The Impact of the Nazi Racial Decrees on the University of Heidelberg (Part B)
Source: Arye Carmon, Yad Vashem Studies XI (Jerusalem, 1976), pp. 131-163
The continued employment of professors who had been exempted by the Law of April 7, 1933 due to their service in the army during World War 1, and who had therefore been allowed to remain temporarily at the university, served as the impetus for further actions which resulted in a further lowering of the university's standards. In a narrow sense, their presence necessitated the participation of university committees in the "cleansing process." In a wider sense, the actions against them led to the deterioration of academic interrelationships.
On September 3, 1934, the Reich Ministry of Education issued a decree to exclude "non-Aryan" professors from the university's examination committee 23 . On September 19, 1934 Professor Wilhelm Groh, the Fuehrer (Rector) of the university, complied with the decree by distributing the following note to the deans of the faculties: The information [regarding the decree] is to be conveyed confidentially to the deans, urging them to report who are the non-Aryan members to be eliminated from the examination committees and who can replace them [on these committees].' 24 During the following week, Professor Groh received the requested information and proposals for replacements from three faculties: In the Law Faculty the two remaining Jewish professors, Ernst Levy and Walter Jellinek, were members of the faculty's examination committee 25 . The former was to be replaced by Professor Max Gutzwiller 26 and the latter by the Nazi, Dr. Reinhardt Hoehn 27 . The Dean of the Faculty of Medicine reported that Professor Bethmann, who was classified as a "non-Aryan," participated in the faculty's examination committee. Since in the Dean's view no one was capable of replacing him at that time, he asked for permission to allow Bethmann to retain his chair "in the meantime." 28
An interesting, though odd, reaction was displayed by Professor Carl Brinkmann, the economist who was Deputy Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy at that time 29 . Brinkmann categorised the philosopher and pedagogue, Professor Ernst Hoffmann, who was neither Jewish nor Communist 30 , and the Roman philologist Professor Hetzfeld, as "non-Aryans." Yet Brinkmann also provided the Rector with strong arguments against the dismissal of both from the examination committees. Hetzfeld, wrote Brinkmann, was urgently needed as a State examiner by the Union of Roman Philologists 31 . Moreover, there seems to have been no replacement for him on the examination committee for Ph.D.s. With regard to Hoffmann, there is no question as to whether he could be denied his promotion rights. According to the rules of the Union of Philosophy one man cannot be replaced by another arbitrarily.' Brinkmann washed his hands of the final decision, asking Professor Groh to find out whether or not a way could be found to circumvent the decree of the Ministry of Education.
Brinkmann's letter sharply exposed the tension between professional academic needs and the arbitrary decrees of the Nazis. At the same time his reply indicates that in September 1934 it was still possible to challenge some of the regime's authority in academic matters. Finally, when the answers of the three deans are compared, it is quite clear that the decision either to invoke academic requirements or to give in to the Nazis ultimately depended solely on the personality of the dean. One should not exclude the anti-Semitic and terror-filled atmosphere as a factor, which influenced professional decisions. Nonetheless, Brinkmann's answer indicates that there was a certain area in which professional responsibility could still be exercised.
On October 31, 1934, another decree was issued by the Ministry of Education calling for the dismissal of the remaining "non-Aryans" from promotion committees. The earlier decree of September 3 had been worded in general terms and was applied to students both before and after their First State's examinations. The latter stipulated that "non-Aryan" professors would not be able to participate in examination committees for Ph.D. candidates. It was meant to prohibit them from Serving as readers of dissertations and likewise as supervisors 32 . On November 24, 1934, all the deans of Heidelberg's five faculties informed the Rector, Professor Wilhelm Groh, that measures to implement the second decree were under consideration 33 . On November 30, the Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy, Professor Herman Guentert 34 , informed the Rector that his "non-Aryan" colleague, Professor Helmut Hetzfeld, had participated as a member in two examination committees on November 8 and 15. The decree of the Ministry of Education, he explained, was conveyed to him on November 16.
The decree prohibiting professors from supervising students studying toward higher degrees engendered certain problems. The correspondence between the deans, the Rector and the Baden Ministry of Culture reveals an attempt by the university to thwart the last decree, and ultimately a significant retreat by the Ministry. On December 6, 1934, the Dean of the Law Faculty wrote to the Ministry of Culture, through the Rector of the University, that he had learned that the University of Freiburg had postponed the implementation of the October 31 decree until January 1, 1935.
The Dean, Professor Karl Aengisch, wondered if this delay might be applicable also to the University of Heidelberg 35 . Eagerness to postpone the implementation of the decree possibly stemmed from a desire to protect students who were in the process of writing their dissertations under controversial professors.
In his answer of January 12, 1935, the Minister of Culture seems to have made a temporary concession, stating that until a final decision was reached by the Reich Ministry of Education, he was willing to allow "non-Aryan" professors to participate in the examination committees of their doctoral candidates. This concession should also apply, for the time being, to those "non-Aryans" participating in examination committees for first degree students, who had to take their examinations at the end of the 1934-35 winter semester. This concession, the Baden Ministry of Culture reminded the university, would not affect the final decision 36 .
As small as it was, this concession again illustrates the leeway, which the deans were able to exercise. They could have temporarily protected the welfare of advanced students and consequently that of their Jewish colleagues, or they could have adhered to the racial objectives of the decree. An example in which the latter course bias is preferred, is provided by the Faculty of Medicine. On the staff of this faculty was Professor Dr. Johannes Stein, a member of the Nazi Party, who was the leader of the 'university's S.A. unit and, as the Kanzler of the University, a member of its Fuehrerstab. He served as a watchdog for Nazi interests at the university, rejecting any exemptions from the Nazi decrees. Thus, in a letter to the Rector 37 , the Dean of the Faculty, Professor C. Schneider, told of his Jewish colleague's fate. Professor Siegfried Bethmann was to continue his work with students who had been under his supervision before the decree of October 31, 1934. However, he was not to serve as a Member or the examination boards, which would test these students. The final decision as to who would substitute for him has to be made by the Rector. Given the role played by Professor Stein in Professor Schneider's decision (reached, as the latter pointed out, by Stein and himself), it is quite clear that the Rector's decision was also influenced by the Kanzler.
On February 6, 1935 the Baden Ministry of Culture conveyed to the Rector of Heidelberg University the directives of the Reich Ministry of Edand instructions for the implementation of the decrees of September 3 and October 31, 1934 38 . The introduction of this document reveals that in universities all over the Reich speculation was rife as to the deadline by which these decrees were to become effective. It also listed the following directives: as far as participation of "non-Aryans" in doctoral committees was concerned, every effort was to be made to comply with the decrees. However, the Dean had the ultimate decision in specific cases in which students might be harmed by the stipulations regarding the examination of doctoral candidates. Indeed, the document reads: The Dean should make every effort to avoid any upheavals. While awaiting further supplements [to the decrees], avoid any difficult situations and keep in mind that the welfare of the university is the major concern.'
At first sight, the document of February 6, 1935 might give the impression that the Nazi educational agencies had changed the objectives of the September 3 and October 31 racial decrees, and that "the welfare of the university" had become a "major concern" and had gained priority over the implementation of these objectives. However, this was not the case. The first clause of the February 6 document clearly stated the regime's intentions, and the Nazis counted on the university faculties, such as the Medical Faculty at Heidelberg, to comply fully with their aims. Nonetheless, in retrospect, the importance of this document lies in its very ambiguity, in the contradictions inherent in its text. One cannot reconcile the difference between the need to retain "non-Aryan" professors on doctoral examination committees "for the sake of the university's welfare" and the implications of the directive to "cleanse" the same institution.
An example of the feasibility of choosing to protect "the university's welfare" is provided by the newly-founded Faculty of Social Sciences. As late as November 1935, and after the enactment of the Nuremberg Laws, the Rector sent a reminder regarding the directives of February 6, 1935 to the Dean of this Faculty. Although he reiterated the necessity to exclude "non-Aryans" from doctoral examination committees, Wilhelm Groh pointed out that exceptions in this case are possible only if the elimination of non-Aryans causes severe hardships.' 39 Despite the lack of more source material, which might indicate why this letter was sent, it is possible to assume that in November 1935 at least one Jewish professor still served as a supervisor for a doctoral candidate.
Other documents indicate the racist mood, which prevailed at Ruperto-Carola during 1935. On April 30, 1935 the Dean of the Medical School informed the Rector that no one in his faculty knew of any alleged "Jewish lecturers" listed in either the Faculty's curriculum or in that of the Kaiser-Wilhelm Institute (for physics) 40 . The Dean claimed that it was probably a false report as, it is impossible that Jewish medical doctors would be permitted to step inside the door of the lecture hall. Presumably the lecture would have been cancelled.' On November 15, 1935 the Rector of the University of Heidelberg received a letter from the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Jena, who had recently graduated from the Heidelberg Medical School. Professor Dr. Gerhard Buhtz, a member of the Nazi Party whose rise to this high position had been meteoric, sought Wilhelm Groh's advice: As you probably know, I have become the Dean of the Medical Faculty as of October 1. I acquired National Socialist principles at Heidelberg, which I seriously intend to implement here, for until now they have been very poorly executed by the Faculty.' Professor Buhtz had been informed that Heidelberg had also eliminated the participation of those closely related to Jews on examination committees. Could you be so kind as to inform me as to whether this was ordered by the university's authorities or by the Baden Ministry of Culture. If the latter is the case, would it be possible for you to send me confidentially the [relevant] decree.' 41 It is noteworthy that the above letter, which did not conceal its writer's intentions, was answered by Professor Groh quite formally. Nonetheless, the content of Groh's answer again clearly reveals the leeway left by the Nazi educational agencies for the exercise of independent decisions 42 :
Regarding your question of November 13, 1935, I inform you that a Baden ministerial decree regarding the exclusion of lecturers closely related to Jews has not, as yet, been issued. I have notified the deans confidentially to order that none of these Dozenten are to be admitted to meetings, examinations, etc. Firm regulations in this matter, however, have not been formulated; in any event, you can adopt such a policy by yourself, without concessions.'
The last sentence, coupled with Groh's confidential directive to the deans, reveals the attitude of the Heidelberg's Fuehrerstab. Thus the university was, in effect, able to interpret the racial decrees either leniently or severely; it chose the latter course.
In retrospect, not only "non-Aryan" professors and "political enemies" suffered as a result of the decrees; the introduction of irrational criteria into academic life affected the faculty as a whole. After April 1933 every faculty member was required to fill in a questionnaire stating the religion of his parents as well as of his grandparents. Totally exposed to the vagaries of Nazi policy, he could never be certain of the duration of his appointment. Unless he was a registered member of the Nazi Party, he continually had to be wary of non-academic critics. He had to compete with glamorous paramilitaristic, extra-curricular appeals for the attention of his students and was forced to lecture before rows of brown shirts, flanked by zealous young Nazi Dozenten. In his free time he was called on to participate in official ceremonies and functions and to read official papers and periodicals. In short he lived in an atmosphere in which the concept of universitas litterarum no longer existed, and in which his Jewish and liberal-minded colleagues were being purged, while the new leaders of the university were engaged in further strengthening the Nazis' hold on that institution.
"Cleansing" the Studentenschaft
The process of "cleansing" the Heidelberg student body was initiated from within the student union itself and was expressed through various anti-Semitic actions against Heidelberg's 177 Jewish students 43 and their left-wing colleagues. The "cleansing" of the student body was the least complicated event among all those connected with the Gleichschaltung process at Ruperto-Carola.
Discrimination against Jewish students was not a new phenomenon in Heidelberg. Long before 1933 anti-Semitism had played a major role in the programs of many student organisations. Jewish groups had existed for many decades at the University of Heidelberg, yet in many respects they were separated from the main: stream of student activities.
In 1930 there were three Jewish student organisations at the university: Verbindung im K.C. "Bavaria," Die Iwria, and Die Zionistische Studentinnengruppe. The latter two were affiliated with the national Zionist organisation K.J.V. (KartelI Juedischer Verbindungen) . "Bavaria," however, was by all definitions a fraternity (Burschenschaft). It had a fraternity house, the K.C. members had their own uniforms, and in academic ceremonies the members of "Bavaria" carried the fraternity's symbols 44 .
The Jewish fraternity was the main target of anti-Semitic activities at the university. Since the last decades of the 19th century, Jewish fraternities had tried to accommodate themselves to the prevailing youth culture in the German universities. As a group of men, who were both German and Jewish, Bavaria aspired to symbolise the fact that union was possible. This aspiration, however, was repeatedly challenged and frustrated both by the authorities of several universities and by their student bodies. At the University of Heidelberg the academic authorities decreed in 1901 the very existence of a Jewish fraternity is sufficient to endanger peace among the students.' As Early as the turn of the century, an official university decree, resulting from student pressure, indicated that social anti-Semitism had already become common in all academic circles 45 .
The student body of 1930 considered the Jewish brotherhood an irksome foreign body, which impeded the drive toward an all-encompassing Aryan Volksgemeinschaft 46 . The Jewish students were forbidden to exercise the rights of "satisfaction or honour"; thus if a Jew sought a formal duel as the "honour price" for insults, he would be refused 47 .
In December 1929 an attempt was made by the association of Heidelberg's student unions to force the dissolution of "Bavaria" in order to erase the "alien essence of the Jewish spirit." All affiliated student bodies were forced to participate in this action under the threat of boycott 48 . However, the attempt failed as a result of disciplinary action taken by the university. Disciplinary measures were taken again in the summer of 1930 following another attempt to eliminate the Jewish fraternity. "Bavaria" was not dissolved until April 29, 1933, when its house was confiscated by the S.A. unit (28/100) of the university 49 . In the spring of 1933, groups of nationalist students, led by the Nazi Students' League (NSDStB), vainly sought authoritative directives from their superiors in their drive to completely revolutionise the university. Although these directives were never issued, the Nazi leaders of the student body took severe measures against "the enemies of the Third Reich" on campus. Thus, in the initial stages of the Gleichschaltung, discriminatory actions were taken against non-Aryan and leftist students even before any Nazi program for institutions of higher learning had been formulated. During the summer of 1933, the number of Jewish students at Heidelberg decreased by almost 43%, and students who were classified as Communists were expelled.
References:
23.'Zusammensetzung der Pruefungskommission,' September 3, 1934, UAHD III, 1, No. 109. Each faculty had its vocational examination committee which prepared the final examinations for matriculating students, in co-ordination with the Ministry of Culture.
24. Ibid.
25. September 22, 1934, ibid.
26.Professor Max Gutzwiller was dismissed in October 1937, because he was married to a Jewess, and left Germany for Switzerland. After World War II he returned to Germany.
27.In an interview, Prof. Eugen Ulmer (Munich, October 1972), who was the Deputy Dean of the Faculty of Law in the Gleic era, characterised Dr. Reinhardt Hoehn as 'an S.S. man and very dangerous.' Ulmer spoke of a case in which he was first reader of a dissewritten by a non-Nazi student. He graded this dissertation 'very good.' Hoehn, who was the second reader of the same dissertation, graded it 'very poor.'
28.September 27, 1934, UAHD, III, 1, No. 109.
29.September 25, 1934, ibid.
30.Prof. Ernst Hoffmann, a liberal and supporter of the Republic, was not dismissed after the 'Reestablishment of the Professional Civil Service Law,' and at least until the summer semester of 1936 he taught at the university. Besides his 'liberal past,' this writer cannot suggest any reason why he was mentioned by Brinkmann as 'falling into this category.'
31.One can definitely presume that in September 1934 the Union of Roman Philologists had, as the rest of the academic Fachschaften , a Nazi title, and that likewise it was controlled by the Reichserziehungsministerium.
32.'Zusammensetzung der Pruefungskommission,' November 16, 1934, UAHD, III, 1, No. 109.
33. Ibid.
34.Herman Guentert joined the Nazi Party on July 10, 1937 (membership no. 5146190) and the NSLB on November 1, 1933 (membership no. 258263); Berlin Document Centre.
35.December 6, 1934, UAHD, III, 1, No. 109.
36.January 12, 1935, ibid.
37.January 14, 1935, UAHD, III, 1, No. 109.
38.'Promotionen,' February 6, 1935, ibid.
39.November 8, 1935, ibid.
40.April 26, 1935, UAHD, X, 3, No. 12.
41.November 13, 1935, UAHD, III, 1, No. 109.
42.November 15, 1935, ibid.
43.UAHD, VIII, 1, No. 134, n.d.
44.Interview with Mr. Yehuda Milo (Jerusalem, September 1972), formerly a member of 'Bavaria.'
45.George L. Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology , New York, 1964, p. 197 f.
46.For detailed discussion of anti-Semitic trends among the student fraternities, see Hans P. Bleuel/Ernst Klinnert, Deutsche Studenten auf dem Weg im Dritten Reich , Guetersloh, 1967.
47.Insults such as 'Palestine force' and the like were common during communal events; interview with Y. Milo.
