1. A recent bibliographical discussion is provided by Giles, Geoffrey, “National Socialism and the Educated Elite in the Weimar Republic,” in The Nazi Machtergreifung, ed. by Stachura, Peter (London and Boston, 1983). This article is particularly good regarding the students. Regarding the professors see Kelly, Reece, “National Socialism and German University Teachers: The NSDAP's Efforts to Create a National Socialist Professoriate and Scholarship,” (diss., University of Washington, 1973), and regarding individual fields of study and individual universities see Beyerchen, Alan, Scientist under Hitler: Politics and the Physics Community in the Third Reich (New Haven, 1977); Losemann, Volker, Nationalsozialismus und Antike (Hamburg, 1977); and Adam, Uwe, Hochschule und Nationalsozialismus: Die Universität Tübingen im Dritten Reich (Tübingen, 1977).Google Scholar

2. Harshorne, Edward Y., The German Universities and National Socialism (Cambridge, Mass., 1937), p. 93 and passim, was one of the first to calculate these losses but his calculations only go to 1937. Kohler, Fritz, “Zur Vertreibung humanistischer Gelehrter 1933/34,” in Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik, Vol. 11, No. 7 (1955):696–707, using a study edited by Plessner, Helmuth, Untersuchungen zur Lage der deutschen Hochschullehrer, Vol. 3 (Göttingen, 1956), believes that up to 39% of the professors and lecturers had been removed by 1938, p. 703. To understand how devastating these dismissals were for a discipline, in this case physics and mathematics, see Beyerchen, pp. 43ff.Google Scholar

3. For a review of the reactions of the professors to the regime, see Kelly, , pp. 51–74.Google Scholar

4. This is a view found in the sparse memoir literature of that period: Pascher, Joseph, Kunkel, Wolfgang, and Leist, Fritz in Die deutsche Universität im Dritten Reich; von Dietze, Constantin, “Die Universität Freiburg im Dritten Reich,” in Mitteilungen der List Gesellschaft, No. 3 (9 Aug. 1961):95–105; Kahle, Paul E., Bonn University in Pre-Nazi and Nazi Times, 1923–1939 (London, 1945); and Ritter, Gerhard, “Der deutsche Professor im Dritten Reich,” in Die Gegenwart (24 Dec. 1945):23–26.Google Scholar

5. Weinreich, Max, Hitler's professors. The Part of Scholarship in Germany's Crimes against the Jewish People (New York, 1946), p. 68.Google Scholar

6. Bonn, U[niversity]-archive, Ev. Theol. Fakultät, H. 5, “Niederschrift über die 24. Ausseramtliche Deutsche Rektorenkonferenz am 12. April 1933 in Wiesbaden.” At this conference Rust shared with several professors the outline of the new laws for students which among other things were intended to bring the students' revolutionary ardor under the control of the government. The professors were squeezed in the same vise of threats and enticements that the Nazis used on other groups and institutions as described so well by Bracher, Karl D., et al., Die nationalsozialististische Machtergreifung. Studien zur Errichtung des totalitaren Herrschaftssystems in Deutschland 1933–34 (Cologne, 1960), and Broszat, Martin, Der Staat Hitler, Grundlegung und Entwicklung seiner inneren Verfassung (Munich, 1969).Google Scholar

7. Kunkel, Wolfgang, “Der Professor im Dritten Reich,” in Die Deutsche Universität im Dritten Reich, p. 113.Google Scholar

8. Very few rectors of that time have attempted to explain or defend their actions in print. Heidegger, Martin, rector at Freiburg from May 1933 to February 1934, claimed that he had refused permission to post anti-semitic placards, forbidden the burning of books, and protected two Jews from being dismissed. Interview with Der Speigel, 23 Sept. 1966, but not published until 31 May 1976, Der Speigel, No. 23, Vol. 30:196, 199–201. There is no mention of similar efforts by Heidegger for many other Jews and others removed for political reasons during Heidegger's service as rector.Google Scholar

9. Pascher, Joseph, “Das Dritte Reich, erlebt an drei deutschen Universitäten,” in Die deutsche Universität im Dritten Reich, p. 49.Google Scholar

10. Hedermann, Justus Wilhelm, “Der Verband der Deutschen Hochschulen 1920–33,” in Mitteilungen des Hochschulverbandes, Vol. 2, No. 2 (June 1953): 1–5, esp. 2–3.Google Scholar

11. This attitude toward the Republic is the point of most literature on the university professors, see esp. Bracher, K.D., “Die Gleichschaltung der deutschen Universität,” pp. 126–142, and Sontheimer, Kurt, “Die Haltung der deutschen Universitäten zur Weimarer Republik,” pp. 24–42, Universitätstage 1966 . Töpner, Kurt, Gelehrte Politiker und politisierende Gelehrte. Die Revolution von 1918 im Urteil deutscher Hochschullehrer (Göttingen, 1970), and, Ringer, Fritz, Decline of the German Mandarins (Cambridge, 1969), pay somewhat more attention to the few professors who supported the Republic.Google Scholar

12. This concern is apparent in the publication of the Hochschulverband, Mitteilungen des Verbandes der Deutschen Hochschulen, especially from 1931 to 1933. See especially, Solger, F., “Die Statistik des Hochschulverbandes über den akademischen Nachwuchs,” ibid., Vol. 11, Nos. 1/2 (Feb. 1931):2–11; Borcherdt, H.H., “Das Nichtordinarianproblem an den deutschen Hochschulen,” ibid., Vol. 11, Nos. 3/4 (March 1931:32–36; Solger, , “Der akademische Nachwuchs,” ibid., Vol. 12, Nos. 11/12 (Dec., 1932):237–247; Borcherdt, , “Das Nichtordinarienproblem an den deutschen Universitäten,” ibid., 247–254; and other articles here.Google Scholar

13. Spranger, Eduard, “Mein Konflikt mit der nationalsozialistischen Regierung, 1933,” in Universitas, Vol. 10 (May, 1955):459.Google Scholar

14. Archive of the Institut für Zeitgeschlichte (I f Z hereafter), MA-618, fr. 1510480.Google Scholar

15. Ibid. Google Scholar

16. Ibid. Google Scholar

17. Ibid. Google Scholar

18. Ibid. Google Scholar

19. Bundesarchiv (BA hereafter), R43II/936, Akten der Reichskanzlei, telegram, Deutsche Studentenschaft to Hitler, , 18 May 1933, p. 127; and ibid., draft letter, Lammers, to Tillmann, , Berlin, 19 May 1933, pp. 129–130. Wolf, , rector at Kiel, defended his support of the students by citing similar support from several other rectors e.g., rectors from Freiburg, , Cologne, , Göttingen, , et al., U-archive, Hamburg, Ordner C 10.8, Vol. 2, letter to other rectors, 3 July 1933.Google Scholar

20. Satzung des Verbandes (1929).Google Scholar

21. The phrase “yes … but” comes from a description of the attitudes of the professors by an activist instructor of those days who evidently welcomed Hitler to power, Kloss, M., “Die Stellung des deutschen Hochschullehrers zum Nationalsozialismus,” Mitteilungen des Verbandes, Vol. 13, No. 7/8 (Oct., 1933): 108.Google Scholar

22. This distrust was well expressed by Frank, Walter, Kämpfende Wissenchaft (Hamburg, 1934), pp. 31–37; and Krieck, Ernst, “Restauration?—Nein! Revolution?—Ja!” in Volk im Werden, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1933):82.Google Scholar

23. BA, R21/1203, decree of the Prussian Ministry of Education, 11 Oct. 1933. A good analysis of the idea of the Führerprinzip in the universities is provided by Seier, Helmut, “Der Rektor als Führer,” in Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, Vol. 12, No. 2 (April, 1964): 105–146.Google Scholar

24. Kelly, , “National Socialism and German University Teachers,” pp. 155–177; and Losemann, Volker, “Zur Konzeption der NS Dozentenlager,” in Erziehung und Schulung im Dritten Reich, Teil 2, Heinemann, Manfred (Stuttgart, 1980), pp. 87ff.Google Scholar

25. BA, NS12/637, newspaper clippings from the Sächsische Schulzeitung, 3/34 (19 Jan., 1934).Google Scholar

26. State Archive Hamburg, Hochschulwesen II, Aa 38/1, Hess to all ministers of education and culture, 6 Nov., 1933, p. 9a. For a more extensive analysis of the politics of appointments and promotions than is possible here, see Kelly, Reece, “Die gescheiterte nationalsozialistische Personalpolitik und die misslungene Entwicklung der nationalsozialistischen Hochschulen,” in Heinemann, .Google Scholar

27. Ibid., Hess to Reich Ministry to Education and all other ministries of education and university authorities, 10 July, 1934, p. 24.Google Scholar

28. BA, NS8/177, Rosenberg, to Hess, , Berlin, 15 June 1934.Google Scholar

29. These charges were serious enough for Hess to bring up in order to deny them in a memorandum written in August, 1935, and sent to Hitler, in Jan., 1936, BA, NS10/53, Hess, to Wiedemann, , personal adjutant to the Führer and Reich Chancellor, Munich, 16 Jan., 1936, “Die Hochschulkommission.” Google Scholar

30. Broszat, , pp. 310–311 and Mommsen, , Beamtentum im Dritten Reich, p. 78.Google Scholar

31. Hess, , “Die Hochschulkommission,” pp. 67–68.Google Scholar

32. Kelly, , “National Socialism and German University Teachers,” pp. 224–226, 334–336. Schultze tried to supplement his efforts for gathering information by forming ties with the Sicherheitsdienst of the SS, ibid., pp. 333–334. Though Schultze originally had intended the Dozentenbund would consist of a militant group of party members, he quickly had to abandon these intentions since party members were few and since the party closed its ranks to new members until 1937. Moreover, Schultze needed more dues-paying members in order to help finance the Dozentenbund, and even then he had to depend on finances from the party treasurer. Computing from the rates for dues and the reported income from dues in yearly budget of the Dozentenbund, it is likely that several thousand university teachers paid dues to the Dozentenbund. Nevertheless, the leaders of the Dozentenbund never showed any confidence that so many were in their ranks with any enthusiasm and out of ideological convictions. Ibid., pp. 241–242.Google Scholar

33. Such concerns were expressed from every side. Rectors and Ministry officials and the SD reports and even the Dozentenbund expressed concern that a combination of low financial reward and high political risk was preventing young people from staying in or setting out on an academic career. Ibid., pp. 303–305.Google Scholar

34. BA, R21/809, “Vorschlag zum Aufbau tines Reichs-Dozentenwerks,” and ibid., draft outline of the decree announcing the Reichsdozentenwerk , Sept. 1936.Google Scholar

35. Berlin Document Center (BDC hereafter), Oberstes Parteigericht, Wirz, Franz, p. 144, Schultze, to Bacher, , Munich, 29 Jan. 1936.Google Scholar

36. BA, R21/809, “Protokoll über die Sitzung des Kuratoriums des Reichsdozentenwerks e. V. vom 12. Dec. 1936,” by Rudolph, , n.d.; and ibid., Schultze, to Vahlen, , Munich, , 15 Dec. 1936, and Schultze's “Protokoll über die Sitzung des Kuratoriums des Reichsdozentenwerkes am 12.12.36 in Berlin.” Google Scholar

37. Ibid., Huber, to Wacker, , 15 Jan. 1937.Google Scholar

38. Ibid., Popitz, to Rust, , Berlin, 8 Oct. 1936, and ibid., “Vermerk über die Entwicklung des Reichsdozentenwerkes,” Rudolph, 13 Jan. 1937.Google Scholar

39. Ibid., Wacker, to Schultze, , Berlin, 26 Jan. 1937.Google Scholar

40. Ibid., “Niederschrift über eine Besprechung im Staatsministerium des Innern vom 18. Januar 1937.” signed by both Huber and Schultze, who also signed for Hess and Wagner of the Hochschulkommision .Google Scholar

41. BA, R21/789, “Niederschrift über die Rektorenkonferenz in Marburg am 15. Dezember 1937,” and U-archive Hamburg, C 10.8, Vol. 2, “Rektoren-Konferenz in Marburg am 15. Dezember 1937,” summary dated 22 Dec. 1937.Google Scholar

42. U-archive Hamburg, C 10.8, Vol. 2, Sprecht, rector at Erlangen, to all other rectors, Erlangen, , 15 Oct. 1936; and ibid., Sprecht to all rectors, Erlangen 23 Oct. 1936.Google Scholar

43. BA, R21/815, “Niederschrift über die Rektorenkonferenz in Marburg am 15. Dez. 1937,” p. 85.Google Scholar

44. Ibid., p. 96. Huber, too, is reported to have urged the rectors to show more “civil courage” in not allowing interference from the outside, U-archive Hamburg, C 10.8, Vol. 2, “Rektoren-Konferenz in Marburg am 15. Dez. 1937,” p. 11.Google Scholar

45. BA, R21/815, “Niederschrift über die Rektorenkonferenz in Marburg am 15. Dez. 1937,” pp. 19–22; Kasper, Gerhard, ed., Die deutsche Hochschulverwaltung. Sammlung der das Hochschulwesen betreffenden Gesetze, Beordnungen und Erlasse (Berlin, 1943), Vol. 2, pp. 18ff.; BA, R21/815, Stenographischer Bericht über die Rektorenkonferenz am 7. und 8. März 1939,” pp. 42–54, 79, 82.Google Scholar

46. Ibid., R21/815, “Niederschrift über die Rektorenkonferenz in Marburg am 15. Dez 1937,” p. 21. Wacker's position is particularly interesting since he was known as an “old-fighter” for the party in Baden.Google Scholar

47. Ibid., p. 104.Google Scholar

48. Ibid. Google Scholar

49. Kelly, , “National Socialism and German University Teachers,” pp. 318–321.Google Scholar

50. BA, NS 20/98, Rundschreiben, No. 23/37, 28 May 1937; ibid., No. 24/37, 8 June 1937; and ibid., 54/37, 21 Oct. 1937.Google Scholar

51. A fairly representative sample of these letters are the 532 available in IfZ, MA-116 and IfZ, MA-141/1-11. Counting just those that are clearly strongly opposed or strongly in favor of the person for political reasons, there were only 42 of the former and 58 of the latter.Google Scholar

52. National Archives (NA hereafter), T81, R.51, fr. 53985, Freerksen, to Erxleben, , St. Blasien, 1 Sept. 1942.Google Scholar

53. BDC, Schürmann, , Korrespondenz Wissenschaft, esp. pp. 4472–4494, where several professors from Göttingen— Drescher-Kaden, F.K., Ebel, W., Passow, Richard, Seedorf, W., et al.—wrote to the rector in Bonn warning against Schürmann's call to Bonn. Also see Schürmann's “model” report of his activities at Göttingen, , “Bericht über das Dozentenbundsführerlager des Gaues Niedersachsen in Rittmarshausen am 24. und 25. Oktober 1936,” BA, NS20/97, Rundschreiben No. 41/36, 16 Nov. 1936, pp. 102–111.Google Scholar

54. BA, R21/815, Schultze, to Wacker, , Munich, 22 Nov. 1938. For the Ministry's response see ibid., handwritten memorandum to Huber, , 30 Nov. 1938, signature illegible; memorandum, Huber, to Kasper, and Wacker, , 2 Dec. 1938; and ibid., Wacker, to Schultze, , Berlin, 13 Dec. 1938.Google Scholar

55. BA, R21/815, Krüger, to Mentzel, , Munich, 8 Oct. 1940; draft letter, Mentzel, to Krüger, , Berlin, 16 Jan. 1941; and NA, T81, R.52, fr. 54767, Borger to Härtle, Munich, 5 May 1942.Google Scholar

56. NA, T81, R.52, frs. 54767–54768, Borger, to Härtle, , Munich, 5 May 1942.Google Scholar

57. Ibid. Google Scholar

58. IfZ, Reichsinstitut für die Geschichte des neuen Deutschlands, E 18, clipping from Westfalenischen Landeszeitung, No. 222 (16 Aug. 1936).Google Scholar

59. Ibid. Google Scholar

60. Ibid. Google Scholar

61. Kelly, , “National Socialism and German University Teachers.” pp. 403–411.Google Scholar

62. BA, NS8/170, Wacker, to Rosenberg, , Berlin, 19 March 1938.Google Scholar

63. This agreement was reached in February 1939, NA, T81, R.52, frs. 55229–55230. It was reached only after a characteristically long, drawn-out process of correspondence, negotiations, apparent agreement, differences, new agreement, confirmations, etc. See ibid., frs. 55255–55258; and ibid., R. 204, fr. 0356119.Google Scholar

64. NA, T81, R. 52, frs. 55219–55221, undated, unsigned memorandum very likely written by Heinrich Härtle in Rosenberg's, Amt Wissenschaft.Google Scholar

65. Ibid., frs. 55094–55104, “Grundsätzliches zum Verhältnis von Amt Wissenschaft und NSD-Dozentenbund,” memorandum written by Härtle, Heinrich and presented to Rosenberg on 14 June 1939.Google Scholar

66. This Rosenberg asserted on every occasion given him, but never with more self-satisfaction than in his diary entry of 7 February 1940 following the discussion of his commission to establish the party Hoheschule which he had with Hitler on 29 January 1940, Seraphim, Hans-Günther, Das politische Tagebuch Alfred Rosenberg 1934/35 und 1939/40 (Göttingen, 1956), pp. 100–101.Google Scholar

67. IfZ, MA-541, p. 1475, Bormann, to Rosenberg, , Munich, 20 January 1939, and Bormann, to Schultze, on the same dale, p. 1476; BA, NS8/184, Hess, to Rosenberg, , Munich, 31 August 1940; NA, T81, R.52, fr. 54790, Bormann, to Schultze, , Berlin, 31 January 1941; and frs. 54956–54969, Rosenberg, to Hess, , Berlin, 8 March 1941.Google Scholar

68. Schultze's benefactor and colleague in the anti-Semitic Ärztebund , Wagner, Gerhard, died in March, 1939, and for a while it appeared as though Schultze would replace him as head of the Hochschulkommission. However, Bormann in reorganizing Hess's office after his flight to England chose to put at the head of education affairs in the “Party Chancellery” a professional bureaucrat, Kurt Krüger.Google Scholar

69. Schultze managed to draw Himmler to a “Reich Congress of the Dozentenbund Academies” in Munich, and Schultze and other Dozentenbund leaders paraded about in their black SS uniforms, see Härtle's report, NA, T81, R. 52, frs. 55105–55112.Google Scholar

70. BA, R43II/941, Schultze, to Lammers, , Munich, 19 March 1941.Google Scholar

71. NA, T81, R.52, fr. 55214, Borger, to Rosenberg, , Munich, 25 February 1939; ibid., frs. 55041–55046, “Stellungnahme zu dem Organizationsplan des NSD-Dozentenbundes…,” 12 December 1940; Urban, to Faupel, , Reichs-Organizationsamt NSDAP, Berlin, 20 December 1940; and BA, NS1/497, memorandum by Schwartz, 23 December 1941.Google Scholar

72. NA, T81, R.52, fr. 55021, “An den Stellvertreter des Führers Reichsminister Rudolf Hess,” n.d. Google Scholar

73. Ibid., frs. 54878–54881, Härtle, to Borger, , Berlin, 17 September 1941; ibid., fr. 54898, Bormann to Rosenberg Führerhauptquartier, 11 September 1941; ibid., frs. 54875–54876, Krüger to Rosenberg, Munich 27 September 1941; and ibid., frs. 54822–54829. The agreement was spelled out in a document dated 14 October 1941, ibid., frs. 54805–54806. It finally received the signatures of Rosenberg, Bormann, and Schultze on 2 December 1941, NA, T580, R. 33, Ordner 225.Google Scholar

74. BA, NS15/77, “Bericht über die Zusammenkünft der Dozentenführer … 3. und 4. August 1942,” signature illegible, but written by a Rosenberg informer, 10 August 1942.Google Scholar

75. IfZ, MA-116/15, Schmid, Karl; Hiltner to the Partei Kanzlei , Munich, 17 June 1942.Google Scholar

76. Ibid., Schmid was not promoted until after 1945.Google Scholar

77. This study group seems to have been centered around Arthur Schürmann and Klaus Wilhelm Rath at Göttingen and Walter Thorns at Heidelberg. It was evidently Rath who wrote the evaluation of Peter for the Dozentenbund, cf. Kelly, , “National Socialism and German University Teachers,” pp. 432ff.Google Scholar

78. BDC, REM-Wacker, Schultze, to Wacker, , Munich, 19 March 1938.Google Scholar

79. IfZ, MA-116/12, Peter, Hans; Borger to the Partei Kanzlei , Munich, 21 April 1912.Google Scholar

80. Ibid., Erich Obst; Schultze to the Partei Kanzlei, Munich, 28 October 1941.Google Scholar

81. Kelly, , “National Socialism and German University Teachers,” pp. 39211.Google Scholar

82. Ibid.Google Scholar

83. Beyerchen, , passim.Google Scholar

81. IfZ, MA-116/17, Weizsäcker, Borger to the Partei Kanzlei, Munich, 17 November 1941. Borger, , acting as the representative of the central office of the Dozentenbund, in 1940 had chaired a debate between the “Aryan” physicists and the Einsteinian physicists where Weizsäcker argued the latter position. Beyerchen, , pp. 17611.Google Scholar

85. Ibid., p. 192.Google Scholar

86. Kelly, , “Die gescheiterte nationalsozialistische Personalpolitik,” passim .Google Scholar