Sociology in National Socialism

German sociology under National Socialism consisted predominantly of empirical social research as commissioned science. The humanities tradition of the discipline lost weight. This was due on the one hand to the expulsion of important social scientists during the Nazi era , on the other hand to the disinterest of the Nazi rulers in academically based “ideology of legitimation”. Sociological theory formation between 1933 and 1945 remained marginal. There was no need for a “National Socialist sociology ”, although “ethnicity sociologists ” and protagonists of the corporate state tried to do it. The empirical social research, however, experienced a development spurt. For them, a large number of sociologists worked for the regime academically and non-university. After the Second World War , many specialists who had worked as sociologists before 1945 were able to re-establish themselves in the scientific community. In the young Federal Republic of Germany, influential representatives of the discipline denied that there was any sociology in the Third Reich . The claim that sociology was absent under National Socialism dominated specialist history for many years and is still up-to-date in isolated cases.

Academic Sociology in the Weimar Republic

Ferdinand Tönnies, from 1909 to 1933 President of the German Society for Sociology

In the last years of the German Empire , sociology was not yet an independent science, although scientists interested in sociological questions had founded the German Society for Sociology (DGS) as early as 1909 . There were professorships in sociology only in connection with other subjects. Among the "founding fathers" of German sociology were professors of economics ( Max Weber ), for Political Economy ( Ferdinand Tonnies ) and philosophy ( Georg Simmel ). It was not until the Weimar Republic that sociology experienced an “academic surge” as an independent discipline: the first chairs and institutes were established. During this time, “a considerable cognitive differentiation within the subject was set in motion”. Intense debates about what sociology was were the result. Helmut Schelsky judged the sociology of the Weimar years: “The danger to which one succumbed here consisted in wanting to determine the essence of sociology in general, without driving it at the same time; determine their scope and methods without sticking to the matter and the objects themselves. "

Max Weber, his value judgment postulate shaped the sociology of the Weimar Republic

According to Silke van Dyk and Alexandra Schauer, with a few exceptions, sociology in the Weimar Republic was “shaped by a purely formalistic, a-historical scientific program largely unaffected by real social and political events.” The paragraph on value judgments going back to Max Weber and Werner Sombart From the founding statutes of the DGS, in which a purely scientific character of sociology was postulated and the "representation of any practical (ethical, religious, political, aesthetic, etc.) goals" was rejected, was deleted in 1924, but the scientific depoliticization itself The most current topics remained the goal of the influential DGS leadership around Ferdinand Tönnies and Leopold von Wiese . This attitude also shaped the sociology days of the Weimar years with a few exceptions.

The 3rd Sociologists' Day in Jena in 1922 had the theme "The essence of the revolution" and focused on a very abstract controversy between relational theory (von Wiese) and Marxist sociology ( Max Adler ), with Adler remaining in a minority position. The 4th Sociologists' Day in Heidelberg in 1924 had two main themes: “Sociology and Social Policy” and “Science and Social Structure”. The main speakers Ludwig Heyde and Adolf Günther argued on the basis of relationship theory, Adler again alone represented an opposing position. The motto of the 5th Sociologists' Day in Vienna in 1926 was “The essence of democracy”, the main speakers were Hans Kelsen and Tönnies. At this congress, in contrast to its predecessors, observations of real political developments played a role, presentations and contributions to the discussion conveyed a pessimistic impression and were supported by skepticism about democracy. Othmar Spann and Sombart presented cultural studies approaches in their conference contributions. Overall, the Vienna conference did not appear to DGS President Tönnies to be free of judgmental enough. In his closing remarks he complained: “I would like more academic negotiations.” The 6th Sociologists' Day in Zurich in 1928 had the topic of “competition” and was all about the innovator Karl Mannheim . After von Wiese had highlighted “Competition” from the formal sociological perspective of his relationship theory in the main lecture, the 35-year-old Mannheim presented elements of his sociology of knowledge during the discussion of the conference topic , which earned him a lot of praise and opened up new avenues for sociology. There was no longer any talk of them at the 7th Sociologists' Day in Berlin in 1930 . The last DGS congress before the National Socialists came to power was devoted to the topic of “Press and Public Opinion”, whereby the relations between press and politics and between press and big business were discussed only in a very general way and once again with recourse to relational theory.

The 8th Sociologists' Day had been in planning since 1931; it was to take place in Kiel in 1933 with the main topic “bureaucracy” . Tönnies and his managing secretary von Wiese did not allow themselves to be dissuaded from their project by the radical change in the political situation in January 1933 and put the program for the sociologists' day from April 20th to 22nd in print. However, due to numerous cancellations and postponement requests, the congress did not take place. The ignorance of the political upheavals that appeared in these congress plans was, according to van Dyk and Schauer, “at the time not only characteristic of the DGS board, but also of the whole of institutionalized sociology. At the beginning of the 1930s hardly any German sociologist dealt with the economic crisis, the rapidly growing unemployment or the emerging fascism, arguing to a high degree formalistically and with a high degree of abstraction. " Wolf Lepenies judged the German sociologists of the interwar period :" Entangled in aching self-confidence, spoke they are more about themselves than about the German society of their time and the truly dramatic changes it went through. ” Sven Papcke notes that the threat posed by National Socialism was at most expressed by outsiders and young professionals in the field. Sociology as a whole "researched past this movement in the interwar period until it was appropriated and 'cleaned up' (...)"

Dismissals, persecution and emigration

Soon after the National Socialists came to power in 1933, numerous sociologists were dismissed from university service on the basis of the law to restore the civil service . This was followed by the first wave of emigration by social scientists , and in 1938 the number of emigrants increased to a second wave due to the integration of Austria into the German Reich, the occupation of Czechoslovakia and the intensification of the persecution of Jews in Germany . M. Rainer Lepsius estimates "that about two thirds of the full-time and part-time teachers of sociology were driven out of the universities by the consequences of the seizure of power and that, moreover, the majority of the younger sociologists, who were then to be regarded as 'young academics' left the country ”. René König comments on the qualitative and quantitative extent of emigration in the social sciences: "(...) one can easily conclude from the well-known names that one encounters in emigration that it is easier to count those who remained than the emigrants."

It was not specifically sociologists who were persecuted and expelled as representatives of an undesirable academic discipline, “but racially and politically discriminated groups of people, but this hit the social sciences particularly hard and not by chance, as the social sciences pursued knowledge programs that identified intellectuals attracted socio-cultural milieus. If one looks at emigration not in terms of the loss of personal potential associated with it, but in terms of the consequences associated with it for the scientific character of the sociology remaining in Germany, a systematic effect emerges: the exclusion of certain scientific traditions from sociology. "This was done in favor of historicism , holism , idealism , voluntarism and social Darwinism . The social science emigration thus meant not only a personal weakening, but also the loss of specific social science paradigms . The emigrants were also the administrators of the theoretical traditions of Max Weber, Georg Simmel, the sociology of knowledge and criticism of ideology . The macro-sociological legacy of Karl Marx was made taboo.

The best-known emigrants included: Theodor W. Adorno , Arnold Bergstraesser , Norbert Elias , Ernst Hugo Fischer , Theodor Geiger , Hans Gerth , Rudolf Heberle , Max Horkheimer , Marie Jahoda , Erich von Kahler , Leo Kofler , René König, Siegfried Kracauer , Paul Felix Lazarsfeld , Emil Lederer , Karl Mannheim, Herbert Marcuse , Franz Oppenheimer , Helmuth Plessner , Friedrich Pollock , Karl Popper , Albert Salomon , Alfred Schütz , Alfred Sohn-Rethel , Hans Speier , Karl August Wittfogel .

Karl Mannheim found words of appreciation for Hitler in 1934 and yet had to leave Germany in the same year

Some of those who ultimately emigrated had previously offered themselves to the regime or at least given addresses of devotion. In an interview in 1934 Karl Mannheim found words of appreciation for Adolf Hitler : “We like him. Not because of his policy, of course not, which seems very wrong to us. But due to the fact that he is a seriously upright man who is not looking for anything for himself, but tries wholeheartedly to build a new government. He is deeply sincere, made of one piece, and we admire his accountability and dedication. ”In the same year he had to leave Germany. Rudolf Heberle, who left for the USA in 1938, had proposed to the new rulers in 1934 to set up “sociographic observation stations in all German landscapes”, since an authoritarian government must be informed about the basic political attitudes of the population. In 1934, the year he emigrated to Denmark , Theodor Geiger had submitted the text Erbpflege , in which he represented racial hygiene positions and called for "reproductive barriers" for " ballast existences " as well as the introduction of a "race office". Arnold Bergstraesser , a student of Max and Alfred Weber , who was one of the founders of political science in Germany after the Second World War , showed himself to be an enthusiastic supporter of National Socialism at Heidelberg University . He wrote papers with which he offered himself to the regime, promoted National Socialism on visits abroad and was the preferred doctoral supervisor for Nazi student officials such as his later assistant Carl Jantke , the newspaper scientist and Nazi official Franz Six and the Nazi propagandist Fritz Hippler . In August 1936 Bergstraesser's Venia Legendi was withdrawn, and in 1937 he emigrated to the USA.

Not all those who had been sociologically active in the Weimar Republic and were considered undesirable from 1933 survived persecution and escape: Walter Benjamin committed suicide on the night of September 26-27, 1940 in the Spanish border town of Portbou ; Franz Eulenburg died on December 28, 1943 after being tortured in Gestapo custody in Berlin ; Ernst Grünfeld committed suicide in Berlin on May 10, 1938; Rudolf Hilferding died on February 11, 1941 after torture in the Paris Gestapo prison; Paul Ludwig Landsberg died on April 2, 1944 in Sachsenhausen concentration camp ; Käthe Leichter was murdered with poison gas on March 17, 1942 in the Nazi killing center in Bernburg .

The German Society for Sociology after 1933

Before 1933, sociology did not yet have the full status of an academic discipline, although tendencies towards establishment were discernible. The German Society for Sociology (DGS) was therefore not yet a scientific specialist society in the narrower sense, but an exclusive association of scholars from different disciplines (philosophy, economics, education) who dealt with sociology. Only five of its members were full professors exclusively for sociology in 1932/33 : Theodor Geiger ( Technical University Braunschweig ), Hans Freyer ( University of Leipzig ), Karl Mannheim ( University of Frankfurt ), Andreas Walther ( University of Hamburg ) and the retired Ferdinand Tönnies ( University of Kiel ). There were also three extraordinary professors: Fedor Stepun ( Technical University of Dresden ), Gottfried Salomon (University of Frankfurt) and Walter Sulzbach (University of Frankfurt) as well as four honorary professors and six private lecturers . At the time of the National Socialist takeover, the DGS had 148 full members. According to the articles of association, a fifth of them were elected to the DGS Council by the general assembly (which usually took place in connection with a sociology conference). This appointed the executive committee from among his group. At the beginning of 1933 the committee included the still incumbent DGS founding president Ferdinand Tönnies, the executive secretary Leopold von Wiese as well as Carl Brinkmann , Hans Lorenz Stoltenberg and Christian Eckert .

Werner Sombart was made president of the German Society for Sociology at short notice in 1933

After the seizure of power, von Wiese hastily pursued an association policy of “self-alignment”, wanted to increase the membership to include proven National Socialists, such as the Jena racial researcher Hans Friedrich Karl Günther and the pedagogue Ernst Krieck , and to exclude colleagues from the DGS who had been dismissed from their university offices, which was decided Resistance from Tönnies met. In Jena, around Franz Wilhelm Jerusalem and his assistant Reinhard Höhn, an opposition loyal to the regime to the “liberal” DGS had formed, which threatened to counter-found it and in January 1934 organized a separate sociology day. In order to prevent the counter-founding, Tönnies was replaced as president, contrary to the statutes, and replaced by a three-man committee consisting of the president Werner Sombart, the secretary of Wiese and the assessor Hans Freyer. Tönnies protested against this and was then co-opted into this body. At a regular general meeting in Berlin in December 1933, Freyer was elected as the new president, who shut down the DGS in the following years. In an obituary for Tönnies, Freyer publicly identified himself as DGS President for the last time in 1936. In 1935 he went to Hungary , where he headed the German Cultural Institute in Budapest until 1944 and also taught as a visiting professor for German cultural history.

Lepenies notes on Freyer's behavior as DGS President that there are differences of opinion as to "whether this was a clever rescue operation or a particularly perfidious form of political and ideological discipline ." Ralf Dahrendorf , M. Rainer Lepsius and Carsten Klingemann agreed that Freyer's strategy of decommissioning a DC circuit prevented the DGS in the sense Wiese and Sombart. In 1965, Dahrendorf found that “there was a Hans Freyer who was prepared to liquidate the German Sociological Society against Leopold von Wiese…” Lepsius wrote in 1979: “The Führer principle worked for the better in this case, Freyer allowed the informal shutdown of the Society and the avoidance of its being compromised through National Socialist, racial hygiene and popular educational activities. ”Klingemann, on the other hand, emphasizes that the closure was a frustrated result of a power struggle between the National Socialists for Höhn and those who, like Freyer, represented more right-wing conservative positions.

The "Meeting of German Sociologists" in Jena

Ernst Krieck headed the Jena meeting as chairman of the National Socialist Office for Science and Education

As early as June 1933, the Jena sociology professor Franz Wilhelm Jerusalem, who was not a member of the DGS Council, had announced in a letter to the managing DGS secretary Leopold von Wiese that he would organize a sociology meeting in Jena in order to take account of the new political conditions. Von Wiese reacted indignantly, which did not prevent Jerusalem and especially his assistant Reinhard Höhn from pressing ahead with the planning for the event and publishing an appeal to the German sociologists in November 1933 together with Hans FK Günther, Ernst Krieck and Andreas Walther.

"Appeal: To the German sociologists! Few sciences in the epoch of the German state and people becoming, which began in the spring of this year, immediately have to fulfill such extensive and great tasks as sociology. The German sociologist must therefore not avoid the Reich Chancellor's invitation to cooperate with all who are of good will. The fate of the German people and their future is also in his hands. The German Society for Sociology, which primarily had to initiate this cooperation and should have to give direction, has failed ... The management of the society has so far actually been in the hands of a person who is ideologically and scientifically dominated by one-sided liberalist thought processes ; the time that has dawned must meet with complete incomprehension. "

- Signed: Jerusalem, Walther, November 1933

The authors of the appeal called for a sociology in which the community was the focus and deplored the prevailing "liberalist" current in specialist science, the protagonists of which were Tönnies and von Wiese in particular.

The "Meeting of German Sociologists" took place on January 6th and 7th, 1934 in Jena. The new DGS President Freyer, who was elected just under two weeks earlier, took no part, as did Tönnies and von Wiese. Walther was also missing. His planned lecture “The New Idea of ​​Organic Society” had been withdrawn from him for unknown reasons. There is different information about the participants in the conference in technical history papers. The (non) participation of Erich Rothacker seems particularly puzzling . Contrary to the information provided by Klingemann, Otthein Rammstedt Rothacker is not one of those involved in Jena. Silke van Dyk and Alexandra Schauer do not list Rothacker in their list of those whose participation is beyond doubt. After the Second World War, Rothacker himself reported in an affidavit that he had written for the arbitration chamber proceedings of Franz Wilhelm Jerusalem on his impressions at the sociologists' day in Jena. In this declaration, contrary to the truth, he claimed that Jerusalem had given a lecture on Rousseau in a strictly scientific style . Jerusalem was then de-Nazified .

Hans FK Günther gave a lecture in Jena on "Sociology and Race Research"

The conference leader was the Frankfurt professor of philosophy and education, Krieck, who expressly pointed out that he was not leading the meeting as a private person, but as chairman of the National Socialist Office for Science and Education in the German University Association. In his welcome address, he emphasized that the subordination of all still existing scientific societies to a unified National Socialist leadership was essential. He also gave the first lecture (“Education through the People's Order”) to the invited scientists and a large number of National Socialist politicians. Other speakers were Jerusalem (“Community as a Problem of Our Time”), Pastor Alfred Krauskopf (“The Present Problems of the Sociology of Religion”), Günther (“Sociology and Racial Research”), Höhn (“The practical tasks of sociology in the present”) and Wilhelm Decker ("The historical situation of the German people"). Decker, inspector of the state leadership schools of the labor service, pointed in his contribution to what had tended to be expressed in all Jena lectures: the sharp demarcation from sociology as it had been practiced up to now and the emphasis on its future role as a means and organ of National Socialist re-education .

There was extensive and positive reports from the press about the sociologists' meeting throughout the German Reich, emphasizing the subordination of sociology to the idea of ​​the “national community”. In the Völkischer Beobachter of January 11, 1934, the meeting was described as a "milestone in the history of science". The Frankfurter Zeitung of January 12, 1934 assigned sociology the task of giving the practice of the new community life a spiritual foundation, and that in a language that is understood by the people. To do this, new, linguistically creative concepts are required. In intellectual work. Newspaper from the Scientific World of January 20, 1934, on the other hand, the discipline was required to be application-oriented: the new sociology should go directly to practice. The Hamburg Foreign Journal of January 15, 1934, emphasized the importance of the concept of race for sociology in its reporting.

Looking back, van Dyk and Schauer found that in 1934 in Jena it was possible to locate sociology as a National Socialist science, although contrary to previous announcements, a counter-foundation to the DGS was waived. After the Jena meeting, sociology presented itself as a self-confident discipline "which was far removed from the niche existence of a despised science." The majority of sociologists were of the opinion that their subject would "advance to the leading science of the new era".

Loss of importance of theoretical sociology

After the seizure of power, theoretically oriented sociologists such as Hans Freyer, Werner Sombart and Othmar Spann combined their commitment to National Socialism with the hope of being able to establish themselves as a source of ideas for the regime. Sociologists who had remained marginalized for the sociological scientific community during the Weimar Republic, such as Max Hildebert Boehm , Max Rumpf and Johann Wilhelm Mannhardt , saw their hour as coming.

In the vicinity of the Leipzig School of Sociology , work was being carried out on a genuinely “German Sociology”, for which Freyer had already done preliminary work with his book Revolution von rechts . At the sociological meeting of 1934 in Jena, which was in opposition to the DGS and its president Tönnies and had been organized by Jerusalem and Höhn, a “national sociology” was propagated. Jerusalem, too, had shown the way with a little writing. With "Völkische Sociologie" or "Volkssoziologie", the focus was no longer on the artificial construct of society , but on the 'natural' and 'grown' subject of history, the people. "

This theoretical approach was initially the people's mirror. Journal for German Sociology and Folk Studies committed. The magazine appeared from 1934 and was published by Boehm, Freyer and Rumpf in conjunction with the DGS. The aim of the Volksspiegel was to “transform sociology into a comprehensive folk science, into a science of the 'national community'”. That was not clear enough for the rulers, the Reich Office for the Promotion of German Literature rated the magazine as not unsuspicious and not recommendable. From 1936 on, Rumpf, detached from the now dormant DGS, acted as the sole publisher and geared the magazine entirely towards peasant romance and hostility to the big cities. In 1938 the magazine ceased to appear.

The initiator of Austrofascism , Othmar Spann, presented his theory of the corporate state in May 1933 during an audience with Hitler, but was brusquely rejected, but the Institute for Estates in Düsseldorf was able to start work. However, from 1936 onwards, Spann and his followers were persecuted as deviants from National Socialist teaching. Leopold von Wiese served himself in 1934 with his relationship theory. In the Cologne Quarterly Issues for Sociology , he wrote: “The more I let this change in the world affect me, the more it is clear to me: Now, especially in Germany, the time would have come for a powerful, realistic social theory! Biology, genetics and race, and political ethics cannot do it alone; a very large, most of the questions raised by practical development belong to sociology. "

All attempts to make themselves useful to the regime in this way failed. Theoretical sociology lost its importance and came to a standstill. However, National Socialism favored the development of sociology as an empirical science. Carsten Klingemann interprets this as an indication that with the Third Reich, the German Mandarin , as Fritz K. Ringer had described it, ended. There was no longer any need for scholars to formulate the spiritual standards of the nation. They were replaced by experts with specialist knowledge that the National Socialist rulers could also use.

Klingemann emphasizes: “During National Socialism, modern empirical sociology was not a nationalist, although it was based on nationalist guidelines. But one should not equate ideological phraseology and concrete sociological expertise. "

Sociological expert knowledge in the service of Nazi politics

In a regime that was based on the ability to plan almost all relevant areas of social coexistence, according to van Dyk and Schauer, there were numerous opportunities for such scientists “who technocratically asked about the stability conditions of social order. In addition to the already existing university institutes, a number of state-funded, non-university research centers were created that dealt with questions of social structure, spatial planning and population development. Klingemann cites spatial research as an example of the systematically brought about interdependence between non-university professionalization and academic institutionalization: in June 1935 the state agency for spatial planning (RfR) was founded, in December 1935 the university working group for spatial research (RAG) was founded. Sociologists were represented in the governing bodies and publications of spatial research: Friedrich Bülow , Erika Fischer, Leo Hilberath and a. The Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft finally coordinated 51 university study groups for spatial research and implemented binding research programs nationwide, in which sociologists played a key role in large numbers. Walter Hildebrandt , Hans Linde , Herbert Morgen , Georg Weippert , Heinz Sauermann , Carl Brinkmann , Karl Seiler , Karl Heinz Pfeffer , Eduard Willeke , Max Ernst zu Solms-Rödelheim , Gerhard Wurzbacher and Hans Freyer belonged to this larger circle of sociologists working within of spatial and agricultural research worked empirically. Sociologists and social scientists also took on management positions in individual university working groups ( Hans Weigmann , Friedrich Bülow, Heinz Sauermann, Karl Valentin Müller , Gerhard Mackenroth and others).

Klingemann also shows how social science expert knowledge was used by the secret service and proves that professional sociologists

• worked for the National Socialist Foreign Office (e.g. Ernst Wilhelm Eschmann : advising the German ambassador in Paris, preparatory work for the security service of the Reichsführer SS ),
• for the Reich Ministry for Armaments and Ammunition ( Richard Thurnwald : Consultant for the deployment of foreign workers),
• for the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories (for example: Kurt Stegmann von Pritzwald : Head of "Special Department for Science and Culture"),
• for the Reich Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda (for example: Erich Rothacker : briefly head of the public education department),
• for the Wehrmacht (for example: Arnold Gehlen : War Administrator, "Psychological Testing Center of the Army" in Prague; Karl Valentin Müller : Army Psychologist),
• for the Reichsnährstand (for example: Hans Linde : clerk in the staff office of the Reichsbauernführer),
• for the German Labor Front (for example: Wilhelm Brepohl , reviewer for the Ergonomic Institute of the German Labor Front and head of the research center for people in the Ruhr area ),
• as well as for the Academy for German Law (for example: Carl August Emge , Deputy President and Scientific Director).

"Eradicating Sociology" in Hamburg

Very early after the National Socialist takeover of power, the chair of sociology, Andreas Walther, applied the methods of the Chicago School , which he had imported from the USA, to the urban sociology of Hamburg. He was also inspired by French positivism and the sociology of Émile Durkheim . In addition, Walther's style of thinking, like that of many scientists who were at the service of the regime, was fed by social and racial hygiene on the one hand and the tradition of organicistic social theories on the other.

Walther had already planned a “social atlas” in the 1920s and met with great interest from the Hamburg authorities, because there were many social hot spots in the Hanseatic city . But it was only after the National Socialists came to power that the project was financed accordingly. In 1934/35 Walther developed a social cartography of Hamburg's slum areas to prepare for socially hygienic surface renovations, which was generously funded by the Emergency Association of German Science . In a description of his urban sociological approach, Walther wrote that any real renovation requires preparation through sociological research. Before demolition and new construction measures are taken, it is necessary to determine how to deal with the individual: “[T] he who remained healthy despite the anti-social environment, ie who are particularly immune to urban corruption, promote more successful progress in the city; those suitable for peripheral and rural settlements, which are also not lacking, lead to the goal of their wishes; transplant the only infected into healthy circles of life; take control of those unable to reform; eradicate the genetic makeup of the biological hopeless defects. "

In retrospect, Walther's urban sociology is called "eradicating sociology". Andreas Schneider states that "Andreas Walther is without a doubt the perfect example of a social engineer whose scientific expertise supported the destructive power of the Nazi regime."

The Sociographic Institute at the University of Frankfurt

The Sociographic Institute at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main was founded in spring 1943. The establishment of the institute was “the direct result of large-scale National Socialist plans based on military conquests, the aim of which was the brutal elimination of certain population groups and the creation of new social structures based on sociological and economic profitability criteria.” The director of the institute was Ludwig Neundörfer ; it stayed that way after 1945.

Like Andreas Walther, Neundörfer was one of the few sociologists who had already carried out empirical social research in the Weimar Republic and were thus more of an outsider in their craft. He represented a concept similar to that of Marie Jahoda and Paul Lazarsfeld in Austria with their famous study Die Arbeitslosen von Marienthal . He wanted to present his survey method at the 8th Sociologists' Day, which then failed. After the National Socialist seizure of power, Neundörfer became the department head for urban planning in Heidelberg, from 1937 he was also the district planner for North Baden and from 1939 to the end of 1940 he was district planner and deputy regional planner at the Reichsstatthalter Baden. From 1941 he worked on a memorandum for the Reichsführer SS , Heinrich Himmler , in which he described the number of settlers for new areas in the east. In 1942 Neudörfer applied for the establishment of the Sociographic Institute, which was immediately approved by the Reich Ministry of Science. In addition to the Frankfurt Institute, Neundörfer was available for his main project, the creation of a “Reichsgutachten” on the livelihoods of the agricultural population, “Arbeitsstelle inventory plans” in Berlin, Vienna and Frankfurt am Main, which were subject to the Reichsnährstand .

In a work report in 1943, Neundörfer made it clear in a work report that this major project was not about pure statistics, but also about generating ideal types in the sense of Max Weber (who remains unnamed): “An attempt is made to“ go through very broad and detailed principles To keep getting new simplifications to the essentials, so to feel the forces that are alive in the individual landscapes, but also to show signs of illness that the people's leadership must not ignore. ”The representation was illustrated by a lot, similar to Walther's study of the city Maps.

In addition to the major project and the further work on the memorandum for Himmler, the institute was concerned with reconstruction plans for some Lorraine country towns, planning of workers' living communities in Silesia and, on behalf of the Gauleiter, with a "new generation plan for the agricultural population Gau Hessen-Nassau". From 1944 onwards, faced with military defeats, the top planning authorities slowly turned from the “new eastern region” to the “old empire”. Accordingly, the orders for the Sociographical Institute changed in the direction of reconstruction planning. It stayed that way even after the end of the Third Reich. Neundörfer was able to continue without interruption and received orders from the American military government, and later from the federal government. Neundörfer headed the institute until his death in 1975. Then it was resolved.

The Institute for Border and Foreign Studies in Berlin

The Institute for Border and Foreign Studies was founded in 1926 by Max Hildebert Boehm in Berlin and was the successor to the department for nationality and tribal problems at the Political College, which he had previously headed . It was thus one of the many organizations involved in “German work” and was dominated by National Socialist agitation. In the early years, Kleo Pleyer was Boehm's assistant at the institute, followed by Hermann Raschhofer in this position . While the institute operated under financial difficulties until 1933, considerable financial and human resources were tapped when various National Socialist institutions supplied it with orders that could be used for their ethnopolitical goals.

In 1933 Boehm received a professorship for folk theory and sociology of folk at the University of Jena and a teaching position for nationality studies at the Friedrich Wilhelms University, today's Humboldt University in Berlin . The resulting financial security enabled him to bring his long-time companion Karl Christian von Loesch to the institute as deputy head. Loesch had also previously worked at the Political College. In spite of this, the institute's funds remained scarce in the first years of National Socialist rule. That changed only with the beginning of the war, when the theoretical-propagandistic treatment of problems of national politics was no longer in the foreground of the institute's work. The task now was to develop materials that could be used in practice within the framework of the German expansion and occupation policy. The institute expanded. Before 1940 it had only three employees in addition to the two managers, by 1943 there were already 26, including six scientists.

The institute was concerned with planning-relevant research on the East , which involved gigantic settlement projects in the conquered areas of the East, where completely synthetic social and societal structures were to be created. In addition to planning the resettlement of German minorities, often against their will, considerations were also made about how to deal with the majority of the “foreign ethnic groups” in incorporated or occupied areas. When Hans Frank became governor general of the so-called rest of Poland , the institute was involved in the development of the “Poland policy”. Here Boehm took the minority view that the Poles who would remain after the murder of the Polish Jews, the Polish ruling classes and the political "enemies of the Reich" and after the recruitment of a permanent army of work slaves for the "Old Reich" should be assimilated, and argued , Thuringians are also Slavs . Permanent dominance of the occupied, connected areas is only possible through assimilation. Millions of people would be needed in the industrial centers. This strategy could not prevail.

Until the end of the war, the Institute for Border and Foreign Studies worked for the Reich Ministry of the Interior, the Foreign Office, the Propaganda Ministry and the East Ministry, as well as the foreign intelligence service, the Reichsführer SS and the police. On December 1, 1944, at the invitation of Otto Ohlendorf , Boehm was the main speaker at a “working meeting of the Reich Ministry of Economics on sociological questions and tasks”.

In October 1945 Boehm was dismissed from the public service . He moved from the Soviet zone of occupation to the British zone , but was unable to re-establish himself academically. In 1951 he founded the later state-sponsored "North-East German Academy" in Lüneburg . It was later renamed the "East German Academy" or " East Academy ".

The research center for people in the Ruhr area

The presentation of the comparatively small research center for the people in the Ruhr area is a special one with regard to the continuities between social research under National Socialism and West German post-war sociology. The research center was transferred to the social research center at the University of Münster in Dortmund in 1946 . Although it was nominally a folklore institution, van Dyk and Schauer cite it as an example of such continuity, as does Weyer.

The research center was founded on April 2nd, 1935 at a meeting of folklorists in the Provincial Institute for Westphalian Regional Studies and Folklore and was initially affiliated to its Folklore Commission for Westphalia . From 1938 the research center was then directly subordinate to the Provincial Institute. Its initiator Wilhelm Brepohl became the scientific managing director. The so-called "industrial folklore" was researched. In particular, the national composition of the Ruhr area population, the origin of immigrant population groups and the problems of their ability to integrate and adapt were the focus of the analyzes. Brepohl described the program as follows: “The subject of the scientific activity of the research center is the people of the Ruhr area in their race, ethnicity and occupation.” The results are to be produced “which provide information about the sociological structure of the Ruhr area, its status, his occupational categories etc. with the aim of arriving at the realization that only one particular type of human being can be used productively for any kind of industrial work. "

The research center cooperated closely with the Race Political Office of the NSDAP and other institutions of the National Socialist administration. Brepohl's memorandum on the "Polack type" as an inferior resident of the Ruhr area was created at the request of the Ergonomic Institute of the German Labor Front .

Brepohl used the knowledge gained at the research center for his post-war work. In 1948 his book about the construction of the Ruhr people appeared in the course of the east-west migration. According to Otto Neuloh, it made a significant contribution to putting the social research center in Dortmund on a somewhat more stable basis.

"Reports from the Reich"

Otto Ohlendorf in the uniform of an SS brigade leader in 1943

Berlin guest house of the SS, the last working meeting of sociologists who had put themselves in the service of National Socialism took place here in December 1944.

See also : Reports from the Reich

What Rudolf Heberle had proposed to the rulers as "sociographic observation stations in all German landscapes" four years before his emigration, derived from an idea of ​​his father-in-law Tönnies ("sociological observatories"), was called "life area research and reporting" from 1939 by Höhn and later operated by Otto Ohlendorf for the Reich Security Main Office . The secret results were initially forwarded to selected top Nazi officials as “reports on the domestic political situation” and then as “reports from the Reich”. In retrospect, this “life area reporting” was referred to as the “opinion research institute of the dictatorship” ( Jürgen Friedrichs ) or “Gallup-Poll in the National Socialist version” ( Heinz Höhne ). The last reports appeared in the summer of 1944. Then Martin Bormann brought the project to a standstill because the information had become too pessimistic for him. He described the reports as the "mouthpiece of defeatism".

Ohlendorf, who in 1941/1942 had commanded Einsatzgruppe D of the Security Police and SD , which murdered 90,000 Jews, Sinti and Roma and leadership cadres of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in southern Ukraine and the Caucasus, had become Deputy State Secretary in the Reich Ministry of Economics in 1943 . Even after the “life area reporting” was discontinued, he kept in contact with sociologists. In December 1944 he invited to a "working meeting of the Reich Ministry of Economics on sociological questions and tasks" in Berlin, which, among other things, dealt with planning for the economy after the war. The meeting took place in the SS guest house, where the infamous Wannsee Conference had also taken place. Of the 15 participants in the meeting, six worked as social scientists in the Federal Republic after 1945: Max Hildebert Boehm (who gave the main speech), Hans Joachim Beyer , Horst Jecht , Karl Valentin Müller, Karl Heinz Pfeffer and Franz Ronneberger . Ohlendorf was sentenced to death in the Einsatzgruppen trial in 1948 and executed in 1951.

Sociologists in the Third Reich and after 1945

See also : Sociology in National Socialism / Appointments of West German Sociology Professors in the Post-War Period

Klingemann assumes that "the number of former Reich sociologists working in the Federal Republic and the young sociologists trained by them before 1945 is over 120 professionals." Many of the sociology professors from the Third Reich were, if their age allowed, professorships at Federal Republican universities appointed or, like Max Hildebert Boehm and Reinhard Höhn, were able to set up state-sponsored research institutes outside of universities. One of the exceptions was the retired Andreas Walther, whom the British Allies stripped of all of his academic rights in 1945.

Scientists who had not acquired their academic license to teach under National Socialism specifically for the subject of sociology were also given sociology professorships in the Federal Republic, such as Eugen Lemberg . He had completed his habilitation in 1937 at the German University in Prague and was appointed lecturer in “Social and People's Science” there in 1942. In 1957 he became professor for sociology of education at the University for International Educational Research (HIPF) in Frankfurt am Main, later the German Institute for International Educational Research .

All those who completed their habilitation in sociology between 1933 and 1945 worked at German universities after 1945. Young scientists from the time of the Third Reich, such as Helmut Schelsky in particular, but also Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann and Elisabeth Pfeil , made careers in the Federal Republic. Some used the detour via the social research center at the University of Münster in Dortmund. Schelsky, who was influential there, also ensured that his teacher Hans Freyer could continue teaching as an emeritus at the University of Münster. Specialists who returned from emigration had a harder time of it, which Alphons Silbermann , who was affected by it himself, bitterly commented: “Those representatives of sociology who, acting opportunistically, were ready to prostitute their science” were able to “after the collapse of Hitler's rule its ideology Pass on ideas at will. "

Even Franz Ronneberger , formerly untersturmführer received in postwar Germany a professor of sociology in Bielefeld, later a professor of communication sciences in Erlangen-Nuremberg , that faculty, once at the Karl Valentin Müller taught. In 1993 Ronneberger was appointed honorary senator of the Catholic University of Eichstätt for his achievements in the journalism course .

Richard Korherr , author of the Korherr report on the “ Final Solution to the Jewish Question ”, formerly a senior research assistant and confidante of the “ Reichsführer SS ” Heinrich Himmler , had a teaching position for methods of empirical social research and demography at the university from winter semester 1959/60 to summer semester 1962 for economics and social sciences in Nuremberg at Müller's chair.

Denazification of sociologists

Between 1946 and 1947 there were numerous dismissals from university operations under the supervision of the American military authorities, but most of them were soon lifted. From 1948 onwards the interest of the Americans in a consistent denazification decreased noticeably. According to van Dyk and Schauer, this was also related to an Allied-supported paradigm shift in academic sociology. In order to meet the need for empirical social researchers, the social researchers trained in the National Socialist research institutes were used. This has enabled numerous pre-stressed scientists to successfully return to teaching and research. It also gave them the opportunity to "reprocess the data they had collected during the Nazi era against the background of a growing social need for social data and technologies."

The mutual issuing of Persil certificates by Reich sociologists was also helpful for the successful denazification . Erich Rothacker made a statement for the discharge of Franz Wilhelm Jerusalem. In a letter, Jerusalem asked for a description of its role at the Jenaer Sociologentag of 1934: "Could you at least speak vaguely of my lecture on Rousseau and that it contained no statements in the sense of National Socialism?" He also asked for a reference that the whole conference was unsympathetic to the National Socialists. Rothacker complied with the request in a false affidavit, and Jerusalem was finally exonerated on April 4, 1949. His return to university business was thwarted by Leopold von Wiese, who made Jerusalem jointly responsible for the end of his influence in the DGS in 1933.

Post-war work on the Brockhaus

Hans Freyer, the last DGS president, returned to Leipzig University after 1945 and taught sociology there before moving to West Germany. There he, like Wilhelm Emil Mühlmann , worked for Brockhaus-Verlag in Wiesbaden , where they were involved as authors in the creation of the first post-war editions of the Kleiner Brockhaus and the Großer Brockhaus . Gunther Ipsen also took part in the work on the Großer Brockhaus .

The two-volume small Brockhaus (1949/1950) was to be based on the Allbuch from 1941/1942 (The New Brockhaus in four volumes and atlas) at the request of the publisher , which required semantic conversion work. This did not seem possible with every lemma. Mühlmann refused to deal with "negation" and "negro question". He informed the publishing house management that he had dealt with everything relevant under "Negroes". He was less cautious about other topics. Under the keyword “eugenics”, he lists as its practical consequences: “Enabling the reproduction of healthy, socially valuable families, monitoring or restricting the reproduction of the inferior (anti-social, hereditary diseases), combating influences that damage the genetic make-up (e.g. venereal diseases, Alcoholism)."

Freyer, Ipsen and Mühlmann edited thousands of lemmas for the two Brockhaus editions, including “Antisemitism” and “Antifascism” (Freyer), “Racial Theories, Racial Policy, Racial Laws” and “Umvolkung” (Mühlmann), “Asocial” and “The Germans “(Ipsen). In summary, Klingemann finds that the many contributions by former imperial sociologists in reference works were of great importance for the popularization of their scientific and ideological positions and the "subcutaneous orientation of public discourses".

Social research center at the University of Münster in Dortmund

The Social Research Center at the University of Münster in Dortmund (SFSD) is an outstanding example of institutional continuity after 1945. It was the result of the amalgamation of already existing research institutions, some of which had a distinct Nazi past. The considerable empirical data from these institutions was largely adopted and served as the basis for further research.

The SFSD was founded in 1946 on the initiative of Otto Neuloh, who was also its first managing director. The Harkort Institute of the Dortmund Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Research Center for Volkstum in the Ruhr Area were transferred to the SFSD, and there was close cooperation with the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Occupational Physiology . In the 1950s and 1960s, the SFSD was the largest social research center in the Federal Republic of Germany; many members of the first post-war generation of West German sociologists (such as Hans Paul Bahrdt , Dieter Claessens , Lars Clausen , Urs Jaeggi , Hermann Korte , Niklas Luhmann and Heinrich Popitz ) were temporarily active there. However, 14 employees were also employed who had already been professionally active in Germany before 1945: Wilhelm Brepohl, Walter Christaller , Helmuth Croon , Gunther Ipsen, Carl Jantke , Richard Korherr , Hans Linde , Wilhelm Mitze, Dietrich von Oppen , Karl Heinz Pfeffer , Elisabeth Pfeil , Helmut Schelsky , Kurt Utermann and Eduard Willeke . According to Weyer, half of the SFSD's senior scientists were made up of people who essentially drew their scientific reputation from the era of fascism. For Klaus Ahlheim , the SFSD was a "washing facility" for former Nazi scientists, van Dyk / Schauer call the SFSD a "pass-through gate for scientists burdened by National Socialism who were looking for a way into university science."

Helmut Schelsky and Gunther Ipsen had a particular influence on the Social Research Center. The Freyer student and former assistant to Arnold Gehlen, Schelsky, was appointed professor of sociology at the University of Strasbourg in 1943 , but was no longer able to take up the position due to the development of the war. In 1960 he took over the management of the SFSD from Neuloh and in the post-war decades was the most influential sociologist in Germany, alongside König in Cologne and Adorno / Horkheimer in Frankfurt. Ipsen was head of the department for “Sociography and Social Statistics” at the SFSD for ten years, in 1959 he regained his professor status, which had been lost when the University of Königsberg was closed: The Westphalian Wilhelms University in Münster took him over as a professor emeritus for reuse . In the Third Reich he was considered the "prototype of the Nazi sociologist". In 1933 he had submitted three relevant papers: on the sociology of the German Volkstum, the country people and on the Prussian hereditary court law with the title Blood and Soil . His following work on agricultural sociology during National Socialism is rated by Klingemann as thoroughly scientific writings, which is why he formulated the "law of the double Ipsen": "The popular political enthusiast Ipsen is subject to the sociological Ipsen when it matters."

Organizational resonance: "The civil war in sociology"

The fact that in 1946, Leopold von Wiese, “a scientist took over the DGS leadership who - although certainly not an active Nazi - had offered himself to the fascist regime in various ways” seems to Johannes Weyer “quite strange” and, in his opinion, had with the good ones American contacts to do Wieses. Pitirim A. Sorokin , who was friends with Wiese, sent him a letter of recommendation to be presented to the university officer Edward Hartshorne , who had been Sorokin's assistant from 1936 to 1941. This letter opened all American doors to Wiese. After Hartshorne's murder on August 30, 1946, Howard P. Becker became the university officer in charge of sociology, a former student of Wieses.

Von Wiese accepted many “Reich sociologists” into the DGS, with the exception of those to whom he attributed complicity in the loss of his function as the company's managing secretary in December 1933. Members of the newly founded DGS were, for example: Hans Freyer (whom von Wiese accepted without a decision by the general meeting), Adolf Günther, Karl Valentin Müller and Wilhelm Emil Mühlmann (for whom he vouched as a personal godfather), Egon von Eickstedt and Ilse Schwidetzky . Emigrated social scientists, however, were refused full membership. Although von Wiese, as before 1933, understood and promoted his relational theory as the actual sociology and although he organized three anthropological-sociological conferences and thus linked to an understanding of science from the time of National Socialism, resistance soon arose against the alleged Americanization he was supposed to be pursuing the DGS, which had joined the International Sociological Association (ISA), which, in a word from Gunther Ipsen, soon expanded into a "civil war in sociology".

A counter-organization was founded, the national section of the International Institute of Sociology (IIS). The professional association founded by René Worms in 1893 was the only and internationally recognized sociological organization until the Second World War, and Theodor Geiger, Karl Mannheim, Georg Simmel, Werner Sombart, Richard Thurnwald and Ferdinand Tönnies had also belonged to it. In contrast to the ISA, in which national associations were organized, the IIS was an association of scholars based on personal memberships. The last IIS President, René Maunier, was deposed in 1944 for collaboration with National Socialism and at the same time relieved of his teaching post. In 1949 the Italian Corrado Gini , a former leading fascist theorist, revived the institute. Hans Freyer became the spokesman for the German section. Other members of the German IIS section included Ipsen, Brepohl, Gehlen and Karl Valentin Müller, who became general secretary of the IIS in 1954. Schelsky had attended the founding meeting of the German IIS section on April 21 and 22, 1951 in Wiesbaden , but had not joined it. Some of the German members, like Freyer, were also organized in the DGS at the same time.

When the chairmanship of the DGS was passed to Helmuth Plessner in 1955 and not, as expected, to Helmut Schelsky, the hopes of former “Reich sociologists” that the association would develop to the right were finally lost. Plessner, who promoted the development of the DGS from an academic honorary association to a scientific professional association and opened up the society to the next generation of sociologists, “as an emigrant offered little guarantee of tolerance for those forces who, like Müller, were not very keen to trace the traces of their past In addition, René König exercised great influence in the ISA (he later served as its president from 1962 to 1966) and in 1955 took over the management of the most important specialist body, the Cologne journal for sociology and social psychology .

An open conflict arose when it became known in 1957 that the ISS was planning to hold its 18th International Sociological Congress in Nuremberg in 1958 and that this project was being carried out in a clear front against the DGS. Harsh controversies followed, with the fronts running right across the DGS. "The danger of a split in German sociology and the dissolution of the uniform professional organization became more and more threatening."

König in particular tried to prevent support for the ISS Congress by intervening with public authorities and the press, but the support of the ISS, especially at the Federal Ministry of the Interior , was too great to prevent the event. However, König managed to get a large number of prominent foreign experts to cancel their participation. From the USA only Sorokin took part. After this partial success, the DGS leadership abandoned previous tactical restraint and circulated facts about the National Socialist past of some sociologists. Schelsky protested against this “tough course” in April 1959 when he resigned from the DGS board. The DGS only slowly recovered from these controversies. There was a sociologist day again only after a five-year break in 1964.

According to Stefan Kühl , the IIS was the “organizational retreat base” for German sociologists after the Second World War, “who were discredited by many of their colleagues because of their commitment to National Socialism.” The institute's scientific course was in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Years of IIS presidents Corrado Gini and Karl Valentin Müller , who wanted to disseminate their "anthrosociological, biological research approach" via the IIS.

Late technical historical processing

After the end of the Second World War there was a “collective silence” among West German sociologists from 1933 to 1945, in which early remigrants also took part. A sociological analysis of the National Socialist system of rule was not carried out. The role of sociology in National Socialism was also not discussed. The first post-war congress of the German Society for Sociology (DGS) from September 19 to 21, 1946 in Frankfurt am Main is considered to be the "hour of birth of the myth of the non-existence of sociology under National Socialism" . In his opening speech, Leopold von Wiese, first DGS chairman after the war and managing secretary of the society under its president Ferdinand Tönnies until 1933, briefly outlined the history of German sociology, remaining silent from 1933 to 1945. In the following main lecture he asked his colleagues not to concern themselves with National Socialism and justified this with the sentence: “And yet the plague came over the people from outside, unprepared, as an insidious attack. This is a metaphysical secret that the sociologist cannot touch. ”This strategy of silence was not seriously questioned until the 1980s. Only the outsider Heinz Maus disturbed the peace in the first post-war years. Already at the Frankfurt Sociologentag he explained what he later repeated in various newspaper articles: “Today it is cheap to point to the tyranny of the Hitler-centered power group and to forget that you didn't do it when it was time. That would of course mean admitting that official sociology has failed. "

Remigrants like Theodor W. Adorno (“vacuum”) and Max Horkheimer (“complete silence”) found that no sociology had been practiced in Nazi Germany. In 1958, in the introduction to the Fischer-Taschenbuch-Lexikon Soziologie, René König coined the influential formula that German sociology was "brutally brought to a complete standstill around 1933". This statement was expressly adopted by him in all subsequent editions of the lexicon up to 1980 (19th edition, 410 thousand). In 1987 he revised his statement to the effect that it was not sociology that disappeared after the seizure of power , but some of its spiritual traditions. In 1959, Helmut Schelsky accused König of having formulated his statement about the complete standstill from 1933 "sociologically ill-conceived", not because Schelsky claimed that sociology existed in the Third Reich, but because he took the view that German sociology was already before 1933 was at its end: "The melodies were played through, the fronts in a freeze." In the subsequent controversy between the two scientists, König vehemently advocated the thesis that German sociology after one, referring to the work of Karl Mannheim and Theodor Geiger Stagnation in 1928 experienced a wave of renewal that was then broken in 1933.

Johannes Weyer pointed out in the context of a description of the specialist historical deficits that in 1969 Friedrich Jonas could publish a four-volume history of sociology, which deals with the period from 1933 to 1945 in four lines. It was not until the late 1970s that consistent research began to demythologize the legend of the absence of sociology in the Third Reich. It was operated in particular by Dirk Kaesler , Carsten Klingemann, M. Rainer Lepsius, Otthein Rammstedt, Erhard Stölting and Johannes Weyer. According to van Dyk / Schauer, Lepsius' statement that a National Socialist sociology did not emerge "because the racist determinism of the National Socialist worldview represented the counterprogram of a sociological analysis" had a great influence but without meeting the scientific requirements. Uta Gerhardt also takes this view almost three decades later: “A sociology, written in German and taught in Germany, no longer existed during the twelve years of National Socialism. Without freedom of teaching and research, the few sociologists who were not silenced or driven into exile were at the mercy of the so-called 'folk sociology' decreed by the state. Some who now occupied a professorship were quite prepared to serve the criminal regime. "

In 1996, Carsten Klingemann's Sociology in the Third Reich was published, a collection of his extensive specialist historical work, in which he had worked out continuities in terms of personnel and content with West German post-war sociology since the early 1980s. Klingemann's theses sparked heated disputes between the scientists involved in the subject. This led to conflicts over the different interpretations of source material, which led to different assessments of the role of individual sociologists in the Third Reich. The Kaesler-Klingemann controversy surrounding Alfred Weber is an example of this .

The assessment of the work of various non-university research institutes as empirical social research was also controversial. Erwin Scheuch complained in 2000: “You don't become an empirical sociologist by creating tables for the Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft für Raumforschung or doing research on farm workers.” Silke van Dyk and Alexandra Schauer contrast this with a remark by Helmut Schelsky from 1950. After that, in the years before the war, a great number of young people turned to applied social science field work, "but not with the awareness of being and becoming sociologists (...)" You yourself note that both the institutional involvement of some Nazi research institutes as well as the scientific careers of numerous Nazi social researchers after 1945 indicate "that those works were at least also empirical social research."

The statements to which Otthein Rammstedt in his main historical work, German Sociology 1933–1945. The normality of an adjustment had come, were criticized methodologically and in terms of content. Rammstedt had determined the number of sociologists under National Socialism from information in various editions of Kürschner's German Scholars Calendar , which were based on the scientists' own information . After that there were more chairs for sociology in 1944/45 than in 1932/33; the number of university and non-university institutes increased rapidly. In addition, he had listed 4,000 publications on 200 pages, which he assigned to what he called “German Sociology”. Lepsius doubted that the one presented by Rammstedt was a serious professional story, that the compiled "sociological literature" consisted of "cabbage and beets", that sociologists had been identified by "an indeterminate self-designation". König calls Rammstedt's list of publications an “almost monstrous misdirection” for the reader. Klingemann considers the term "German Sociology" used by Rammstedt to be a subsequent construct that was not used as a technical term between 1933 and 1945. Rammstedt continued to use the term, for example in 2011 in the lemma “Sociology, German” of the lexicon on sociology that he co-edited . In the overview work on sociology under National Socialism by van Dyk and Schauer, the term is mentioned several times without discussion.

The "continuity thesis" is now prominently dealt with in textbooks, but continues to be contested by individual specialist representatives such as Uta Gerhardt. The historical review article published by the German Society for Sociology and written by van Dyk / Schauer summarizes: “There was not only a sociology in NS, but also at that time the foundations for its successful institutionalization as empirical Science created in the post-war period. Just as 1933 did not mean the end of sociology in terms of the history of science, its rebuilding after 1945 cannot simply be described as a new beginning. "

literature

• Michaela Christ, Maja Suderland (editors): Sociology and National Socialism: Positions, Debates, Perspectives . Suhrkamp, ​​Berlin 2014, ISBN 978-3-518-29729-2 .
• Silke van Dyk , Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its processing and the role of the DGS (= yearbook for the history of sociology). 2, revised and expanded edition. Springer, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 .
• Urs Jaeggi and others: Spirit and catastrophe. Studies on sociology under National Socialism. Scientific authors publishing house, Berlin 1983, ISBN 3-88840-203-4 .
• Dirk Kaesler : The early German sociology 1909 to 1934 and their milieus of origin. A sociological investigation . Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen 1984, ISBN 3-531-11709-2 .
• Carsten Klingemann : home sociology or instrument of order. Specialized historical aspects of sociology in Germany between 1933 and 1945. In: M. Rainer Lepsius (Ed.): Sociology in Germany and Austria 1918–1945 . (= Cologne journal for sociology and social psychology. Special issue 23). Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen 1981, ISBN 3-531-11575-8 , pp. 273-307.
• Carsten Klingemann: Sociology in the Third Reich. Nomos-Verlags-Gesellschaft, Baden-Baden 1996, ISBN 3-7890-4298-6 .
• Carsten Klingemann: Sociology and Politics. Social science expert knowledge in the Third Reich and in the early West German post-war period . VS, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2009, ISBN 978-3-531-15064-2 .
• Karsten Linne: The Ruhr area as a test case: Nazi sociology between racism and social technology. In: Yearbook for the History of Sociology 1993. Opladen 1995, pp. 181–209.
• Heinz Maus : Report on sociology in Germany 1933–1945. In: Cologne journal for sociology and social psychology. 11/1, 1959, pp. 72-99.
• Sven Papcke (Ed.): Order and Theory. Contributions to the history of sociology in Germany. Scientific Book Society, Darmstadt 1986, ISBN 3-534-09098-5 .
• Otthein Rammstedt : German Sociology 1933–1945. The normality of an adjustment. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1986, ISBN 3-518-28181-X .
• Karl-Siegbert Rehberg : Not even zero hours. West German sociology after 1945. In: Walter H. Pehle , Peter Sillem: Science in divided Germany. Restoration or a new beginning after 1945? Fischer Taschenbuch-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 1992, ISBN 3-596-11464-0 , pp. 26-44.
• Sonja Schnitzler: Sociology in National Socialism between science and politics. Elisabeth Pfeil and the “Archive for Population Science and Population Policy”. Springer, Wiesbaden 2012, ISBN 978-3-531-18611-5 .
• Erhard Stölting : Academic Sociology in the Weimar Republic . Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1986, ISBN 3-428-06170-5 .
• Erhard Stölting: Continuities and breaks in German sociology 1933/34. In: social world . Vol. 35 (1984), No. 1/2, pp. 48-59.

Web links

• Alexandra Schauer and Silke van Dyk: The DGS and National Socialism. Website of the German Society for Sociology
• The Kiel sociology in the Nazi state
• Johannes Weyer : Sociology in Fascism. (PDF; 83 kB). A literature review. In: The argument. 146 (1984).
• Alexander Zinn: hated or instrumentalized? Sociology in the Third Reich from the perspective of the Reich Ministry of Science. In: Journal of Sociology. Vol. 21, Issue 5, October 1992, pp. 347-365.

Remarks

1. ↑ Jürgen Habermas : Sociology in the Weimar Republic. In other words: texts and contexts. 2nd Edition. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1992, ISBN 3-518-28544-0 , pp. 184–204, here p. 187.
2. ↑ As such, he settled in 1916 as emeritus , but returned in 1921 to the University of Kiel back, only taught sociology.
3. ↑ Jürgen Habermas: Sociology in the Weimar Republic. In: ders .: texts and contexts. 2nd Edition. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1992, ISBN 3-518-28544-0 , pp. 184–204, here p. 188.
4. ↑ Jürgen Habermas: Sociology in the Weimar Republic. In: ders .: texts and contexts. 2nd Edition. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1992, ISBN 3-518-28544-0 , pp. 184–204, here p. 191.
5. ↑ Helmut Schelsky : Location determination of German sociology. Diederichs, Düsseldorf / Cologne 1959, p. 7.
6. ↑ Silke van Dyk , Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 23.
7. ↑ Quoted from Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 23.
8. ^ For example, at the 6th German Sociologists' Day in Zurich in September 1928, in addition to cultural and ethno-sociological topics and a. Questions of urban-rural migration and the increase in urban unemployment, the social consequences of international migration, proletarian class consciousness and the monopoly of the “world interpretation” by powerful interest groups were discussed. High-ranking representatives from the financial sector were present on the local organizing committee. See negotiations of the Sixth German Sociological Conference in Zurich. JCB Mohr, Tübingen 1929 and the invitation to the sociologist day.
9. ↑ The following brief description of the Sociology Days is based, if not otherwise stated, on: Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 30 ff.
10. ↑ Quoted from Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 36.
11. ↑ Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 39 f.
12. ↑ Wolf Lepenies: The three cultures. Sociology between literature and science . Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2002, ISBN 3-596-15518-5 , p. 407 f.
13. ↑ Sven Papcke: Weltferne Wissenschaft. The German Sociology of the Interwar Period before the Problem of Fascism / National Socialism. In: ders. (Ed.): Order and Theory. Contributions to the history of sociology in Germany. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1986, ISBN 3-534-09098-5 , pp. 168–222, here p. 203.
14. ↑ Sven Papcke: Weltferne Wissenschaft. The German Sociology of the Interwar Period before the Problem of Fascism / National Socialism. In: ders. (Ed.): Order and Theory. Contributions to the history of sociology in Germany. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1986, ISBN 3-534-09098-5 , pp. 168–222, here p. 192.
15. ^ M. Rainer Lepsius : The social-scientific emigration and its consequences In: Sociology in Germany and Austria 1918–1945. (= Cologne magazine for sociology and social psychology . Special issue 23/1981), pp. 461–500, here p. 461.
16. ^ ^{A b c} M. Rainer Lepsius: The sociology of the interwar period: development tendencies and assessment criteria. In: Sociology in Germany and Austria 1918–1945. (= Cologne journal for sociology and social psychology . Special issue 23/1981), pp. 7–23, here p. 17.
17. ^ René König : Sociology in Germany: Founder, Advocate, Despiser , Hanser, Munich / Vienna 1987, ISBN 3-446-14888-4 , p. 300.
18. ↑ In contrast to Lepsius, Carsten Klingemann finds “that Weber was not only widely received in the social sciences after 1933, but parts of his sociology were often incorporated into subject-specific contexts, which cannot simply be dismissed as anti-sociological and perfidious accommodation with the Nazi regime . “Carsten Klingemann: Sociology in the Third Reich. Nomos-Verlags-Gesellschaft, Baden-Baden 1996, ISBN 3-7890-4298-6 , p. 211.
19. ↑ M. Rainer Lepsius: The social-scientific emigration and its consequences. In: Sociology in Germany and Austria 1918–1945. (= Cologne journal for sociology and social psychology . Special issue 23/1981), pp. 461–500, here p. 468.
20. ↑ Quoted from Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 41.
21. ^ Carsten Klingemann: The individual in the crosshairs of the social sciences. In: Anton Andreas Guha and Sven Papcke (eds.): Unleashed research. The consequences of a science without ethics. Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 1988, ISBN 3-596-23871-4 , pp. 106–116, here p. 107.
22. ^ Theodor Geiger: Erbpflege. Basics, planning, limits. Enke, Stuttgart 1934.
23. ↑ Cf. Carsten Klingemann: Home Sociology or Instrument of Order? Specialist historical aspects of sociology between 1933 and 1945. In: M. Rainer Lepsius (Ed.): Sociology in Germany and Austria 1918–1945. Materials on development, emigration and impact history. Opladen 1981, p. 280, as well as Hans-Christian Harten / Uwe Neirich / Matthias Schwerdent: Racial hygiene as an educational ideology of the Third Reich. Bio-bibliographical manual. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2006, p. 325 (also note 648). It is assumed here that Geiger published such a font for opportunistic reasons.
24. ^ Carsten Klingemann: Sociology in the Third Reich . Nomos-Verlag, Baden-Baden 1996, ISBN 3-7890-4298-6 , p. 134 f.
25. ↑ Silke van Dyk , Alexandra Schauer: ... that official sociology has failed. On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd edition Wiesbaden 2015, p. 111.
26. ↑ Gabriele Fornefeld, Alexander Lückert, Klemens Wittebur: The Sociology at the Imperial German Universities at the End of the Weimar Republic. Attempt to take stock. in Sven Papcke (Ed.): Order and Theory. Contributions to the history of sociology in Germany. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1986, ISBN 3-534-09098-5 , pp. 423-441, here pp. 426 ff .; other prominent DGS members had broader teaching authorizations, Leopold von Wiese at the University of Cologne, for example, for “economic political sciences” and sociology, Alfred Weber at the University of Heidelberg for economics and sociology.
27. ↑ Henning Borggräfe, Sonja Schnitzler: The German Society for Sociology and National Socialism. Transformations within the association after 1933 and after 1945. In: Michaela Christ, Maja Suderland (ed.): Sociology and National Socialism: Positions, Debates, Perspectives . Suhrkamp, ​​Berlin 2014, ISBN 978-3-518-29729-2 , pp. 445-479, here pp. 446 f.
28. ^ Carsten Klingemann: Sociology in the Third Reich . Nomos-Verlag, Baden-Baden 1996, ISBN 3-7890-4298-6 , p. 11 ff.
29. ↑ Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 47 ff.
30. ^ Carsten Klingemann: Sociology in the Third Reich . Nomos-Verlag, Baden-Baden 1996, ISBN 3-7890-4298-6 , p. 27.
31. ↑ Frank-Rutger Hausmann : "Even in war the muses are not silent". The German Scientific Institutes in World War II. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2001, ISBN 3-525-35357-X , pp. 146–166.
32. ↑ Wolf Lepenies. The three cultures. Sociology between literature and science . Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2002, ISBN 3-596-15518-5 , p. 417 f.
33. ^ Carsten Klingemann: Sociology in the Third Reich . Nomos-Verlag, Baden-Baden 1996, ISBN 3-7890-4298-6 , p. 31.
34. ↑ Quoted from Carsten Klingemann: Sociology in the Third Reich . Nomos-Verlag, Baden-Baden 1996, ISBN 3-7890-4298-6 , p. 11, note 1.
35. ↑ M. Rainer Lepsius: The development of sociology after the Second World War, 1945 to 1967. in Cologne journal for sociology and social psychology , Sociology in Germany since 1945 , special issue 21/1979, pp. 25–70, here p. 29.
36. ↑ Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 55 f.
37. ↑ Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 47.
38. ^ Carsten Klingemann: Sociology in the Third Reich . Nomos-Verlag, Baden-Baden 1996, ISBN 3-7890-4298-6 , p. 28.
39. ↑ According to Dirk Kaesler: The early German sociology 1909 to 1934 and their origins. A sociological investigation. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen 1984, reprint 1991.
40. ↑ The following account of the Jena meeting is based, if not otherwise documented, on: Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 63 ff.
41. ^ Carsten Klingemann: Sociology in the Third Reich . Nomos-Verlag, Baden-Baden 1996, ISBN 3-7890-4298-6 , p. 41.
42. ^ Otthein Rammstedt: German Sociology 1933–1945. The normality of an adjustment. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1986, ISBN 3-518-28181-X , p. 55.
43. ↑ Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 64.
44. ^ Carsten Klingemann: Sociology in the Third Reich . Nomos-Verlag, Baden-Baden 1996, ISBN 3-7890-4298-6 , p. 43 f.
45. ^ Carsten Klingemann: Sociology in the Third Reich. Nomos-Verlags-Gesellschaft, Baden-Baden 1996, ISBN 3-7890-4298-6 , p. 29.
46. ↑ The reporting is documented, partly with facsimile newspaper clippings, in: Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , pp. 76-80.
47. ↑ ^{a b} Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 81.
48. ↑ ^{a b c d} Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 87.
49. ^ Otthein Rammstedt : German Sociology 1933–1945. The normality of an adjustment , Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1986, ISBN 3-518-28181-X , p. 55.
50. ^ ^{A b c} Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 86.
51. ^ Hans Freyer: Revolution from the right. Diederichs, Jena 1931.
52. ↑ Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 91.
53. ^ Franz Wilhelm Jerusalem: Community and State. JCB Mohr, Tuebingen 1930.
54. ↑ M. Rainer Lepsius: The social-scientific emigration and its consequences. In: Sociology in Germany and Austria 1918–1945. (= Cologne journal for sociology and social psychology . Special issue 23/1981), pp. 461–500, here p. 465.
55. ^ Paul Nolte : The order of the German society. Self-design and self-description in the 20th century. Beck, Munich 2000, ISBN 3-406-46191-3 , p. 158 f.
56. ↑ Lemma "Othmar Spann", Archive for the History of Sociology in Austria
57. ↑ Quoted from: Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 47.
58. ^ Carsten Klingemann: Sociology and Politics. Social science expert knowledge in the Third Reich and in the early West German post-war period . VS, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2009, ISBN 978-3-531-15064-2 , p. 14.
59. ^ Carsten Klingemann: "Volksgemeinschaft"? National Socialism as a project of modernity and its rational sociology. In: Martina Löw (ed.): Diversity and cohesion. Negotiations of the 36th Congress of the German Society for Sociology in Bochum and Dortmund 2012 , Campus, Frankfurt am Main / New York 2014, CD-ROM, p. 4.
60. ↑ Carsten Klingemann documents contract research in detail for three university institutes. Ders .: Sociology in the Third Reich . Nomos-Verlag, Baden-Baden 1996, ISBN 3-7890-4298-6 , pp. 52–70 (Cologne Sociology during National Socialism) , pp. 87–102 (The Sociographical Institute at the University of Frankfurt am Main) , pp. 120–158 (The 'Institute for Social and Political Sciences' at Heidelberg University at the end of the Weimar Republic and during National Socialism) .
61. ^ Carsten Klingemann: Sociology and Politics. Social science expert knowledge in the Third Reich and in the early West German post-war period . VS, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2009, ISBN 978-3-531-15064-2 , p. 15.
62. ^ Carsten Klingemann: Sociology and Politics. Social science expert knowledge in the Third Reich and in the early West German post-war period . VS, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2009, ISBN 978-3-531-15064-2 , p. 23 ff.
63. ^ Carsten Klingemann: Sociology and Politics. Social science expert knowledge in the Third Reich and in the early West German post-war period . VS, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2009, ISBN 978-3-531-15064-2 .
64. ^ Andreas Schneider: Urban sociology and radical order thinking. Andreas Walther as the prototype of the social engineer in the interwar period. ( Memento of April 2, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) In: fastforeword 1–07, 2007, pp. 3–16, here p. 5.
65. ^ Carsten Klingemann: Sociology and Politics. Social science expert knowledge in the Third Reich and in the early West German post-war period . VS, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2009, ISBN 978-3-531-15064-2 , p. 275.
66. ↑ Quoted from Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 94.
67. ↑ So Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 94.
68. ^ Andreas Schneider: Urban sociology and radical order thinking. Andreas Walther as the prototype of the social engineer in the interwar period. ( Memento of April 2, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) In: fastforeword 1–07, 2007, pp. 3–16, here p. 12.
69. ↑ The following presentation is based on: Carsten Klingemann: Sociology in the Third Reich . Nomos-Verlag, Baden-Baden 1996, ISBN 3-7890-4298-6 , S, pp. 87-102.
70. ^ Carsten Klingemann: Sociology in the Third Reich . Nomos-Verlag, Baden-Baden 1996, ISBN 3-7890-4298-6 , S, p. 87.
71. ↑ Quoted from Carsten Klingemann: Sociology in the Third Reich . Nomos-Verlag, Baden-Baden 1996, ISBN 3-7890-4298-6 , p. 89.
72. ↑ The following presentation is based on: Carsten Klingemann: Sociology in the Third Reich . Nomos-Verlag, Baden-Baden 1996, ISBN 3-7890-4298-6 , pp. 71-86.
73. ↑ Ulrich Prehn: The changing faces of a 'Europe of Nations' in the 20th century. Ethno-political ideas with Max Hildebert Boehm, Eugen Lemberg and Guy Héraud . In: Heiko Kauffmann, Helmut Kellershohn, Jobst Paul (eds.): Völkische Bande. Decadence and Rebirth - Analyzes of Right Ideology . Münster 2005 (contains Max Hildebert Boehm's anthology of works), pp. 123–157, here p. 127.
74. ↑ Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , pp. 95 f.
75. ^ Johannes Weyer: The research center for the people in the Ruhr area (1935-1941). An example of sociology in fascism. In: Soziale Welt , 35: 1984, pp. 124–145, online version ( Memento from June 29, 2015 in the Internet Archive ).
76. ↑ Quoted from Johannes Weyer: The Research Center for Volkstum in the Ruhr Area (1935–1941) - An example of sociology in fascism. In: Soziale Welt , Vol. 35 (1984), Heft 1/2, pp. 124-145, here p. 127, online version ( Memento from June 29, 2015 in the Internet Archive ).
77. ↑ Quoted from Johannes Weyer: The Research Center for Volkstum in the Ruhr Area (1935–1941) - An example of sociology in fascism. In: Soziale Welt , Vol. 35 (1984), Heft 1/2, pp. 124-145, here p. 129, online version ( Memento from June 29, 2015 in the Internet Archive ).
78. ^ Wilhelm Brepohl: The type Polack in the Ruhr area. Origin and importance of the inferior . Gelsenkirchen 1938.
79. ^ Wilhelm Brepohl: The construction of the Ruhr people in the course of the east-west migration. Contributions to the German social history of the 19th and 20th centuries . Bitter, Recklinghausen 1948.
80. ^ Carsten Klingemann: Sociology and Politics. Social science expert knowledge in the Third Reich and in the early West German post-war period . VS, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2009, ISBN 978-3-531-15064-2 , p. 317.
81. ^ The complete texts of the reports from the holdings of the Federal Archives Koblenz were published in 1984 by Heinz Boberach in 17 volumes. Boberach: Reports from the Reich: 1938–1945. The secret situation reports of the security service of the SS. Pawlak, Herrsching 1984, ISBN 3-88199-158-1 .
82. ^ Carsten Klingemann: Coming to terms with the past or writing history? Unwanted traditions of German sociology between 1933 and 1945. In: Sven Papcke (Ed.): Order and Theory. Contributions to the history of sociology in Germany. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1986, ISBN 3-534-09098-5 , pp. 223-279, here p. 278.
83. ^ Heinz Boberach: Reports from the Reich. Selection from the secret situation reports of the SS security service 1939–1944. Deutscher-Taschenbuchverlag, Munich 1968, p. 29.
84. ↑ Andrej Angrick: Clean murderers . In: Die Zeit , February 26, 2004.
85. ^ Carsten Klingemann: Sociology in the Third Reich . Nomos-Verlag, Baden-Baden 1996, ISBN 3-7890-4298-6 , p. 85.
86. ^ University of Missouri – Kansas City : The Nuremberg Trials: The Einsatzgruppen Case ( memento of December 23, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) with the verdict in the Ohlendorf case ( memento of March 5, 2008 in the Internet Archive )
87. ↑ Klingemann first used the term “Reichssociology” to differentiate it from the “horror cabinet” of earlier specialist historical presentations that spoke of “folkish” sociologists or “fascist sociology”, which made the analysis of a functional sociology in socialism superfluous, ie: sociology in the Nazi state. On the discomfort with sociology historiography. In: Soziale Welt , Vol. 36 (1985), H. 3, pp. 366-388, here p. 366; since then he has used the term and derivation "Reich Sociologist" in all relevant writings.
88. ^ Carsten Klingemann: Sociology in the Third Reich . Nomos-Verlag, Baden-Baden 1996, ISBN 3-7890-4298-6 , p. 170.
89. ↑ Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 92.
90. ^ Carsten Klingemann: Sociology and Politics. Social science expert knowledge in the Third Reich and in the early West German post-war period . VS, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2009, ISBN 978-3-531-15064-2 , p. 293.
91. ↑ Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , pp. 130 f.
92. ↑ Alphons Silbermann: Flaneur of the Century. Recitatives and arias from one life. Lübbe, Bergisch Gladbach 1999, ISBN 3-7857-0992-7 , p. 140.
93. ↑ Alphons Silbermann: Flaneur of the Century. Recitatives and arias from one life. Lübbe, Bergisch Gladbach 1999, ISBN 3-7857-0992-7 , p. 126.
94. ↑ Koherr report NS Archive (accessed on 29 July 2017)
95. ↑ Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 123.
96. ↑ On this, Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 119 ff.
97. ↑ Carsten Klingemann documented the documents on which the judicial chamber proceedings are based, see: Sociology in the Third Reich. Nomos-Verlags-Gesellschaft, Baden-Baden 1996, ISBN 3-7890-4298-6 , p. 33 ff.
98. ^ Carsten Klingemann: Sociology in the Third Reich. Nomos-Verlags-Gesellschaft, Baden-Baden 1996, ISBN 3-7890-4298-6 , p. 43.
99. ↑ Helmut Schelsky: Reviews of an 'anti-sociologist' . Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen 1981, ISBN 3-531-11534-0 , p. 29.
100. ↑ The following presentation is based on: Carsten Klingemann: Sociology and Politics. Social science expert knowledge in the Third Reich and in the early West German post-war period . VS, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2009, ISBN 978-3-531-15064-2 , pp. 360–386.
101. ↑ Quoted from Carsten Klingemann: Sociology and Politics. Social science expert knowledge in the Third Reich and in the early West German post-war period . VS, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2009, ISBN 978-3-531-15064-2 , p. 368.
102. ^ Carsten Klingemann: Sociology and Politics. Social science expert knowledge in the Third Reich and in the early West German post-war period . VS, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2009, ISBN 978-3-531-15064-2 , pp. 360–386.
103. ↑ The following presentation follows, unless otherwise stated, Silke van Dyk , Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 133 ff.
104. ↑ See also: Jens Adamski, Doctors of Social Life. The Dortmund Social Research Center 1946–1969. Klartext, Essen 2009, ISBN 978-3-89861-733-8 .
105. ↑ Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 135.
106. ^ Wilhelm Mitze (1912-1996) received his doctorate in 1937 as a psychologist at the University of Marburg . From 1937 to 1945 he worked at the Navy Psychological Testing Center . From 1947 to 1951 he worked as a research assistant at the social research center at the University of Münster in Dortmund in the field of social psychology. Then he became head of the municipal educational advice center in Dortmund. From 1959 to 1966 he worked as a senior psychologist at the Navy's volunteer acceptance center in Wilhelmshaven. From 1966 until his retirement in 1974 Mitze was head of the department for military psychology in the Federal Ministry of Defense . He was retired as Ministerialrat ; Helmut E. Lück: Mitze, Wilhelm , in Uwe Wolfradt (ed.), German-speaking psychologists 1933–1945. A dictionary of persons. Springer, Wiesbaden 2015, ISBN 978-3-658-01480-3 , p. 318 f.
107. ↑ Carsten Kligemann: Empirical Sociology in the Third Reich and in the Post-War Period. A statement on Erwin K. Scheuch. ZUMA-Nachrichten 46, Vol. 24, May 2000, pp. 171-180, here p. 172.
108. ^ Johannes Weyer: West German Sociology 1945-1960. German continuities and North American influence. Duncker and Humblot, Berlin 1984, ISBN 3-428-05679-5 , p. 214.
109. ↑ Klaus Ahlheim: The Dietrich von Oppen case and the Dortmund “washing plant”. In: Carsten Klingemann et al. (Ed.), Yearbook for the History of Sociology 1997/98. VS, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2001, ISBN 3-322-99645-X , pp. 311–324, here p. 317.
110. ↑ Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 136.
111. ^ Carsten Klingemann: Sociology and Politics. Social science expert knowledge in the Third Reich and in the early West German post-war period . VS, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2009, ISBN 978-3-531-15064-2 , p. 74.
112. ^ Gunther Ipsen : Program of a sociology of the German folk race. Junker & Dünnhaupt, Berlin 1933 (extended inaugural lecture at the University of Leipzig, 1931).
113. ^ Gunther Ipsen: The country folk. A sociological attempt. Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt, Hamburg 1933.
114. ↑ Gunther Ipsen: Blood and Soil. Wachholtz, Neumünster 1933.
115. ^ Carsten Klingemann: Sociology and Politics. Social science expert knowledge in the Third Reich and in the early West German post-war period . VS, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2009, ISBN 978-3-531-15064-2 , p. 118.
116. ↑ Johannes Weyer, The "Civil War in Sociology". West German Sociology between Americanization and Restoration. In: Sven Papcke (Ed.): Order and Theory. Contributions to the history of sociology in Germany. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1986, ISBN 3-534-09098-5 , pp. 280–304, here p. 283, online version , PDF, accessed on March 16, 2015.
117. ↑ Johannes Weyer, The "Civil War in Sociology". West German Sociology between Americanization and Restoration. In: Sven Papcke (Ed.): Order and Theory. Contributions to the history of sociology in Germany. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1986, ISBN 3-534-09098-5 , pp. 280–304, here pp. 284 f, online version , PDF, accessed on March 16, 2015.
118. ↑ Henning Borggräfe, Sonja Schnitzler, The German Society for Sociology and National Socialism. In: Michaela Christ, Maja Suderland (editors), Sociology and National Socialism: Positions, Debates, Perspectives . Suhrkamp, ​​Berlin 2014, ISBN 978-3-518-29729-2 , pp. 445-479, here pp. 460 f.
119. ↑ Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 143.
120. ↑ Johannes Weyer, The "Civil War in Sociology". West German Sociology between Americanization and Restoration. In: Sven Papcke (Ed.): Order and Theory. Contributions to the history of sociology in Germany. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1986, ISBN 3-534-09098-5 , pp. 280–304, here p. 287, online version , PDF, accessed on March 16, 2015.
121. ↑ The International Institute of Sociology (IIS) , there "History"
122. ↑ Johannes Weyer, The "Civil War in Sociology". West German Sociology between Americanization and Restoration. In: Sven Papcke (Ed.): Order and Theory. Contributions to the history of sociology in Germany. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1986, ISBN 3-534-09098-5 , pp. 280–304, here p. 289 f, online version , PDF, accessed on March 16, 2015.
123. ↑ Johannes Weyer, The "Civil War in Sociology". West German Sociology between Americanization and Restoration. In: Sven Papcke (Ed.): Order and Theory. Contributions to the history of sociology in Germany. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1986, ISBN 3-534-09098-5 , pp. 280–304, here p. 298, online version , PDF, accessed on March 16, 2015.
124. ^ ^{A b} Johannes Weyer, The "Civil War in Sociology". West German Sociology between Americanization and Restoration. In: Sven Papcke (Ed.): Order and Theory. Contributions to the history of sociology in Germany. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1986, ISBN 3-534-09098-5 , pp. 280–304, here p. 299, online version , PDF, accessed on March 16, 2015.
125. ↑ Johannes Weyer: The "Civil War in Sociology". West German Sociology between Americanization and Restoration. In: Sven Papcke (Ed.): Order and Theory. Contributions to the history of sociology in Germany. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1986, ISBN 3-534-09098-5 , pp. 280–304, here pp. 301 f, online version , PDF, accessed on March 16, 2015.
126. ↑ Stefan Kühl: The International of Racists. The rise and fall of the international eugenics movement in the 20th century. 2nd updated edition, Campus, Frankfurt am Main, New York 2014, ISBN 978-3-593-39986-7 , p. 291 f.
127. ↑ Johannes Weyer, on the other hand, considers it “completely wrong to want to characterize the IIS as a collecting basin for the old Nazis, the ISA as a collecting basin for the progressive spectrum: because the ISA and the DGS also tolerated sociologists whose past was doubtful.” Weyer: Westdeutsche Sociology 1945–1960. German continuities and North American influence. Duncker and Humblot, Berlin 1984, ISBN 3-428-05679-5 , p. 80, note 44.
128. ↑ ^{a b} Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 152.
129. ↑ Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 149.
130. ^ Negotiations of the 8th Ger. Sociology Day from 19th to 21st Sept. 1946 in Frankfurt am Main / Tübingen 1948, p. 29.
131. ↑ Quoted from Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 161; on mouse as an outsider also p. 153 ff .; van Dyk and Schauer chose the Maus quote as the title of their book, which invites misunderstandings, because Maus did not accuse sociology of National Socialism but of failure in the Weimar Republic. In his review of the first edition of the book, Stephan Moebius understands the quote as the conclusion of the volume, cf. Review, H-Soz-Kult, August 1, 2011 .
132. ^ Johannes Weyer: West German Sociology 1945-1960. German continuities and North American influence. Duncker and Humblot, Berlin 1984, ISBN 3-428-05679-5 , p. 120.
133. ↑ René König (Ed.): Das Fischer-Lexikon, Volume 10, Sociology. Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 1958, p. 14.
134. ↑ René König: On the supposed end of German sociology before the takeover of National Socialism. In: ders, Sociology in Germany. Founder, advocate, despiser. Hanser, Munich / Vienna 1987, ISBN 3-446-14888-4 , pp. 343–387, here p. 343, note 1. (First publication in Cologne journal for sociology and social psychology , year 36, 1984.)
135. ↑ René König. Continuity or interruption. A new look at an old problem , original article in: Sociology in Germany. Founder, advocate, despiser. Hanser, Munich / Vienna 1987, ISBN 3-446-14888-4 , pp. 388–440, here p. 413.
136. ↑ In summary Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 161 f.
137. ↑ Helmut Schelsky: Location determination of German sociology. Diederichs, Düsseldorf / Cologne 1959, p. 36.
138. ↑ Helmut Schelsky: Location determination of German sociology. Diederichs, Düsseldorf / Cologne 1959, p. 39.
139. ↑ René König: On the supposed end of German sociology before the takeover of National Socialism. In: ders, Sociology in Germany. Founder, advocate, despiser. Hanser, Munich / Vienna 1987, ISBN 3-446-14888-4 , pp. 343–387, here pp. 351 ff. (First publication in Cologne journal for sociology and social psychology , year 36, 1984.)
140. ^ Johannes Weyer: West German Sociology 1945-1960. German continuities and North American influence . Duncker and Humblot, Berlin 1984, ISBN 3-428-05679-5 , p. 24f.
141. ↑ The four lines of the book are: “National Socialism and War meant a painful turning point for German sociology. Many well-known scholars such as Adorno, Horkheimer, Geiger, Mannheim and Schumpeter left the country. The German Society for Sociology ceased its activities in 1934. “Friedrich Jonas: History of Sociology . Part 4: German and American Sociology . Rowohlt, Reinbek bei Hamburg 1969, p. 84.
142. ↑ Hans-Georg Soeffner in the foreword (reprinted from the first edition) Origin, effect and end of a legend. In: Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 11.
143. ↑ Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 162 f.
144. ↑ M. Rainer Lepsius: The sociology after the Second World War. 1945 to 1967. In Cologne journal for sociology and social psychology , German sociology since 1945 , special issue 21/1979, pp. 25–70, here p. 28.
145. ↑ M. Rainer Lepsius: The sociology of the interwar period: Development tendencies and assessment criteria. In: Sociology in Germany and Austria 1918–1945. (= Cologne journal for sociology and social psychology . Special issue 23/1981), p. 7–23, here p. 17 ff.
146. ^ Uta Gerhardt: Sociology in the twentieth century. Studies on their history in Germany . Steiner, Stuttgart 2009, ISBN 978-3-515-09286-9 , p. 14.
147. ↑ Dirk Kaesler: Unedles Waidwerk: Alfred Weber is accused. The Nazi hunter Carsten Klingemann presented an infamous spread in Die Zeit , February 12, 1997; Klingemann responded with the post The chief forester chases the Nazi hunter. Character assassination as a last resort in coming to terms with the past. In: Soziologie , Heft 3, 1997, pp. 33–51.
148. ↑ Quoted from Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 96.
149. ↑ Quoted from Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 96 f.
150. ↑ Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 97.
151. ^ Otthein Rammstedt : German Sociology 1933–1945. The normality of an adjustment , Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1986, ISBN 3-518-28181-X .
152. ^ Otthein Rammstedt: German Sociology 1933–1945. The normality of an adjustment. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1986, ISBN 3-518-28181-X , p. 164.
153. ^ Adalbert Hepp, Martina Löw (eds.): M. Rainer Lepsius. Sociology as a Profession . Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag 2008, ISBN 978-3-593-38322-4 , p. 37.
154. ^ René König: Sociology in Germany. Founder, advocate, despiser. Hanser, Munich / Vienna 1987, ISBN 3-446-14888-4 , p. 395.
155. ^ Carsten Klingemann: Sociology and Politics. Social science expert knowledge in the Third Reich and in the early West German post-war period . VS, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2009, ISBN 978-3-531-15064-2 , p. 13, note 1.
156. ↑ Werner Fuchs-Heinritz and others (ed.): Lexicon for sociology . 5th revised edition. Springer, Wiesbaden 2011, ISBN 978-3-531-19670-1 , p. 635.
157. ↑ Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 86 ff.
158. ^ So Christian Fleck : Expellees and Heimattreue. Comparison of two generation units in the shadow of Nazi rule. In: Hans-Georg Soeffner, Kathy Kursawe (Ed.): Transnational Vergesellschaftungen. Negotiations of the 35th Congress of the German Society for Sociology in Frankfurt am Main 2010. 2 volumes, Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2013, ISBN 978-3-531-18169-1 , pp. 1079-1092, here p. 1079. Fleck mentions as Examples Gertraude Mikl-Horke : Sociology. Historical context and sociological theory drafts. 5, completely revised and expanded edition, Oldenbourg, Munich, Vienna 2001, ISBN 3-486-25660-2 , pp. 141 ff. And Volker Kruse : History of Sociology. 2nd Edition. UVK, Konstanz 2012, ISBN 978-3-8252-3833-9 , p. 21 ff.
159. ↑ Silke van Dyk, Alexandra Schauer: "... that official sociology has failed". On sociology under National Socialism, the history of its coming to terms and the role of the DGS. 2nd Edition. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-06636-9 , p. 171.

This version was added to the list of articles worth reading on May 24, 2015 .