letter to the Reich Ministry of Education, after this Ministry had prohibited him
from attending the International Congress for Chemists in Rome:
My position in the German chemical community is being influenced very unfavourably by a
scientific battle that I [. . .] have had to fight against what are primarily Jewish circles. The
field of high-molecular substances (rubber, cellulose, plastics) that is involved here is of
both scientific and technical significance. My results were rejected at the 1926 conference
for natural science researchers in Du ¨sseldorf, since numerous Jewish scientists had
completely different views at the time. From 1928 onwards, they then – above all K. H.
Meyer – tried to take over major results of my work without mentioning me, something that
is standard practice in the scientific world otherwise. Since I was unable to accept this, an
argument began that continued for years and was very disadvantageous for me personally,
since K. H. Meyer as a member of the Management Board of I.G. Farben-Industrie and
director of the plant in Ludwigshafen held a very influential position in the German
chemical community. The success that Jewish circles have in the scientific world is based
on the same method that they apply in other areas too: emphasising their own achievements
and expressing biting criticism of others. [. . .] They make their very negative influence felt
at domestic and foreign congresses, particularly – for example – at the International
Congress for Chemists in Madrid in 1934. These circles, that I opposed in Madrid, will
be particularly delighted by my failure to attend the congress in Rome. My only regret is
that the battle I have been fighting for decades to overcome the Jewish influence in this
important chemical field has as a result to all intents and purposes been fought in vain.
(Quoted from [19], pp. 406–407)
This was a shot that backfired: the Reich Ministry of Education confronted
I.G. Farben with the contents of the letter and asked Georg Kra ¨nzlein (who has
already been mentioned) from the Hoechst plant to comment. Kra ¨nzlein was
“disgusted by the criticism that Staudinger expressed about I.G. too via the accusations about Meyer” and “rejected Staudinger’s claim of having become a victim
of Jewish intrigues as untenable” [19, p. 407]. But what prompted Staudinger to
make further offensive anti-Semitic comments (“self-contained Jewish clique”)
about Meyer and Mark 3 years later, as has already been mentioned? The occasion
was the appearance of the textbook High-Polymer Chemistry written by the two of
them, “which, in spite of the fact that both were Jews by Nazi definition, was
published in Leipzig in 1940 and was reviewed positively” in the magazine Die
Naturwissenschaften [19, pp. 408–409]. It says in this “with reference to Staudinger: ‘Read the section about viscosity. Although a direct and simple relationship
between molecule size and chain length is rejected with convincing arguments, the
writer specifically emphasises the viability of viscosity measurement for evaluating
the solutions of high-molecular substances. This chapter will be particularly
instructive to those who go as far as to virtually confuse chain lengths or the degree
of polymerisation and indicators derived from viscosity’” [19, p. 409].
Priesner ([15], p. 331) concluded that all this was “an unmistakable indication
that Staudinger continued to see his fellow-chemists as enemies” and added: “It is
frightening that the small amount of intellectual freedom which still existed in
Germany in 1941 was vilified as an intrigue on the part of a group of conspirators”
[15, p. 330]. Jaenicke ([35], p. 604) criticises Staudinger’s “attacks ( ) on the Jewish
surrounding of German macromolecules by anti-German polymer chains” and “the
typical [. . .] unoriginal adoption of other people’s ideas and culture for commercial
Courageous Questioning of Established Thinking: The Life and Work of Hermann. . .
117
from attending the International Congress for Chemists in Rome:
My position in the German chemical community is being influenced very unfavourably by a
scientific battle that I [. . .] have had to fight against what are primarily Jewish circles. The
field of high-molecular substances (rubber, cellulose, plastics) that is involved here is of
both scientific and technical significance. My results were rejected at the 1926 conference
for natural science researchers in Du ¨sseldorf, since numerous Jewish scientists had
completely different views at the time. From 1928 onwards, they then – above all K. H.
Meyer – tried to take over major results of my work without mentioning me, something that
is standard practice in the scientific world otherwise. Since I was unable to accept this, an
argument began that continued for years and was very disadvantageous for me personally,
since K. H. Meyer as a member of the Management Board of I.G. Farben-Industrie and
director of the plant in Ludwigshafen held a very influential position in the German
chemical community. The success that Jewish circles have in the scientific world is based
on the same method that they apply in other areas too: emphasising their own achievements
and expressing biting criticism of others. [. . .] They make their very negative influence felt
at domestic and foreign congresses, particularly – for example – at the International
Congress for Chemists in Madrid in 1934. These circles, that I opposed in Madrid, will
be particularly delighted by my failure to attend the congress in Rome. My only regret is
that the battle I have been fighting for decades to overcome the Jewish influence in this
important chemical field has as a result to all intents and purposes been fought in vain.
(Quoted from [19], pp. 406–407)
This was a shot that backfired: the Reich Ministry of Education confronted
I.G. Farben with the contents of the letter and asked Georg Kra ¨nzlein (who has
already been mentioned) from the Hoechst plant to comment. Kra ¨nzlein was
“disgusted by the criticism that Staudinger expressed about I.G. too via the accusations about Meyer” and “rejected Staudinger’s claim of having become a victim
of Jewish intrigues as untenable” [19, p. 407]. But what prompted Staudinger to
make further offensive anti-Semitic comments (“self-contained Jewish clique”)
about Meyer and Mark 3 years later, as has already been mentioned? The occasion
was the appearance of the textbook High-Polymer Chemistry written by the two of
them, “which, in spite of the fact that both were Jews by Nazi definition, was
published in Leipzig in 1940 and was reviewed positively” in the magazine Die
Naturwissenschaften [19, pp. 408–409]. It says in this “with reference to Staudinger: ‘Read the section about viscosity. Although a direct and simple relationship
between molecule size and chain length is rejected with convincing arguments, the
writer specifically emphasises the viability of viscosity measurement for evaluating
the solutions of high-molecular substances. This chapter will be particularly
instructive to those who go as far as to virtually confuse chain lengths or the degree
of polymerisation and indicators derived from viscosity’” [19, p. 409].
Priesner ([15], p. 331) concluded that all this was “an unmistakable indication
that Staudinger continued to see his fellow-chemists as enemies” and added: “It is
frightening that the small amount of intellectual freedom which still existed in
Germany in 1941 was vilified as an intrigue on the part of a group of conspirators”
[15, p. 330]. Jaenicke ([35], p. 604) criticises Staudinger’s “attacks ( ) on the Jewish
surrounding of German macromolecules by anti-German polymer chains” and “the
typical [. . .] unoriginal adoption of other people’s ideas and culture for commercial
Courageous Questioning of Established Thinking: The Life and Work of Hermann. . .
117