purposes” as “embarrassing, [. . .], obsequious and opportunistic” and concludes:
“Genius does not protect against stupidity” [35, p. 604]. Staudinger did not make
himself many friends among the Nazis with his anti-Semitic pretence either.
I.G. Director Georg Kra ¨nzlein, who subsequently became the regional head of the
Nazi technical authorities in Hesse-Nassau and SS-Hauptsturmfu ¨hrer (captain)”
[19, p. 406], reprimanded him:
In my opinion, you make the mistake of arguing with Jews the whole time. [. . .] There is no
need for you to start polemic discussions with Jews, because by doing so you give them too
much honour. Avoid and ignore these people, because otherwise you let them have the last
word over and over again, which regularly harms you. We disassociate ourselves systematically from the Jews, as the Nuremberg Laws prove. By doing this, we send them back to
where they came from. Why don’t you disassociate yourself in the scientific world? Here
too, they need to return to the intellectual ghetto they came from, back to their Talmud,
which they are incapable of escaping from. [. . .] Instead of this, you incite the Jews to band
together against you more and more and this will harm you in the long run. [. . .] Now it is
your duty not to mention the Jews again at all, definitely not allowing yourself to continue a
polemic debate with them.
(Letter of 3 June 1936 from Kra ¨nzlein to Staudinger, quoted from [15], p. 317; cf. p. 318
and [19], p. 405)
Staudinger nevertheless continued to do everything in his power to be considered
an anti-Semite: “As early as 1936, he had worried that too many ‘non-Arians’ could
study at his institute; and in May 1942, he again expressed misgivings to the vicechancellor in writing – now that there were no more Jews at German universities –
about too many ‘half-breeds’ among the chemistry students” ([38], p. 11, footnote 32).
3.7 No Chance of a Party Membership Book
The aim of “his application for membership of the Nazi party” [39, p. 230] was
to eliminate any doubts about his loyalty to party principles, but this application
was rejected, officially “because of former membership of a Masonic Lodge”
[39, p. 230]. Membership was a family tradition – Staudinger’s father was
“Grand Master of the Grand Lodge ‘zur Eintracht’” [18, p. 225]. Incidentally,
Staudinger was only registered as a passive member of the SS because the latter
“blackmailed him [. . .], forcing him to pay protection money from time to time”
[35, p. 604].
Even though Staudinger – as has been indicated – did everything in his power to
make the impression of being a staunch follower of the Nazis, Kru ¨ll ([11], p. 48)
confirms that he was “no Nazi”. Rightly so, because Staudinger generally showed
no interest at all in Nazi ideology in his position as head of the institute and could
not have been more politically incorrect in his actions, protecting students and
assistants who were disapproved of by the Nazis:
• Staudinger came to the defence of Ernst Trommsdorff (1905–1996), “one of my
best assistants and staff members” (quoted from [16], p. 176), who Staudinger
118
M. Weber and G. Deussing
“Genius does not protect against stupidity” [35, p. 604]. Staudinger did not make
himself many friends among the Nazis with his anti-Semitic pretence either.
I.G. Director Georg Kra ¨nzlein, who subsequently became the regional head of the
Nazi technical authorities in Hesse-Nassau and SS-Hauptsturmfu ¨hrer (captain)”
[19, p. 406], reprimanded him:
In my opinion, you make the mistake of arguing with Jews the whole time. [. . .] There is no
need for you to start polemic discussions with Jews, because by doing so you give them too
much honour. Avoid and ignore these people, because otherwise you let them have the last
word over and over again, which regularly harms you. We disassociate ourselves systematically from the Jews, as the Nuremberg Laws prove. By doing this, we send them back to
where they came from. Why don’t you disassociate yourself in the scientific world? Here
too, they need to return to the intellectual ghetto they came from, back to their Talmud,
which they are incapable of escaping from. [. . .] Instead of this, you incite the Jews to band
together against you more and more and this will harm you in the long run. [. . .] Now it is
your duty not to mention the Jews again at all, definitely not allowing yourself to continue a
polemic debate with them.
(Letter of 3 June 1936 from Kra ¨nzlein to Staudinger, quoted from [15], p. 317; cf. p. 318
and [19], p. 405)
Staudinger nevertheless continued to do everything in his power to be considered
an anti-Semite: “As early as 1936, he had worried that too many ‘non-Arians’ could
study at his institute; and in May 1942, he again expressed misgivings to the vicechancellor in writing – now that there were no more Jews at German universities –
about too many ‘half-breeds’ among the chemistry students” ([38], p. 11, footnote 32).
3.7 No Chance of a Party Membership Book
The aim of “his application for membership of the Nazi party” [39, p. 230] was
to eliminate any doubts about his loyalty to party principles, but this application
was rejected, officially “because of former membership of a Masonic Lodge”
[39, p. 230]. Membership was a family tradition – Staudinger’s father was
“Grand Master of the Grand Lodge ‘zur Eintracht’” [18, p. 225]. Incidentally,
Staudinger was only registered as a passive member of the SS because the latter
“blackmailed him [. . .], forcing him to pay protection money from time to time”
[35, p. 604].
Even though Staudinger – as has been indicated – did everything in his power to
make the impression of being a staunch follower of the Nazis, Kru ¨ll ([11], p. 48)
confirms that he was “no Nazi”. Rightly so, because Staudinger generally showed
no interest at all in Nazi ideology in his position as head of the institute and could
not have been more politically incorrect in his actions, protecting students and
assistants who were disapproved of by the Nazis:
• Staudinger came to the defence of Ernst Trommsdorff (1905–1996), “one of my
best assistants and staff members” (quoted from [16], p. 176), who Staudinger
118
M. Weber and G. Deussing