German research university

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The German Research University , which existed in Berlin-Dahlem between 1947 and 1953 , goes back to a plan by Robert Havemann , through which the work of the institutes of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society for the Advancement of Science that remained in Berlin after the end of World War II (KWG) should be secured. Fritz Karsen, as a representative of the American military government, took up this plan and tried to establish a research university based on the model of the American Schools of Advanced Studies . The research university should also play an important role in the re- education program.

The Berlin research landscape in 1945

With the defeat of the German Reich looming, many of the Berlin-based institutes of the KWG moved their headquarters to southern or western Germany, and the general administration moved to Göttingen in February 1945. Financial resources were also brought to safety in this way and enabled the outsourced institutes to continue working in the turmoil after the surrender.

However, some institutes or parts of institutes remained in Berlin. Their existence was much more endangered, institute buildings were often destroyed or were initially confiscated by the Allies. Many of these KWG remnants were in Berlin-Dahlem. Further funding developed into a difficult act, the actors of which were initially the four Allied powers and the new civil administration in Berlin. The first impetus for a reorganization of the Berlin KWG institutes and their research policy orientation came from the chemist Peter Adolf Thiessen , but after a short time he went to the Soviet Union as Berlin KWG president. Lord Mayor Arthur Werner and the head of the department for public education, Otto Winzer , then appointed "the physical chemist and old communist Robert Havemann as the provisional head of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society".

The Havemann Plan

Havemann did not act particularly skillfully at the beginning. He claimed leadership for the entire KWG, including the South and West German institutes, and denied any legitimacy to the Göttingen general administration under Ernst Telschow . Conversely, Max Planck , the acting president of the “Göttingen” KWG, made the same accusation .

Without prejudice to the clarification of the question of who was the legal spokesman for the KWG, Havemann subsequently concentrated his work on ensuring the existence of the KWG institutes in Berlin. To this end, he initiated a scientific advisory board that ensured that the KWG institutes that had remained in Berlin could resume their work at the beginning of 1946. “The magistrate of Berlin provided the financial support and promised to provide the Berlin Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes with 240,000 RM per quarter .” However, these funds were by no means sufficient, which is why an attempt was made to transfer part of the personnel costs for the scientific staff to the Berlin University , the Technical University and the German Academy of Sciences to relocate. However, this was made more difficult by the fact that since January 8, 1946, the Berlin University was under the Central Administration for Popular Education and thus under the Soviet military administration. The same applied to the German Academy of Sciences , which reopened on August 1, 1946 , although it showed interest in integrating the Berlin KWG institutes. An intervention by the finance commission of the Allied Headquarters also led to a drastic reduction in the originally committed funds, which further increased the pressure to act and "[strengthened] the Americans in their view that they had to find an independent solution for their sector."

On September 4, 1946 there was a meeting between Robert Havemann in his capacity as head of the Berlin KWG, some institute representatives "and representatives of the American military government", which was "represented by Shafer and Karsen".

The Karsen mentioned in the quote was Fritz Karsen , the director of the Karl Marx School in Berlin-Neukölln , who was deposed by the Nazis in 1933 , who had come to the USA after several stops in emigration and became a US citizen there in 1944 had accepted. He worked from 1946 to 1948 for the Office of Military Government of the US Army, the OMGUS , and was employed there as Chief, Higher Education and Teacher Training in the main department of Education and Cultural Relations . His appointment to this post resulted from his old acquaintance with two American scientists whom he had met in 1927 during a study visit to Columbia University - as well as Erich Hylla , mentioned in the following quote , who had stayed there a year before Karsen. Karsen and Hylla had already worked together in the Prussian Ministry of Culture in the early 1920s.

"As the educational systems began functioning along older lines, E&RA strength rose to forty officials by mid-1946. Because of its lowly status within the military government, E&RA was unable to attract a prominent American education expert to lead it. Military Governor Lucius D. Clay was, therefore, forced to appoint his unknown section chief, John W. Taylor, who had a doctorate in education from Columbia Teachers College. Taylor then enlisted his old mentor, Richard Thomas Alexander, as his adviser. Both were well acquainted with prewar German education. An outspoken critic of the traditional multitrack system, Alexander enlisted German reformers, such as the Prussian education expert Erich Hylla, in his cause. "

Karsen's main task was to rebuild colleges and universities.

“As head of the“ University Education ”section, he had a key position in that he was the key advisor on all questions relating to higher education and at the same time supervised all universities and colleges in the American-occupied zone of Germany. In this position he had to develop the guidelines of the university policy and to represent it in the committees of the state council and the allied control commission. He was then responsible for the implementation of the corresponding university policy measures by way of ordinances and regulations as well as the associated control. On the one hand, this resulted in cooperation with the responsible university officers, on the other hand, contacts with the German cultural authorities and the representatives of the universities had to be established and maintained. "

The above-mentioned meeting on September 4, 1946, of course, was primarily about questions of financing, whereby the idea emerged for the first time that the institutes remaining in Berlin, whose financing could not have been realized from Berlin funds alone, would be provided by the individual state governments of the American states To ensure the occupation zone. Corresponding considerations had already been made by Havemann and culminated in the idea of ​​“merging the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes in Berlin-Dahlem to form a university for scientific research.” At this university, “in connection with fundamental research work, qualified young scientists should be educated respectively. In contrast to the universities, which primarily aim to train the next generation of teachers and technicians, this new university would primarily serve to accept and teach particularly talented budding scientists. "

Since research in Germany after the end of the Second World War was subject to special Allied reservations, “Havemann planned to build in some kind of control mechanism in order to increase the chances of the realization of his plan. He suggested the admission of foreign scientists who would accompany the research work as observers and at the same time check compliance with Allied requirements. These scientists are authorized by supervisory bodies and, as employees at the institutes, have complete insight into the research activity and can thus effectively monitor it. The university was to be financed, at least as long as the costs could not be covered from the budgets of the individual institutes, by a society to be founded for this purpose to promote young scientists. This should include private individuals, universities and authorities who would provide grants for individual highly talented scientists. "

Fritz Karsen made Havemann's plan largely his own and subsequently pushed for the establishment of his own academic institution in the American zone - probably also because he believed that the old institutions of the education sector could not be reformed or could only be reformed with difficulty and that a new institution would have better opportunities for a democratization of the education system. Karsen had a more than skeptical view of the German educational landscape in the post-war years. According to his judgment, “the military government's planned departure from the class-specific tripartite school system, nor a standardization of teacher training could be achieved: the teachers of the higher schools and the professors almost all rejected the desired democratic unified school.” He saw the main obstacle “for one Democratization of the education system by rigidly adhering to the basically elitist 'glorious German education and upbringing tradition'. "

Despite this skepticism, Karsen rejected violent re-education, “because, in his opinion, it was precisely the re-education to democracy that could not be achieved by force. Instead, he advocated unobtrusive cooperation with those forces who were concerned with the democratic conversion of the conventional education system in Germany; they should be helped in a very pragmatic way. ”How necessary this pragmatism was later became apparent in the many disputes with the country representatives, who mostly only supported the research university project externally.

“Right from the start, Karsen attached great importance to the observation that it was a completely new attempt to combine the pure research activities previously carried out at the institutes with teaching and training. The range of courses is primarily aimed at post-doctoral researchers who have already gained practical experience. The research university would offer them the possibility of two years of intensive research with a free living. After this time, she was supposed to return to her previous place of work. ”Radde, who describes Karsen's participation in the research university project in detail, but omits Robert Havemann as the actual initiator, refers to a draft by Karsen from February 1947 and sees in it that“ A prime example of a scientific institution no longer ruled by full professorships, but structured according to democratic principles ”, in which young scientists from all disciplines,“ but especially in the social and educational field ”, could work. Especially for the latter, “the large-scale planning of an institute for educational research ('institute for educational research') spoke”. Meiser, too, emphasizes Karsen's priority for “the establishment of an institute for scientific pedagogy, as this subject area had previously been neglected in Germany. It would be the only new institute to be founded within the research university and would have a relatively high budget of half a million RM, five to six professors and ten to twelve assistants. "

The Karsen paper from February 1947 cited by Radde, however, had already been preceded by a different development. On November 4, 1946, "representatives of the states of Bavaria, Greater Hesse and Württemberg-Baden, as well as the state council and the American military government [met] to discuss the future of the Berlin institutes". Havemann no longer took part in this meeting - whether not invited or out of annoyance, Meiser leaves open. From then on, Havemann no longer played an active role in the further planning of the research university - instead, those “who have so far not dealt with the fate of the institutes in any way and who have no direct interest in their future”. This does not apply to Fritz Karsen, but above all to the representatives from the countries of the American occupation zone, not least to the representative of Bavaria, Friedrich Glum . With Havemann's voluntary or deliberate withdrawal - if Radde is then right - the Havemann plan increasingly became a Karsen plan. It was he who tried to save the idea of ​​the School of Advanced Studies for Berlin against much opposition until 1948, the year he returned to the USA .

Karsen's plans and their adversaries

The plan that Karsen presented to the country representatives was very ambitious.

“The research university should be designed for 300 to 400 students and primarily address two target groups: '1. Academics who wanted to complete their studies with a high-quality doctoral thesis and 2. already completed younger academics who showed excellent aptitude in their subject and wanted to complete their professional training in one of the institutes, possibly in order to move on to research entirely '. The selection of suitable candidates would be carried out by specially created bodies. During their two-year training, the students should be supported by the foundation countries. A scholarship of RM 2,400 annually was planned. Karsen estimated an annual budget of around five million RM for the financing of the research university. Of this, 20-25% should be covered by the institutes' own income and 10% from private sources. A financial contribution from the Berlin magistrate was also considered. This would have opened up a financing gap of three million RM. However, Karsen was convinced that the American authorities would also provide financial resources if the Germans were willing to raise the remaining amount. According to the Prime Minister of Greater Hesse. Karl Geiler , the provision of the missing three million RM would not cause any problems. Initially, however, the state council approved 116,000 RM for the research university project. "

Criticism of Karsen's plan, which did not lead to his complete rejection, came from Bavaria. The danger to the autonomy of the states through a more centrally oriented research university was invoked, as was the general suitability of a large number of institutes based in Berlin. Another objection related to the foreseeable changes in the research landscape: As the successor to the Kaiser Wilhelm Society, the founding of the Max Planck Society (MPG) was well advanced and, in the opinion of the Bavarian representative in the state council, Friedrich Glum, the Take over the functions intended for the research university, thus making a separate institution superfluous.

Karsen succeeded in refuting the objections to his plan, in particular by referring to the fundamental difference between the two institutions with regard to the assumed dualism of the MPG and research university: “While the Max Planck Society is a pure research institution , the focus in Berlin should be on training. ”He was also able to prevent the establishment of the research university in Berlin from being treated as part of the general funding of research facilities in the American occupation zone, which was a priority for Bavaria. In the spirit of Karsen, the state representatives decided at the November 1946 meeting to found a special committee for the establishment of a research university in Berlin.

What looked like a victory turned out to be a deception a month later. On December 3, 1946, the state representatives passed a new resolution. They set up a special committee for the preservation of the research institutes in the countries of the American zone and staffed it with the same people they had previously appointed for the special committee for the establishment of the research university in Berlin. Friedrich Glum chaired both of them, and Fritz Karsen did not find out about this coup until March 1947. Although the Americans did not want this mixture, also because of the special status of Berlin, it was subsequently accepted.

Selection of 15 institutes

If so far only the KWG institutes remaining in Berlin have been mentioned, it must not be forgotten that these were 45 institutes. They could not and should not all be transferred to the research university, which is why Karsen and Glum worked out a ranking list for the special committee with which they divided the institutes into three classes: “Group I includes those institutes that are unconditionally considered suitable for the research university to be included. Group II is conditionally suitable for the research university. The final decision can only be made later on the basis of a further examination. Group III is unsuitable and is ruled out from the start for inclusion in the research university. ”In this way, 26 institutes were initially selected that met the criteria for groups I and II.

This allocation changed more frequently in the following and finally included 15 institutes for which Erich Leist was commissioned to draw up a budget. This draft budget, presented at the end of January 1947, which determined a requirement of 4.7 million RM, but at the same time also considered a reduction of one million RM possible, met with fierce resistance from the state representatives, who had a budget well below three million RM in mind. Leist, who apparently largely identified with Karsen's ideas, responded to his main critic Glum:

“He did not understand that it was a big plan for a new type of university, his thoughts stuck to the old Kaiser Wilhelm Society and apparently completely forgot that we are in competition with the East, especially with the Academy of Sciences and any comparison with the 'first-class southern German institutes' is absurd.
It is not important to maintain one or the other research facility and to enable one or the other randomly present scholar to work, but rather to create a new type of university that Germany does not yet know and that in America with complete success has come into effect at various points. "

Two positions were opposed to each other, of which it later became apparent that the one criticized by Leist, focused on special federal interests, the more powerful one.

Since Leist refused to make further cuts in his proposals, the Württemberg representative in the special committee, Hans Georg Rupp, worked out a new draft budget, which in a first step led to a sharp cut in the number of institutes to be integrated into the research university. Of the original 45 institutes, which had already been reduced to around 28 institutes in the first step, eight remained; but this, too, was only an intermediate step in the history of the research university, for which at the end of February 1947 the OMGUS determined the establishment of a foundation for the three countries of the American zone as the future legal form. The implementation of this requirement was incumbent on the countries of the American zone.

Creation of the legal framework

On June 3, 1947, the state agreement on the establishment of a German research university in Berlin-Dahlem and the financing of German research institutes was passed between the states of Bavaria, Württemberg-Baden and Hesse , which was subsequently adopted by the three state parliaments in state law, as in Hessen by law of November 29, 1947. Article 1 of the state agreement governed the establishment of the foundation for the research university. The deed of foundation attached as Annex 1 specified Stuttgart as its seat - due to the four-power status of Berlin, which would hardly have made a seat in Berlin possible. The supervision of the foundation lay with the Württemberg-Baden Ministry of Culture. It was expressly stated that accession to this agreement was open to all German states and Berlin, because the magistrate of Berlin was not actively involved in the procedure, although it was about Berlin institutes, also because of its four-power status. The relocation of the foundation seat was declared permissible. As a foundation bodies of were Trustees and the permanent representative of the Foundation (non-voting trustees) called. The Board of Trustees should include a representative from each of the finance and education ministries of the contracting countries; one of its central tasks was to decide on the appointment or dismissal of the institute directors, academic members and department heads. Its expansion to include personalities from intellectual, social and economic life was permissible.

Section XIII of the deed of foundation is of particular importance for the research work itself: “Research within the institutes is free. It is only subject to the restrictions provided for in Control Council Act No. 25. "

Article 2 of the State Agreement stipulates that the contracting states undertake "to jointly raise the funds for German research institutes with a scientific importance that goes beyond the scope of a single state". According to Annex II, these include 14 institutes:

  • German Museum in Munich
  • Germanic Museum in Nuremberg
  • German Research Institute for Psychiatry in Munich
  • Monumenta Germaniae Historica in Munich
  • Thesaurus Linguae Latinae in Munich
  • German Art History Central Institute in Munich
  • German Archaeological Institute in Munich
  • Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Brain Research in Dillenburg
  • Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Biophysics in Frankfurt am Main
  • Paul Ehrlich Institute in Frankfurt am Main
  • Roman-Germanic Commission in Frankfurt am Main
  • Research center for virus research in Heidelberg
  • Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Medical Research in Heidelberg
  • Astronomical Computing Institute in Heidelberg

Article 3 of the State Agreement stipulated: “The states participate in raising the funds according to the following key: Bavaria 50%, Hesse 25% and Württemberg-Baden 25%. If other states or Berlin join the agreement, this key must be redefined taking this accession into account. "

With the provisions of Articles 2 and 3 of the State Agreement, the blueprints were created for the Königstein State Agreement agreed between the federal states and Berlin after the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany , the full name of which is State Agreement of the States of the Federal Republic of Germany on the financing of scientific research institutions , and its most important The task is to finance research according to the Königstein key .

Berlin stories

The legal basis for the German Research University, created in 1947 , initially did not provide for active participation by Berlin, although the new institution was primarily intended to open up new work prospects for institutes that were based in Berlin. And so the representatives of the West German states were also aware that “it would make a strange impression on the outside world [..] [] if 3 South German states were from institutes located in Greater Berlin [sic] , founded a research university without involving the Berlin magistrate. Such an approach would have to weaken the prestige of Berlin and, above all, the prestige of the magistrate vis-à-vis the occupying powers. ”But the situation was difficult: the four-power status restricted the magistrate's options for action and also made the Americans act cautiously; Berlin's island location made communication with the other countries of the American zone more difficult, Berlin's fears of a loss of importance existed as well as, conversely, Bavaria's fears of having to pay for something from which it could not derive its own benefit. It was not until November 1947 that the first concrete negotiations about participation by Berlin and Bremen took place, at a point in time when the state agreement had long been passed.

After it initially looked as if an agreement could be reached with Berlin, these hopes were dashed very quickly. Berlin claimed it had a greater influence on the foundation and demanded, among other things, that its seat be in Berlin. This also led to a crisis discussion in November 1947 between the Berlin City Councilor for Education Walter May , Fritz Karsen, Richard T. Alexander and other representatives of OMGUS. Smaller concessions were made to Berlin, but “the participants in this conversation pointed out to Walter May quite unequivocally that, although Berlin would like to work with the foundation, the research university, with or without Berlin participation, would definitely be founded ". On January 29, 1948, Berlin gave way in a letter from May to Karsen; and on the initiative of Richard T. Alexander, at the beginning of February 1948, the founders of the foundation clarified certain points that should facilitate Berlin's accession. Among other things, it was stated that the Bavarian Ministry of Education, to which foundation supervision had meanwhile been transferred, was not allowed to exercise any official supervision and was not allowed to issue administrative orders. On February 16, 1948, the Berlin magistrate decided to join the State Treaty.

Start of work at the German Research University

One of the final formal hurdles for the research university to begin its work was the foundation's approval by the Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Culture. This took place at the end of April 1948, and on May 13, 1948 the constituent meeting of the Foundation Council took place in Wiesbaden.

As previously requested by Erich Leist to limit the budget for the research university to well below 3 million RM (see above), this has now been decided and the institutes only 2.5 million RM. Due to the accession of Berlin and Bremen, the distribution key was changed: Bavaria accounted for 42%, Hessen and Württemberg-Baden each for 20%, Berlin for 15% and Bremen for 3%. The beneficiaries of these funds were:

  • the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physical Chemistry and Electrochemistry
  • the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Cell Physiology
    • the affiliated institute for tissue research
  • the research group biology
    • the Institute for Comparative Hereditary Biology and Hereditary Pathology
    • the Institute for the History of Cultivated Plants.
  • the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law
  • the Institute for Sociology and Ethnic Psychology (the only institute that had not previously belonged to the KWG)

Not included in this list is the institute for scientific pedagogy favored by Fritz Karsen, although the American military government already had well-developed plans for this. “Among other things, they had planned the deployment of twelve American professors at the research university, with the largest number, eight, being intended for the field of social and educational sciences. In particular, this should strengthen empirical research, which has hitherto been heavily neglected in Germany. "

Erich Leist had already resignedly stated after his argument with Glum a year earlier:

“What remains of the whole plan of the research university is the support from a few institutes and scholars who remained in Berlin from the southern German states. No administration is required for this. The city administration of Zehlendorf could have these institutes administered by a senior secretary. "

Meiser shares this judgment when she summarizes her view of the development as follows:

“From the initial idea of ​​a research university, at which the pure research activities taking place at the institutes were to be combined with teaching and thus a completely new form of scientific education was to be created, hardly anything was left except for the name. Even after their admission, the institutes remained completely independent institutions that were primarily dedicated to research and not, as originally intended, to training and teaching to the same extent. The 'Deutsche Forschungshochschule' foundation was thus reduced to a single function, namely that of a donor.
It acted as a transition company to save the Dahlem institutes until they were taken over by the Max Planck Society in 1953. "

Fritz Karsen, the real driving force behind the research university project, did not witness this failure of his reform idea at close quarters: he returned to the USA in 1948 to continue his academic career there.

The German Research University had few supporters in the post-war research landscape, but many envious ones. The Kaiser Wilhelm Society and, as a result, the Max Planck Society, was primarily concerned with maintaining their claims to the institutes and their facilities that had been transferred to the research university; and when the Free University of Berlin was founded in 1948 , which also saw itself as a reform university, an actor appeared on the scene to which the research university was quickly inferior. The currency reform of July 1948 also threatened financial drying up. The budget of 2.5 million RM was to be reduced to 636,700 DM. With the support of the Berlin magistrate, which pledged more funds than it should have raised under the State Treaty, the worst could be averted. But it was also clear that a different financing basis had to be created for the future.

Negotiations began as early as March 1948 to reform the still relatively new state agreement . The trigger was the accession of Berlin and Bremen, but now the expansion to all countries of the three western zones was in the room. In April 1949 this led to the aforementioned state agreement between the states of the Federal Republic of Germany on the financing of scientific research institutions , which became known as the Königstein Agreement and is still in force today, albeit with modifications. In the financing model of this new agreement, the Königstein Key , another DM 1.4 million was earmarked for the financing of the German Research University.

The slow decline of the German Research University

The Königstein Agreement was accompanied by negotiations with the Max Planck Society, which had a strong interest in taking over the former KWG institutes. The still valid American special rights in Berlin and the sensitivities of Berlin itself stood in the way of a quick unification process. On the one hand, Berlin insisted on extensive participation and, on the other hand, was afraid of a loss of cultural property, which could possibly result from the MPG withdrawing institutes or parts of institutes based in Berlin from the city in order to unite them with similar institutions in West Germany. Instead, Berlin even demanded that the general administration of the MPG should be relocated from Göttingen to Berlin. At the same time, in October 1949 there was already a vote on the Board of Trustees of the research university who said that "the original purpose, following an American idea of ​​creating a school of advanced studies, has not been fulfilled".

The negotiations dragged on, with individual institute directors, above all Otto Warburg , interfering with demands for special personal rights. At the end of November 1952, an agreement was available for the first time between Berlin and the MPG, which resulted in the negotiations being finally ended in February 1953 and the dissolution of the German Research University Foundation on July 1, 1953 being prepared. The main contents of this agreement were:

  • The Max Planck Society accepts all institutes and departments of the research university without exception.
  • None of the recorded facilities may be moved out of the city without the permission of the Berlin Senate.
  • If boards of trustees are formed at the Berlin Max Planck Institutes, the city of Berlin will receive two seats in each.
  • After the dissolution of the foundation, the Max Planck Society assumes all obligations of the research university and in return Berlin waives the reimbursement of previous payments to the institutes.

In a letter dated March 5, 1954, the Bavarian Ministry of Culture - Bavaria was the home country of the foundation - raised the foundation “German Research University” after “it was impossible to fulfill the foundation's purpose, in particular with regard to the takeover of the institutes supported by it by the Max-Planck- Society at the request of the Board of Trustees ”. A project to reform and democratize the German research landscape, which was unpopular in Germany, had come to an inglorious end.

An institute for scientific education

The idea for an institute for scientific pedagogy, which Fritz Karsen had seen as an important part of the German Research University and which was no longer realized in Berlin, can be found in an institution that in November 1950, by resolution of the Hessian state government, was named "University for Educational Science and International Educational Research ”and was then constituted on October 25, 1951 as a foundation based in Frankfurt am Main“ University for International Educational Research ”. Erich Hylla and Erwin Stein are the "fathers" of this facility . Both paths often crossed with those of Fritz Karsen, although Hylla, as already mentioned above, and Karsen had already worked together in the early 1920s and were likely to have had contact with each other during their work for OMGUS, especially since they had joint superiors there. Erwin Stein, on the other hand, who had become Hessian Minister of Education on January 7, 1947, represented the State of Hesse on the foundation council of the German Research University and in the regional council. Hence it can be assumed that they were well acquainted with Karsen's ideas.

In his draft law on the training of teachers in Hesse from December 1948, Stein already provided for the establishment of the "University of Education and International Educational Research" and this explicitly in the context of the "State Agreement on the Establishment of a German Research University in Berlin-Dahlem "And described it as" a task that goes beyond the affairs of a country "and thus aims for funding within the framework of the state agreement. Hylla, in turn, met in 1947 “Dr. William L. Wrinkle, then chief of the secondary education section in the Public Education Branch, OMGUS, and now HICOG's educational affairs adviser. [..] THIS MEETING brought reality to the old dream, now shared by both men, resulting in the association which was to gain the necessary support from German and American sources for the creating of the Institute for International Educational Research. The development of the idea of ​​a graduate school of this type in Germany could never have proceeded to its present successful conclusion without the close cooperation and teamwork of these two educators. [..] Professors Hylla and Wrinkle, sensing official German interest in such an institution, approached Dr. Stein in Wiesbaden. As a result, the Society for Educational Research and Advanced Studies in Education was organized, with Dr. Stein as president and Mr. Hylla as executive secretary. This society, which was composed of Hessian educational leaders interested in this movement, sponsored the Institute ”. The result was, with financial support from the “Educational and Cultural Relations Division” of the “Office of the United States High Commissioner for Germany”, the establishment of the “University for International Educational Research”, from which the German Institute for International Educational Research emerged , today a member of the Leibniz Association and as a Blue List Institute in the tradition of the state agreement, which leads back to the German Research University via the Königstein State Agreement .

The Dr. On the occasion of Erwin Stein's 65th birthday, Wrinkle remembers a diary entry from August 19, 1949: "spent much time today talking with Prof. Hylla about an Institute for Educational Research, Stein's proposal, Fritz Karsen's plan, etc."

literature

  • Sonja Petra Karsen : Report about the father. Overall-Verlag, Berlin 1993, ISBN 3-925961-08-9 ; reprinted in and quoted from:
  • Gerd Radde : Fritz Karsen: a Berlin school reformer from the Weimar period. Berlin 1973. Extended new edition. With a report about Sonja Petra Karsen's father (= studies on educational reform, 37). Frankfurt a. M. [u. a.] 1999, ISBN 3-631-34896-7 .
  • Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , publications from the archive of the Max Planck Society, Volume 23, Berlin, 2013, ISBN 978-3-927579-27-9 . The study is the revised version of a dissertation submitted in 2010; it is available online at Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule .
  • James F Tent: Mission on the Rhine. Reeducation and Denazification in American-occupied Germany , University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1982, ISBN 9780226793573 .
  • Natalia Tsvetkova: Failure of American and Soviet Cultural Imperialism in German Universities, 1945-1990 , BRILL, Leiden, 2013, ISBN 9789004252028
  • Detlef Junker (ed.): The United States and Germany in the era of the Cold War, 1945 - 1990 , Volume 1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge [u. a.], 2004, ISBN 9780521791120 .
  • Bernd Frommelt and Marc Rittberger: GFPF & DIPF. Documentation of a cooperation since 1950 , materials for educational research, Volume 26, Frankfurt am Main, 2010, ISBN 978-3-923638-44-4 .
  • Stefan Paulus: role model USA? Americanization of University and Science in West Germany 1945-1976 , R. Oldenbourg Verlag, Munich, 2010, ISBN 978-3-486-59642-7

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , p. 26. It remains Meiser's secret why at this point she highlights Havemann as "old communists", while the political preferences of the numerous other actors in her study are unclear stay, especially with regard to their proximity to the National Socialists. If one reads the numerous short biographies (p. 157 ff.), The sometimes frightening continuities between the times before and after 1945, especially among the scientists and science officials, catch the eye. But these continuities disappear behind the supposed extraordinary qualifications, for which new "autonomous" working conditions had to be created immediately after 1945.
  2. ^ Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , p. 28
  3. ^ Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , p. 33
  4. ^ Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , p. 33. The identity of Shafer is not clarified by Meiser. In a master's thesis from 2016 at the University of Maryland , Paul Shafer is mentioned as “Chief of the Education Branch in Berlin”, from whom the study “School Survey - US Sector, Berlin; School buildings; Records Relating to the Work of the Educational Services Section, 1945-1959; Records of the Education and Cultural Relations Division; Records of the Education Branch; Records of the United States Occupation Headquarters, WWII, RG 260; NACP ". Ann Abney: SOMEONE ELSE'S TEXTBOOKS: GERMAN EDUCATION 1945-2014 , 2016, p. 22
  5. ↑ Sonja Petra Karsen: Report on the father , in: Gerd Radde: Fritz Karsen: a Berlin school reformer of the Weimar period , pp. 411-412
  6. ↑ Detlef Junker (ed.): The United States and Germany in the era of the Cold War , p. 396. The E&RA, the "Education and Religious Affairs Section", is a department of the OMGUS that is open until spring 1947 was directed by Taylor, then by Alexander. Johannes Weyer: West German Sociology, 1945-1960. German continuities and North American influence , Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, 1984, ISBN 9783428056798 , p. 329
  7. ↑ Gerd Radde: Fritz Karsen: a Berlin school reformer of the Weimar period , p. 209
  8. ^ Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , pp. 35–36. Havemann's complete plan is printed in Meiser, pp. 183-185, and can therefore be viewed online, see literature
  9. ^ Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , p. 36
  10. ↑ Gerd Radde: Fritz Karsen: a Berlin school reformer of the Weimar period , pp. 209–210
  11. ↑ Gerd Radde: Fritz Karsen: a Berlin school reformer from the Weimar period , p. 210
  12. ^ Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , p. 37
  13. ^ Gerd Radde: Fritz Karsen: a Berlin school reformer from the Weimar period , p. 211
  14. ^ Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , p. 40
  15. ^ Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , p. 38
  16. ^ Robert Havemann, quoted from Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , p. 37
  17. ^ Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , pp. 40-41.
  18. ↑ The post-war history of the KWG and the foundation of the MPG is described in detail by Jürgen Renn, Horst Kant, Birgit Kolboske: Stations of the Kaiser Wilhelm / Max Planck Society ( Memento of the original from September 22, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , Berlin, 2013 @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.edition-open-sources.org
  19. ^ Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , p. 44
  20. ^ Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , p. 45
  21. ↑ Minutes of the special committee meeting on November 30, 1946, quoted from Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , p. 46
  22. ^ "Erich Leist was born on February 15, 1892 in Magdeburg. He studied law in Geneva, Munich and Halle / Saale. From 1923 he worked in the Prussian Ministry of Culture. After his release in 1933, he worked as a lawyer and banker. In 1945 he was President of the Red Cross in the American sector of Berlin and also worked on the board of the Stifterverband der Deutschen Wissenschaft. From 1948 to 1951 Leist was Vice President of the State Central Bank of North Rhine-Westphalia, from 1951 to 1952 President of the State Central Bank of Lower Saxony and from 1952 until his retirement he was President of the State Central Bank of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, where he died in 1964. “Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Research University (1947-1953) , p. 165
  23. ↑ The first paragraph of the quotation comes from a letter from Leist dated February 17, 1947 to Fritz Karsen, the second paragraph from a memo Leist dated February 25, 1947, both quoted from Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , P. 52
  24. ^ Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , p. 52
  25. ↑ a b c d State agreement on the establishment of a German research university in Berlin-Dahlem and the financing of German research institutes of November 27, 1947 . In: Law and Ordinance Gazette for the State of Hesse . 1948 no. 1 , p. 1 ( online at the information system of the Hessian state parliament [PDF; 2.5 MB ]).
  26. ↑ The original version of the Königstein Agreement can be accessed online via the Landtag information system of the Hessian Landtag: State Agreement of the Länder of the Federal Republic of Germany on the financing of scientific research institutions (Königstein Agreement) of September 12, 1950 . In: Law and Ordinance Gazette for the State of Hesse . 1950 No. 37 , p. 179 ( online at the information system of the Hessian state parliament [PDF; 587 kB ]).
  27. ^ Letter of October 14, 1947 from Rupp to Glum, quoted from Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , p. 62
  28. ^ Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , p. 67
  29. ^ Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , p. 70. Meiser speaks of Robert T. Taylor, but in all other publications his first name is always given with Richard T.
  30. ↑ The Berlin representatives were unable to attend the meeting because they had not been able to obtain travel documents in time. Inga Meiser: The German Research University (1947-1953) , p. 70
  31. ↑ Since there was once talk of 45 Berlin institutes for which a perspective had to be found, the question of their continued existence naturally arises. These institutes, which were not transferred to the German Research University, were combined to form a Dahlem research group, for the financing of which the City of Berlin was solely responsible. “On December 4, 1950, the Berlin magistrate passed the resolution to dissolve the Dahlem research group by March 1951 and to join the departments of either the research college, the Max Planck Society or the universities. If one of the institutions could not find accommodation there, it should be closed. "(Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947 - 1953) , p. 112)
  32. ↑ In 1953 the institute became the Fritz Haber Institute of the Max Planck Society .
  33. ↑ The institute was run from 1953 to 1972 under the direction of Otto Warburg as the MPI for Cell Physiology and dissolved after Warburg's death.
  34. ↑ In 1953 the institute was affiliated to the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Hereditary Biology and Hereditary Pathology (the later Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics ) as the “Department for Tissue Research” . In 1962 the "Research Center for Tissue Cultivation" developed, which was closed in March 1963 after the retirement of its director, Else Knake . (Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , pp. 91-93)
  35. ↑ Under its director, Hans Nachtsheim , the institute experienced an eventful post-war history before it became the “Max Planck Institute for Comparative Hereditary Biology and Hereditary Pathology” in 1953, from which the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics emerged . (Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , pp. 94-98)
  36. ↑ The institute emerged under the direction of Elisabeth Schiemann from the “Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Crop Plant Research” in Vienna-Tuttenhof, which was newly founded in the early 1940s, but has always had its seat in Berlin. After the dissolution of the German Research University, Elisabeth Schiemann continued to run the institute as a research center for the Max Planck Society. It was disbanded after her retirement in 1956. (Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , pp. 98-104)
  37. ↑ For its post-war history, see: Max Planck Institute for Foreign Public Law and International Law .
  38. ↑ For the history of the institute see Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , pp. 104-105, and the article about its founder, Richard Thurnwald .
  39. ↑ Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , p. 72. It remains to be seen whether the plans of the American military government mentioned here actually applied to the institute for scientific pedagogy favored by Karsen. At the same time, in mid-1948, the Americans were making preparations to split up the Berlin University of Education and set up their own institution in the western sector of Berlin. “In December 1948, the college was moved by the American Military Administration. The Department of State sent American specialists in the field of the philosophy of education in order to teach the prospective teachers new methods for their future profession. "Natalia Tsvetkova: Failure of American and Soviet Cultural Imperialism in German Universities , p. 121
  40. ↑ Leists file note of February 25, 1947, quoted from Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , p. 53
  41. ^ Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , p. 72
  42. ^ Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , p. 77
  43. ^ Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , p. 75
  44. ↑ Minutes of the meeting of October 8, 1949, quoted from Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947 - 1953) , p. 136
  45. ↑ Warburg demanded the transfer of securities, the payment of his salary from foundation funds retrospectively from March 1945, seat in the Senate of the MPG. Minutes of the meeting of October 8, 1949, quoted from Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947 - 1953) , p. 83 ff.
  46. ↑ quoted from Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , p. 147
  47. ^ Inga Meiser: Die Deutsche Forschungshochschule (1947-1953) , p. 150
  48. ↑ Bernd Frommelt and Marc Rittberger: GFPF & DIPF , p. 13
  49. ^ Frank H. Jonas: Educational Research in Germany
  50. ↑ Bernd Frommelt and Marc Rittberger: GFPF & DIPF , p. 67