¹ Weindling, Paul, “‘Out of the Ghetto’: The Rockefeller Foundation and German Medicine after the Second World War,” in Rockefeller Philanthropy and Modern Biomedicine: International Initiatives from World War I to the Cold War, ed. Schneider, William H. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002), 208–222Google Scholar; Weindling, Paul, “The Rockefeller Foundation and German Biomedical Sciences, 1920–40: From Educational Philanthropy to International Science Policy,” in Science, Politics, and the Public Good: Essays in Honour of Margaret Gowing, ed. Rupke, Nicolaas A. (Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, 1988), 119–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Similarly and most recently Schüring, Michael, Minervas verstoßene Kinder. Vertriebene Wissenschaftler und die Vergangenheitspolitik der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2006), 328Google Scholar.

² The involvement of KWG researchers in biomedical crimes during the “Third Reich” was recently investigated in the research program “History of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society in the National Socialist Era.” See the series Reinhard Rürup and Schieder, Wolfgang, eds., Geschichte der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft im Nationalsozialismus (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2000 ff.)Google Scholar, in particular the volumes of Schmuhl, Hans Walter, ed., Rassenforschung an Kaiser-Wilhelm-Instituten vor und nach 1933 (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2003)Google Scholar; Schmuhl, Hans Walter, Grenzüberschreitungen. Das Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Anthropologie, menschliche Erblehre und Eugenik 1927–1945 (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2005)Google Scholar; Sachse, Carola, ed., Die Verbindung nach Auschwitz. Biowissenschaften und Menschenversuche an Kaiser-Wilhelm-Instituten (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2003)Google Scholar; von Schwerin, Alexander, Experimentalisierung des Lebens. Der Genetiker Hans Nachtsheim und die vergleichende Erbpathologie 1920–1945 (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2004)Google Scholar. Benno Müller-Hill's book was revolutionary on this subject in 1984: Müller-Hill, Benno, Tödliche Wissenschaft. Die Aussonderung von Juden, Zigeunern und Geisteskranken 1933–1945 (Reinbek: Rowohlt, 1984)Google Scholar (English: Murderous Science: Elimination by Scientific Selections of Jews, Gypsies, and Others in Germany, 1933–1945, 2nd ed. (New York: Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory Press, 1998). For a condensed overview of the international historiography on this overall area (ca. 1970 to 2000), see Carola Sachse and Massin, Benoit, “Biowissenschaftliche Forschung an Kaiser-Wilhelm-Instituten und die Verbrechen des NS-Regimes. Informationen über den gegenwärtigen Wissensstand,” in Ergebnisse 3. Vorabdrucke aus dem Forschungsprogramm “Geschichte der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft im Nationalsozialismus” (Berlin: 2000)Google Scholar.

³ In his research, Weindling also found no definite recursion on the part of the RF in the Nuremberg Medical Trial, at which admittedly no KWG researchers were accused. Weindling, “‘Out of the Ghetto,’” 209, 210, and 215. On the Nuremberg Medical Trial, see Ebbinghaus, Angelika and Dörner, Klaus, eds., Vernichten und Heilen. Der Nürnberger Ärzteprozess und seine Folgen (Berlin: Aufbau-Taschenbuch-Verlag, 2002)Google Scholar. One former RF-grant recipient, the malaria researcher Claus Schilling from the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin was accused because of unethical medical experiments in the concentration camp Dachau; he was sentenced to death in the first Dachau trial in December 1945 and executed in May 1946; Gerhard Rose, who followed him in 1936 as director of the department for tropical medicine in that institute was in contact with the RF, too; he was accused in the Nuremberg Medical trial because of his typhus experiments in Buchenwald and went to prison for several years. Eugen Haagen, who, in 1931 through 1933, did research on yellow fever within the RF's International Health Division, acted as a witness in that trial and was himself sentenced to prison in 1952 because of his criminal experiments in the concentration camp Natzweiler: see Hinz-Wessels, Annette, Das Robert Koch-Institut im Nationalsozialismus (Berlin: Kulturverlag Kadmos, 2008), 50Google Scholar, 59–71, 116, 131–134, 143–146. For an international comparison of human experiments in the twentieth century, see Gerhard Baader, Susan E. Lederer, Morris Low, Florian Schmaltz, and Schwerin, Alexander v., “Pathways to Human Experimentation, 1933–1945: Germany, Japan, and the Unites States,” in Politics and Science in Wartime: Comparative International Perspectives on the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes, ed. Sachse, Carola and Walker, Mark, Osiris 20 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 205–231Google Scholar; and Eckart, Wolfgang U., ed., Man, Medicine, and the State: The Human Body as an Object of Government Sponsored Medical Research in the 20th Century (Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag, 2006)Google Scholar.

⁴ This account is based on the outline by Klaus Kiran Patel, “Transnationale Geschichte. Ein neues Paradigma?,” in H-Soz-u-Kult 2.2.2005 http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/forum/id=573&type=diskussionen, and Osterhammel, Jürgen, “Transnationale Gesellschaftsgeschichte. Erweiterung oder Alternative?,” in Geschichte und Gesellschaft 27, no. 3 (2001): 464–479Google Scholar. See also Gienow-Hecht, Jessica C. E. and Schumacher, Frank, eds., Culture and International History (New York: Berghahn Books, 2003)Google Scholar; and Budde, Gunilla, Conrad, Sebastian, and Janz, Oliver, eds., Transnationale Geschichte. Themen, Tendenzen und Theorien (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006)Google Scholar. For science funding from an international perspective, see Gemelli, Giuliana and MacLeod, Roy, eds., American Foundations in Europe: Grant-Giving Policies, Cultural Diplomacy, and Transatlantic Relations, 1920–1980 (Brussels: PIE Lang, 2003)Google Scholar; Krige, John and Barth, Kai-Henrik, eds., Global Power Knowledge: Science and Technology in International Affairs, Osiris 21 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006)Google Scholar, and Rausch, Helke, “US-amerikanische ‘Scientific Philanthropy’ in Frankreich, Deutschland und Großbritannien zwischen den Weltkriegen,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 33, no. 1 (2007): 73–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the relationship between the natural sciences and the nation, see Jessen, Ralph and Vogel, Jacob, eds., Wissenschaft und Nation in der europäischen Geschichte (Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 2002)Google Scholar.

⁵ Krige, John, American Hegemony and the Postwar Reconstruction of Science in Europe (Cambridge, MA, and London: The MIT Press, 2006)Google Scholar; Maier, Charles S., “Alliance and Autonomy: European Identity and the U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in the Truman Years,” in The Truman Presidency, ed. Lacey, Michael J. (Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and Cambridge University Press, 1989), 273–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Doel, Ronald, “Scientists as Policymakers, Advisors, and Intelligence Agents: Linking Contemporary Diplomatic History of Contemporary Science,” in The Historiography of Contemporary Science and Technology, ed. Söderquist, Thomas (Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1997), 215–244Google Scholar.

⁶ RAC Gates Collection, Gates, speech at the tenth anniversary of the Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research (1911), cited here in Page, Benjamin B., “The Rockefeller Foundation and Central Europe: A Consideration,” Minerva 40 (2002): 265–287, 281CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See Harr, John Ensor and Johnson, Peter J., The Rockefeller Conscience: An American Family in Public and in Private (New York: Scribner, 1991), 6, 502Google Scholar.

⁷ On the civilizing or, more critically, the cultural-imperial mission of the public health campaigns, institutions, and educational establishments supported by Rockefeller, see Page, “The Rockefeller Foundation and Central Europe,” 279–283.

⁸ Rose to Gunn, January 21, 1919, cited in Page, “The Rockefeller Foundation and Central Europe,” 283.

⁹ On the malaria prevention campaign in Italy, see Stapleton, Darwin H., “Internationalism and Nationalism: The Rockefeller Foundation, Public Health, and Malaria in Italy, 1923–1951,” Parasitologia 42 (2000): 127–134Google Scholar; on Czechoslovakia, see Page, “The Rockefeller Foundation and Central Europe”; on the activities of the RF in the USSR, see Solomon, Susan Gross and Krementsov, Nikolai, “Giving and Taking Across the Borders: The Rockefeller Foundation and Russia 1919–1928,” Minerva 39 (2001): 265–298Google Scholar.

¹⁰ On the reorganization of the RF during the 1920s, see Fosdick, Raymond B., The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1952), (reprint New Brunswick and Oxford: Transaction Publishers, 1989), 135–144Google Scholar. Critical notes on the omissions from this account are given in the introduction by Steven C. Wheatley in the 1989 reprint of this volume.

¹¹ According to the officiating president of the RF, Max Mason, in his Memorial Address on April 15, 1930, cited in ibid., 142.

¹² Kohler, Robert E., Partners in Science: Foundations and Natural Scientists 1900–1945 (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1991), 233–262Google Scholar, quotes 404–406; Kohler, Robert E., “Warren Weaver and the Rockefeller Foundation Program in Molecular Biology: A Case Study in the Management of Science,” in Managing Medical Research in Europe: The Role of the Rockefeller Foundation (1920s–1950s), ed. Gemelli, Giuliana, Picard, Jean-Francois, and Schneider, William H. (Bologna: CLUEB, 1999), 51–90Google Scholar, especially 55–56; Kohler, Robert E., “A Policy for the Advancement of Science: The Rockefeller Foundation, 1924–29,” Minerva 16 (1978): 480–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the links between the development of the major philanthropic foundations, see also Sealander, Judith, Private Wealth and Public Life: Foundation Philanthropy and the Reshaping of American Social Policy from the Progressive Era to the New Deal (Baltimore, MD, and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997)Google Scholar, and Adam, Thomas, ed., Philanthropy, Patronage, and Civil Society: Experiences from Germany, Great Britain, and North America (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

¹³ Fosdick, The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation, 109–122. On the role of German medical research and teaching as a model for the RF, see also Weindling, “The Rockefeller Foundation and German Biomedical Sciences, 1920–40,” 120 f.

¹⁴ A detailed account of the intense debate within the RF on the aid program for Germany is given in Weindling, “The Rockefeller Foundation and German Biomedical Sciences, 1920–40,” 122–128.

¹⁵ On the RIMR, see the anthology edited by Stapleton, Darwin H., Creating a Tradition of Biomedical Research: Contributions to the History of the Rockefeller University (New York: Rockefeller University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; on how the RIMR was a model for the KWIs, see Stapleton, “The Rockefeller (University) Effect: A Phenomenon in Biomedical Science,” in ibid., 5–15, especially 7 (footnote 17).

¹⁶ These were the main points included in the “Harnack principle,” named after the first president of the KWG. On the history of the KWG, see Vierhaus, Rudolf and Vom Brocke, Bernhard, eds., Forschung im Spannungsfeld von Politik und Gesellschaft. Geschichte und Struktur der Kaiser-Wilhelm/Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (Stuttgart: DVA, 1990)Google Scholar, and Vom Brocke, Bernhard and Laitko, Hubert, eds., Die Kaiser-Wilhelm/Max-Planck-Gesellschaft und ihre Institute. Studien zu ihrer Geschichte: Das Harnackprinzip (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996)Google Scholar.

¹⁷ As an overview, see Kurt Düwell, “Die deutsch-amerikanischen Wissenschaftsbeziehungen im Spiegel der Kaiser-Wilhelm- und der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft,” in Forschung im Spannungsfeld von Politik und Gesellschaft, ed. Vierhaus and Vom Brocke, 747–770. On the KWI for Physics, see Macrakis, Kristie, “Wissenschaftsförderung durch die Rockefeller-Stiftung im ‘Dritten Reich.’ Die Entscheidung, das Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Physik finanziell zu unterstützen, 1934–39,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 12 (1986): 348–379Google Scholar. On the KWI for Foreign and International Private Law, see Kunze, Rolf-Ulrich, Ernst Rabel und das Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, 1926–1945 (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2004)Google Scholar.

¹⁸ For a detailed account of Gregg's psychobiological agenda, see Pressman, Jack D., “Human Understanding: Psychosomatic Medicine and the Mission of the Rockefeller Foundation,” in Greater than the Parts: Holism in Biomedicine, 1920–1950, ed. Lawrence, Christopher and Weisz, George (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 189–208Google Scholar. On Gregg, see also William H. Schneider, “The Men Who Followed Flexner: Richard Pearce, Alan Gregg, and the Rockefeller Foundation Medical Divisions, 1919–1951,” in Rockefeller Philanthropy and Modern Biomedicine, ed. Schneider, 7–60; Schneider, William H., “The Model American Foundation Officer: Alan Gregg and the Rockefeller Foundation Medical Divisions,” Minerva 41, no. 2 (2003): 155–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ RAC, RG 3/906/2/19: The Medical and the Natural Sciences. 1933 Interim Report to the Trustees meeting, December 13, 1933, cited in Pressman, “Human Understanding,” 201.

²⁰ Kohler, “A Policy for the Advancement of Science,” 499–501; Weindling, “The Rockefeller Foundation and German Biomedical Sciences, 1920–40,” 130. On the relationship between the American and German eugenicists, see Kühl, Stefan, Die Internationale der Rassisten. Aufstieg und Niedergang der internationalen Bewegung für Eugenik und Rassenhygiene im 20. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 1997)Google Scholar, and more recently Black, Edwin, War against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race (New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 2004)Google Scholar, and Mark B. Adams, Garland Allen, and Sheila F. Weiss, “Human Heredity and Politics: A Comparative International Study of the Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor (United States), the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics (Germany) and the Maxim Gorky Medical Genetics Institute (USSR),” in Politics and Science in Wartime, ed. Sachse and Walker, 232–262.

²¹ Thomsen, Matthew, “Mental Hygiene as an International Movement,” in International Health Organizations and Movements 1918–1939, ed. Weindling, Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 283–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 292, says that this was due to public pressure and believes that Rüdin profited from the remaining funds. Cornelius Borck, however, shows that the RF was careful to ensure that Rüdin did not receive any support; the only ones who did were the Nazi-critical DFA researchers Felix Plaut and Walther Spielmeyer, whom Gregg greatly respected. See Cornelius Borck, “Mediating Philanthropy in Changing Political Circumstances: The Rockefeller Foundation's Funding for Brain Research in Germany, 1930–1950,” Newsletter: Rockefeller Archive Center Reports Online 4, April 2001, http://www.rockefeller.edu/archive.ctr/racrro1a.html. On the forced sterilization issue, see Bock, Gisela, Zwangssterilisationen im Nationalsozialismus. Studien zur Rassenpolitik und Frauenpolitik (Opladen: Westdt Verlag, 1986)Google Scholar; on Rüdin's role in the Third Reich, see Weber, Matthias M., Ernst Rüdin. Eine kritische Biographie (Berlin: Springer, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and a critical response in Volker Roelcke, “Programm und Praxis der psychiatrischen Genetik an der Deutschen Forschungsanstalt für Psychiatrie unter Ernst Rüdin. Zum Verhältnis von Wissenschaft, Politik und Rasse-Begriff vor und nach 1933,” in Schmuhl, ed., Rassenforschung, 38–67.

²² On the RF funding of the individual KWIs, see RAC, Coll. RF, RG 2/717/310/2103, file notes including some lists prepared for Fosdick, November 19, 1945, and November 11, 1945; RG 1.1/717/4/23, Natural Science grants to KWG 1930–1938; RG 1.2/717/4/32, Weaver to Havighurst, July 28, 1947, with a number of lists. See also Weindling, “The Rockefeller Foundation and German Biomedical Sciences, 1920–40,” 131–133; Düwell, “Die deutsch-amerikanischen Wissenschaftsbeziehungen,” 751–757; Kohler, Partners in Science, 251–254. On the involvement of KWG scientists in Nazi crimes, see Sachse and Massin, “Biowissenschaftliche Forschung,” and Sachse, ed., Die Verbindung nach Auschwitz; on the KWI for Brain Research, see Satzinger, Helga, Die Geschichte der genetisch orientierten Hirnforschung von Cécile und Oskar Vogt (1875–1962, 1870–1959) in der Zeit von 1895 bis ca. 1927 (Stuttgart: Deutscher Apotheker Verlag, 1998)Google Scholar; Schmuhl, Hans Walter, “Hirnforschung und Krankenmord. Das Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Hirnforschung 1937–1945,” Ergebnisse 1. Vorabdrucke aus dem Forschungsprogramm “Geschichte der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft im Nationalsozialismus” (Berlin: 2000)Google Scholar; Michael Hagner, “Im Pantheon der Gehirne. Die Elite- und Rassegehirnforschung von Oskar und Cécile Vogt,” in Rassenforschung, ed. Schmuhl, 99–144; on the KWI for Anthropology, Human Genetics, and Eugenics, see Schmuhl, Grenzüberschreitungen.

²³ On eugenic consensus in Germany, see Grossmann, Atina, Reforming Sex: The German Movement for Birth Control and Abortion Reform 1920–1950 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995)Google Scholar; on international eugenics, see Adams, Mark B., ed., The Wellborn Science: Eugenics in Germany, France, Brazil, and Russia (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990)Google Scholar, and Paul, Diane, Controlling Human Heredity, 1865 to the Present (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1995)Google Scholar.

²⁴ Weaver, Warren, Scene of Change: A Lifetime in American Science (New York: Scribner, 1970), 59–63Google Scholar. On Weaver's importance for the development of modern biology, see Kohler, Partners in Science, 265–391; Kohler, “Warren Weaver and the Rockefeller Foundation Program in Molecular Biology,” 74; Kay, Lily E., The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993)Google Scholar, passim. Abir-Am represents a critical opposing position: Abir-Am, Pnina G., “The Discourse of Physical Power and Biological Knowledge in the 1930s: A Reappraisal of the Rockefeller Foundation's ‘Policy’ in Molecular Biology,” Social Studies of Science 12 (1982): 341–382CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; on the controversial judgment of Weaver's significance for the development of molecular biology, compare also Bartels, Ditta, “The Rockefeller Foundation's Policy for Molecular Biology: Success or Failure?,” Social Studies of Science 14 (1984): 238–243CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

²⁵ Cited in Weaver, Scene of Change, 60.

²⁶ RF Annual Report, 1933, 199; see also Fosdick, The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation, 166. On Warburg's importance for Weaver's research program, see Weindling, “The Rockefeller Foundation and German Biomedical Sciences, 1920–40,” 135.

²⁷ Macrakis, “Wissenschaftsförderung durch die Rockefeller-Stiftung”; Richardson, Malcolm, “Philanthropy and the Internationality of Learning: The Rockefeller Foundation and National Socialist Germany,” Minerva 2 (1990): 21–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁸ RF Annual Report, 1937, 13–15. On the idea of the political neutrality of the RF, see Page, “The Rockefeller Foundation and Central Europe,” 283–286, and Richardson, “Philanthropy and the Internationality of Learning,” 26, 54–55.

²⁹ Of the roughly 150 male and female KWG employees who were let go or retired early, or whose contracts were not extended after 1933, about ten percent were driven out for political reasons. Compare the incomplete list in Schüring, Minervas verstoßene Kinder, 88–106, where the largest amount of dismissals were in the KWIs for Physical Chemistry (twenty-eight), Medical Research (twenty), and Biology (fourteen), whereas at the RF-supported KWIs for Psychiatry, Physics, and Cell Physiology “only” five, two, and one person, respectively, were let go. See also the commemorative book that documents all the cases of expulsion from the KWG: Rürup, Reinhard, ed., Schicksale und Karrieren. Gedenkbuch für die von den Nationalsozialisten aus der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft vertriebenen Forscherinnen und Forscher (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2008)Google Scholar.

³⁰ Schüring, Minervas verstoßene Kinder, 111–114, points out how unclear the situation in Germany was for the RF scouts and how their judgments were clouded by their own prejudices when, for example, Mason perceived reports of persecuted scientists as “weepy tales of persecuted Jews,” but those of ministry officials as moderate, and the situation as just. For the assessment of the situation in the Soviet Union where Gregg traveled in the 1920s, on the other hand, see Solomon, Susan Gross, “Knowing the ‘Local’: Rockefeller Foundation Officers' Site Visits to Russia in the 1920s,” Slavic Review 62, no. 4 (Winter 2003): 710–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³¹ RF Annual Report, 1937, 15.

³² Confidential Monthly Report to the trustees dated October 1, 1937 (RAC, RG 3.1), cited in Richardson, “Philanthropy and the Internationality of Learning,” 56.

³³ The American Hebrew, February 2, 1934; New York Times, November 24, 1936; Science, December 11, 1936, 526; all indications are found in Macrakis, “Wissenschaftsförderung durch die Rockefeller-Stiftung,” 372 and 374, where the critical commentary of the American public to the RF's sustained support of German science as well as the RF's reaction are represented.

³⁴ These decision-making processes were described in detail first by Macrakis, “Wissenschaftsförderung durch die Rockefeller-Stiftung,”and then by Richardson, “Philanthropy and the Internationality of Learning.” The quote is taken from the Confidential Monthly Report to the trustees dated October 1, 1937 (RAC, RG 3.1), cited in Richardson, “Philanthropy and the Internationality of Learning,” 57.

³⁵ Success stories as well as cases of unrealistic expectations on the part of emigrants and tragic failures can be gleaned in Schüring, Minervas verstoßene Kinder, 109–129, and Rürup, ed., Schicksale und Karrieren; see also Abir-Am, “The Discourse of Physical Power and Biological Knowledge in the 1930s,” 341–382; Weindling, Paul, “An Overloaded Ark? The Rockefeller Foundation and Refugee Medical Scientists,” in Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences 3 (2000): 477–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Siegmund-Schultze, Reinhard, “Rockefeller Support for Mathematicians Fleeing from the Nazi Purge,” in The “Unacceptables”: American Foundations and Refugee Scholars between the Two Wars and after, ed. Gemelli, Giuliana (Brussels: PIE Lang, 2000), 83–106Google Scholar, and further essays in Gemelli, ed., The “Unacceptables,” and Ash, Mitchell and Söllner, Alfons, ed., Forced Migration and Scientific Change: Émigré German-Speaking Scientists and Scholars after 1933 (Washington, D.C.: Cambridge University Press, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁶ Weindling, “‘Out of the Ghetto,’” 213 and 219.

³⁷ RAC, Coll. RFA/5/I-OMR/6/56: J. D. Rockefeller III's trip to Germany and Austria in August 1946, diary und interviews; Coll. RF, RG 1.1/717/4/21, RBF to ARM November 8, 1946: J. D. Rockefeller's eleven-point program for “possible R.F. Projects in area of dissemination and application of knowledge” in central Europe; all his suggestions focused on reeducation and developing democratic structures.

³⁸ Weaver supplied the next observer with the same material: RAC, Coll. RF, RG 1.2/717/4/32: Weaver to Havighurst, July 28, 1947; RG 1.1/717/4/23: “Suggested Inquiries,” compiled by A. R. Mann, December 19, 1946, and Weaver, July 1, 1947.

³⁹ RAC, Coll. RF/1.1/717/4/21: Meyerhof to Robert A. Lambert, October 23, 1946; Meyerhof to Mann, November 1, 1946; Interview with Adams, December 8, 1946; Courant to Mann, December 10, 1946; Mann to EB and WW, December 13, 1946. On the roles of Adams and Courant in this context, see Krige, American Hegemony, 46–56.

⁴⁰ RAC, Stacks 717 PWS Mann: Report on Educational Conditions in Postwar Germany. Based on the Notes made by A. R. Mann during trip to Germany January and February 1947 (hereinafter cited as Mann report), 101–108.

⁴¹ RAC, Coll. RF, RG 1.1/717/4/22: Officers' Conference, April 7, 1947.

⁴² RAC, Coll. RF, RG 1.1/717/4/22: Andrew J. Warren to Strode, April 8, 1947. Albert Szent-Györgyi (1893–1986: Nobel Prize for Medicine/Physiology 1937), RF fellow in Cambridge in 1927; from 1930, Professor of Medical and Organic Chemistry at the University of Szeged; active anti-Nazi; was given Swedish citizenship during World War II and continued working in Hungary, with the considerable support of the Swedish embassy, until he emigrated to the U.S. in 1947.

⁴³ RAC, Coll. RF, RG 1.1/717/4/22: Warren to Strode, April 8, 1947.

⁴⁴ RAC, Coll. RF, RG 12.1/21: entry of October 4, 1949, cited in Weindling, “‘Out of the Ghetto,’” 216.

⁴⁵ RAC, Coll. RF, RG 1.1/717/4/22: JM to David H. Stevens, dated April 11, 1947. A summary of the funding policy toward Germany and Austria is given in the RF Annual Report, 1948, 46–48.

⁴⁶ On the criticism of the American denazification policy, see Mann report, 25, 26, 64, and 72.

⁴⁷ RAC, Coll. RF, RG 1.1/717/4/22: Memorandum by Edward F. D'Arms of June 20, 1947.

⁴⁸ RAC, Coll. RF, RG 1.1/717/4/22: Willits to D'Arms, July 25, 1947. On Willits, see Stapleton, Darwin H., “Joseph Willits and the Rockefellers' European Programme in the Social Sciences,” Minerva 41 (2003): 101–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁹ On Robert J. Havighurst, see Fleck, Christian, Transatlantische Bereicherungen. Zur Erfindung der empirischen Sozialforschung (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag 2007), 430–437Google Scholar. Havighurst's reports are contained in RAC, Coll. RF, RG 1.2/700/11/96: Havighurst report, November 24, 1947; RG 1.1/717/3/19: Interviews RJH September-October 1947; RG 1.2/700/11/95: Recommendations for Program in Germany and Austria. Robert J. Havighurst, November 1948; RG 1.2/700/11/92: RJH diary September 6–November 20, 1948.

⁵⁰ RAC, Coll. RF, RG 1.1/717/3/19: Supplement to Report on Germany. Description of Possible Specific Projects.

⁵¹ RAC, Coll. RF, RG 1.2/700/11/96: Havighurst report, November 24, 1947, 60–61.

⁵² RAC, Coll. RF, RG 12.1/Alan Gregg/1947: Officers' Conference November 19, 1947. On the French support program, see Krige, American Hegemony, 75–113.

⁵³ RAC, Coll. RF, RG 1.1/700/10/85: Willits' memorandum of November 24, 1947, and Weaver's answer of December 1, 1947, summarized in Fleck, Transatlantische Bereicherungen, 438f.

⁵⁴ RAC, Coll. RF, RG 1.2/700/11/95: Recommendations for Program in Germany and Austria. Robert J. Havighurst, November 1948; RG 2/717–1948/428/2888: D'Arms memorandum dated November 19, 1948, on Havighurst's second report in the autumn of 1948; Schüring, Minervas verstoßene Kinder, 330. On the funding policies of the various divisions in postwar Germany and Austria, see Weindling, “‘Out of the Ghetto,’” 213–215; Weindling, Paul, “Termination or Transformation? The fate of the International Health Division as a Case Study in Foundation Decision-Making,” Research Reports from the Rockefeller Archive Center (Fall 2002): 20–23Google Scholar; Stapleton, “Joseph Willits and the Rockefellers' European Programme in the Social Sciences”; Fleck, Christian, “Österreichs Wissenschaften in den Augen amerikanischer Besucher,” Wiener Beiträge zur Geschichte der Neuzeit 51 (2005): 119–134Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ The amount of support after the Nuremberg Medical Trial rose remarkably from $62,500 in 1947 to $455,311 in 1948, only to drop off again; from 1946 to 1951, a total of $1.228 million was expended; numbers for Germany are from Weindling, “‘Out of the Ghetto,’” 215. In France, the National Center for Scientific Research received funds of around $250,000, which its own administration was allowed to bestow, and a conference grant in the amount of $100,000; see Krige, American Hegemony, 104–108. Whether individual stipends above that amount were bestowed directly to French scientists is not indicated there.

⁵⁶ On the Rudorf grant, see Schüring, Minervas verstoßene Kinder, 330. Unfortunately, there is no complete record of KWG researchers who were members of the National Socialist Party. The KWI for Breeding Research was known for large numbers of SS members among its personnel; see Heim, Susanne, Kalorien, Kautschuk und Karrieren. Pflanzenzüchtung und landwirtschaftliche Forschung in Kaiser-Wilhelm-Instituten 1933–1945 (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2003), 125–198Google Scholar, 209; and Schüring, Michael, “‘Ein unerfreulicher Vorgang.’ Das Max-Planck-Institut für Züchtungsforschung in Voldagsen und die gescheiterte Rückkehr von Max Ufer,” in Autarkie und Ostexpansion. Pflanzenzucht und Agrarforschung im Nationalsozialismus, ed. Heim, Susanne (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2002), 280–299Google Scholar. The KWI for Anthroplogy, Eugenics, and Human Genetics was also known for large numbers of SS members; see Sachse, Carola, “‘Persilscheinkultur.’ Zum Umgang mit der NS-Vergangenheit in der Kaiser-Wilhelm/Max-Planck-Gesellschaft,” in Akademische Vergangenheitspolitik. Beiträge zur Wissenschaftskultur der Nachkriegszeit, ed. Weisbrod, Bernd (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2002), 223–252Google Scholar, and Schmuhl, Grenzüberschreitungen, 165 f, 214–222, 264–269, 360–368). A complete record of the denazification proceedings is also next to impossible because of the usual and high turnover in personnel during the last stages of the war and in the postwar years; of the forty-three directors and department heads whose proceedings are documented, twenty-eight were finally relieved, and fifteen were assessed as hangers-on, including Rudorf and the director of the KWI for Anthropology, Otmar von Verschuer, who had both cooperated directly with the concentration camp Auschwitz; see Beyler, Richard H., “‘Reine’ Wissenschaft und personelle ‘Säuberungen.’ Die Kaiser-Wilhelm-/Max-Planck-Gesellschaft 1933 und 1945,” Ergebnisse 16. Vorabdrucke aus dem Forschungsprogramm “Geschichte der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft im Nationalsozialismus” (Berlin: 2004), 33Google Scholar and 50.

⁵⁷ RF Annual Report, 1946, 6–12.

⁵⁸ Ibid., 1946, 7.

⁵⁹ RF Annual Report, 1946, 10–12. On the discussion of an appropriate ethical-religious establishment of the RF funding policy, see Ryan, Lory Verstegen and Scott, William G., “Ethics and Organizational Reflection: The Rockefeller Foundation and Postwar ‘Moral Deficits,’ 1942–1954,” The Academy of Management Review 20, no. 2 (1995): 438–461Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ MPG-A, Dept. III, Rep. 70, Hahn-Tagebuch 1, entry dated May 4, 1945. Sime, Ruth Lewin, “Otto Hahn und die Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. Zwischen Vergangenheit und Erinnerung,” Ergebnisse 14. Vorabdrucke aus dem Forschungsprogramm “Geschichte der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft im Nationalsozialismus” (Berlin: 2004)Google Scholar, here especially 31 has carried out a critical analysis of the sources with respect to Hahn's attitude and his policy during the postwar years.

⁶¹ See the reports on the individual institutes in “Die Geschichte der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft und Max-Planck-Gesellschaft 1945–1949” (Göttingen: n.p., 1949), typed Festschrift to mark the seventieth birthday of Otto Hahn, MPG-A, Abt. V.c, Rep. 4, KWG Nr. 1 (hereinafter cited as FS Hahn 1949). This Festschrift was never published, probably because of a large number of phrasings that were undiplomatic, if not impudent in terms of their references to the past; see Schüring, Minervas verstoßene Kinder, 261–268. On the transfer of the KWI, see Hachtmann, Rüdiger, Wissenschaftsmanagement im “Dritten Reich.” Geschichte der Generalverwaltung der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft, 2 vol. (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2007), vol. 2, 1027–1040Google Scholar.

⁶² On Telschow and his policies, see Przyrembel, Alexandra, “Friedrich Glum und Ernst Telschow. Die Generalsekretäre der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft: Handlungsfelder und Handlungsoptionen der ‘Verwaltenden’ von Wissen während des Nationalsozialismus,” Ergebnisse 20. Vorabdrucke aus dem Forschungsprogramm “Geschichte der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft im Nationalsozialismus” (Berlin: 2004)Google Scholar; Hachtmann, Rüdiger, Eine Erfolgsgeschichte? Schlaglichter auf die Geschichte der Generalverwaltung der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft im “Dritten Reich” (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2004)Google Scholar; Hachtmann, Wissenschaftsmanagement im “Dritten Reich, ” vol. 2, 1126–1155.

⁶³ Mann report, 50.

⁶⁴ In his piece for Hahn's Festschrift, Heisenberg states that in 1949 the scientists still lacked “all larger-scale equipment such as a high-voltage facility, cyclotron, cold laboratory, uranium burner, and such things,” FS Hahn 1949, 15. On Heisenberg, see Cassidy, David, Uncertainty: The Life and Science of Werner Heisenberg (New York: Freeman, 1991)Google Scholar; Carson, Cathryn, “New Models for Science in Politics: Heisenberg in West Germany,” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 30, no. 1 (1999): 115–171Google Scholar, and Carson, Cathryn, “Heisenberg als Wissenschaftsorganisator,” in Werner Heisenberg 1901–1976. Beiträge, Berichte, Briefe—Festschrift zu seinem 100. Geburtstag, ed. Kleint, Christian, Rechenberg, Helmut, and Wiemers, Gerald (Stuttgart: S. Hirzel, 2005), 214–222Google Scholar; Carson, Cathryn and Gubser, Michael, “Science Advising and Science Policy in Post-War West Germany: The Example of the deutscher Forschungsrat,” Minerva 40 (2002): 147–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Walker, Mark, “Eine Waffenschmiede? Kernwaffen- und Reaktorforschung am Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Physik,” Ergebnisse 26. Vorabdrucke aus dem Forschungsprogramm “Geschichte der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft im Nationalsozialismus” (Berlin: 2005)Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ RAC, Coll. RF, RG 1.1/717/3/19: Havighurst interview with Heisenberg, September 20, 1947; RG 1.2/700/11/92: Havighurst interviews October 19, 1948 (dinner with Werner Heisenberg, Karl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, Hermann Rein, and R. G. J. Fraser). On the elitist status thinking of German professors and some KWI directors from the RF's point of view, see Schüring, Minervas verstoßene Kinder, 325–328.

⁶⁶ RAC, Coll. RF, RG 2–1948/717/428/2885: Struthers diary, October 19, 1948.

⁶⁷ RAC, Coll. RF 1.2/700/11/96: Havighurst report 1947, 55.

⁶⁸ RAC, Coll. RF, RG 2–1948/717/428/2885: Struthers diary, October 19, 1948.

⁶⁹ FS Hahn 1949, 142–147.

⁷⁰ RAC, Coll. RF, RG 2-1948/717/428/2885: MPI Hirnforschung to Struthers, November 3, 1948; Struthers to Kornmüller, November 16, 1948.

⁷¹ Mann report, 48, 49, and 70. This impression is confirmed in full by Butenandt's own report: they had been able “to continue current work in the area of active ingredients, cancer research, and protein and virus research without any major interruptions” and had published forty-four articles in scholarly journals between 1945 and 1949; FS Hahn 1949, 264–268, here 265 and 268. See also Schieder, Wolfgang, “Spitzenforschung und Politik. Adolf Butenandt in der Weimarer Republik und im ‘Dritten Reich,’” in Adolf Butenandt und die Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft. Wissenschaft, Industrie und Politik im “Dritten Reich”, ed. Schieder, Wolfgang and Trunk, Achim (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2004), 23–77Google Scholar; Jeffrey Lewis, “Kalter Krieg in der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. Göttingen und Tübingen—Eine Vereinigung mit Hindernissen, 1948–1949,” in Adolf Butenandt und die Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft, ed. Schieder and Trunk, 403–443; and Jean-Paul Gaudillière, “Biochemie und Industrie. Der ‘Arbeitskreis Butenandt-Schering’ im Nationalsozialismus,” in Adolf Butenandt und die Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft, ed. Schieder and Trunk, 198–246.

⁷² RAC, Coll. RF, RG 1.1/717/3/19: Havighurst interview with Butenandt, October 6, 1947. On Butenandt, see Schieder, “Spitzenforschung und Politik,” in Adolf Butenandt und die Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft, ed. Schieder and Trunk, with an extensive account of the research literature to date, and the other contributions to Adolf Butenandt und die Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft, ed. Schieder and Trunk.

⁷³ Havighurst report 1947, 54.

⁷⁴ RAC, Coll. RF, RG 1.1/717/3/19: Havighurst interview with Kühn, October 6, 1947. Kühn gave a similar account in his 1949 report, FS Hahn 1949, 285–294, here 285.

⁷⁵ Havighurst report 1947, 57; on research collaboration between Kühn and Butenandt, which was funded by the RF during the early 1930s, see Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, “Die Zusammenarbeit zwischen Adolf Butenandt und Alfred Kühn,” in Adolf Butenandt und die Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft, ed. Schieder and Trunk, 169–197.

⁷⁶ Mann report, 25, 26, 39, 61–64; Havighurst report 1947, 52, 54, 59; RAC, Coll. RF 1.2/717/4/32: Havighurst to Gregg, September 22, 1947; RF 1.2/700/11/95: Havighurst Recommendations 1948, chapter VII.

⁷⁷ Mann report, 39, 60, 61, and 69.

⁷⁸ FS Hahn 1949, 164–171.

⁷⁹ Havighurst report 1947, 53–61; on the KWI for Psychology, see Ash, Mitchell, “The Hereditary Psychology Department of the KWI for Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics 1935–1945,”in Zur Geschichte der Psychologie in Berlin, ed. Sprung, Lothar and Schönpflug, Wolfgang (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2003), 401–428Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ This is the substance of Telschow's report on the administrative headquarters, in FS Hahn 1949, 2–11. See also Schüring, Minervas verstoßene Kinder, 230–256, and Hachtmann, Wissenschaftsmanagement im “Dritten Reich,” vol. 2, 1077–1100.

⁸¹ RAC, Coll. RF, RG 2/717/310/2103: Note from DPOB to Lambert, November 9, 1945. The inquiry was presumably connected to Roger Adams's stay in Germany from November 1945 to March 1946 as an “‘expert consultant’ to the War Department and as an official representative to the National Academy of Science,” at which the foundations for the Allied Control Law 25 for the control of scientific research in Germany were developed. The law was promulgated on April 29, 1946; see Krige, American Hegemony, 47.

⁸² RAC, Coll. RF, RG 2/717/310/2103: Note RBF, November 19, 1945.

⁸³ The KWG was informed of these events by Roger Adams, a trained chemist and a dean at the University of Illinois who was then working for General Clay in Germany as an adviser on science issues; see Manfred Heinemann, “Der Wiederaufbau der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft und die Neugründungen der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (1945–1949),” in Forschung im Spannungsfeld von Politik und Gesellschaft, ed. Vierhaus and Vom Brocke, 407–470, here 408. Adams was well-disposed toward the KWG and felt, as he told Mann in a preparatory meeting that the decision to dissolve the organization was “probably a mistake” because with two or three exceptions, the KWIs had not been used for war research: RAC, Coll. RF, RG 1.1/717/4/21: Mann interview with Adams, December 8, 1946.

⁸⁴ The decision was made on August 2, 1946, but only put into legal form on March 27, 1947, and was never signed (i.e., it was not legally binding). In addition, the Allies disagreed about how the decision should be interpreted; see Hachtmann, Wissenschaftsmanagement im “Dritten Reich,” vol. 2, 1089 f.

⁸⁵ Mann report, iii.

⁸⁶ RAC, Coll. RF, RG 1.1/717/4/22: Memorandum on “Report …” by D'Arms, June 20, 1947, 9; Havighurst report 1947, 60. The Berlin magistrate had appointed the communist physical chemist Robert Havemann, who was persecuted by the Nazis, as acting head of the remaining KWIs in Berlin-Dahlem in summer 1945. With the backing of the Soviet military authorities, he first tried to rebuild the KWG from Berlin outward as a completely German institution. He was defeated in his efforts not only by the Allies' changing interests and their increasingly confrontational science-policy strategies in the city of Berlin, which was divided into four sections, but also and most of all by the opposition of the general administration of the KWG, which had just evacuated to Göttingen at the beginning of 1945. The KWG administration began pursuing a definite orientation to the west since it found itself again under sympathetic British supremacy in April 1945, considered Havemann its main enemy, and left the remaining institutes in the “front city” of the Cold War to their uncertain fate. When the front lines in Berlin were settled in 1950, the KWG administration took charge of the institutes located in West Berlin again, while the institutes located in East Berlin and the Soviet occupation zone were transferred to various, in some cases newly founded, science associations of the German Democratic Republic (DDR). See Heinemann, “Der Wiederaufbau der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft,” in Forschung im Spannungsfeld von Politik und Gesellschaft, ed. Vierhaus and Vom Brocke, 424–426, 434–436, 441, 454–456, and Hachtmann, Wissenschaftsmanagement im “Dritten Reich,” vol. 2, 1059–1077.

⁸⁷ The delaying tactics used by the British regarding the approval of the organization as a registered society meant, of course, ongoing uncertainty for the administrative headquarters of the KWG/MPG; see Heinemann, “Der Wiederaufbau der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft,” in Forschung im Spannungsfeld von Politik und Gesellschaft, ed. Vierhaus and Vom Brocke, 430–436 and 441. On the attitude of the British military government toward the KWG, see also Peter Alter, “Die Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft in den deutsch-britischen Beziehungen,” in Forschung im Spannungsfeld von Politik und Gesellschaft, ed. Vierhaus and Vom Brocke, 726–746; Oexle, Otto Gerhard, “Wie in Göttingen die Max-Planck-Gesellschaft entstand,” Jahrbuch 1994 der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1994), 43–60Google Scholar; Oexle, Otto Gerhard, “Hahn, Heisenberg und die anderen. Anmerkungen zu ‘Kopenhagen,’ ‘Farm Hall’ und ‘Göttingen,’” Ergebnisse 9. Vorabdrucke aus dem Forschungsprogramm “Geschichte der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft im Nationalsozialismus” (Berlin: 2003)Google Scholar; a critical reaction in Sime, “Otto Hahn und die Max-Planck-Gesellschaft,” and Schüring, Minervas verstoßene Kinder, 330 f.; and Hachtmann, Wissenschaftsmanagement im “Dritten Reich,” 1085 f.

⁸⁸ These events have been researched thoroughly; the most recent account is given in Walker, Mark, “Otto Hahn. Verantwortung und Verdrängung,” Ergebnisse 10. Vorabdrucke aus dem Forschungsprogramm “Geschichte der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft im Nationalsozialismus” (Berlin: 2003)Google Scholar, with particular focus on the role played by Hahn. See Heinemann, , “Der Wiederaufbau der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft,” in Forschung im Spannungsfeld von Politik und Gesellschaft, ed. Vierhaus, and Brocke, Vom; Macrakis, Kristie, Surviving the Swastika: Scientific Research in Nazi Germany (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 187–198Google Scholar, and Lewis, “Kalter Krieg in der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft,” the latter mainly on the inclusion of the institutes in the French zone.

⁸⁹ On Hahn's public interventions against the foreign headhunting of German scientists, see Walker, “Otto Hahn,” 35–38. Mann himself was very critical of the Allies, who were poaching the best scientists from each other, and described this “traffic in brains” as a “new kind of slavery”; Mann report, 28–29.

⁹⁰ Mann report, 65 and 105. Mann, who was in Berlin until January 20, 1947, and then from February 6–9, 1947, had met Dr. Nordstrom of the Research Control Section of OMGUS while he was there, and during his intervening trip, spoke with the Research Control Officer responsible for Württemberg-Baden, Lieutenant Colonel Brunton. Mann report, 60–61, 105.

⁹¹ MPG Archive, Abt. II/1A/(5–5)12: Memorandum, February 14, 1947.

⁹² Ibid., 1.

⁹³ On the financial policy of the administrative headquarters, see Hachtmann, Eine Erfolgsgeschichte?, 9–13; Hachtmann, Wissenschaftsmanagement im “Dritten Reich,” vol. 1, 191–258, vol. 2, 745–792, and passim. On commissioned research at the KWI for Silicate Research, see Stoff, Heiko, “Eine zentrale Arbeitsstätte mit nationalen Zielen. Wilhelm Eitel und das Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Silikatforschung 1926–1945,” Ergebnisse 28. Vorabdrucke aus dem Forschungsprogramm “Geschichte der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft im Nationalsozialismus” (Berlin: 2006), 30–40Google Scholar; at the KWI for Bast Fiber Research, see Luxbacher, Günther, “Roh- und Werkstoffe für die Autarkie. Textilforschung in der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft,” Ergebnisse 18. Vorabdrucke aus dem Forschungsprogramm “Geschichte der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft im Nationalsozialismus” (Berlin: 2004), 38–42Google Scholar; at the KWI for Chemistry, see Walker, “Otto Hahn,” 19–29; Schmaltz, Florian, Kampfstoff-Forschung im Nationalsozialismus. Zur Kooperation von Kaiser-Wilhelm-Instituten, Militär und Industrie (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2005)Google Scholar, chapter III.

⁹⁴ MPG Archive, Abt. II/1A/(5–5)12: Memorandum February 14, 1947, 1.

⁹⁵ Ibid., 2.

⁹⁶ MPG Archive, Abt. I/1A/203: Telschow to Brandt, January 20, 1943, cited in Maier, Helmut, “‘Wehrhaftmachung’ und ‘Kriegswichtigkeit.’ Zur rüstungstechnologischen Relevanz des Kaiser-Wilhelm-Instituts für Metallforschung in Stuttgart vor und nach 1945,” Ergebnisse 5. Vorabdrucke aus dem Forschungsprogramm “Geschichte der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft im Nationalsozialismus” (Berlin: 2002), 16Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ Epple, Moritz, “Rechnen, Messen, Führen. Kriegsforschung am Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Strömungsforschung 1937–1945,” in Rüstungsforschung im Nationalsozialismus. Organisation, Mobilisierung und Entgrenzung der Technikwissenschaften, ed. Maier, Helmut (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2002), 305–356Google Scholar; Maier, “‘Wehrhaftmachung’ und ‘Kriegswichtigkeit’”; Maier, Helmut, Forschung als Waffe. Rüstungsforschung in der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft und das Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Metallforschung 1900–1945/48, 2 vol. (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2007)Google Scholar; Bernd Gausemeier, “An der Heimatfront. ‘Kriegswichtige’ Forschungen am Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Biochemie,” in Adolf Butenandt und die Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft, ed. Schieder and Trunk, 134–168; Gausemeier, Bernd, Natürliche Ordnungen und politische Allianzen. Biologische und biochemische Forschung an Kaiser-Wilhelm-Instituten, 1933–1945 (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2005)Google Scholar; Schmaltz, Kampfstoff-Forschung im Nationalsozialismus. This new research from the MPS research program “History of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society in the National Socialist Era” clearly shows that the various KWIs were not divided into “black and white sheep,” but rather that the crossovers between pure and applied research were fluid—and occurred in both directions. This was true in different ways for all the natural science disciplines represented in the KWG from physics and chemistry to the material sciences and the biosciences whereby the applications were just as multifaceted and could range from industrial and medical-therapeutic implementations to the development of weapons of mass destruction and racial-political selection proceedings. The KWG was no “survivor of the Swastika,” as Macrakis, Surviving the Swastika, called it in her groundbreaking-in-its-time book and that followed the self-projection of the KWP/MPG into the postwar era, but, with the continuum of its flexible research program, was rather an integral carrier of the National Socialist ruling regime. See Carola Sachse and Mark Walker, “Introduction: A Comparative Perspective,” in Politics and Science in Wartime, ed. Sachse and Walker, 1–20, and Hachtmann, Wissenschaftsmanagement im “Dritten Reich”; Macrakis, Surviving the Swastika, and Macrakis, Kristie, “‘Surviving the Swastika,’ Revisited: The Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft and Science Policy in Nazi Germany,” in Geschichte der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft im Nationalsozialismus. Bestandsaufnahme und Perspektiven der Forschung, ed. Kaufmann, Doris (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2000), 586–599Google Scholar.

⁹⁸ MPG Archive, Abt. II/1A/(5–5)12: Memorandum, February 14, 1947, 2.

⁹⁹ On Telschow, see Hachtmann, Eine Erfolgsgeschichte?, and Hachtmann, Wissenschaftsmanagement im “Dritten Reich,” vol. 2, 1126–1155, and passim; on Backe, see Heim, Kalorien, Kautschuk und Karrieren, 23–63. On the KWG's role as a mediator, see Sachse and Walker, eds., Politics and Science in Wartime, 15 f; a more general account is given in Ash, Mitchell, “Wissenschaft und Politik als Ressourcen für einander,” in Wissenschaften und Wissenschaftspolitik. Bestandsaufnahmen zu Formationen, Brüchen und Kontinuitäten im Deutschland des 20. Jahrhunderts, ed. Bruch, Rüdiger vom and Kaderas, Brigitte (Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag, 2002), 32–51Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ MPG Archive, Abt. II/1A/(5–5)12: Memorandum, February 14, 1947, 2.

¹⁰¹ On twenty-five KWG directors whose denazification proceedings could be reconstructed, nine were finally assessed as “hangers-on” and sixteen as “relieved”; see Beyler, “‘Reine’ Wissenschaft und personelle ‘Säuberungen,’” 50; a comprehensive list of the KWG personnel who were members of the National Socialist Party is not available. On the construction and use of rhetorical figures in the KWG's policy on dealing with the past, see Sachse, “‘Persilscheinkultur’”; Sachse, Carola, “Wissenschaftseliten und NS-Verbrechen. Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft und Max-Planck-Gesellschaft,” in Vergangenheitspolitik in der universitären Medizin nach 1945. Institutionelle und individuelle Strategien im Umgang mit dem Nationalsozialismus, ed. Oehler-Klein, Sigrid and Roelcke, Volker (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2007), 43–64Google Scholar; Heiko Stoff, “Adolf Butenandt in der Nachkriegszeit, 1945–1956, Reinigung und Assoziierung,” in Adolf Butenandt und die Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft, ed. Schieder and Trunk, 369–402; Schüring, Minervas verstoßene Kinder, 268–291; Hachtmann, Wissenschaftsmanagement im “Dritten Reich,” vol. 2, 1156–1193. On the corresponding figures used in science policy during the postwar period in West Germany, see Ash, Mitchell, “Verordnete Umbrüche—Konstruierte Kontinuitäten. Zur Entnazifizierung von Wissenschaftlern und Wissenschaften nach 1945,” Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft 43 (1995): 903–923Google Scholar; and Weisbrod, ed., Akademische Vergangenheitspolitik.

¹⁰² MPG Archive, Abt. II/1A/(5–5)12: Memorandum, February 14, 1947, 3.

¹⁰³ Ibid., 4.

¹⁰⁴ As before, the KWIs invited numerous guest researchers to Germany, and KWG scientists continued to travel abroad giving talks and visiting conferences; see Ronald Doel, Dieter Hoffmann, and Nikolai Krementsov, “National States and International Science: A Comparative History of International Science Congresses in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Cold War United States,” in Politics and Science in Wartime, ed. Sachse and Walker, 49–76; Weiss, Sheila, “‘The Sword of our Science’ as a Foreign Policy Weapon,” Ergebnisse 22. Vorabdrucke aus dem Forschungsprogramm “Geschichte der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft im Nationalsozialismus” (Berlin: 2005)Google Scholar; Carola Sachse, “Adolf Butenandt und Otmar von Verschuer. Eine Freundschaft unter Wissenschaftlern (1942–1969),” in Adolf Butenandt und die Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft, ed. Schieder and Trunk, 286–319; Hachtmann, Wissenschaftsmanagement im “Dritten Reich,” vol. 2, 793–808.

¹⁰⁵ Olga Elina, Susanne Heim, and Nils Roll-Hansen, “Plant Breeding on the Front: Imperialism, War, and Exploitation,” in Politics and Science in Wartime, ed. Sachse and Walker, 161–179; Heim, Kalorien, Kautschuk und Karrieren, 212–237.

¹⁰⁶ MPG Archive, Abt. II/1A/(5–5) 12: Note on the meeting with Col. Brunton on February 21, 1947.

¹⁰⁷ Ibid.: Various versions of the memorandum, the “last final version for Ministerpräsid.” is dated March 12, 1947.

¹⁰⁸ MPG Archive, Abt. II/1A/(5–6) 12: Ehard draft; Hahn to Min. Pfeiffer, April 8, 1947. See also Heinemann, “Der Wiederaufbau der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft,” 437.

¹⁰⁹ MPG Archive, Abt. II/1A/(5–7-1) 12: Telegram of April 1, 1947, Signed Max Planck, Otto Hahn, Adolf Butenandt, Werner Heisenberg, Richard Kuhn, Max von Laue, and Otto Warburg of the KWG, and Heinrich Wieland, Adolf Windaus, and Gerhard Domagk; Clay to Hahn, April 24, 1947; Brownjohn (Control Commission for Germany, British Element) to Hahn, May 6, 1947.

¹¹⁰ MPG Archive, Abt. II/1A/(5–7-3) 12: Note “Die Lage der KWG,” May 27, 1947; Abt. II/1A/(5–8-1) 12: Telschow to Hahn, June 25, 1947. On these events, see also Heinemann, “Der Wiederaufbau der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft.”

¹¹¹ MPG Archive, Abt. II/1A/(5–8-1) 12: Hahn to Kuhn, Bothe, Hausser, Köster, Rajewski, and Regener, June 12, 1947.

¹¹² RAC, Coll. RF, RG 1.1/717/3/19: Havighurst interviews (in the order cited) with Rajewski, September 26, 1947; Bothe and Kuhn, October 9, 1947; Kühn and Butenandt, October 6, 1947; Telschow, September 20, 1947.

¹¹³ Ibid.: Havighurst interview with Telschow, September 20, 1947.

¹¹⁴ Ibid.: Havighurst interview with Telschow, September 20, 1947.

¹¹⁵ Mann report, 23 and 70; RAC, Coll. RF, RG 1.1/717/3/19: Havighurst interview with Telschow, September 20, 1947. On Warburg's ambivalent role and how the RF assessed him, see Schüring, Minervas verstoßene Kinder, 326–328.

¹¹⁶ Walker, “Otto Hahn,” 19–29, describes this work in detail, and also shows, 38–40, how this work is reinterpreted in the FIAT Reports on Fundamental Research written by Hahn; “purely scientific chemical investigation of the elements that are created during uranium fission,” Otto Hahn, “Die deutschen Arbeiten über Atomkernenergie,” February 2, 1946, MPG Archive Abt. III/14/G183, 5–8.

¹¹⁷ RAC, Coll. RF, RG 1.1/717/3/19: Havighurst interview with Hahn, October 23, 1947.

¹¹⁸ Haevecker, H., “40 Jahre Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft,” in Jahrbuch der MPG zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V., 40 Jahre Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften 1911–1951 (Göttingen: 1951), 7–59Google Scholar, here 56. RAC, Coll. RF, RG 1.2/700/11/92, Havighurst diary 1948, 145–146: Conference with the Committee of the Max Planck Gesellschaft on the Library and Documentation Center of the Society, October 19, 1948.

¹¹⁹ In a letter to Hahn dated June 7, 1947, Clay had still insisted that the KWG be dissolved. See Hachtmann, Wissenschaftsmanagement im “Dritten Reich,” vol. 2, 1086.

¹²⁰ Letter from Wilkinson (Economic Division OMGUS) dated September 5, 1947, cited in Heinemann, “Der Wiederaufbau der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft,” 443. This letter was preceded by a meeting between Clay and Hahn on August 4, 1947, at which Hahn loudly and energetically argued the KWG's case; see Henning, Eckart and Kazemi, Marion, Chronik der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften 1948–1998, 2 vol. (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1998), vol. 1, 13Google Scholar (entry of September 10, 1947).

¹²¹ RAC, Coll. RF, RG 1.1/717/3/19: Havinghurst interview with Clay, October 28, 1947.

¹²² MPG Archive, Abt. II/1A/(5–9) 12: In a letter to Nordstrom dated October 13, 1947, Telschow had emphasized the following as basic principles of the future MPG: independence from governmental authorities, bureaucratic and political influence, and industry, and freedom in its use of funds. He had expressed them in a similar way in a letter to Havighurst on September 23, 1947.

¹²³ RAC, Coll. RF, RG 1.1/717/3/19: Havinghurst interview with Nordstrom, October 31, 1947.

¹²⁴ RAC, Coll. RF, RG 1.2/700/11/95: Robert Havighurst, Recommendations for Program in Germany and Austria, 1948, Chapter VI.

¹²⁵ Ibid.: Robert Havighurst, Recommendations for Program in Germany and Austria, 1948, Chapter VII.

¹²⁶ Krige, American Hegemony, 108–113.

¹²⁷ RF Annual Report 1951, 24. This statement refers directly to the reorganization of the Public Health and Medical Science Division, but broadly applies to the programmatic developments in the other divisions as well.

¹²⁸ Neither the numerous important and inspiring cases studies of the promotion of specific scientific areas nor the biographical oriented portrayals by Harr and Johnson in The Rockefeller Conscience, Fosdick in The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation, or Weaver in Scene of Change produce such an overdue comprehensive analysis. Without such an analysis, the correlation of individual provincial and/or theme-specific promotional programs and of the corresponding science policy decisions on the RF's changing program in the global political context remains somewhat speculative.

¹²⁹ Krige, American Hegemony, 8–14.

¹³⁰ Since, two years after the end of the war, the RF had not yet managed to decide on a program for Germany, at Havighurst's farewell visit to the American headquarters in October 1947, he was greeted by General Clay with the smug hope “that before long the RF would do something in Germany besides merely sending observers.” RAC, Coll. RF, RG 1.1/717/3/19: Havighurst interview with Clay on October 28, 1947; emphasis in the original.

¹³¹ See Hachtmann, Wissenschaftsmanagement im “Dritten Reich,” vol. 2, 1065, 1075–1080.

¹³² Krige, American Hegemony, 75 f., similarly described the role of foundations in postwar France and especially showed how the political independence demanded by the RF was provoked by the official American anti-Communism of the 1950s, 115–151.

¹³³ RF Annual Report 1951, 35–41 (quote: 41).

¹³⁴ RF Annual Report 1951: President's Review for 1950 and 1951, 5–98, passim.

¹³⁵ On the appropriation of scientific resources in the occupied countries and on the use of forced scientific labor by KWG research institutes, see Heim, Kalorien, Kautschuk und Karrieren, 152–193, 212–237, and Strebel, Bernhard and Wagner, Jens-Christian, “Zwangsarbeit für die Forschungseinrichtungen der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft 1939–1945,” Ergebnisse 11. Vorabdrucke aus dem Forschungsprogramm “Geschichte der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft im Nationalsozialismus” (Berlin: 2003)Google Scholar.

¹³⁶ RF Annual Report 1951: President's Review for 1950 and 1951, 30.

¹³⁷ On the personnel and content continuities in the German population science, see Susanne Heim and Ulrike Schaz, Berechnung und Beschwörung. Überbevölkerung—Kritik einer Debatte (Berlin: Verl. d. Buchläden Schwarze Risse, 1996), 91–137; on the role of the RF and especially John D. Rockefeller III in the international population policy after World War II, see ibid., 146–173.

¹³⁸ MPG-A, Abt. II, Rep. 1A, Nr. 4, 2–10: Hahn to Prälat Schreiber on September 2, 1946. Nevertheless, a number of representatives of industry took part in the inaugural meeting in Bad Driburg on September 11, 1946.

¹³⁹ Weaver, Scene of Change, 184.

¹⁴⁰ Arendt, Hannah, “Besuch in Deutschland. Die Nachwirkungen des Nazi-Regimes,” in Hannah Arendt, Zur Zeit. Politische Essays, ed. Knott, Marie Luise (Hamburg: Rotbuch-Verlag, 1999), 43–70Google Scholar (first published in English in 1950).

¹⁴¹ On the role of the British supporters of the KWG, see Oexle, Otto Gerhard, The British Roots of the Max Planck Society (London: German Historical Institute, 1995)Google Scholar; Oexle, “Hahn, Heisenberg und die anderen,” 27–41; and for a critique of it, see Sime, “Otto Hahn und die Max-Planck-Gesellschaft,” 39–41, and finally Hachtmann, Wissenschaftsmanagement im “Dritten Reich,” vol. 2, 1085–1100.

¹⁴² According to Krige, American Hegemony, 269, it does not depend on the fact that the concrete science policy plans of the U.S. in Europe actually let themselves be changed, but “that America's scientific accomplishments remained an omnipresent point of reference and a constant source of pressure for change in Europe, while U.S. recognition of European achievement was an essential source of scientific credibility and scientific capital.”