most probably to show that he was not directly opposing the ruling system. The SS
might have also demanded protection money from him [18]. There are two articles
that reflect the high personal pressure that Staudinger was under at the time and are
very much worth reading. The first publication discusses his conflict with Meyer
that found climax in “U ¨ ber hochpolymere Verbindungen, 140, Zur Entwicklung der
makromolekularen Chemie. Zugleich Antwort auf die Entgegnung von K.H. Meyer
und A. van der Wyk” [19]. The second article is related to the importance of rubber
to the independence of a nation: “U ¨ ber Isopren und Kautschuk, Der Aufbau der
makromolekularen Stoffe Kautschuk und Isopren” [20]. In Freiburg, Staudinger
was not only in a scientific conflict with Meyer (being a former assistant of Haber),
but also with Werner Kuhn. Werner Kuhn was meanwhile Professor for Physical
Chemistry in Karlsruhe from 1930 to 1936. During his time in Karlsruhe, Kuhn
worked on the molecular conformation of polymers in solution and was the subject
of the following rhyme by Staudinger’s students: “die Kuhnschen Kna ¨ul sind uns
hier ein Gra ¨uel” (the statistical Kuhn segments are a horror to us). Staudinger didn’t
really believe that macromolecules are flexible [21]. It is not clear if Staudinger and
Kuhn met either in Karlsruhe or Freiburg to discuss their opposing views about
polymer conformations and the degrees of freedom that a polymer can have in
solution. However, it would have been a train ride of only 1 h between Freiburg and
Karlsruhe. Only at the end of his career did Staudinger accept the idea of flexible
macromolecules, e.g., in “U ¨ ber die ro ¨ntgenographische und viskosimetrische
Kettenla ¨nge von Fadenmoleku ¨len” [22]. He writes on page 306: “Daraus ergibt
sich der Schluss, dass auch bei den Polyvinylverbindungen, wie bei Polyvinylchloriden, Polyvinylacetaten etc. die Abweichung vom einfachen Viskosita ¨tsgesetz
mit einer Fadenform der Moleku ¨le vereinbar sind, und nicht dafu ¨r Verzweigungen
verantwortlich gemacht werden mu ¨ssen”; translation: “. . .therefore we come to the
conclusion that also for vinyl polymers, e.g., PVC, PVAc, etc. the discrepancy from
the simple viscosity law can be related to the random, strand shape of a molecule
and branching might not be needed as a further argument.”
In 1945, directly after WWII, his former student from Karlsruhe, Leopold
Ruzicka, helped Staudinger with a letter that allowed him to work again in the
French zone, where Freiburg was located [14].
3 Staudinger’s Letters to Karlsruhe after 1945
During wartime, and especially afterwards, Staudinger had an intense relationship
with Karlsruhe and mostly with Prof. F.A. Henglein. Henglein was a technical
chemist and from the beginning was on the editorial board of Staudinger’s Journal
fu ¨r Makromolekulare Chemie, later renamed Die Makromolekulare Chemie. He
was the successor of Prof. P. Askenasy (see also Fig. 1).
The letters between Karlsruhe and Freiburg are very personal and reflect the
problems at the time, but also issues that come up in any faculty. Most of the letters
were sent from their homes to the private address of the other and were signed
58
M. Wilhelm
might have also demanded protection money from him [18]. There are two articles
that reflect the high personal pressure that Staudinger was under at the time and are
very much worth reading. The first publication discusses his conflict with Meyer
that found climax in “U ¨ ber hochpolymere Verbindungen, 140, Zur Entwicklung der
makromolekularen Chemie. Zugleich Antwort auf die Entgegnung von K.H. Meyer
und A. van der Wyk” [19]. The second article is related to the importance of rubber
to the independence of a nation: “U ¨ ber Isopren und Kautschuk, Der Aufbau der
makromolekularen Stoffe Kautschuk und Isopren” [20]. In Freiburg, Staudinger
was not only in a scientific conflict with Meyer (being a former assistant of Haber),
but also with Werner Kuhn. Werner Kuhn was meanwhile Professor for Physical
Chemistry in Karlsruhe from 1930 to 1936. During his time in Karlsruhe, Kuhn
worked on the molecular conformation of polymers in solution and was the subject
of the following rhyme by Staudinger’s students: “die Kuhnschen Kna ¨ul sind uns
hier ein Gra ¨uel” (the statistical Kuhn segments are a horror to us). Staudinger didn’t
really believe that macromolecules are flexible [21]. It is not clear if Staudinger and
Kuhn met either in Karlsruhe or Freiburg to discuss their opposing views about
polymer conformations and the degrees of freedom that a polymer can have in
solution. However, it would have been a train ride of only 1 h between Freiburg and
Karlsruhe. Only at the end of his career did Staudinger accept the idea of flexible
macromolecules, e.g., in “U ¨ ber die ro ¨ntgenographische und viskosimetrische
Kettenla ¨nge von Fadenmoleku ¨len” [22]. He writes on page 306: “Daraus ergibt
sich der Schluss, dass auch bei den Polyvinylverbindungen, wie bei Polyvinylchloriden, Polyvinylacetaten etc. die Abweichung vom einfachen Viskosita ¨tsgesetz
mit einer Fadenform der Moleku ¨le vereinbar sind, und nicht dafu ¨r Verzweigungen
verantwortlich gemacht werden mu ¨ssen”; translation: “. . .therefore we come to the
conclusion that also for vinyl polymers, e.g., PVC, PVAc, etc. the discrepancy from
the simple viscosity law can be related to the random, strand shape of a molecule
and branching might not be needed as a further argument.”
In 1945, directly after WWII, his former student from Karlsruhe, Leopold
Ruzicka, helped Staudinger with a letter that allowed him to work again in the
French zone, where Freiburg was located [14].
3 Staudinger’s Letters to Karlsruhe after 1945
During wartime, and especially afterwards, Staudinger had an intense relationship
with Karlsruhe and mostly with Prof. F.A. Henglein. Henglein was a technical
chemist and from the beginning was on the editorial board of Staudinger’s Journal
fu ¨r Makromolekulare Chemie, later renamed Die Makromolekulare Chemie. He
was the successor of Prof. P. Askenasy (see also Fig. 1).
The letters between Karlsruhe and Freiburg are very personal and reflect the
problems at the time, but also issues that come up in any faculty. Most of the letters
were sent from their homes to the private address of the other and were signed
58
M. Wilhelm