Source: Saul Friedlaender, Chapter 2 in: Nazi Germany and the Jews , Vol I - The Years of Persecution 1933-1939, (New York 1997), p. 41-72.
II
The questionnaire addressed to university professors (in Germany they were civil servants) reached Hermann Kantorowicz, professor of the philosophy and history of law at the University of Kiel, on April 23, 1933. To the question about the racial origins of his grandparents, he replied: Since there is no time to inquire as to which sense of the term race' is being utilised, I shall limit myself to the following declaration: as all four of my grandparents died a long time ago and the necessary measurements, etc., were never made, I am unable to ascertain scientifically (anthropologically) what racial group they belonged to. Understood in its common significance, their race was German, as they all spoke German as their mother tongue, which means that it was Indo-European or Aryan. Their race in the sense of the first supplementary decree to the Law of April 7, 1933, section 2, paragraph 1, sentence 3 was the Jewish religion.' 31 One may wonder what made a greater impression on the official who received the filled-out form: the sarcasm or the thoroughness?
It was somewhat gratuitous to send the questionnaire to Kantorowicz, since Minister of the Education Bernhard Rust, citing paragraph 3 of the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, had already dismissed him on April 14, along with a number of other, mainly Jewish, professors. Sixteen prominent names among them were published in the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung on that same day 32 . During the year 1933, about twelve hundred Jews holding academic positions would be dismissed 33 .
In Goettingen, where some of the most illustrious members of the theoretical physics and mathematics faculties were Jews (or, in one instance, married to one), each of the three main figures chose a different response: Nobel laureate James Franck sent a public letter of resignation (published in the Goettinger Zeitung ) but planned to stay in Germany, Max Born (who, after the war, would also receive a Nobel Prize in physics) left the university quietly, and Richard Courant decided to utilise the exception clauses of the law in order to keep his position. Within a few months, however, all three emigrated 34 . In his letter Franck rejected the exemption granted to him as a war veteran because, in his words, we Germans of Jewish origin are being treated like foreigners and like enemies of our country.' Franck's letter led to a public declaration by forty-two of his Goettingen colleagues describing the Jewish physicist's statement as an ΓÇ£act of sabotageΓÇ¥ and expressing the hope that the government would speed up the necessary cleansing measures.' 35
At Tuebingen old traditions and new impulses neatly converged. The number of Jewish faculty members dismissed was distinctly low - for a simple reason: No Jew had ever been appointed to a full professorship at this institution, and there were very few Jews among the lower-ranking appointees. Nonetheless, whoever could be expelled was expelled. Hans Bethe, a future Nobel Prize winner in physics, was told to go because of his Jewish mother; philosophy professor Traugott Konstantin Oesterreich was dismissed on the pretext that he was not politically reliable, but in reality because his wife was of Jewish origin. The same fate almost befell the non-Jewish art historian Georg Weise. The suspicion that Weise's wife was Jewish led to his dismissal, until unimpeachable documentary evidence of Frau Weise-Andrea's Aryan origins was produced and led to Weise's reinstatement 36 .
What happened in Freiburg seems paradigmatic. On April 1 the local Nazi paper, Der Allemanne , published lists of Jewish physicians, dentists, and so on, who were to be boycotted; some days later the same paper ran a list of Jewish members of the university medical faculty (the list had been provided by the head of psychiatry). In the meantime, on April 6, the Reich governor of Baden, Robert Wagner, moving ahead of decisions about to be taken in Berlin, ordered the dismissal of Jewish civil servants. On April 10 a delegation of Freiburg University deans and professors travelled to Karlsruhe to plead on behalf of the mayor of Freiburg, who was being threatened with dismissal on political grounds. During their meeting at the ministry, the delegation was reminded that dismissals of Jewish faculty members had to be carried out promptly. According to notes taken by the official in charge of university matters, The professors promised that the decree would be loyally implemented.' It was. On the same day the rector instructed the deans of all schools to dismiss all faculty members of Jewish religion or origin and, for verification, to obtain their signatures on the notices of dismissal. On April 12 the ministry in Karlsruhe was informed that by 10 A.M. the order had been completely fulfilled.' The notification to the Jewish members of the medical school faculty read in its entirety: According to the order of the academic rectorate, I inform you that, with reference to Ministry Order No. A 7642, you are placed on indefinite leave. Signed: the Dean, Rehn.' 37
In Heidelberg, where the number of professors of Jewish origin was particularly significant, there were attempts at procrastination by the academic senate and the rector, but to no avail. At the beginning of the summer semester of 1933, forty-five ΓÇ£non-AryansΓÇ¥ were still teaching; by August of the same year, only twenty-four were left (those who benefited from the various exception clauses) 38 . No organised or individual protests were recorded.
The attitude of some of the privileged non-Aryan scholars was often ambiguous - or worse. On April 25 the Kaiser Wilhelm Society administration in Berlin had been notified by the Ministry of the Interior that all Jewish and half-Jewish department heads and staff members had to be dismissed; institutes were exempted from this measure. Fritz Haber, a Jew and a Nobel laureate, who would have had to dismiss three of his four department heads and five of his thirteen staff members, resigned on April 30. The other directors (including those who were themselves Jewish) reported their Jewish employees according to instructions.' 39 Among those who thus conformed, the Jews Jakob Goldschmidt and Otto Meyerhof, and the half-Jewish Otto Warburg, were the most prominent. For the geneticist Goldschmidt, Nazism was preferable to Bolshevism,' and Otto Warburg, it seems, thought the regime would not last beyond 1934 40 , a belief that did not hamper his retaining his position throughout the whole Nazi period. Warburg's case was strange indeed. His cancer research was so highly valued by the Nazis - apparently even by Hitler himself - that in 1941, when the possibility of dismissal arose because of his half-Jewish origins, he was turned into a quarter Jew on Goering's instructions 41 . As for Meyerhof, he apparently tried to shield some of his Jewish employees, only to be denounced by his co-director, Professor Richard Kuhn 42 . He emigrated in 1938.
It seems, therefore, safe to suggest that when, in January 1934, on the anniversary of the foundation of the German Empire, the Goettingen Professor of Ancient History Ulrich Karsted declared that one should not grumble...because in a Jewish shop a window pane has been smashed or because the daughter of the cattle dealer Levi was refused admission to a student corporation,' 43 he was making something of an understatement, not only with regard to the general situation of the Jews in Germany but in the universities as well 44 .
There were few mild petitions in favour of Jewish colleagues, such as the praise bestowed in May 1933 by the Heidelberg medical faculty on its Jewish members: We cannot overlook the fact that German Jewry is contributing to great scientific achievements and that major medical personalities come from its midst. Precisely as physicians we feel the duty, keeping in mind the requirements of people and state, to represent the viewpoint of true hand to express our worries, as the danger threatens that all sense of responsibility is being pushed aside by emotional or impulsive violence...' 45 This careful declaration was in fact atypical, as the medical schools of German universities showed a much higher percentage of party members than other disciplines 46 . And in its attitude toward Jews, Heidelberg was not basically different from the other German universities 47 .
In April 1933 twelve professors from various fields expressed support for their Jewish colleague, the Munich University professor Richard Hoenigswald; addressed to the Bavarian Ministry of Education, their letter was backed by the dean of the Munich philosophical faculty. The ministry solicited additional advice and received a set of negative answers, including one from Martin Heidegger, and Hoenigswald was dismissed 48 .
Some individual interventions have become well known. There was, for example, Max Planck's (unsuccessful) intervention with Hitler in favour of Fritz Haber's reinstatement 49 and, paradoxically, Heidegger's intervention against the dismissal of Siegfried Tannhaeuser and Georg von Hevesy. The dismissal of such eminent scientists, Heidegger explained to the Baden authorities, would have negative consequences abroad and harm Germany's foreign policy 50 .
Heidegger had become rector of Freiburg University in April 1933. He was already on record regarding the presence of Jews in German academic life. In a letter of October 20, 1929, to Victor Schwoerer, acting president of the Emergency Fund, established to support needy scholars, the philosopher had stated that the only existing option was either the systematic strengthening of ΓÇ£ourΓÇ¥ German intellectual life or its definitive abandonment to growing Judaization in the wider and narrower sense.' 51 When Heidegger's mathematics Professor, Alfred Loewy, was compelled as a Jew to take early retirement in April 1933, the newly appointed rector wished him the strength to overcome the hardships and difficulties carried by such times of change.' 52 Elfride Heidegger used almost exactly the same words in her letter of April 29, 1933, to Malvine Husserl, the wife of her husband's Jewish mentor, the philosopher Edmund Husserl; she added, however, that although the Civil Service Law was hard, it was reasonable from a German point of view 53 .
Shortly before her departure from Germany in the summer of 1933, Hannah Arendt had written in what was possibly her strongest letter to Heidegger, her teacher and lover, that rumours had reached her about his ever more distant, even hostile attitude towards Jewish colleagues and students. The tone of his answer, as paraphrased by Elzbieta Ettinger, in what would be his last letter to Arendt until after the war, is revealing enough: To Jewish students... he generously gave of his time, disruptive though it was to his own work, getting them stipends and discussing their dissertations with them. Who comes to him in an emergency? A Jew. Who insists on urgently discussing his doctoral degree? A Jew. Who sends him voluminous work for urgent critique? A Jew. Who asks him for help in obtaining grants? Jews!!' 54
On November 3, 1933, Heidegger announced that economic support would be denied to ΓÇ£Jewish or MarxistΓÇ¥ students, or to anyone else defined as a ΓÇ£non-AryanΓÇ¥ according to the new laws 55 . On December 13 he sought financial aid for a volume of pro-Hitler speeches by German professors to be distributed world wide; he concluded his request with an assurance: Needless to say, non-Aryans shall not appear on the title page.' 56 On the sixteenth of that month, he wrote to the head of the Nazi Professors Association at Goettingen about Eduard Baumgarten, an ex-student and colleague of his: Baumgarten frequented, very actively, the Jew Fraenkel, who used to teach at Goettingen and was just recently fired from here.' Simultaneously Heidegger refused to continue the supervision of doctoral dissertations by Jewish students and referred them to Martin Honecker, a professor of church philosophy 57 .
Heidegger's attitude toward Husserl remains unclear. Although, according to his biographer Ruediger Safranski, it is untrue that Heidegger forbade Husserl access to the philosophy department, he actually broke all contact with him (as he did with all other Jewish colleagues and disciples) and did nothing to alleviate Husserl's growing isolation. When Husserl died, Heidegger was ill. Would he otherwise have attended the funeral, along with the single ΓÇ£AryanΓÇ¥ faculty member who thought fit to do so, the historian Gerhard Ritter 58 ? The dedication of his magnum opus Being and Time to Husserl was omitted from the 1944 edition at the publisher's demand, but Heidegger's footnote, expression of gratitude to his Jewish mentor was left in. Contradictions abound, with possibly the strangest of them all being Heidegger's praise, in the mid-thirties, for Spinoza, and his declaration that if Spinoza's philosophy was Jewish, then all philosophy from Leibniz to Hegel was also Jewish.' 59
On April 22, 1933, Heidegger sent an entreaty to Carl Schmitt, by far the most prestigious German political and legal theorist of the time, pleading with him not to turn his back on the new movement. The entreaty was superfluous, as Schmitt had already made his choice. Like Heidegger - and this seems to have been the rule to follow - he had stopped answering letters from Jewish students, colleagues, and other scholars with whom he had previously been in close touch (in Schmitt's case, one of the striking examples is the abrupt end he put to his correspondence with the Jewish political philosopher Leo Strauss) 60 . And, to make sure that there was no misunderstanding about where he stood, Schmitt introduced some outright anti-Semitic remarks into the new (1933) edition of his Concept of the Political 61 . In any event, Schmitt's anti-Jewish positions were to be definitely more outspoken, extreme, and virulent than those of the Freiburgphilosop.
During the summer semester of 1933, both Schmitt and Heidegger took part in a lecture series organised by Heidelberg students. Heidegger spoke on ΓÇ£The University in the New ReichΓÇ¥; Schmitt's theme was ΓÇ£The New Constitutional Law.ΓÇ¥ They were preceded in the same series by Dr. Walter Gross, head of the racial police office of the Nazi Party, who spoke on ΓÇ£The Physician and the Racial Community.ΓÇ¥ On May 1, in Freiburg, Heidegger had become party member 3-125-894; on the same day, in Cologne, Schmitt joined the party as member 2-098-860 62 .
Hannah Arendt left the country and, by way of Prague and Geneva, reached Paris; there she soon started working for the Zionist Youth Emigration Organisation. The main reason for her early emigration, she later said, was more than anything else the behaviour of her Aryan friends, such as Benno von Wiese, who - subject to no outside pressure whatsoever - adhered enthusiastically to the new system's ideals and norms 63 . Yet, in general, her criticism of Heidegger remained muted.
The responses of Jewish academics to the new regime's measures and to the new attitudes of colleagues and friends varied from one individual to another. Within that broad spectrum, a peculiar situation was that of Jews who had been long-standing militant German nationalists but, unlike Felix Jacoby, did not opt for total blindness to the regime's actions. On April 20 Ernst Kantorowicz, a medieval historian at Frankfurt University, sent a letter to the minister of science and education of Hesse that tellingly expresses the great slowness, hesitancy, and regretfulness - despite the harsh new Nazi policies - of the retreat of such Jews from their former positions. Although,' Kantorowicz wrote, as a war volunteer from August 1914 on, as a frontline soldier throughout the war, as a post war fighter against Poland, against the Spartacists, and against the Republic of the Councils [of workers and soldiers] in Posen, Berlin, and Munich, I am not obliged to expect dismissal because of my Jewish origins; although in view of my publications on the Hohenstaufen Emperor Frederick II, I do not need any attestatiofrom the day before yesterday, yesterday, or today regarding my attitude toward a nationally oriented Germany; although beyond all immediate trends and occurrences, my fundamentally positive attitude toward a nationally governed Reich has not been undermined even by the most recent events; and although I certainly need not expect student disturbances to interrupt my teaching - so that the issue of unhampered teaching at the level of the entire university need not be considered in may case - as a Jew, I see myself compelled nonetheless to draw the consequences of what has happened and give up my teaching for the coming summer semester.' 64 Kantorowicz was not tendering his resignation; he was merely withdrawing from the next semester. The implication was that he would wait for the policies of the new national Germany to change.
Whereas the attitude of the majority of the ΓÇ£AryanΓÇ¥ university professors could be defined as ΓÇ£cultured Judeo-phobia,ΓÇ¥ 65 among the students a radical brand of Judeo-phobia had taken hold. At the end of the nineteenth century, some Austrian student corporations, followed by German ones, had already excluded Jews on a racial basis - that is, even baptised Jews were not accepted 66 . Michael Kater attributes a portion of extreme student anti-Semitism to competition - mainly in the remunerative fields of law and medicine, in which the percentage of Jewish students was indeed high, as was the percentage of Jews in these professions. In any case, in the early years of the Weimar Republic the majority of German student fraternities joined the German University League (Deutscher Hochschulring), an organisation with openly voelkisch and anti-Semitic aims, which soon came to control student politics 67 . Membership in the league was conditional on fully Aryan origin, with racial Germans from Austria or the Sudetenland accepted despite their not being German citizens. The league dominated the universities until the mid-1920s, when it was replaced by the National Socialist Students Association ( Nationalsozialistischer Deutscher Studentenbund ) 68 . And demonstrations and acts of physical aggression by right-wing students against their enemies became common on German campuses from the late twenties on 69 .
References:
31 Quoted in Konrad Kwiet and Helmut Eschwege, Selbstbehauptung und Widerstand: Deutsche Juden im Kampf um Existenz und Menschenwuerde 1933ΓÇô1945 (Hamburg, 1984), p. 221.
32 Gerhard Sauder, ed., Die Buecherverbrennung (Munich, 1983), pp. 50ΓÇô52. The sixteen named were: Bonn (Berlin), Cohn (Breslau), Dehn (Halle), Feiler (Koenigsberg), Heller (Frankfurt am Main), Horkheimer (Frankfurt am Main), Kantorowicz (Frankfurt), Kantorowicz (Kiel), Kelsen (Cologne), Lederer (Berlin), Loewe (Frankfurt am Main), Loewenstein (Bonn), Mannheim (Frankfurt am Main), Mark (Breslau), Tillich (Frankfurt am Main), Sinzheimer (Frankfurt am Main).
33 Doron Niederland, ΓÇ£The Emigration of Jewish Academics and Professionals from Germany in the First Years of Nazi Rule,ΓÇ¥ LBIY 33 (1988): 291. The numbers vary considerably from one field to another and from university to university. In biology, for example, the scientists defined as Jews or married to Jewish spouses who were dismissed between 1933 and 1939 (including the universities of Vienna and Prague) numbered approximately 9 percent of the entire faculty in the field (30 out of 337). See Ute Deichmann, Biologen unter Hitler: Vertreibung, Karrieren, Forschung (Frankfurt am Main, 1992), p. 34.
34 Alan D. Beyerchen, Scientists Under Hitler. Politics and the Physics Community in the Third Reich (New Haven, Conn., 1977), pp. 22, 15ΓÇô22. For parts of the text regarding the universities, see Friedlaender, ΓÇ£The Demise of the German Mandarins: The German University and the Jews 1933ΓÇô1939,ΓÇ¥ in Christian Jansen et al., eds., Von der Aufgabe der Freiheit: Politische Verantwortung und buergerliche Gesellschaft im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1995), pp. 63ff.
35 Helmut Heiber, Universitaet unterm Hakenkreuz , part 2, Die Kapitulation der Hohen Schulen: Das Jahr 1933 und seine Themen , vol. 1 (Munich, 1992), p. 26.
36 Uwe Dietrich Adam, Hochschule und Nationalsozialismus: Die Universitaet Tuebingen im Dritten Reich (Tuebingen, 1977), p. 36.
37 All the details of the Freiburg case are taken from Edward Seidler, ΓÇ£Die Medizinische Fakultaet zwischen 1926 und 1948,ΓÇ¥ in Eckhard John, Bernd Martin, Marc Mueck, and Hugo Ott, eds., Die Freiburger Universitaet in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus (Freiburg/Wuerzburg, 1991), pp. 76ΓÇô77.
38 Arno Weckbecker, Die Judenverfolgung in Heidelberg 1933ΓÇô1945 (Heidelberg, 1985), p. 150. During the same period five ΓÇ£AryanΓÇ¥ teachers had been dismissed on political grounds.
39 Benno Mueller-Hill, Murderous Science: Elimination by Scientific Selection of Jews, Gypsies and Others, Germany 1933ΓÇô1945 (Oxford, 1988), p. 24.
40 Paul Weindling, Health, Race and German Politics Between National Unification and Nazism, 1870ΓÇô1945 (Cambridge, England, 1989), p. 495.
41 Chernow, The Warburgs , pp. 540ΓÇô41.
42 Mueller-Hill, Murderous Science , p. 27.
43 KareSchoenwaelder, Historiker und Politik: Geschichtswissenschaft im Nati (Frankfurt am Main, 1992), pp. 29ff., 33.
44 For a more detailed presentation and analysis of the indifference of German university professors regarding the fate of their Jewish colleagues, as well as for the outright expressions of hostility of some of them, see Friedlaender, ΓÇ£The Demise of the German Mandarins,ΓÇ¥ mainly pp. 70ff. For the attitude of the famous economic historian Werner Sombart, see ibid., p. 73, as well as Friedrich Lenger, Werner Sombart 1863ΓÇô1941: Eine Biographie (Munich, 1994), p. 359; for a good analysis of Sombart's anti-Jewish intellectual position, see mainly Jeffrey Herf, Reactionary Modernism: Technology, Culture and Politics in Weimar and the Third Reich (Cambridge, England, 1993), pp. 130ff.
45 Kurt Paetzold, Verfolgung, Vertreibung, Vernichtung: Dokumente des faschistischen Antisemitismus 1933 bis 1942 (Frankfurt am Main, 1984), p. 53.
46 Geoffrey J. Giles, ΓÇ£Professor und Partei: Der Hamburger Lehrkoerper und der Nationalsozialismus,ΓÇ¥ in Eckart Krause, Ludwig Huber, Holger Fischer, eds., Hochschulalltag im Dritten Reich: Die Hamburger Universitaet 1933ΓÇô1945 (Berlin, 1991), p. 115.
47 Christian Jansen, Professoren und Politik: Politisches Denken und Handeln der Heidelberger Hochschullehrer 1914ΓÇô1935 (Goettingen, 1992), pp. 289ff.
48 Claudia Schorcht, Philosophie an den Bayerischen Universitaeten 1933ΓÇô1945 (Erlangen, 1990), pp. 159ff. It is possible that at that early stage some other collective declarations in favour of Jewish colleagues were planned that were never concretely made. According to Otto Hahn, Max Planck dissuaded him from organizing such a petition with the argument that it would only trigger a much stronger counter declaration. See J. L. Heilbron, The Dilemmas of an Upright Man: Max Planck as Spokesman for German Science (Berkeley, Calif., 1986), p. 150.
49 We know of this intervention from Max Planck's own account after the war. According to Planck, Hitler declared that he had nothing against the Jews and was only anti-Communist; then he supposedly flew into a rage. See Heilbron, The Dilemmas of an Upright Man , p. 153. Such post war reports are hard to substantiate.
50 Hugo Ott, Martin Heidegger: Unterwegs zu seiner Biographie (Frankfurt am Main, 1988), pp. 198ΓÇô200.
51 Ruediger Safranski, Ein Meister aus Deutschland: Heidegger und seine Zeit (Munich, 1994), p. 299.
52 Hugo Ott, Laubhuettenfest 1940: Warum Therese Loewy einsam sterben musste (Freiburg, 1994), p. 113.
53 Ibid.
54 Elzbieta Ettinger, Hannah Arendt/Martin Heidegger (New Haven, Conn., 1995), pp. 35ΓÇô36. Heidegger's letters are paraphrased as Ettinger had not received permission to quote them directly.
55 Thomas Sheehan, ΓÇ£Heidegger and the Nazis,ΓÇ¥ New York Review of Books , June 16, 1988, p. 40.
56 Ibid.
57 Ibid. See also Ott, Laubhuettenfest 1940 , p. 183.
58 Safranski, Ein Meister aus Deutschland , p. 302.
59 Ibid., p. 300.
60 Heinrich Meier, Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss und ΓÇ£Der Begriff des PolitischenΓÇ¥: Dialog unter Abwesenden (Stuttgart, 1988), p. 137.
61 Ibid., pp. 1ΓÇô15.
62 For all details in this section, see Bernd Ruethers, Carl Schmitt im Dritten Reich: Wissenschaft als Zeitgeist-Bestaerkung? (Munich, 1990), pp. 31ΓÇô34.
63 Wolfgang Heuer, Hannah Arendt (Reinbek/Hamburg, 1987), p. 29.
64 Kommission..., Dokumente zur Geschichte der Frankfurter Juden , pp. 99ΓÇô100.
65 Donald L. Niewyk, The Jews in Weimar Germany (Baton Rouge, La., 1980), p. 67. Michael Kater's evaluation is somewhat clearer-cut: The number of converts to Nazism, among the professors, often motivated by anti-Semitism, was growing, especially in 1932, and even if most of them chose to remain outside the party, the evidence suggests that in their heart of hearts they had switched their allegiance to Hitler.' Michael Kater, The Nazi Party: A Social Profile of Members and Leaders 1919ΓÇô1945 (Oxford, 1983), p. 69. Academic Judeo-phobia during the empire and even more during the Weimar Republic is too well documented to need much further proof. Yet some notorious incident can be read in contrary ways. In 1924 the Jewish Nobel laureate in chemistry and professor at the University of Munich, Richard Willstaetter, resigned in protest against the decision of the dean and a majority of the faculty not to appoint the geo-chemist Viktor Goldschmidt on obviously anti-Semitic grounds. Yet, conversely, a great number of faculty members and students attempted for weeks to persuade Willstaetter to take back his resignation, to no avail. Regarding the issue as such and Willstaetter's resignation, see Fritz Stern, Dreams and Delusions (New York, 1987), pp. 46ΓÇô47, and John V. H. Dippel, Bound upon a Wheel of Fire: Why So Many German Jews Made the Tragic Decision to Remain in Nazi Germany (New York, 1996), pp. 25ΓÇô27.
66 Michael H. Kater, Studentenschaft und Rechstradikalismus in Deutschland 1918ΓÇô1933 (Hamburg, 1975), pp. 145ΓÇô46.
67 Geoffrey J. Giles, Students and National Socialism in Germany (Princeton, N. J., 1985), p. 17.
68 Ulrich Herbert, ΓÇ£'Generation der Sachlichkeit': Die voelkisch Studentenbewegung der fruehen zwanziger Jahre in Deutschland,ΓÇ¥ in Frank Bajohr et al., eds., Zivilisation und Barberei: Die widerspruechlichen Potentiale der Moderne (Hamburg, 1991), pp. 115ff. For the establishment and the growth of the NSDSB until 1933 see also Michael Gruettner, Studenten im Dritten Reich (Paderborn, 1995), pp. 19ΓÇô61.
69 On November 12, 1930, the Berliner Tagblatt reported that around five hundred Nazi students had launched attacks against pro-republic and Jewish students on the Berlin University campus: During the assault, a Social Democratic student was wounded and had to get medical assistance... a Jewish female student was attacked by the Nazis, thrown to the ground and trampled upon.... The group yelled in turn Germany awake!' and Out with Jews!' Kater, Studentenschaft und Rechtsradikalismus , p. 155.
