that such attacks were ineffective. He developed a strategy of ingratiating himself
with the Nazis, taking a variety of different actions in this context. In view of the
rejection of his macromolecule concept in the early stages, he claimed – for
example – that he was a “victim of Jews” [19, p. 404], criticised their alleged
dominance in the scientific world and was even willing to use anti-Semitic cliche ´s
and slogans.
In a letter written on 9 June 1941 to the Cologne businessman Wolfgang Klever
(1881–1970), a personal friend and former student, Staudinger spun a yarn about “a
completely self-contained clique [. . .], which formed earlier on before 1933 and
still sticks together today. It is very difficult to prevail against these Jews abroad and
here in Germany” (quoted from [15], p. 329). What Staudinger failed to mention
here was, on the one hand, the fact that it was a Jewish winner of the Nobel Prize in
Chemistry, Richard Willsta ¨tter (1872–1942), who was the first to subscribe to his
macromolecule theory. On the other hand, he dug up the hatchet, which had really
been buried for years, and attacked his former opponents Kurt Hans Meyer and
Hermann Mark (see Sect. 2: “1920–1932”), because they were the target of the
criticism he expressed. Jaenicke [35, p. 604] talks in this context about “bogeymen”. There can be question of the two chemists ever conspiring to oppose
Staudinger and there was certainly no threat to him from them since they emigrated:
from 1932 onwards, Meyer taught at Geneva University, after his appointment to
Berlin Technical University, which was certainly thwarted by Staudinger himself
(see [15], pp. 306–307, and [19], p. 255). After permission for him to teach at
Vienna University was withdrawn and he was imprisoned for a time, Mark escaped
from the Nazis by moving to the USA in 1938, where he started working at the
Polytechnic Institute of New York in Brooklyn in 1940 (cf. [15], p. 327, and [19],
p. 183). Staudinger did not stop presenting himself as a victim even so. In June
1938, for example, he wrote “in a distortion of the truth” [19, p. 406] the following
116
M. Weber and G. Deussing