University under National Socialism
The operation of a university under National Socialism was largely determined by personnel and content requirements. An important goal during the Nazi era (1933–1945) was the elimination of Jewish professors and students. The implementation of the leader principle with "reliable" rectors at the top should facilitate the implementation of government goals. Because of their influence on young people, the universities were more important for Nazi politics than, for example, the academies of science during the Nazi era .
The Reich Minister responsible for science in the Greater German Reich and thus also for the universities there was Bernhard Rust . Since the annexation of Austria , Austria's universities have also been affected by the National Socialist regulations. During the Second World War , many university teachers and students were drafted into military service, which gradually reduced university operations. After the end of the war, the task was to bring back Jewish scholars and to dismiss those professors from teaching who were considered to be “burdened” due to their commitment to denazification.
Universities in the Weimar Republic
Science and politics
In the Weimar Republic there were major changes in higher education compared to the German Empire . Article 142 of the Weimar Constitution guaranteed freedom of research and teaching for the first time. There has been a partial change in personnel within the ministries of education. From 1918/19 onwards, the offices were occupied not only by people who came from the old monarchical system but also by party politicians from all political backgrounds. At the same time, the education system remained federal and the universities essentially retained their previous legal structure.
To provide better financial support for research and universities, (semi-) state funding agencies were set up in the Weimar Republic, for example the Humboldt Association, the Foundation Association for German Science and the Emergency Association of German Science . These mainly funded application-oriented projects. The research, which in part aimed at independence from certain raw materials and basic products, tied in with the attempts at self-sufficiency of the First World War , which continued until the Second World War .
Professors and students in the Weimar Republic
The professorships were a small group: in 1925 there were 4862 teachers at the universities of the German Reich and 1829 teachers at the technical colleges. However, due to their elitist position in society, they exerted an enormous influence, especially on the student body.
With the end of the Wilhelmine Empire, many professors feared for their social status and prestige if the Soviet Republic were to prevail. This is the only reason why many professors committed to the new form of government in the early phase of the Weimar Republic. However, this changed as early as 1919. From then on, most professors of the republic were distant and critical, sometimes hostile and arrogant. In the mistaken belief that they had an upright national sentiment, the professors uncritically glorified the Wilhelmine past. In doing so, they contributed to a permanent weakening of the republic.
The student's relationship with the republican state ranged from ambivalent reserve to blatant contempt. There was democratic potential, but the vast majority associated the new state with what was perceived as a shameful defeat. The anti-democratic subculture of the Wilhelmine fraternity was not banned, the number of members in fraternities and other fraternities rose sharply. From 1924 onwards, the ethnically and nationally shaped university ring had an enormous influence on the universities. In 1927 there was an open break between the students and the republic, whereupon the student body lost its state recognition. From 1928 the National Socialist German Student Union (NSDStB) “conquered” the universities. This was characterized by anti-rationalism, front soldier myth, nationalist nationalism, anti-Semitism and contempt for the Weimar party state. In the winter semester of 1929/30, the NSDStB achieved absolute majorities at the universities of Erlangen and Greifswald for the first time. In July 1931, he won an absolute majority in the elections for the 14th German Student Congress. As a result, many students showed themselves to be receptive to National Socialist ideology early on and in a publicly effective manner.
Reorganization of the universities after 1933
Legal reform
The law of the universities in the Weimar Republic
In the Weimar Republic the universities were entitled to certain “self-administration rights”. It was recognized that the rector of the university was elected by the members of the Senate and the deans by the members of the faculties, with the full professors (ordinaries) dominating the senate and the faculties. In addition, the ordinaries could also decide who was appointed to the university and who could do their habilitation. However, this type of collective self-government did not protect the universities from interference by the legislature. The reason for this was that, according to the general legal opinion, the “ reservation of the law ” did not apply to university law . In addition, according to the Weimar Constitution, it was not the Reich but the respective states of the Reich that were responsible for university policy and administration as well as for civil service law. Thus, at the end of the Weimar Republic, the nine Reichsländer exercised considerable state influence on their respective - a total of 23 - universities, "which was only bound to a small extent by legal requirements".
The Law of the Universities under National Socialism
After the Reich government under Adolf Hitler was appointed by the Reich President on January 30, 1933, there was a "radical transformation" at the universities.
Civil service law
On April 6, 1933 z. B. in the state of Baden the leave of absence of all Jewish employees in the public service on the basis of a decree of the Baden Minister of the Interior ("Badischer Judenerlaß"). On April 7, 1933, the “ Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service ” (BBG) passed by the Reich government came into force. This law was the first uniform law on civil servants in Germany. On January 21, 1935, the "Law on the discharge and replacement of university professors due to the reconstruction of the German higher education system" followed. With the help of these laws, Jews, communists and social democrats could be removed from the universities and professors with civil servant status could be transferred and relieved at any time.
University law
The first changes were made a. in Baden through the "Badische Hochschulverordnung" of August 24, 1933, in Prussia with the circular "Provisional Measures to Simplify University Administration" of October 28, 1933 and through the "Hamburg University Act" of January 21, 1934. At the center of these legal regulations was the position of the "Rector of the University", who was now determined by the responsible minister of the state. The development from “ self-administration ” to “ leader principle ” began in the countries .
On April 22, 1933, the Reich government enacted the uniform “Law on the Formation of Students at Scientific Universities”. After that, the fully enrolled students with German descent and mother tongue, regardless of nationality, formed the university's student body. On April 25, 1933, the “Law against the Overcrowding of German Schools and Universities” followed, which brought with it a “rigorous capacity limitation with a clearly anti-Jewish thrust”. In addition to these nationally uniform laws, the higher education law competencies of the federal states continued to exist. It was not until the “ Law on the Rebuilding of the Reich ” of January 30, 1934, which is in the context of the Gleichschaltung operated by the Nazi regime , that the states became a “subordinate institution” of the Reich and thus no longer operate their own university administration could.
On May 1, 1934, the establishment of the Reich Ministry for Science, Education and National Education (REM) was announced and the newly established Ministry was given the responsibility for the organization of higher education. The "Reich Habilitation Regulations" came into force on December 13, 1934. After that, the faculties only had the right to award the academic degree “Dr. habil ”. The license to teach could only be granted by the Reich Minister of Science. The aim of this regulation was that only politically acceptable lecturers could teach at the universities. The introduction of the “Reichsstudienordnung” on January 18, 1935 also brought about a “complete restructuring of the public-law lecture schedules”.
The first university constitution, which applied to the entire Reich, came into force on April 3, 1935. The focus of these "guidelines for the standardization of university administration" was the position of the rector as "leader of the university". The only changes that followed were the incorporation of universities from affiliated or occupied countries of the Reich. There was no codification of university constitutional or administrative law during the Nazi era.
The rector as "leader of the university"
With the entry into force of the “Guidelines for the Unification of University Administration”, it was determined across the whole of the empire that the rector of the university, as the “leader of the university”, is directly subordinate to the Reich Minister of Science and is solely responsible to him. The Vice Rector and the deans were appointed by the Reich Science Minister on the proposal of the Rector. In contrast, the Senate and faculties only had advisory functions. The curators, the heads of the lecturers and the student body were involved in the university policy and administration - if they existed - as well as the external Gauleiter , Reichsstatthalter , Reichsamtsleiter of the National Socialist German Lecturer Association and the state governments. However, it was not regulated how to proceed in the event of conflicts between the parties involved. Within the university, this was mainly due to the fact that the rights of the “leader of the university” were not defined in more detail. The concept of the leader was taken for granted, but interpreted differently in practice. On the one hand, it was argued that the rector, as a political advisor to the minister, only has to “propose necessary measures” unless he is authorized to carry out the measures himself. On the other hand, the rector was seen as someone who, "if it appears necessary (...) is in a position to issue orders that the fearful lawyer would describe as exceeding competencies or even violating the constitution".
The faculty reactions
The reaction to the power struggles of the NSDAP was by no means uniform among the university lecturers. Two groups of actors can be named, on the one hand the financially secure, older professorships in higher positions and, on the other hand, the younger lecturers employed in financially insecure circumstances.
Individual reactions
Numerous right-wing conservative university lecturers were able to identify with parts of the Nazi ideology, some of them before 1933. B. with the rejection of the Weimar Republic, longing for a strong state and glorification of the military. Many professors feared being disempowered by the National Socialists, some of whom used anti-intellectual rhetoric, and adapted to the new regime. They tried to protect their institutions against the government's reform interventions and to uphold scientific standards. Hardly anyone expressed criticism in public, only in private, so that a picture of the unity between university teachers and the Nazi government emerged.
In the years after 1933 even the criticism of the professors, who were initially skeptical of the Nazis, subsided. The reintroduction of compulsory military service in 1935 and the annexation of Austria in 1938 were rated as positive achievements of the National Socialists.
For the lecturers in previously unsettled employment relationships, the dismissals of colleagues on the basis of the BBG meant new opportunities for advancement. Younger university professors in particular joined the party, some for career reasons, others for ideological reasons. As early as the summer of 1933, 20-25% of lecturers at individual universities had joined the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Institutional responses
The example of the medical faculty of the Berlin University (the Kaiser-Friedrich-Wilhelm-Universität, later HU), which dismissed the entire Jewish staff of the institutes and clinics on April 1, 1933, shows the example of the medical faculty of the Berlin University of Berlin , even though the BBG did not dismiss it until April 7, 1933 April should come into effect.
Ten out of twenty-four universities in Germany published expressions of loyalty to Hitler after the seizure of power. Almost ten percent of all lecturers at German universities joined them. For example, on November 11, 1933, around 900 professors from various universities vowed loyalty to Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist state at a festival for the “National Socialist Revolution” (see Professors' Confession ).
Some disciplines also tried to emphasize their special status for National Socialism. German studies, for example, were regarded as "national science" and Gestalt psychology, in connection with the National Socialist Revolution, advocated linking political ideology and psychological theory.
The reaction of the Association of German Universities is difficult to assess. While in earlier literature the association was ascribed a rather supportive role, today's historians see e.g. B. the declaration of April 21, 1933 as a rhetorical attempt to preserve the universities a certain autonomy and to criticize the National Socialist form of politicization.
Isolated protest
Only a small number of German university professors were critical or even hostile to the NSDAP and its university policy. As a result, for example, the BBG only occasionally triggered open resistance on the part of the teaching staff, so that such protests were mostly ineffective. A significant example of this is the case of the Jewish physicist and Nobel Prize winner James Franck . Although he would have been spared the measures under the BBG because of the front-line fighter privilege, he nevertheless resigned from his professorship in Göttingen on April 17, 1933 and hoped to induce his colleagues to rethink. However, the desired success of his protest did not materialize and was even to be reversed. Just five days after Franck's resignation, 42 Göttingen colleagues publicly expressed their dislike of him and described his actions as an “act of sabotage” against the Nazi regime.
The protests were primarily carried out by university professors who were directly or indirectly affected by the new legal measures. An outstanding exception in this regard is the Berlin pharmacologist Otto Krayer , who, among other things, campaigned for his Jewish colleagues. For moral reasons he refused to take over the chair of a dismissed Jewish professor and was therefore banned from university in Germany.
Displacement and emigration
On the basis of the BBG, the scope of which was extended to include non-civil university lecturers up to May 1933, including lecturers, around 18.6 percent of the teaching staff at German universities were dismissed in 1933 and in the following years. Including those who “voluntarily” left the university, it was 19.3 percent. Women were affected by the BBG earlier than men, as certain exemptions formulated in the implementing provisions of the law did not apply to them. In this way, the expulsion could be delayed if the person concerned had already held a professorship before 1914 or had fought in the First World War - women were not able to do either. The discharge rate for women was 43.8 percent, more than twice as high as for men.
The policy of displacement had very different effects in different subjects and disciplines. Especially the modern disciplines and sub-disciplines that went through their professionalization phase in the twenties were affected by layoffs (economics, sociology, political science, biochemistry, atomic physics). In the social sciences, the dismissal rate at individual universities was up to 60 percent of the teaching staff. Some universities, such as the University of Tübingen, which had an anti-Semitic personnel policy before 1933, were hardly affected.
The changes at the universities during National Socialism also had an impact on the proportion of women in the academic world. This is clear from the example of the Berlin University. By autumn 1933, the majority of women scientists there had been expelled from the university. The remaining women scientists were tolerated until 1937, but no new ones were hired. It was not until the preparations for the Second World War and especially from 1939 onwards that women were recruited as assistants and lecturers.
Of the 901 dismissed university professors, 38 (4.2 percent) fell victim to Nazi extermination policies, 36 (4.0 percent) committed suicide. Around two thirds of those released have emigrated. Around two thirds of the emigrants emigrated to the USA, where many scientists found good working conditions, a living wage and the openness of the local scientific community. In addition, scientists emigrated to a significant extent to Great Britain and Turkey, which, under Ataturk's government, had a great interest in progress and connection to European scientific standards. Hardly any general statement can be made about the situation of women in exile. When women scientists find a new job in exile, it is usually not in line with their qualifications.
The scientific emigration - especially to the USA - was supported by the private Rockefeller Foundation, which played a key role as the most important agency for refugee aid - it provided two thirds of the funds raised in the USA for the reception and integration of scientific emigrants, but supported it also aid committees in Great Britain.
The academic emigration represented a bloodletting for German science, but at the same time brought about an enormous international cultural transfer, which, through the repercussions on Europe after 1945, made a major contribution to the comprehensive internationalization of the sciences.
Science Policy in National Socialism
Nazi science policy was characterized by competing interest groups and the resulting inconsistent goals in the tension between different decision-making bodies. In general, the National Socialists did not take an anti-scientific stance; they were more aware of the importance of science and research for successful, modern warfare. This means that the National Socialists' point of view can be described as anti-intellectualistic.
Four different program points can be distinguished within the NS science policy, which as a whole reflect the understanding of National Socialist science and give an impression of a science concept in the NS state:
- Science no longer as an end in itself, but with concrete, beneficial performance,
- The concept of race as a central component of science and research,
- Development of a holistic science,
- Rejection of an international scientific community.
Science policy carrier
There were a number of decision-making bodies whose areas of responsibility overlapped. The most important actors in Nazi science policy were the Reich Ministry for Science, Education and National Education (also: Reich Education Ministry or REM), the National Socialist German Lecturer Association (NSDDB), the University Commission of the NSDAP , and the Science Department in the Rosenberg Office . The conflicts between them about influence and power are seen as one of the main reasons against a targeted science policy. However, there was consensus among the decision-makers with regard to personnel policy, attitudes towards democratic structures, the leadership principle and targeted support for certain disciplines. Furthermore, this situation of “official chaos” provided the starting point for other bodies and people to influence the development of science policy.
Scientific institutions
The effects of Nazi science policy on the various scientific institutions are assessed differently in the literature. The universities are among the most important of these institutions. B. the Kaiser Wilhelm Society (KWG) and the German Research Foundation (DFG), as well as institutions such as the Research Foundation Deutsches Ahnenerbe eV For the universities, it can be shown that the NSDDB had an influence on the administrative work, but also in the appointment process , because in addition to the technical suitability of a university professor, his political assessment became relevant. In addition, the introduction of the Reich Habilitation Regulations and the associated selection mechanisms had an impact on the academic self-administration of the universities. When looking at the KWG, different aspects of Nazi science policy can be observed. On the basis of the - in comparison to the humanities and social science institutes - outstanding financial support of the natural and technical science institutes, the appreciation of the disciplines in focus here by the National Socialists is expressed. From 1938 at the latest, the funding rose relatively in relation to other subjects as well as in absolute terms. Another symptomatic of Nazi science policy is the institutional interweaving of the top management of the KWG with political offices. People like the Secretary General of the KWG, Ernst Telschow , used the vague areas of responsibility of the actors in science policy with their personal efforts, thereby helping to shape the form of science policy.
Students: Elite between avant-garde and resistance
As at other turning points in German history in the 19th and 20th centuries, students took on a pacemaker role in the rise of National Socialism in the final phase of the Weimar Republic, at least at a very early stage they showed a high degree of openness to the ideas of the new movement. In addition to their role as active subjects who actively (co) shaped the university, they were at the same time the subject of National Socialist university policy, which had a lasting impact on the framework conditions for access to studies and the course of everyday student life.
Students as an object of state control and regulation
Quantitative development of student numbers
Shortly before the outbreak of World War I in 1914, 60,225 students were already enrolled at German universities, and in 1931 the number of enrolled students had reached the highest level in the interwar period of 103,912. After that it went back continuously. In the year the Nazi rule was established, it had already dropped to below 90,000; with the outbreak of war (in the winter semester 1939/40) it reached its lowest point of 28,696. This decline in the number of students is only to a small extent due to the dirigistic university policy of National Socialism. Above all, it must be interpreted against the background of demographic changes, reduced willingness to study and the growing attractiveness of other professional fields for high school graduates.
During and as a result of the First World War, the birth rate fell dramatically. In 1917/18 the number of live births was around half below the pre-war level. These low-birth cohorts led to a significant reduction in the number of high school graduates between 1934 and 1936 (from over 40,000 to just under 26,000). In addition, there was their declining inclination to study, which can be explained by the uncertainty about the prospects of using an academic degree, by economic reasons that made it impossible to finance the degree and by new career opportunities in the expanding economy and - for male high school graduates - especially in the armed forces . However, the effect of the factors mentioned was in fact exacerbated by a bundle of regulatory and restrictive measures in higher education policy.
Legal regulations, admission requirements and study grants
As a reaction to the “overcrowding crisis”, the state ministers of culture had reached an agreement in February 1933 according to which high school graduates with poor academic achievements should be advised against attending university if possible. Anyone who nevertheless studied against this express advice was excluded from study benefits. The “ Law against the Overcrowding of German Universities and Schools ”, passed in April 1933, also pursued the goal of aligning access to university studies with professional needs and energetically restricting it. In December 1933, a general numerus clausus was introduced: of the more than 40,000 high school graduates born in 1934, only 15,000 were to receive permission to study in a university entrance qualification. After the transfer of higher education policy competencies from the Reich Ministry of the Interior to the newly founded Reich Ministry of Education in May 1934, this strategy was called into question with reference to the risk of a future shortage of young people in academic professions, which was already becoming apparent. As early as February 1935, therefore, the higher education entrance qualification was waived again. Even those students who were not granted it in 1934 could subsequently start studying, provided they were classified as "politically reliable".
Special ways of opening up universities were also the "Langemarck Studies", the gifted test and admission to studies after successfully attending a technical college. The Langemarck study was introduced in 1934 due to student initiatives. It pursued the intention to prepare talented and politically reliable young people from lower social classes in special training courses for university studies. For this one had to be suggested by the party or one of its branches, the Reich Labor Service or the Wehrmacht. Besides talent, performance and physical health, political criteria played an important role and were checked in elite camps. The gifted test for working people was adopted in a modified form from the Weimar Republic. The transition from a technical school to a university was tied to a special matriculation examination in a uniform regulation from 1938. Admission to the course was limited to subjects that were a direct continuation of the technical college course. Such opening strategies, which should also enable members of the lower classes to study, were rated controversial at the universities because they feared a loss of academic level.
Public funding for students - for which the Reichsstudentenwerk was primarily responsible - not only fluctuated considerably during National Socialism, but, corresponding to the cyclical decrease and increase in student numbers, this can already be demonstrated for the Weimar period. Only a small proportion of the students received financial support. However, the financial leeway was very tight. In the distribution of loans and grants, in addition to the criteria of talent and need, political good behavior played an important role. During the war, a "special grant" was finally introduced for students who participated in the war. In addition, because of the high demand for doctors by the Wehrmacht , a large number of male medical students were seconded to “part-time studies” and paid like officer candidates . In this respect, attempts were also made to control the choice of subjects through the distribution of scholarships and financial incentives.
Shifts between subjects
The professional structure of the student body changed noticeably during the Third Reich. Most clearly recognizable are the decline in the study of theology and law as well as the clear upturn in the study of medicine. In the philosophical faculties and in the natural sciences, the number of students initially fell, but this was made up to some extent again in the war years. There have been no direct government interventions - for example through the introduction of a subject-related numerus clausus - but in individual subjects there has been a very significant increase in attractiveness through preferential financial support and equally clear efforts to attach great importance to political criteria in the question of admission and funding. The latter also served the declared intention of the NSDAP program to break the social exclusivity of university studies.
Social, political and racist selection
Social selection
The student body during the Weimar period was mainly characterized by medium-sized companies. More than half were civil servants' children, came from small and medium-sized businesses or from farming families. Working-class children were largely excluded from studying. In 1931 their share was only 3%, although more than half of the working population belonged to the working class. Despite the expansion of school education and post-school training opportunities, it was usually hardly possible for them to gain access to university and finance their studies. This social selection, which can be observed both during the crisis years of the Weimar Republic and in the time of National Socialism, is explained by the fact that social climbers in particular are more deterred by insecure job prospects than those who are more likely to be in a position due to family tradition and wealth To facilitate career entry and to bridge waiting times.
In the party program of the NSDAP, the goal was anchored to enable every capable and hardworking German to achieve higher education and to provide state funding for this. The National Socialist student leaders in particular took up these programmatic declarations of intent for the social opening of universities and repeatedly criticized the fact that access to the university remained too much a privilege for the upper classes. This is also clearly reflected in the data from the university statistics. The social profile of the student body did not change noticeably. The already very small group of student working-class children continued to decline after 1933, while the proportion from the educated and property classes increased. At least in part, this is due to the significantly increased proportion of female students during the war years; because these came far more from the bourgeoisie than was the case with the male students.
Political selection
In addition to the connection between admission to studies and the examination of political conduct, a wave of purges began immediately after the “seizure of power”, which was primarily directed against left-wing students. With the active participation of students, blacklists were drawn up, which were the basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings and relegations. In 1933, the regulations were still very different in individual countries and in the various universities. The common denominator was that all those should be removed who had “been actively involved in an anti-national sense” - be it as members or sympathizers of communist, social democratic or other unpopular parties and groups. The practical implementation of the respectively formulated decrees, however, was very inconsistent. The individual universities certainly had considerable leeway in terms of the gradation of repressive measures. How many students were affected by these measures is difficult to quantify because the archive documents were largely destroyed; for the years 1933/34 a number of 423 relegations for political reasons can be determined at the 23 existing universities; there were 548 at all universities together Students affected (0.5% of the then students). This apparently succeeded in removing at least the exposed opponents of the Nazi regime. The deterrent effect of locally known examples is likely to have been considerable. From autobiographical evidence it becomes clear that in many cases the “political cleansing” not only meant exclusion from studies, but also arrest, torture, prison or concentration camp. And the proportion of those who had to drop out of their studies because they no longer had a financial basis due to the funding regulations outlined in 4.1.2 based on political criteria is hardly verifiable.
Exclusion and expulsion of Jewish students
On April 25, 1933, the “Law against the Overcrowding of German Schools and Universities” was passed, which, together with the associated implementing regulations, created the basis for the almost complete removal of Jewish students. In percentage terms, Jewish students formed a relatively small part of the student body at just under 3.7% in 1932/33. Compared to their 0.9% share of the population, however, they were clearly over-represented. The proportion of women among the Jewish students was also disproportionately high. Even before 1933, the National Socialists had massively polemicized against the “Judaization” of academic professions and called for measures against the “foreign infiltration” of universities. The proportion of Jewish students was initially reduced to below 1% by setting maximum limits (5% at each individual faculty), introducing evidence of ancestry and almost completely refusing to issue a higher education entrance qualification for Jewish high school graduates. In fact, from 1933 onwards there were hardly any Jewish first-year students, and the number of foreign Jewish students also decreased drastically. Many who were just about to graduate had to drop out of their studies because they were not admitted to the exam or the subsequent legal traineeship, or their chances in the liberal professions were severely restricted. For example, Jewish doctors were denied license to practice medicine and recognized by statutory health insurance physicians, Jewish lawyers were not allowed to settle down and were not appointed notaries. From 1937, Jews were not admitted to doctoral studies. The expulsion was finally completed in 1938. Following the November pogrom (“Reichskristallnacht”), the Reich Ministry of Education issued a telegraphic instruction to forbid Jews from taking part in courses and from entering universities. Most of the few remaining “non-Aryan” students experienced their studies subjectively as very stressful, suffered from discrimination and loneliness and received hardly any support. So it is hardly surprising that even those who were not forced to give up their studies “voluntarily” dropped out.
Women's studies: between limitation and departure
After the universities gradually opened up to women around 1900, their share of all students rose to 6.7 percent by the beginning of the First World War with 4,053 students. During the war, the number of female students initially continued to grow, although it fell in the wake of inflation in the early 1920s, but then rose even more than the number of male students. In 1931, female participation in studies initially peaked at 18.9 percent. However, with the onset of National Socialism, the number of female students decreased significantly.
In accordance with the National Socialist image of women, access to academic education was made more difficult for girls, and the “reorganization of the higher education system” in 1938 worsened women's chances of getting a place at university due to content restrictions: At the girls’s grammar schools there were only linguistic or housekeeping upper levels. Lessons in the natural sciences and Latin have been reduced, which means that the choice of courses has been narrowed down significantly. While the “Law against Overcrowding in Schools and Universities” of 1933 only gave every second high school graduate a higher education entrance qualification, only every seventh high school graduate was able to start studying. In addition, women had to achieve higher scores to pass the aptitude tests. The law also stipulated that the proportion of women among newly admitted students must not exceed 10 percent. Based on these regulations, it is also referred to as a “gender-specific numerus clausus”.
However, a clear distinction must be made between the program on the one hand and the actual development and implementation of the measures on the other. On the one hand, the law was repealed in 1935, and on the other hand, the number of new enrollments fell before 1933. This declining willingness to study was found in both sexes. The cyclical fluctuations in the academic labor market affected both men and women, the latter, however, even more severely. In some areas (e.g. law) they were explicitly excluded, in others (e.g. medicine) they encountered high hurdles when entering a career. The career prospects for teacher training students - a subject preferred by women - were even less favorable for them than for men. Instead of studying another subject, most of the high school graduates opted for training outside the university. Such “substitute careers” in the commercial or industrial sector opened up especially in the second third of the 1930s, when the economic situation had improved significantly.
Another barrier was the mandatory six-month labor service introduced in 1934 for prospective students. This, too, could have influenced the decision to study in terms of gender. Most of the activities to be performed were unusually hard physical work for the high school graduates. On the one hand, this may have had a deterrent effect on women; on the other hand, it is known that those who had just started the service were more likely to be encouraged in their decision to study by the unpleasant physical work.
Another important explanatory factor for the decreasing number of female students is likely to be the restrictive funding policy. After the National Socialists came to power, there was an absolute and relative decline in the number of scholarship holders. This was particularly strong among the female students receiving funding from the Reich: In 1928 it was 13 percent of all women receiving funding, the percentage in 1937 was only 5.5. With regard to the living and study conditions at the time, it must be taken into account that these were generally worse for women. Although the economic situation of all students was precarious after the First World War and inflation, women had even less money on average. The families were less willing to invest money in their daughters' studies. Finding a room was also more difficult. Women were not welcome to sublet. Men had much better opportunities to get a place to live through the numerous fraternity houses and found student jobs more easily, since these were mainly manual work. Numerous articles at the time about “women's studies” also show an increase in the misogynistic mood among students with the Nazi takeover. The anti-intellectualism of the National Socialist regime certainly played a role in this, which hit female students more severely and was also reflected in the subordinate role and poor financial position of the National Socialist Students' Association (ANSt). This attitude was not unbroken, however, in some cases violent public controversies on the subject of “women's issues at universities” were fought. When a shortage of academics began to emerge in 1936/37, the Nazi propaganda expressly encouraged women to take up a degree. However, this goal was not achieved to a significant extent until the beginning of the Second World War. From 1939, more and more women enrolled for a degree. The proportion of women among students at universities rose from 19% in the winter semester 1939/40 to 47% in the winter semester 1943/44. Such a proportion was only reached again after 2000.
During and because of the war, the lecture halls were mostly visited by women, which significantly strengthened their self-confidence. At the end of the war, however, they had to break off their studies in many cases in order to "make room" for those returning from the war. This rapid decline is demonstrated in local studies for the total number of students and, in particular, for mathematics and science subjects. A qualitative survey of university professors in the early 1950s came to the conclusion that strong prejudices against women as students as well as lecturers and researchers shaped the climate at the university and were expressed openly. In view of the shortage of academics in almost all areas - despite programmatic reservations - the significant increase in women's studies during the Nazi era was allowed for pragmatic reasons by the National Socialist university policy. Emancipatory intentions and efforts to achieve equality were not connected with it. The downward trend in the post-war years indicates that a sustainable promotion effect for women was not achieved.
Students as acting subjects
The young people at the universities showed a high degree of enthusiasm and willingness to get involved in new political ideas. At the same time they drew sufficient self-confidence from the knowledge that they belong to the (future) elite to take on an avant-garde role. And they also had a greater degree of self-determination and freedom for political commitment than other social groups. The high affinity to National Socialist ideas, which was already evident in the years of the Weimar Republic, can be explained both by the experiences during the First World War, the processing of the military defeat of 1918 and the provisions of the Versailles Treaty, which were perceived as unjust. In addition, there were the future uncertainties outlined above. The resulting fears were absorbed by Nazi promises. Against this background, it is understandable that the organs of student self-administration in the universities were strongly dominated by National Socialist representatives. At least this can be seen from the AStA elections in the years 1928–1933.
University political organizations and corporations
The most influential organization was undoubtedly the National Socialist Student Union (NSDStB) founded in 1926, into which the student ring "Langemarck", a university offshoot of the Stahlhelm, was incorporated in 1934. From the winter semester 1930/31 onwards, its female counterpart was the National Socialist Female Students Working Group (ANSt). The German Student Union (DSt) was originally the umbrella organization for all student committees. Members were indirectly all German students. Since 1931 the German student body was under the leadership of a member of the NSDStB.
In the academic milieu of the Imperial Era and the Weimar Republic, the liaison system was the most important socialization instance for students. More than 1,300 corporations were united in a total of 47 associations. In 1929 a total of 71,000 student members were organized there, divided into the two large groups of striking and non-striking connections. That was 56.5 percent of the male students.
Up until this point in time, strong connections in particular formed the core of the right-wing student body. The largest weapons student association was formed by the German fraternity with almost 9,000 student members and a good 25,000 "old men". Its members were taken with the new movement and saw National Socialism as a continuation of the tradition of corporate students. Nevertheless, the relationship between the German fraternity and the NSDStB was not without its problems. Although the basic ideological ideas were shared, they resisted the synchronization. The partnerships wanted to maintain their independence and self-determination. While at the beginning of the establishment of the Nazi regime, many students were both members of corporations and also worked actively for the NSDStB, from 1931 onwards tensions rose because the corporations saw their continued existence at risk. The members wavered between refusing to cooperate with the NSDStB and looking for compromises. In October 1935 the NSDAP finally issued a ban prohibiting a corporation student from membership in the NSDStB and the Hitler Youth. The associations then disbanded. The German Burschenschaft also made all of its corporations available to the NSDStB.
Two groups clearly distanced themselves from the emerging National Socialism: on the one hand the republican and socialist groups, on the other hand the organized Catholics. With a total of around a tenth of the students, however, these represented a negligible figure. Male and Protestant students were clearly overrepresented among the National Socialist university students, but there were no differences in terms of field of study and age structure.
Student influence on university politics
At many universities, the National Socialist students took an active part in redesigning them; after 1933 they became the engine of conformity. The institutional basis for this role was provided by the recognition of the German student body by the ministers of education as the sole overall representation of German students - foreign and Jewish students were excluded from it. At the same time, the general student committees were dissolved, and democratically elected chairmen were replaced by leaders appointed from above. They grew significantly more opportunities to influence and power. They demonstrated this on the one hand in spectacular public activities such as book burning, on the other hand they actively influenced personnel policy decisions. For example, they collected critical material about professors, drew up blacklists and thus helped to prepare for the expulsion of unpopular faculty members. In addition to Jewish and left-wing lecturers, the conservatives were not spared, who were not critical of the NSDAP but were not party members. It was not about individual activities, but the leader of the German student body called for appropriate actions ("espionage decree"). With organized boycott campaigns and the disruption or demolition of courses, they emphasized their demands and thus enforced the dismissal of the Jewish professors who initially remained in office due to exceptional regulations (e.g. because of participation in the First World War). Not all students took part in such actions, but such refusers were often intimidated and put under massive pressure. Nevertheless, there was also clear student criticism of such organized measures and offensive countermeasures through demonstrations of sympathy and collections of signatures in support of the dismissal of threatened professors.
The student organizations also exerted influence on personnel policy decisions when filling vacant positions and promoting the careers of junior researchers with whom they worked closely. They were supported by the Lecturer Association. The Reichsstudentenführung was also officially informed about all appointments to the rectorate from 1937 to 1941 and asked for a statement.
Overall, there was a significant shift in power in the initial phase of the establishment of National Socialist rule. While in the Weimar period the universities were described as almost absolutistly dominated by the professors, in many places both the professors and the very self-confident National Socialist student leaders appeared as the actual masters of the university. This also reflected a generation conflict that shook traditional hierarchies and fundamentally called the structure and function of German universities into question. It is true that after the stormy start of the National Socialist transformation, the student leaders were granted far fewer institutionalized rights of co-determination than they had hoped and expected. Nevertheless, through a clever personnel policy and good contacts in the newly founded Ministry of Education, they were able to gain considerable influence on the appointment process, on the creation of new chairs and even on the appointment of rectors.
Everyday student life
But not only university operations, also student life should be specifically geared towards National Socialist ideas. The first instruments for this were the obligation of male students to take part in a kind of paramilitary training as part of military sports and participation in events for political education. This resulted in a considerable time load of around 30 hours per week, which was not met with much approval, especially since engagement in the student council work was expected. The female students also suffered a considerable amount of time from the political seminars and social activities that were coordinated by their student association, the ANSt. A demanding course of study suffered under these conditions. Universities and professors complained about a sharp drop in quality. Massive protests - for example in the context of the “Munich student revolt” - made things easier: the tasks in the NSDStB and ANSt were minimized or - like the student council work - made voluntary.
In 1934, the mandatory six-month labor service was introduced for students of both sexes. It was seen as a practical test and thus as a selection tool for taking up a degree. At the same time it represented an attempt to put the Volksgemeinschaft ideology into practice. In labor camps, young people from all walks of life should live together, work, be politically trained and be trained in sports. The male students were usually assigned in columns for heavy physical work (e.g. building dikes or roads, earthworks and drainage work, etc.), while female students were often assigned to individual families as “labor maids”, worked in agriculture or in the framework of the National Socialist People's Welfare. The subjective experiences of the labor service providers turned out to be very different, as a rule the end of the labor service was welcomed with relief. It is questionable whether it has proven to be a suitable instrument for selection and community formation.
Another concept that affected everyday student life was “student engagement”. It could initially be done voluntarily as a factory or land service as well as a harvest assignment during the semester break. Participation was rather moderate, so from 1937 more pressure was exerted and in the summer of 1939 the Reichsstudentenführung proclaimed a general "harvest assistance obligation for all members of the German student body". There were violent protests against this and also opportunities to evade this order without having to face sanctions. This was widely used.
The attempts to restrict the freedom to shape one's own life and study too much all led to loyalty crises among the students, which was registered with concern by the politicians and - at least until the beginning of the war - usually with the search for compromises and Pacification strategies answered. There was a clear gap between the student leaders and the bulk of the students: on the one hand, the activism of the functionaries, on the other hand, the need of a large part of the students who resisted overly restricting their own freedom of action in their studies and private life. A general rejection of National Socialism was not necessarily connected with this.
Change in student political attitudes during the war
The outbreak of war initially led to massive structural shifts in the composition of the student body. Most of the NSDStB functionaries volunteered for the front immediately after the war began. 93% of the comradeship leaders were in the Wehrmacht in March 1940, so that one can almost speak of an exodus of convinced National Socialists from the universities. They were no longer available for university political work and the activities of the student councils and were difficult to replace. A large proportion of the male students of all semesters were also drafted immediately after the war began. A large proportion of young people starting semesters and a rapidly growing number of female students during the war years were therefore found at the universities. In addition, there were students assigned to study (especially in the medical field in order to be able to meet the high demand for doctors) as well as members of the Wehrmacht who were temporarily on leave after several years to continue or to complete their studies and finally an increasingly larger group of war invalids or soldiers. not suitable for military service. This very heterogeneous clientele understandably differed considerably in their attitudes. Complaints about “immature” and “unworthy” behavior by the very young students increased immediately after the start of the war. The students tried to avoid the services of the NSDStB, they were indifferent and disinterested in university politics. Most of them had been intensely confronted with political and ideological issues in school and youth since their childhood and youth, but this had evidently led to a more distant attitude than to political activation.
The "soldiers' students" were generally praised as ambitious students, but they too were recognized as having a regrettably little interest in political life - and the female students were also found to be even more indifferent to political issues than the men. It can therefore be stated initially that the military successes could by no means bring about a political activation of the student body. The universities were certainly not strongholds of National Socialism during the war, rather there are signs of increasing alienation between the National Socialist student organizations and the majority of students. This worsened at the latest after the losses of Stalingrad and with the bombing of the cities, which ultimately made regular study operations hardly possible. Even internal status reports came to the conclusion that all measures would not have been sufficient to attract scientifically and politically reliable young students. Whether and to what extent this also resulted in opposition potential cannot necessarily be concluded from this.
Student resistance
The outlined strategies of the students to evade restrictive interventions and the curtailment of free spaces do signal a clear distance from the regime, but do not represent resistance in the narrower sense. Those behaviors and opinions that were in opposition to National Socialist politics and worldview, but the The threshold to organized resistance not exceeded can be summarized under the term dissent. A distinction can be made between the three forms of individual, social-elitist and ideological dissent.
Individual dissent was particularly widespread. It manifests itself in the attempts of countless students not to conform to certain rules and expectations of behavior of the government or the student leaders, but to preserve as many individual freedoms as possible. The social-elitist dissent grew out of a position of bourgeois exclusivity and distinguished itself from the proletarian style and plebeian habitus of many party functionaries. It is unclear how widespread social-elitist dissent was. The National Socialist propaganda of the Volksgemeinschaft was rejected by many students - more or less explicitly. They developed a habitus that clearly distanced themselves from National Socialism as a mass movement.
The ideological dissent was often based on religious beliefs. The opposition potential was particularly high among theology students. Although there were also devout students who tried to combine their membership in the church with National Socialist engagement, it cannot be overlooked that at universities with a predominantly Catholic student body, the distance from National Socialism was greater than at other universities and that the proportion of Protestant students , who counted himself to the Confessing Church, was very high. However, this potential was mainly activated when the state criticized the church or interfered in its internal affairs. The expulsion of oppositional and Jewish students, on the other hand, was hardly discussed or as an occasion for protests. Only rarely did Christian dissent lead to active resistance against the Nazi regime.
Resistance in the narrower sense can be described as all actions that were based on a fundamental rejection of National Socialism and aimed at overthrowing the government. In this sense, communist students in particular attempted to offer organized resistance against the Nazi regime in the pre-war period. Communist student groups were banned in the spring of 1933, but the students at some universities (e.g. Berlin, Bonn, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Leipzig and Marburg) formed small illegal groups, which by distributing leaflets and publishing newspapers (“ Antifascist Correspondence ”,“ The Red Student ”and“ The Socialist ”) tried to mobilize their fellow students. However, this hardly succeeded. Even the infiltration of communist students as training instructors in the political education work of the student union changed nothing. Many of these largely unknown students were arrested, sent to concentration camps or were later executed.
During the war the resistance work turned out to be even more dangerous than before; because the resistance fighters faced an increasingly unscrupulous persecution apparatus. Violations that "only" resulted in a prison sentence at the beginning of the Nazi dictatorship could now mean death. The “White Rose” in Munich is probably the best-known student resistance group of the war years. Its much less well-known Hamburg branch was also a very active resistance group, which, compared to the Munich group, was less motivated by Christianity and religion, but rather came from communist or anarchist traditions. Berlin students also worked in the resistance group around Harro Schulze-Boysen and Arvid Harnack, which became known under the name “Rote Kapelle”.
Overall, there were only a few student groups who organized themselves in the active fight against the Nazi dictatorship. They remained largely isolated within the student body. The vast majority of the students did not come into contact with such activities. Many did not even find out about it. The example of the “White Rose” in Munich shows that the majority of the students did not sympathize with these groups, but rather rejected them. Denunciations from the ranks of his own fellow students were therefore to be expected.
The influence of the Nazi ideology on scientific disciplines at German universities
The question of the influence of National Socialism on the development of science in the “Third Reich” cannot be answered uniformly beyond science policy and especially with regard to the influence of National Socialist ideology. With regard to the subject-area landscape at German universities between 1933 and 1945, however, some concrete developments can be named that can only be explained in the context of National Socialism and brought into direct connection with the ideological convictions of the actors involved. Two tendencies can be distinguished: On the one hand, the Nazi state promoted in particular those disciplines that either supported Nazi ideology (e.g. racial hygiene, “Aryan sciences”, “ethnic sciences”) or were able to promote economic self-sufficiency (e. B. Research on synthetic fuel or medicinal plant research). On the other hand, the humanities in particular had to fight against an anti-intellectual and anti-international attitude and therefore tried to prove their usefulness for the “national body”.
Biology and medicine
As a scientific discipline at the university, biology was closer to National Socialism than any other scientific discipline and was therefore supposedly more strongly influenced by the social and moral changes in the Nazi state than others. Even in the run-up to the seizure of power in 1933, the social Darwinist worldview was able to firmly establish itself in this discipline, albeit with the exception of resistance from some experts. In the history of ideas , the racist ideology results from the generalization of the biological principle of Darwin's theory of evolution to politics and society. The “struggle for existence” of a species becomes the “struggle for existence” of a people. Since National Socialism is based on the same worldview and the prospect of promoting scientific research to underpin this ideology, the cooperation with the specialist representatives does not seem surprising. It is not uncommon for the original meaning of biological terms (e.g. habitat ) to become alienated .
Since the concept of race was to be of central importance in National Socialist science and research, the research areas that already existed on this (hereinafter: twin research ) were given special support. Findings on heritable animal and plant diseases should also be made applicable to humans, for which identical twins have been studied. In addition to the heredity of physical characteristics, this should also be demonstrated for mental and emotional characteristics.
Disastrous for countless victims of the Nazi was not the basic research to define not only genetically as such, but the change in research practice and the declared aim of the Nazi elite, the "master race", but its genetic material "inferior" of influences within the eugenics to clean. The subject of euthanasia was now, in addition to the establishment of selection laws, also the enforcement (i.e. forced abortions, forced sterilization and murder) of them. The coexistence of healing and annihilation in National Socialist medicine is characteristic here . Life considered worth living had to be protected, life unworthy of life destroyed - the individual lost its intrinsic worth in favor of the “people's body”. On the one hand, this legitimized the murder of “ ballast existences ” (ie inherited patients, mentally ill etc.), and on the other hand, it explains the description of various Nazi doctors by former patients as caring in the Nuremberg doctor's trial . The director of the Tübingen University Women's Clinic August Mayer serves as a suitable example . He was a declared opponent of euthanasia and sat down for example. B. resolutely opposed the relocation of cancer patients from the clinics to leave them to their fate. His patients described him as a careful and caring obstetrician. At the same time, however, he was particularly committed to the “ Law for the Prevention of Hereditary Offspring ” and u. a. involved in forced abortions in so-called "Eastern Poles". The image of man embodied in the eyes of the doctor decided about healing or annihilation for the patient. Under the guidance of Nazi doctors, psychiatric patients had extremely poor conditions. On the grounds that mental illnesses result from hereditary, diseased brains, the killing of the “incurable” began and this was continued independently even in the months after the end of the war.
On the other hand, some established research areas were able to enjoy a lot of attention without having to make too many admissions to the developing worldview, but instead were able to research based on empirical principles. The reason for the increased attention was that their findings might have made the Nazi state independent of imports. Economy was the top priority here. For example, in medicinal plant research u. a. With forced laborers from concentration camps (= cheap labor) intensively searched for native plants and their possible healing effects. Although this was also underpinned ideologically, since one wanted to oppose purely scientific medicine in order to be able to speak of a "holistic" medicine , one cannot speak of a purely ideological interest in naturopathy, since on the other hand intensive efforts were made , through the discovery of synthetic drugs such as B. Pervitin to become independent of imports. In the same way, genetic research in botany with regard to useful plants for the "expansion of the German habitat" was promoted.
Humanities, ethnic sciences and the Ahnenerbe e. V.
"Aryan" sciences
In the case of the university subjects of physics , chemistry and mathematics , attempts were made to reorganize theories, methods and systematics according to ideological aspects, which were undertaken by active scientists. The scientists involved often intended to promote their scientific careers and secure positions at universities through an ideological commitment and proximity to National Socialism, but occasionally tried, as in the case of "Deutsche Chemie", to transform theirs out of serious ideological convictions Subject.
"German Physics"
Characteristic of this special movement within physics, founded by Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark before 1933, is the rejection of the "Jewish" theory of relativity and quantum mechanics as central components of modern physics, which "German Physics" perceives as theory-heavy, abstract and unrealistic were. Instead, a physical worldview based primarily on mechanical principles should be established and the principles of knowledge of nature should be developed from the alleged unique features of the "Aryan race". The rejection of the content of modern physics could be for racist, political or scientific reasons. In summary, “German Physics” can be described as a loose movement by physicists to enforce outdated physical views by political means, who use their positions of power in the German scientific system to pursue their goals.
The influence of "German Physics" on the science system was expressed above all on the personnel-political level in the occupation of several physics chairs at German universities, of which the installation of Wilhelm Müller as the successor to Arnold Sommerfeld on the chair for theoretical physics at the University of Munich was the greatest Had caused a stir. Other well-known examples of “German physicists” in chairs were August Becker at the University of Heidelberg (from 1934) and Rudolf Tomaschek at the TH Munich (from 1939). However, these personnel policy decisions should not be misunderstood as a success of “German Physics”: the majority of physicists in Germany did not share the dogmatic stance of “German Physics”, but on the contrary spoke in public for a strengthening of modern physics as early as the late 1930s Physics off. Thus, during the Nazi era, most of the chairs remained occupied by scientists who did not express any recognizable interest in mixing Nazi ideology with physical content. The phenomenon of “German Physics” came to an end with the fall of the “Third Reich” and had no discernible effects on the development of physics in the post-war period.
"German Mathematics"
In 1934, the mathematician Ludwig Bieberbach , 1936–1945 dean of the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences at the University of Berlin, founded a special ideological trend that focused on working out "native" mathematics by distinguishing it from formalistic and thus "Jewish" mathematics based on the " Integration typology ”by Erich Rudolf Jaensch. The motivation for the establishment of a "German Mathematics" can be explained by the precarious situation of the subject mathematics under National Socialism: Against the background of the strong emphasis on the practical value and application of science in the National Socialist science and education policy, mathematics threatened to become independent Research discipline to be denied by the other natural sciences. Bieberbach's “Deutsche Mathematik” was supposed to counter this pressure by emphasizing its usefulness for different political fields of the Nazi state, especially for the defense system. In addition, she was supposed to legitimize the existence of her subject within the Nazi scientific system through the pseudo-scientific justification of an internal connection with the German race.
It is likely that Bieberbach used "German Mathematics", among other things, to secure his social position and his political power within the Nazi scientific landscape in the long term. During the Nazi era, "German Mathematics", thanks to its integration of racial ideology and the National Socialist type theory, could be used well as an instrument in a mathematical dispute to eliminate primarily Jewish competitors with pseudoscientific arguments. Since some mathematicians who sympathized with "German Mathematics" during the Nazi era did not emerge as convinced National Socialists ( Max Steck ) or even as pacifists ( Gustav Doetsch ) before 1933 , their cases may at least partly be characterized by political opportunism can be assumed. Bieberbach and “German Mathematics”, similar to “German Physics”, were largely met with rejection or lack of interest among the specialists. Overall, the phenomenon of "German mathematics" was limited to Nazi Germany, but could not even present itself there as a serious alternative to established mathematics. On a scientific level, after 1945 no influence of “German Mathematics” was noticeable.
"German Chemistry"
In contrast to mathematics, which, due to its high theoretical proportions, saw its independence as an academic subject threatened by Nazi politics, chemistry within the Nazi scientific landscape did not have to fear any political pressure or loss of significance, as it was entirely due to its existence Could legitimize application reference. Politicians not only emphasized the practical use of the chemical industry for the goals of economic and war policy, but also attached great importance to university chemistry for the training of specialists and researchers. In addition, the broad promotion of chemical research also included areas of basic research , i.e. areas without any directly recognizable application relevance. Given these positive conditions, the establishment of a “German chemistry” cannot be seen as a reaction to a threat to one's own discipline or one's own research. In contrast to the “German Physics” or “German Mathematics” movements, “German Chemistry” arose from a deep ideological conviction and was developed by chemists who all already held good positions at universities and had sufficient public funds for their research received. The programmatic goal of this ideological movement around Conrad Weygand , Karl Lothar Wolf , Rembert Ramsauer , Helmut Harms and Robert M. Müller was to historically work out an allegedly German type of knowledge of nature in chemistry, which is primarily supposed to be characterized by a holistic way of thinking and to demonstrate their superiority over modern chemistry, which has been vilified as rationalistic. Like the other movements, the “German Chemistry” ultimately failed because of the disregard or disapproval by established colleagues and after the end of the “Third Reich” was also unable to exert any discernible influence on the development of the chemical subjects.
Arms research at universities
Armaments research was an essential part of everyday university life even before the Second World War. Academic resources were not mobilized on a large scale until the war began. The tasks to be worked on by the university institutes covered a broad spectrum of natural and engineering issues. In cooperation with the technical universities and non-university institutions, such as the KWG, the universities carried out mainly armament-related basic research. In addition, the work included theoretical feasibility studies, but also concrete experimental investigations and construction contracts, such as B. Measuring devices for rocket test stands or assemblies for the electrical instruments of long-range missile projects. As the war continued, a concentration of research areas at certain universities became apparent.
Research funding
In 1937, the Reich Research Council (RFR) took over the promotion of scientific, medical and engineering research with the aim of improving armaments technology. The RFR particularly promoted basic research; Purpose research and specific technical developments were treated as secondary. The preference for basic research was not consistently implemented, as a large part of these projects could not be used quickly enough for military use. With the institutionalization of the RFR in 1942 as an independent authority, it promoted the majority of the "war-important" research from 1943 onwards.
Contract award, knowledge transfer and motivation of scientists
With the award of direct research contracts to universities and technical colleges, the Army Weapons Office created a new research structure in weapons development from the beginning of the war. In addition to industry, universities were the most important partners of the Army Weapons Office in matters of arms research. Through personal contacts of the institute directors to the Army Weapons Office, entire institutes became part of a research network for arms research.
The developing working groups within the institutes were oriented towards the research needs of the Army Research Centers and the Army Weapons Office. This development was also promoted by the interest of renowned engineers such as Heinrich Barkhausen and Enno Heidebroek in the research carried out by the Army Weapons Office. In addition to the permanent positions, the Army Weapons Office took over the financing of additional employee positions in individual cases. The reporting of the researchers to the Army Weapons Office was classified as a "secret matter of command", so that the researchers were obliged to maintain secrecy and forwarded their results directly. Interim and final reports were delivered to contacts at the Army Research Centers, who were responsible for coordinating the research projects.
The knowledge transfer took place not only between client and contractor, but also took place through lectures and colloquia within the participating scientists beyond institute boundaries.
The willingness of scientists to participate in arms research is often explained with a patriotic sense of duty. However, this also opened up the possibility of avoiding military service for many scientists. The universities were also motivated to take part in armaments research, as this ensured the allocation of personnel, financial resources and, above all, limited raw materials. At times, internal university battles over the funding broke out.
Arms research using examples
The Institute for Hereditary and Racial Care was established at the University of Giessen as early as 1934. In addition, the medical faculty was greatly expanded with the aim of training the largest possible number of medical students for the coming war. This created a close connection between the Wehrmacht and the University of Giessen, which significantly contributed to the preservation of the existence-threatened university. This specialization meant that the University of Giessen was able to take on tasks that were actually assigned to the Military Medical Academy in Berlin. A circular issued by the Reich Minister for Science, Education and Public Education in 1938 meant that research into warfare agents and warfare agent diseases had to be included in the university curricula. As a result, as for example at the University of Greifswald , interdisciplinary group lectures for medicine, chemistry and pharmacy were offered. University institutes, e.g. B. at the University of Göttingen , also took on expert roles by subjecting industrial developments to a theoretical and metrological error analysis. In this context, they also dealt with the development of suitable measurement methods.
Universities were also involved in researching new warfare gases , such as the nerve toxin tabun developed in 1936 and its further development sarin . In cooperation with doctors and university members such as Karl Wimmer and August Hirt ( Strasbourg ), tests were carried out on the effects on concentration camp inmates.
In the course of the four-year plan, university institutes were rededicated to so-called four-year plan institutes. Following the example of the KWIs, these institutes should influence development and production in industry. Examples of this are the “Four Year Plan Institute for Manufacturing Processes ” headed by Werner Osenberg at the Technical University of Hanover or the Technical University of Darmstadt , which has researched in the fields of paper manufacture and textile chemistry in this context.
Optimization of the defense industry
Werner Osenberg, head of the “Four Year Plan Institute for Manufacturing Processes” at the Technical University of Hanover since May 2, 1941, was particularly concerned with optimizing war-related research. At the institute, card files and lists of research capacities were created, on the basis of which a return campaign of scientists and experts of the Navy from the front line was initiated at the end of 1942 . These activities resulted in the establishment of a planning office in the RFR in mid-1943. Under the direction of Werner Osenberg, the planning office was supposed to continue the activities of the four-year plan institute and expand them to the entire region. As a result, one of the tasks of the planning office was to list all possible specialists for armaments research in a central file and, on the other hand, to coordinate and bundle research forces and capacity in various projects to intensify war and armaments research. As a result, by November 1944 at least 3,430 scientists, technicians and craftsmen had been recalled from the front line and integrated into war-relevant areas of research and industry.
In addition, the Defense Research Association was founded within the RFR in August 1944. This should coordinate all state armaments research at universities, technical colleges and non-university institutes in order to generate as many research results as possible that are essential for the decision to war. The efficiency of the defense research community is, however, controversial in research.
denazification
With the "Potsdam Agreement" passed on August 2, 1945, the denazification of the occupation zones was the allied goal. German society, in particular politics, the press, the economy, the military and the legal system should be freed from fascist ideas and National Socialist influences. Denazification was closely related to the demilitarization and democratization of German society.
Within the German university landscape, this process was linked to the idea of rapid reconstruction. In accordance with the “re- education idea” and the democratization objective, closed educational establishments should be reopened quickly after they have been comprehensively denazified. The goal has not been reached. The universities and colleges reopened before the process of denazification was completed.
The first, as yet unorganized, period of the occupation up to the summer of 1945 was marked by looting of universities and the arrest and evacuation of important scientists. The actual phase of denazification began in autumn 1945. There were mass layoffs on the part of the Allies, but also university measures.
With the “Law for the Liberation from National Socialism and Militarism” of the Allied Control Council of March 5, 1946, the occupying powers transferred the task of denazification to German authorities. The military governments retained oversight for the proper and orderly conduct of the processes. In the “Arbitration Chamber Proceedings” lay judges should decide individually on the question of guilt and thus on the professional future of the university members. However, so-called "Persilscheine" (exonerating statements from credible third parties) were issued quite often. Only a fraction of the accused were found guilty or complicit. Most of them were classified as followers or exonerated and acquitted. The judicial chamber procedure, intended as a means of denazification, developed into an instrument for the rehabilitation of university members.
The denazification of higher education did not take place identically in all four occupation zones. According to Mitchell Ash, a distinction can be made between relatively strict rules in the American and Soviet zones and milder rules in the British and French zones.
The four zones of occupation
American zone of occupation
The American occupation powers were the main organizers of the denazification of Germany. In general, their approach is described as more rigorous, schematic and less pragmatic than that of the other Western powers.
Before the end of the war, preparations for the occupation policy for Germany took place in America. As early as 1944, the Military Government published a “Handbook of the Principles and Measures of Occupation Policy for Germany”. This made it possible for the occupying powers to derive guidelines for the assessment and regulation of the area of “education and religious affairs”. Most of the layoffs therefore took place immediately after the American occupation in 1945.
The elementary goal of the Americans was to carry out democratic educational work in occupied Germany and to carry out the necessary personal cleansing. Their strategy was to give the Germans a certain degree of personal responsibility with regard to the university reform in order to bring them closer to democracy in practice. Nevertheless, it was the American university officers and their superiors who established general guidelines and reserved the right to control the denazification of university staff.
In the planned personnel restructuring of the universities, information was drawn from two sources: On the one hand, the “black” “gray” and “white” lists about people who were heavily, partially or not involved with National Socialism; and on the other hand on questionnaires that had to be truthfully filled out by the university scholars. However, many scholars went to other universities in the Western Zones after their release or skillfully exploited the democratic methods of the arbitration chamber proceedings. So it came about that many of those who had previously been dismissed went back to work at the universities in the 1950s.
British zone of occupation
The British commissioned the Public Safety Special Branch to denazify the universities. The policy of the British was different from the consistent behavior of the Americans. The British were less prepared for their occupation. Their main goal was the economic reconstruction of Germany, which at the same time brought with it a need for qualified scientists and thus made an uncompromising cleansing impossible. This practical attitude gave many well-known German scientists an opportunity to relocate to the British occupation zone. A total of 23 percent (157) of all professors, lecturers and assistants who worked at the university in 1945 were dismissed in the zone. But after 1947 a similar picture emerged here as in the American occupation zone. Because through the efforts of the professors, a large number of the dismissed were reinstated.
French zone of occupation
The results of denazification in the French zone of occupation did not differ much from those of the British and Americans. But the French approach was somewhat milder. German scientists were integrated into French or German universities relatively quickly. One wanted to cooperate with them, as it were, and have their work under French control. By April 1946, a total of 26.3 percent of university lecturers had been dismissed.
In the French sector, in addition to the reopening of the universities of Tübingen and Freiburg with the establishment of a new university in Mainz, there is also a special feature. The re-establishment took place on the initiative of the French military government. The French authorities had the secret plan to separate the left bank of the Rhine from Germany and to create the core of a new independent country there. This country should then be able to train its own elite through the university. The opening took place on May 22, 1946. Since the University of Mainz was not reopening, but rather a new establishment, there was no denazification in the true sense of the word. Most of the full public professors came from the Soviet zone of occupation. In order to have a larger selection of lecturers, professors who did not qualify as professors were also offered a position in Mainz.
Soviet occupation zone
In the Soviet zone of occupation the situation looked a little different at first than in the western zones. Between autumn 1945 and spring 1946, 427 faculty members were dismissed from Berlin University alone. This corresponds to about 78 percent of the total number of all layoffs. Gradually, however, a discrepancy arose between the objective of denazification, which had an ideological-political background, and its inconsistent and pragmatic implementation. The democratization, which the Soviet occupation zone set as its goal in the course of denazification, includes a restructuring of the scientific institutions. A political cleansing of the teaching staff at the universities should create space for new teachers.
In August 1945 the Soviet military government (SMAD) set up the German Administration for Popular Education (DVV). She was responsible for direct supervision of universities and non-university institutions with regard to dismissals from the teaching body. Immediately after the universities reopened, however, conflicts arose between the university management and the DVV regarding university autonomy. Primarily it was about possible or necessary dismissals of former NSDAP members. The personnel restructuring was u. a. Due to these inconsistencies, but also due to the constant change of course of the SMAD, very uncoordinated and consequently not consistently effective. The extent of this disorganization can be seen in the sometimes dictatorial approach that was displayed.
In August 1947, the SMAD officially declared denazification over. The reason for this decision was the fear that it would not be possible to maintain the scientific standard through consistent restructuring. Instead, nominal NSDAP members who only joined the party as followers should be reintegrated into the chair in individual cases.
In the first wave of layoffs from autumn 1945 to spring 1946, a total of 948 teachers lost their jobs, although there were very large differences in the individual countries of the Soviet occupation zone. The integration of the former NSDAP members began almost at the same time. In 1948 around 747 professors and lecturers - 58.9% fewer than ten years earlier - were employed in the Soviet Zone, the number rose to 869 by 1954. The proportion of former NSDAP members of 28.4% was comparable to that of the western zones.
Overall, there was a very high exchange of staff at the universities and scientific institutions. However, contrary to the current view of strict denazification on a personal level, there was an unexpectedly high number of former NSDAP members at universities and academic institutions in the GDR.
Remigration and redress
The remigration of German university professors from exile is one of the largely unexplored areas of post-war academic culture. The willingness to return existed among the scientists, for whom the material security in the exile countries was only low, who lived comparatively isolated from other scientific circles and among those who felt particularly connected to the German culture. After 1945 only a few scholars returned. This return usually took the form of new appointments, but it is unclear whether the focus was on political, private or subject-specific reasons.
Framework conditions that the returnees found in Germany
In the British zone, a call to return was proposed, as remigration was seen as an “honorary duty of solidarity”. However, this proposal submitted at the rectors' conference in 1945 was unsuccessful.
In the Soviet occupation zone, the reorganization of the sciences was carried out under strict ideological guidelines, excluding emigrants. A return was only allowed if they were loyal to the line, there was no right to return. The option of returning to the Soviet Zone became even less attractive with a wave of campaigns against the Western emigrants in the wake of Stalinization.
In the rehabilitation provisions after 1945, the first reparation provisions for civil servants were laid down. A decree of September 1945 stipulated that those previously persecuted should be paid a waiting or pension. However, this did not compensate for the financial compensation of the previous years. The pensions were to be granted under the circumstance that a certain age limit was reached or that the civil servant was incapacitated. If the age limit of the people has not yet been reached, it was considered to give preference to them when hiring. However, this consideration was withdrawn nine days later as it did not seem feasible. To avoid injustice, officials who were unable to find jobs could also receive pensions. These provisions were formally valid, but were not implemented until 1947.
The post-1945 newly drafted habilitation regulations did not address the problem of university professors who were dismissed during the Nazi era: the universities pursued customary law. With the new habilitation regulation, the civil servant status introduced in 1939 no longer applies. The universities wanted to suppress state influence as much as possible. Future lecturers lost the social security they would have given as revocation officers before 1945 through regular payments. When the habilitation provisions came into effect in the spring of 1946, they developed into an "instrument that was directed against the formerly persecuted private lecturers". Many lecturers had changed their place of residence in order to start a new life. According to the guidelines, a lecturer had to choose to give up his surroundings and move to a place of residence near the university in order to gain paid lecturing skills. If this did not happen, he lost his teaching license and affiliation to the university.
The question of the title of professor caused further problems. After 1945, professors were supposed to rehabilitate their former colleagues. Although they should have been granted the title of professor, many colleagues of the formerly persecuted could not bring themselves to award them the title as an act of reparation.
Reparation professorships or lectureships were allocated a separate budget in universities. The additional positions were personal and supported the reconstruction of the universities after 1945. Despite this special position and the advantages resulting from it, the universities did not always decide to rehabilitate the formerly persecuted. Private lecturers and professors who were previously persecuted did not fall under the civil service law. Although they regained their teaching license, they did not get any paid positions at the universities with which they could finance their living.
The respective ministries of education were responsible for the reparation procedures of the university teachers according to the BWGöD (federal law regulating reparation for members of the public service) of May 1951. Compensation for the financial losses was an option for the displaced university lecturers, but no “reparation” for the financial consequences.
Influence on science
In the long term, emigrants and returnees play an important role in the development of universities with regard to connection to the international knowledge community. In Berlin and Frankfurt, remigrants were disproportionately represented as academic teachers. As a newly introduced discipline, political science was a complete re-import of emigrants. The return rate was 25%, well above the average for the other subjects.
The exchange of professors and recall of emigrants were central measures to help the universities to democratize themselves. The academic qualifications of the lecturers took a back seat, financial and professional care and social rehabilitation received greater attention.
Assessments and reputations were not used for rehabilitation, but also served to exclude former colleagues. In the autumn of 1945, a defensive attitude towards remigrants was evident at the universities. Instead of a broad rehabilitation of emigrated professors, the ostensible aim was to “complement the best”. The failure to recall the emigrants is now seen in historiography as a significant deficit of the universities after 1945.
Has denazification failed?
The question of the success or failure of denazification at German universities cannot be answered clearly.
In all four occupation zones, the varying degrees of personal clean-up policies resulted in most of the layoffs being reversed shortly after the occupation began. In the Federal Republic, this was done on the legal basis of Article 131 of the Basic Law, which marked the official conclusion of the denazification process in 1948. The reasons for this can be found, among other things, in the ambivalence of the need for skilled workers for a new, functioning economic and legal system as well as the excessively high purification goals, which should first have been subjected to a proper analysis of the purification problem. This resulted in too large a number of directives for decision-making and, as a result, an overstretching of the group of people to be dismissed, which led to a mass dismissal, which resulted in mass rehabilitation. The universities in Lower Saxony are examples of this. In five of the universities located there, 31% of the professors, lecturers and assistants (208 of 676) were dismissed in the period from 1945 to July 1947, 25% of whom successfully appealed against the dismissal. This mass rehabilitation, which took place not only in the field of higher education, was also justified in order to keep society together and to protect the universities from collapse. In recent years, many of them have had to earn their living in other ways, sometimes with heavy physical labor. They understood this uncertain financial situation together with the loss of social prestige as a humiliation and therefore tried to get back to their old positions. According to Clemens Vollnhals, the reinstated professors were forced to exercise political restraint in order not to endanger rehabilitation in the professional and social environment.
Consequences of denazification
The focus of higher education policy was primarily on restoring the universities as serious actors in teaching and research and to keep the next generation of academics in Germany. The restoration of the old structures of the Weimar Republic was primarily driven by the local level, i.e. by the individual universities themselves. In the course of the federal system, the competencies were consciously redistributed to the states. The education and economic ministries had the official decision-making authority. However, the West German Rectors' Conference (WRK), which was founded in 1949 as an advisory body, must be observed. She brought constant input into the Standing Conference, which determined the guideline competence of university policy. The result was a clear shift in power to the ordinaries, whose interests the WRK represented, among other things. This development towards restoration rather than actual renewal made it difficult for young professionals to establish themselves at the universities. In addition, the mass rehabilitation and the preference of the victims of the Third Reich as well as former professorships in the Soviet Zone made it difficult to recruit junior staff, and in the post-war period the teaching staff became obsolete. There was also a clear continuity of the university structures with the Weimar Republic. The resulting conservatism prevented far-reaching university reforms.
Efforts to reform were nevertheless seriously discussed, calling for university self-administration, the unity of science and the cohesion of research and teaching. The return to Wilhelm von Humboldt was already to be found in the first post-war years at universities, whereby the inseparability of research and teaching was emphasized. This picture continued in the later discussions about the reform efforts of the 1960s; the rhetoric of a return to the Humboldtian ideal can later be found in the reform debates of the 1960s and 70s and in the legitimation debate of the 1980s. In fact, after 1948 research was increasingly outsourced to non-university institutions. In addition, the conservative professors de facto ensured a policy of continuity and less of renewal, which the occupying powers also found with disappointment. Attempts at democratization by the universities failed because of the professorships, who feared a loss of competence and made only minor concessions in this direction, which mainly concerned the rights of the middle classes and the student body. However, they were critical of the enrollment of women, which meant that male students at universities continued to be in the majority. The student body consisted of similar social groups as in 1933, only in the Soviet zone workers and peasant children were given special support. The idea of the Studium Generale and broader access to the university for the population was supported by a majority. In spite of the failure of a comprehensive reform, significant changes were implemented in West German universities, for example the expansion of contacts with foreign universities and the rapid development of new subjects after 1947 and contributed to a general westernization.
The higher education reform also included the library holdings of the universities, which were in a desolate condition due to Nazification and the aftermath of the war. In the West German sector, the restoration and replacement of library holdings was primarily implemented through the construction of new university libraries in the 1950s and a comprehensive redesign of the library system in the 1960s, with an increasingly stronger tendency towards Americanization in the architectural as well as in the library holdings . An example of the newly founded library is the America Memorial Library, which was built between 1952 and 1954 and which the American people donated to the West Germans as a token of recognition of their perseverance during the one-year city blockade. As the central library, this library should be accessible to all strata of the population and support the general goal of democratization. Nonetheless, the occupation forces were disappointed with the lack of willingness to undertake far-reaching reforms, and the project they proposed to introduce university councils and advisory boards failed due to the universities' fear of interference by the church and possible institutes.
New foundations in the immediate post-war period were limited to the Free University of Berlin (1948) and the universities of Mainz (1946) and Saarbrücken (1947). These new foundations were intended to bring new impulses to the higher education system in the Federal Republic - the establishment of the University of Mainz in the French zone can be understood as a reaction to the structural stagnation and continuity - but soon became part of the structures of the old universities. The adoption of aspects of French universities, such as the possibility of a professorship without a habilitation, could not prevail in the West German academic landscape. Actual reorientations and reform efforts of the universities to be founded appeared for the first time at the end of 1959 and shaped the higher education policy debate of the 1960s.
The establishment of the Free University of Berlin - as an ideological counter-model to the Marxist-influenced University of Unter den Linden (later the Humboldt University) - was also suggested under the auspices of the looming Cold War. Since 1946, German universities have been drawn into the ideological conflict. While in the Soviet zone of occupation the course was set for the training of politically opportune scientists, the western zones reacted by stirring up fear of communism and strengthening the social and political sciences for the political, not scientific, education of students.
The continuity of university operations, which manifested itself in the continuity of personnel, is put into perspective by the changed framework conditions after 1945. The loss of importance of German universities in an international context can therefore not only be justified by this, but is also the result of other measures and processes: the Allied research ban in 1945 and 1946, the slow economic recovery in both parts of Germany in relation to the dominant position of the USA, Setting the course for research policy (role of the DFG as the highest research body, only rarely bringing back former expellees), continuation of old research programs in reconstructed form.
The university historiography of the post-war period ignored the years under National Socialist aegis for a long time. Rector's speeches and histories from their own university often passed this time without comment. The rhetoric of reinterpreting the past is clearly reflected in this contemporary evidence. It was not until the 1970s that this period was increasingly taken into account in the university publications.
indulgence
“We know - and I am not afraid to touch these things - that many German scholars are seriously reproached for having dishonored science by their attitude or their lack of attitude when it came down to it. Unfortunately, nobody can doubt that there has been too much cause for such bitter criticism. You don't gloss over anything if you nevertheless counter the critics and blasphemers that none of them knows whether they would have passed the test themselves. Would he have been ready to sacrifice himself and his own, to resist, for the sake of justice and justice? Who knows the devil in their own soul before the great trial comes? Without having really experienced it, who can grasp how the most fundamental moral demands can evaporate under the power of an immense mass suggestion and a fatal falsification of the concept of duty? "
See also
literature
- Mitchell G. Ash : Constructed Continuities and Divergent New Beginnings after 1945 . In: Michael Grüttner u. a. (Ed.): Broken Science Cultures. University and Politics in the 20th Century . Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, Göttingen 2010, ISBN 978-3-525-35899-3 , p. 215-245 .
- Mitchell G. Ash: Ordered Upheavals - Constructed Continuities: On the Denazification of Scientists and Sciences after 1945 . In: Journal of History . No. 43, 1995, pp. 903-923 .
- Mitchell G. Ash: Science and Politics as Resources, for Each Other . In: Rüdiger vom Bruch , Brigitte Kaderas (Hrsg.): Sciences and science policy. Inventory of formations, breaks and continuities in Germany in the 20th century . Steiner, Stuttgart 2002, ISBN 3-515-08111-9 , pp. 32-51 .
- Stefan Bajohr, Katrin Rödiger-Bajohr (Hrsg.): The discrimination of the lawyer in Germany until 1945. In: Kritische Justiz . 13th year 1980.
- Martin Bechstedt: Structural atomic theory - On "German chemistry" in the Nazi state . In: Herbert Mehrtens , Steffen Richter (Hrsg.): Natural science, technology and Nazi ideology. Contributions to the history of science in the Third Reich . Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main 1980, ISBN 978-3-518-07903-4 .
- Alan D. Beyerchen: Scientists under Hitler. Politics and the physics community in the Third Reich . Yale University Press, New Haven 1977, ISBN 978-0-300-01830-1 .
- Herbert Breger: Foray through the history of mathematics and physics at Heidelberg University . In: Karin Buselmeier, Dietrich Harth, Christian Jansen (eds.): Also a history of the University of Heidelberg . Edition Quadrat, Mannheim 1985, ISBN 3-923003-29-3 .
- Bernhard vom Brocke : Ministries of Culture and Science Administrations in Germany and Austria. In: Rüdiger vom Bruch , Brigitte Kaderas (Hrsg.): Sciences and science policy. Inventory of formations, breaks and continuities in Germany in the 20th century . Steiner, Stuttgart 2002, ISBN 3-515-08111-9 .
- Martin Broszat : The ideological and social field of forces . In: Martin Broszat / Norbert Frei (eds.): The Third Reich at a Glance. Chronicle, events, connections . 2nd Edition. Piper, Munich 1990, ISBN 978-3-423-34402-9 .
- Peter Chroust: University and Studies. In: Klaus-Peter Horn , Jörg-W. Link (Hrsg.): Upbringing conditions under National Socialism. Total demand and educational reality. Julius Klinkhardt Publishing House, Bad Heilbrunn 2011, ISBN 978-3-7815-1813-1 .
- Corine Defrance : German universities during the occupation between breaks and traditions 1945–1949 . In: Dietrich Papenfuß and Wolfgang Schieder (eds.): German upheavals in the 20th century . Böhlau, Cologne / Weimar / Vienna 2000, ISBN 3-412-08500-6 .
- Ute Deichmann : Biologists under Hitler. Displacement, careers, research funding , foreword by Benno Müller-Hill . Campus, Frankfurt am Main / New York, NY 1992, ISBN 978-3-593-34763-9 ( Dissertation University of Cologne 1990, 370 pages).
- Ute Deichmann: Escape, join in, forget. Chemists and biochemists during the Nazi era. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim 2001, ISBN 978-3-527-30264-2 .
- Friedhelm Golücke (Ed.): Corporations and National Socialism (= treatises on student and higher education , volume 2). Society for German Student History, SH, Schernfeld 1989, ISBN 978-3-923621-58-3 .
- Wilhelm Groh : From the practice of a university constitution. In: German Law , 1935.
- Michael Grüttner : Biographical Lexicon on National Socialist Science Policy (= Studies on Science and University History. Volume 6). Synchron, Heidelberg 2004, ISBN 3-935025-68-8 .
- Michael Grüttner: The German universities under the swastika . In: Michael Grüttner, John Connelly (ed.): Between autonomy and adaptation. Universities in the dictatorships of the 20th century . Schöningh, Paderborn 2003, ISBN 3-506-71941-6 .
- Michael Grüttner: Universities in the National Socialist Dictatorship - State of Research, in: Livia Prüll, Christian George, Frank Hüther (Eds.): Writing University History. Contents - methods - case studies, Mainz University Press, Göttingen 2019, pp. 85-103, ISBN 978-3-8471-0966-2 .
- Michael Grüttner: Students in the Third Reich , Schöningh, Paderborn / Munich / Vienna / Zurich 1995, ISBN 3-506-77492-1 .
- Michael Grüttner: Science . In: Wolfgang Benz , Hermann Graml , Hermann Weiß (eds.): Encyclopedia of National Socialism . Munich 1998, 5th updated edition, dtv, Munich 2007, pp. 143–165, ISBN 978-3-423-33007-7 .
- Michael Grüttner, Sven Kinas: The expulsion of scientists from German universities 1933-1945. In: Quarterly books for contemporary history , No. 55, 2007, pp. 123-186 ( PDF ).
- Rüdiger Hachtmann : The Kaiser Wilhelm Society 1933 to 1945. Politics and self-image of a large research institution . In: Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte . No. 56. Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, Stuttgart 2008. Issue 1, 2008.
- Ulrich von Hehl : National Socialist Rule . Oldenbourg, Munich 1996, ISBN 3-486-55020-9 .
- Helmut Heiber : University under the swastika , part 1: The professor in the Third Reich: Pictures from the academic province , Munich 1991, ISBN 3-598-22629-2 ; Part 2: The capitulation of the high schools: the year 1933 and its topics , Volume 1, Munich 1992, ISBN 3-598-22630-6 ; Volume 2, Munich 1994, ISBN 3-598-22631-4 .
- Manfred Heinemann : University officers and reconstruction of the higher education system in West Germany 1945–1952 . 3 volumes. Edition Education and Science, Hildesheim 1990–91, ISBN 3-7848-3903-7 .
- Klaus Hentschel (ed.): Physics and National Socialism. An Anthology of Primary Sources, Basel 1996, 2nd edition 2011, ISBN 978-3-0348-0202-4 .
- Claudia Huerkamp : educated citizens. Women in studies and in academic professions 1900–1945, Göttingen 1996.
- Claudia Huerkamp: Gender-specific numerus clausus - regulation and reality , in: Elke Kleinau, Claudia Opitz (ed.): History of girls and women education in Germany , Volume 2.
- Konrad H. Jarausch : The Humboldt Syndrome. The West German universities 1945–1989. A special academic path? In: Mitchell G. Ash (ed.): Myth Humboldt: Past and Future of German Universities. Vienna, Böhlau Verlag 1999, ISBN 3-205-98915-5 .
- Michael Jung: "Our hearts beat to the Führer with great enthusiasm". The Technical University of Hanover and its professors under National Socialism. BOD, Norderstedt 2013, ISBN 978-3-8482-6451-3 .
- Heinrich Kahlert: Courage in the Third Generation: Chemists under Hitler - Economy, Technology and Science of German Chemistry from 1914-1945 . Bernardus, Langenwaden 2001, ISBN 3-527-30264-6 .
- Michael H. Kater : The National Socialist seizure of power at German universities. On the political behavior of academic teachers until 1939 . In: Hans-Jochen Vogel u. a. (Ed.): The freedom of the other. Festschrift for Martin Hirsch. Baden-Baden 1981, ISBN 978-3-7890-0699-9 .
- Aharon F. Kleinberger: Was there a National Socialist university policy? In: Manfred Heinemann (Hrsg.): Education and training in the Third Reich . Part 2, Stuttgart 1980.
- Alexander Ernst Kluge: The university self-administration: its history and current legal form . Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main [1958], DNB 480711267 Dissertation at the University of Marburg, Faculty of Law and Political Science, December 12, 1956, 264 pages.
- Daniel Krausnick: State and university in the guarantee state . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2012, ISBN 978-3-16-150738-0 .
- Claus-Dieter Krohn : German academic emigration since 1933 and their barriers to remigration around 1945. In: Rüdiger vom Bruch, Brigitte Kaderas (ed.): Sciences and science policy. Inventory of formations, breaks and continuities in Germany in the 20th century . Steiner, Stuttgart 2002, ISBN 3-515-08111-9 .
- Philipp Lenard : German physics in four volumes. Introduction and mechanics. Volume 1. Lehmann, Munich 1936.
- Bettina Limpert: Personnel changes in constitutional law and their situation after the seizure of power . In: Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde (Ed.): Constitutional law and constitutional law in the Third Reich. CF Müller, Heidelberg 1985, ISBN 3-8114-1485-2 .
- Helmut Lindner: "German and counter-typical" mathematics. To justify a "native" mathematics in the Third Reich by Ludwig Bieberbach . In: Herbert Mehrtens, Steffen Richter (Hrsg.): Natural science, technology and Nazi ideology. Contributions to the history of science in the Third Reich . Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main 1980, ISBN 978-3-518-07903-4 .
- Karl-Heinz Ludwig: Technology and Engineers in the Third Reich . Droste, Düsseldorf 1974, ISBN 3-7700-0392-6 .
- Herbert Mehrtens : The “Third Reich” in the history of natural science. Literature report and problem sketch. In: Mehrtens, Richter (ed.): Natural science, technology and Nazi ideology. Contributions to the history of science in the Third Reich. Frankfurt / Main, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt / Main 1980, ISBN 978-3-518-07903-4 .
- Herbert Mehrtens: Ludwig Bieberbach and "German Mathematics". In: Esther R. Phillips (Ed.): Studies in the history of mathematics. Mathematical Association of America, century. In: History and Society 10/1984, Washington DC 1987, ISBN 0-88385-128-8 .
- Lothar Mertens : Some remarks on Nazi science and research policy. In: Rüdiger vom Bruch / Brigitte Kaderas (ed.): Sciences and science policy. Inventory of formations, breaks and continuities in Germany in the 20th century. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2002, ISBN 3-515-08111-9 .
- Axel Nath: The college career in the Third Reich. Systematic development and political control of a cyclical “overcrowding crisis” - 1930 to 1944. Frankfurt / Main, 1988.
- Henryk Olszewski: Between enthusiasm and resistance. German university professors and National Socialism. Instytut Zachodni, Posen 1989, ISBN 978-83-85003-36-6 .
- Stefan Paulus: role model USA? Americanization of universities and science in West Germany 1945–1976. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag GmbH, Munich 2010, ISBN 978-3-486-59642-7 .
- Oliver Schael: The limits of academic past politics: the association of non-officiating (ousted) university professors and the Göttingen University. In: Bernd Weisbrod (Ed.): Academic politics of the past. Contributions to the scientific culture of the post-war period. Wallstein Verlag, Göttingen, 2002, ISBN 3-89244-595-8 .
- Alisa Schaefer: leadership instead of separation of powers. In: Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde (Ed.): Constitutional law and constitutional law in the Third Reich. CF Müller, Heidelberg 1985, ISBN 3-8114-1485-2 .
- Helmut Seier: The rector as leader. In: Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 12th year 1964, issue 2, online
- Anikó Szabó: Ordered Recalls. The university conferences and the discussion about the emigrated university professors. In: Marlies Buchholz / Claus Füllberg-Stollberg / Hans-Dieter Schmid (eds.): National Socialism and Region. Festschrift for Herbert Obenaus on his 65th birthday. (Hannoversche Schriften zur Regional- und Lokalgeschichte 11), Bielefeld 1996.
- Margit Szöllösi-Janze : The institutional transformation of the scientific landscape. In: vom Bruch, Rüdiger (Hrsg.): In: Rüdiger vom Bruch (Hrsg.): Sciences and science policy. Inventory of formations, breaks and continuities in Germany in the 20th century. Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag 2002, ISBN 3-515-08111-9 .
- Werner Thieme: German University Law. 3. Edition. Heymanns, Cologne / Berlin / Munich 2004, ISBN 978-3-452-24763-6 .
- Hartmut Titze (Hrsg.): Data handbook on the German history of education. University studies in Prussia and Germany. Volume 1, Universities. 1st chapter. Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, Göttingen 1987, ISBN 3-525-36209-9 .
- Hartmut Titze: The cycle of academics. Historical research into the recurrence of overcrowding and shortage in academic careers. Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, Göttingen 1990, ISBN 3-525-36224-2 .
- Hartmut Titze: Universities. In: Dieter Langewiesche / Heinz-Elmar Tenorth (ed.): Handbook of the German history of education . The Weimar Republic and the National Socialist dictatorship. Volume V: 1918-1945. CH Beck Verlag, Munich 1989, ISBN 3 406 324681 .
- Hartmut Titze: The cyclical overproduction of academics in the 19th and 20th In: History and Society year. 10/1984, issue 1, ISSN 0340-613X .
- Jörg Tröger (Ed.): University and Science in the Third Reich. Campus Verlag GmbH, Frankfurt 1984, ISBN 3-593-33423-2 .
- Annette Vogt: From the back entrance to the main portal? Lise Meitner and her colleagues at the Berlin University and in the Kaiser Wilhelm Society, Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2007.
- Clemens Vollnhals : Denazification. Political cleansing and rehabilitation in the four zones of occupation 1945 - 1949. Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag, Munich 1991, ISBN 3-423-02962-5 .
- Johannes Vossen: The political system change of 1933 and its effects on university policy. In: Sabine Schleiermacher (Ed.): Science makes politics. University in the political system breaks in 1933 and 1945. Steiner, Stuttgart 2009, ISBN 978-3-515-09315-6 .
- Patrick Wagner : Research funding based on a nationalist consensus. The German research community at the end of the Weimar Republic and during National Socialism. In: M. Grüttner, R. Hachtmann, KH Jarausch u. a. (Ed.): Broken Science Cultures. University and Politics in the 20th Century. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2010, ISBN 3-525-35899-7 .
- Gustav Adolf Walz: The rector as leader of the university. In: German Law, 1935.
Web links
- Historians under National Socialism ... by Ingo Haar
- Greifswald University is working on its Nazi past by Meike Fries
Individual evidence
- ^ Von Brocke: Ministries of Culture and Science Administrations. 2002, p. 196 and tables p. 202 ff.
- ↑ Ash: Science and Politics as Resources for Each Other. 2002, p. 38.
- ^ Szöllösi-Janze: The institutional transformation of the scientific landscape. 2002, p. 69 ff.
- ↑ a b c d e f Titze: Universities. 1989, pp. 209-240.
- ^ Thieme: German University Law. 2004, p. 17.
- ^ Krausnick: State and university in the guarantee state. 2012, p. 8.
- ^ Kluge: The university self-administration. 1958, p. 100.
- ^ Von Hehl: National Socialist Rule. 1996, p. 33.
- ^ Schaefer: leadership instead of separation of powers. 1985, p. 92.
- ↑ Limpert: Personal changes in constitutional law and their situation after the seizure of power. 1985, p. 56.
- ↑ Seier: The rector as a guide. 1964, p. 109.
- ^ Walz: The rector as the leader of the university. 1935, p. 6.
- ^ Groh: From the practice of a university constitution. 1935, p. 4.
- ^ Tröger: University and Science in the Third Reich. 1984.
- ↑ a b c d Grüttner: The German universities under the swastika. 2003.
- ↑ a b Vossen: The political system change of 1933 and its impact on higher education policy. 2009.
- ^ Kater: The National Socialist seizure of power at the German universities. On the political behavior of academic teachers until 1939. 1981, p. 65.
- ↑ Olszewski: Between enthusiasm and resistance. German university professors and National Socialism. 1989, p. 88f.
- ↑ See also Hentschel (ed.): Physics and National Socialism. An Anthology of Primary Sources. Birkhäuser, Basel 1996, pp. 26–31.
- ^ Heiber: University under the swastika. The capitulation of the high schools. 1992. p. 26 and Hentschel (Ed. 1996) Physics and National Socialism. An Anthology of Primary Sources , Basel: Birkhäuser 1996, pp. 32–34
- ↑ a b c Grüttner / Kinas: The expulsion of scientists. 2007, p. 147.
- ↑ a b c Vogt: From the rear entrance to the main portal. 2007
- ↑ a b Krohn: Deutsche Wissenschaftsemigration since 1933 and their barriers to remigration after 1945. 2002, p. 437f.
- ↑ Krohn: Deutsche Wissenschaftsemigration since 1933 and their barriers to remigration after 1945. 2002, p. 441 f.
- ^ A b c R. Hachtmann: The Kaiser Wilhelm Society 1933 to 1945. Politics and self-image of a large research institution. In: Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 56, 2008. Issue 1.
- ↑ a b c M. Grüttner: Science. In: Encyclopedia of National Socialism. Munich 1998, ISBN 978-3-423-33007-7 .
- ↑ Mertens: Notes on Nazi Science and Research Policy, 2002. pp. 225–230.
- ^ Data Handbook 1987, Data Handbook on the German History of Education, Vol. I: Universities, Part 1, Göttingen, p. 29 f.
- ↑ a b c Grüttner 1995, Students in the Third Reich, p. 102
- ^ Rammer, The Nazification and Denazification of Physics at the University of Göttingen, Dissertation at the University of Göttingen 2004, p. 183 ff.
- ↑ Aharon F. Kleinberger: Was there a National Socialist university policy? In: Manfred Heinemann (Hrsg.): Education and training in the Third Reich . Part 2, Stuttgart 1980, p. 18
- ↑ Cf. on this Grüttner 1995, Studenten im Third Reich, p. 149 ff.
- ↑ Grüttner 1995, Students in the Third Reich, p. 142 (see Tab. 6)
- ↑ Grüttner 1995, Students in the Third Reich, p. 146
- ↑ Grüttner 1995, Students in the Third Reich, p. 126 ff. And the overview in Tab. 19, p. 490
- ↑ Grüttner 1995, Students in the Third Reich, p. 136 ff.
- ↑ Titze 1984, The cyclical overproduction of academics in the 19th and 20th centuries, in: Geschichte und Gesellschaft 10, p. 92 ff.
- ↑ See Data Handbook on the German History of Education, Vol. I: Universities, Part 1, Göttingen 1987, pp. 272ff.
- ↑ Grüttner 1995, Students in the Third Reich, p. 504
- ↑ Grüttner 1995, Students in the Third Reich, p. 210
- ↑ Data Handbook on the German History of Education, Vol. I: Universities, Part 1, Göttingen 1987, p. 227
- ↑ Grüttner 1995, Students in the Third Reich, p. 220
- ↑ Grüttner 1995, Students in the Third Reich, p. 224 ff.
- ↑ Huerkamp 1996, Bildungsbürgerinnen. Women in Studies and in Academic Professions 1900–1945, pp. 76ff.
- ↑ Vogt 2007, From the back entrance to the main portal? Lise Meitner and her colleagues at the Berlin University and in the Kaiser Wilhelm Society, p. 250f.
- ↑ Huerkamp 1996, Bildungsbürgerinnen. Women in Studies and in Academic Professions 1900–1945, p. 80.
- ↑ Huerkamp 1996, gender-specific numerus clausus - regulation and reality, in: Kleinau, Elke / Opitz, Claudia (eds.): History of girls and women education in Germany, vol. 2.
- ↑ Huerkamp 1996, gender-specific numerus clausus - regulation and reality, in: Kleinau, Elke / Opitz, Claudia (ed.): History of girls and women education in Germany, vol. 2, p. 331
- ↑ Grüttner 1995, Students in the Third Reich, p. 116.
- ↑ a b Huerkamp 1996, gender-specific numerus clausus - regulation and reality, in: Kleinau, Elke / Opitz, Claudia (ed.): History of girls and women education in Germany, vol. 2, p. 335.
- ↑ Huerkamp 1996, gender-specific numerus clausus - regulation and reality, in: Kleinau, Elke / Opitz, Claudia (ed.): History of girls and women education in Germany, vol. 2, p. 338 f.
- ↑ Huerkamp 1996, Bildungsbürgerinnen, p. 163.
- ↑ Grüttner 1995, Students in the Third Reich, p. 123 ff and p. 276 ff.
- ↑ Grüttner 1995, Students in the Third Reich, p. 115
- ↑ Grüttner 1995, Students in the Third Reich, Paderborn / Munich / Vienna / Zurich, p. 488 (Appendix, Tab. 17)
- ↑ Faulstich-Wieland / Horstkemper 2012, Gender Relationships, in: Thole et al. (Ed.): Datenreport Erziehungswissenschaft 2012, Opladen, Berlin & Toronto, p. 193.
- ↑ Rammer 2004, The Nazification and Denazification of Physics at the University of Göttingen, Göttingen, p. 278.
- ↑ Vogt 2007, From the back entrance to the main portal? Lise Meitner and her colleagues at Berlin University and in the Kaiser Wilhelm Society, p. 449f.
- ↑ Grüttner, Michael: "Students in the Third Reich", p. 10
- ↑ Grüttner, Michael: "Students in the Third Reich", p. 15
- ↑ Grüttner, Michael: "Students in the Third Reich", Appendix, Tab. 25, p. 496.
- ↑ Grüttner, Michael: "Students in the Third Reich", p. 31.
- ↑ Grüttner, Michael: "Students in the Third Reich", p. 32.
- ↑ Grüttner, Michael: "Students in the Third Reich", p. 33.
- ↑ Golücke, Friedhelm (ed.): "Corporations and National Socialism"; P. 14.
- ↑ Golücke, Friedhelm (ed.): "Corporations and National Socialism"; P. 132.
- ↑ Grüttner, Michael: "Students in the Third Reich", p. 41
- ↑ Grüttner 1995, “Students in the Third Reich”, p. 53.
- ↑ Grüttner 1995, “Students in the Third Reich”, p. 63.
- ↑ Grüttner 1995, “Students in the Third Reich”, p. 66.
- ↑ Grüttner 1995, "Students in the Third Reich", p. 69 f.
- ↑ Grüttner 1995, “Students in the Third Reich”, pp. 71f. and Giles 1985, Student and National Socialism in Germany, pp. 111ff.
- ↑ Grüttner 1995, “Students in the Third Reich”, pp. 73ff.
- ↑ Grüttner, Michael: "Students in the Third Reich", p. 254 ff.
- ↑ Grüttner, 1995, “Students in the Third Reich”, p. 227 ff.
- ↑ Grüttner 1995, “Students in the Third Reich”, pp. 235 ff.
- ↑ Grüttner, Michael: "Students in the Third Reich", p. 341 ff.
- ↑ Grüttner 1985, “Students in the Third Reich”, p. 359 f.
- ↑ Grüttner, Michael: "Students in the Third Reich", p. 361.
- ↑ Grüttner 1995, "Students in the Third Reich", p. 390 f.
- ↑ Grüttner 1995, “Students in the Third Reich”, p. 423.
- ↑ Grüttner, 1995, “Students in the Third Reich”, p. 428 ff.
- ↑ See Grüttner 1995, p. 428 f.
- ↑ Grüttner, p. 430
- ↑ Grüttner 1995, pp. 436 and 441
- ↑ See Grüttner, p. 444 f.
- ↑ See Grüttner 1995, p. 427
- ↑ Grüttner 1995, p. 445
- ↑ Grüttner, p. 451 ff.
- ↑ Grüttner 1985, p. 457
- ↑ Grüttner 1995, p. 458
- ↑ Grüttner 1985, p. 467
- ^ Roth / Ebbinghaus 2004, Rote Kapellen, Kreisauer Kreise, Schwarze Kapellen: New Perspectives on the German Resistance to the Nazi Didktatorship, Hamburg.
- ↑ Grüttner, p. 469 f.
- ↑ One arrives at such an assessment by coming to terms with the racist past of biology before the Nazis came to power in 1933. The majority of Nazi actors are not seduced victims from the discipline, but rather scientists who deliberately argue socially Darwinian. On this: Walter Kirchner, Origins and Consequences of Racist Biology, in: Jörg Tröger (ed.), University and Science in the Third Reich, Frankfurt (Main) / New York 1986, pp. 77–91.
- ^ Walter Kirchner, Origins and Consequences of Racist Biology, in: Jörg Tröger (ed.), University and Science in the Third Reich, Frankfurt (Main) / New York 1986, pp. 80f.
- ↑ Grüttner 1998, pp. 141-143.
- ↑ Ute Deichmann , biologist under Hitler. Expulsion, careers, research, Frankfurt / Main [u. a.] 1992, p. 169.
- ↑ Ute Deichmann, biologist under Hitler. Expulsion, careers, research, Frankfurt / Main [u. a.] 1992, pp. 101-102.
- ↑ Jost Herbig / Rainer Hohlfeld (ed.): The second creation, spirit and demon in the biology of the 20th century. Munich / Vienna 1990, pp. 79-85.
- ^ Lars Endrik Sievert, Naturopathy and Medical Ethics in National Socialism, Frankfurt / Main 1996, p. 226ff.
- ^ Walter Wuttke, Healing and Destroying in National Socialist Medicine, in: Tröger (ed.), University and Science in the Third Reich, 1986, pp. 142–156.
- ↑ Walter Wuttke, Healing and Destroying in National Socialist Medicine, in: Tröger (ed.), University and Science in the Third Reich, 1986, pp. 144–148.
- ↑ Ernst Klee, German Medicine in the Third Reich. Careers before and after 1945, 2001 [2. Edition], pp. 78-92.
- ↑ Deichmann, Biologen Unter Hitler, 1992, 86–88.
- ↑ See Werner Pieper (ed.), Nazis on Speed. Drugs in the 3rd Reich [Volume 1].
- ^ Deichmann, Biologen under Hitler, 1992, 158.
- ↑ See Hentschel, Klaus (ed. 1996) Physics and National Socialism. An Anthology of Primary Sources , Basel: Birkhäuser 1996, pp. Lxx-lxxvii et passim, and Eckert, Michael (2007): Die Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft and “Deutsche Physik”. In: Hoffmann, Dieter / Walker, Mark (eds.): Physicists between autonomy and adaptation. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, p. 164.
- ↑ See Richter, Steffen (1980): Die "Deutsche Physik". In: Mehrtens, Herbert / Ders. (Ed.): Natural science, technology and Nazi ideology. Contributions to the history of science of the Third Reich. Frankfurt / Main: Suhrkamp, p. 130.
- ↑ See Beyerchen, Alan D. (1977): Scientists under Hitler. Politics and the physics community in the Third Reich. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, p. 166 f.
- ↑ See Beyerchen (1977): Scientists under Hitler , p. 99 f.
- ↑ Cf. Eckert (2007): The German Physical Society and the "German Physics" , p. 148 f.
- ↑ Cf. Eckert (2007): Die Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft and “Deutsche Physik” , pp. 155–158.
- ↑ See Richter (1980): Die "Deutsche Physik" , p. 132.
- ↑ Michael Grüttner : Biographical Lexicon for National Socialist Science Policy (= Studies on Science and University History. Volume 6). Synchron, Heidelberg 2004, ISBN 3-935025-68-8 , p. 20.
- ↑ See Lindner, Helmut (1980): "German" and "counter-typical" mathematics. To justify a "native" mathematics in the "Third Reich" by Ludwig Bieberbach. In: Mehrtens, Herbert / Richter, Steffen (eds.): Natural science, technology and Nazi ideology, pp. 90–93.
- ↑ Cf. Lindner (1980): "Deutsche" und "Gegen Typische" Mathematik , pp. 90–93.
- ↑ See Mehrtens, Herbert (1987): Ludwig Bieberbach and "Deutsche Mathematik" . In: Phillips, Esther R. (ed.): Studies in the history of mathematics. Buffalo: Mathematical Association of America, p. 232.
- ↑ Cf. Lindner (1980): "Deutsche" und "Gegen Typische" Mathematik , p. 103 f.
- ↑ Cf. Lindner (1980): "Deutsche" und "Gegen Typische" Mathematik , p. 106 f.
- ↑ Cf. Lindner (1980): "Deutsche" und "Gegen Typische" Mathematik , p. 107.
- ↑ Cf. Bechstedt, Martin (1980): "Gestaltliche Atomlehre" - On "Deutsche Chemie" . In: Mehrtens, Herbert / Richter, Steffen (eds.): Natural science, technology and Nazi ideology, pp. 144–147.
- ↑ Cf. Bechstedt (1980): "Gestaltliche Atomlehre" , p. 160.
- ↑ Cf. Hachtmann, Rüdiger (2010): Die Wissenschaftslandschaft between 1930 and 1948. Profile formation and resource shift. In: Grüttner, Michael / Ders. et al. (Ed.): Broken scientific cultures. University and Politics in the 20th Century. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
- ↑ See Bechstedt (1980): Gestalthaft Atomlehre , p. 149 and Deichmann, Ute (2001): Flüchten, Mitmachen, Vergessen. Chemists and biochemists during the Nazi era. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, p. 223.
- ↑ See Vonderau, Markus (1994): Deutsche Chemie. The attempt of a German-like, holistic, form-like natural science during the time of National Socialism. Dissertation University of Marburg. Marburg / Lahn: University of Marburg, p. 196.
- ↑ See Deichmann (2001): Flüchten, Mitmachen, Vergessen , p. 223 and Vonderau (1994): Deutsche Chemie , p. 160.
- ↑ a b c d e f g h i Pulla: TITLE. YEAR.
- ^ Wagner: Research funding based on a nationalist consensus. The German Research Foundation at the end of the Weimar Republic and during National Socialism. 2010, p. 187 ff.
- ^ Schmiedebach: collaboration relationships, p. 227 f.
- ^ Heinrich Kahlert, chemist under Hitler. Economy, technology and science in German chemistry from 1914 to 1945, Langwaden 2001, pp. 318–321.
- ↑ Hachtmann: A success story? Spotlights on the history of the general administration of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society in the “Third Reich”. Berlin, 2004.
- ↑ Maier: Armaments research in National Socialism. Göttingen, 2002.
- ^ Project: Technical University of Darmstadt and National Socialism. Retrieved July 5, 2012 .
- ↑ Ruth Federspiel, Mobilization of Armaments Research? Werner Osenberg and the Planning Office in the Reich Research Council 1943–1945. Göttingen 2002. pp. 73-105
- ↑ a b c d Ash: Ordered upheavals - Constructed continuities: On the denazification of scientists and sciences after 1945. 1995.
- ↑ Defrance: German universities during the occupation between breaks and traditions 1945–1949. 2000, p. 410.
- ↑ Vollnhals: Denazification. Political cleansing and rehabilitation in the four zones of occupation 1945–1949. 1991, p. 16.
- ^ = Mitchell G. Ash: Constructed Continuities and Divergent New Beginnings after 1945. In: Michael Grüttner u. a. (Ed.) Broken Science Cultures. University and Politics in the 20th Century, Göttingen 2010, p. 909
- ↑ See: Henke, Klaus-Dietmar (1986): The limits of political cleansing in Germany after 1945. In: Herbst, Ludolf (ed.): West Germany 1945–1955 Submission, Control and Integration. Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, p. 130.
- ↑ See: Ash, Mitchel G .: Ordinary Breaks - Constructed Continuities: For the denazification of scientists and sciences after 1945. P. 908.
- ↑ See: Gerhardt, Uta (1996): The American Military Officers and the Conflict over the Reopening of the University of Heidelberg 1945–1946. In: Heß, Lehmann and Sellin (eds.): Heidelberg 1945. Stuttgart: pp. 32–33.
- ↑ See: Ash, Mitchel G. (2010): Constructed Continuities and Divergent New Beginnings after 1945. In: Grüttner, Hachtmann, Jarausch, John, Middell (eds.): Broken Science Cultures. University and Politics in the 20th Century. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, p. 225.
- ↑ See: Ash, Mitchel G .: Ordinary Breaks - Constructed Continuities: On the denazification of scientists and sciences after 1945. P. 908–909.
- ↑ See: Gerhardt, Uta (1996): The American Military Officers and the Conflict over the Reopening of the University of Heidelberg 1945–1946. In: Heß, Lehmann and Sellin (eds.): Heidelberg 1945. Stuttgart: pp. 33–34.
- ↑ See: Ash, Mitchel G .: Ordinary Breaks - Constructed Continuities: On the denazification of scientists and sciences after 1945. P. 908–909.
- ↑ See: Bird, Geoffrey (1981): Reopening of the University of Göttingen. In: Heinemann, Manfred (ed.): Re-education and reconstruction. The educational policy of the occupying powers in Germany and Austria. Stuttgart: Klett, p. 168.
- ↑ See: Ash, Mitchel G .: Ordinary Breaks - Constructed Continuities: On the denazification of scientists and sciences after 1945. P. 909–910.
- ↑ a b cf .: Ash, Mitchel G .: Ordinary upheavals - Constructed continuities: On the denazification of scientists and sciences after 1945. P. 910.
- ↑ See: Defrance, Corine (1994): The French and the Reopening of the University of Mainz, 1945–1949. In: Clemens, Gabrielle (ed.): Cultural Policy in Occupied Germany 1945–1949. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 118 ff.
- ↑ a b c d e Ash: Ordered upheavals - Constructed continuities: On the denazification of scientists and sciences after 1945. 1995.
- ↑ Szabó, p. 9.
- ↑ Krohn, p. 445.
- ↑ a b Krohn, p. 450.
- ↑ Krohn, p. 451.
- ↑ Szabó, p. 86.
- ↑ Szabó, p. 86 f.
- ↑ Szabó, p. 91.
- ↑ Szabó, p. 94.
- ↑ Szabó, p. 95.
- ↑ Szabó, p. 96.
- ↑ Szabó, p. 91.
- ↑ Szabó, p. 14.
- ↑ Krohn, p. 425.
- ↑ Krohn, p. 447.
- ↑ Szabó, p. 497.
- ↑ Szabó, p. 501f.
- ↑ Ash, 2010, p. 908.
- ↑ See Ash 2010, p. 227.
- ↑ Heinemann, 1990-91, p. 51; Ash, 2010, p. 908.
- ↑ Vollnhals, 1991, p. 8.
- ↑ Defrance, 2000, p. 414.
- ↑ See Schael 2002, p. 56f
- ↑ Vollnhals, p. 34.
- ↑ See Ash 2010, p. 229.
- ↑ See Ash 2010, p. 230f
- ↑ Defrance, 2000, p. 414.
- ↑ See Defrance 2000, p. 416.
- ↑ See Jarausch: The Humboldt Syndrome. 1999, p. 73.
- ↑ See Ash 2010, p. 239.
- ↑ See Defrance 2000, p. 420.
- ↑ See Defrance 2000, p. 416.
- ↑ Defrance, 2000, p. 427.
- ↑ Defrance, 2000, p. 411.
- ↑ Paulus, Stefan: Model USA ?: Americanization of University and Science in West Germany 1945 - 1976, Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag GmbH, Munich, 2010, p. 467.
- ^ Paulus, 2010, p. 461.
- ↑ Defrance, 2000, pp. 417-419.
- ↑ See Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education: The higher education system in the Federal Republic of Germany. 1966, p. 35.
- ↑ See Defrance 2000, pp. 416f
- ↑ See Ash 2010, p. 233.
- ↑ See West German Rectors' Conference: On the overcrowding and establishment of new academic universities. 1960; Picht, Georg: The German educational catastrophe. Munich 1965; Schelsky: loneliness and freedom. 1963 or Anrich: The idea of the German university. 1960
- ↑ See Defrance 2000, p. 426.
- ↑ See Defrance 2000, pp. 421f
- ↑ See Ash 2010, p. 245.
- ↑ See Ash 2010, p. 243.
- ↑ DNB