Einstein (43 page)

In the spring of 1931 Einstein returned to Berlin and in the fall went back again to Pasadena to spend another winter there. When he again returned to Berlin in the spring of 1932, he arrived just in time to witness the principal act in the death agony of the German Republic.

In March 1932 a presidential election was to take place. The Imperial field marshal, the octogenarian Hindenburg, was the candidate of the Democrats and Socialists; his chief opponent was Adolf Hitler, the leader of the Right-radical revolutionaries. Thanks to the propaganda of Reich Chancellor Brüning, Hindenburg won the election. The Republicans and Democrats were jubilant, but the truth was that now the power was in the hands of an adherent of the former German monarchy. Under the influence of his immediate environment, he used the power to overthrow the Republic.

Hindenburg’s first act after his election in May was to compel Brüning, his most faithful champion and the man who had brought about his election, to resign as Chancellor. In his place he appointed Papen, a man who was resolved to rule with the support of bayonets and to eradicate every trace of republicanism and democracy. He announced to the Reichstag that a “fundamentally new regime” was beginning, now that the period of “materialism” was at an end. With the aid of the Reichswehr, he deposed the Prussian government.

Many scientists were happy at these developments. They believed that now the reins were in the hands of the military. Since the time of Bismarck they had been accustomed to the belief that for Germany as a state and people, the rule of the “professors” could only be harmful. The fall of the “intellectuals and democrats” would enable Germany to become great.

I can still recall very well a conversation that I had with Einstein in the summer of 1932. We were at his country home in Caputh. It was a log house, constructed of sturdy beams, and we looked out through enormous windows on the idyllic forest landscape. When a professor who was present expressed the hope that a military regime might curb the Nazis, Einstein remarked: “I am convinced that a military regime will not prevent the imminent National Socialist revolution. The military dictatorship will suppress the popular will and the people will seek protection against the rule of the junkers and the officers in a Right-radical revolution.”

Someone asked Einstein for his opinion of Schleicher, the “social general” who would perhaps soon seize power. “He will produce the same result as the present military dictatorship,” Einstein replied.

During this summer Abraham Flexner, the famous American educator, came to Caputh to interest Einstein in his new research institute at Princeton. “For the time being,” said Einstein, “I am still under obligation to spend the coming winter in Pasadena. Later, however, I shall be ready to work with you.”

When Einstein set out with his wife for California in the fall of 1932, and as they left the beautiful villa in idyllic Caputh, Einstein said to her: “Before you leave our villa this time, take a good look at it.”

“Why?” she asked.

“You will never see it again,” Einstein replied quietly. His wife thought he was being rather foolish.

In December, Schleicher became Chancellor. He wanted to form a new government based on the working class, but the power of President Hindenburg was exerted against him. Schleicher was only a transitional phase. At the end of January 1933, while Einstein was still in sunny California discussing with the astronomers of Mount Wilson Observatory the distribution of matter in space and similar problems of the universe, Schleicher resigned and President Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler, his opponent at the last presidential election, as Chancellor of the German Reich.

Heretofore no aspect of Marxism had been so repugnant to the German professors as the assertion that the evolution of scientific knowledge is influenced by political power. Their highest ideal was always the complete independence of science from politics and the sharp separation of the two. But now the political power had come into the hands of Chancellor Hitler and his party whose foremost principle was the primacy of politics over all fields of human life; over science just as much as over economic life, art, and religion.

The standpoint of the new government is understandable if one remembers that the new state not only appeared as a new political organization, but also claimed to represent a new philosophy and a new orientation in all fields of life. The new orientation was that every effort was to be directed toward the goal of serving the German people and the German race. This was the ultimate aim of science just as it was of any other activity.

This conviction that an entirely new
Weltanschauung
had to be taught at the universities led the government to put pressure on the university teachers. But since the freedom of science was one of the most favored slogans in the professorial world, the new government sought to introduce its goal by compulsion while retaining the old mode of expression as far as possible. The fine-sounding word “freedom” continued to be used, but it received a new meaning. The equivocal use of this word in earlier German philosophy had already prepared the ground for the National Socialist use. In an essay on “German Freedom” written under the influence of the first World War, the American philosopher George Santayana had already said:

“Freedom in the mouth of German philosophy has a very special meaning. It does not refer to any possibility of choice nor any private initiative. German freedom is like the freedom of the angels in heaven who see the face of God and cannot sin. It lies in such a deep understanding of what is actually established that you would not have it otherwise; you appropriate and bless it all and feel it to be the providential expression of your own spirit. You are merged by sympathy with your work, your country and the universe, until you are no longer conscious of the least distinction between the Creator, the state and yourself. Your compulsory service then becomes perfect freedom.”

A clear presentation of the practical application of this profound metaphysical theory was given by E. Krieck, German pedagogical leader at this period:

“It is not science that must be restricted, but rather the scientific investigators and teachers; only scientifically talented men who have pledged their entire personality to the nation, to the racial conception of the world, and to the German mission will teach and carry on research at the German universities.”

Thus a philosophical foundation was provided for the “cleansing” of the faculties of the German universities.

The first application of the new theories was in the eradication of all teachers at institutions of higher learning who on the basis of their racial origin were not considered fit to train the youth in the spirit of the new philosophy. In this group were all those who did not belong to the Germanic or Nordic, or, as it was frequently called, the Aryan race. This grouping of non-German or non-Aryans was meant specifically for the Jews, since it was believed that because of their history and education they formed a group that would tend to hinder the training in the spirit of the new rulers. The term “Jews” included not only those who professed the Jewish religion. The new government assumed a standpoint of neutrality toward religion as such What the National Socialists meant was the Jews as a race; but in this case there was no clear criterion by which to determine a racial Jew. Since such a definition was difficult to make and had to be arbitrary in some degree, the conscientious and thorough German professors believed that no racial “cleansing” could take place. Without a neat and tidy definition the German government would be unable to do anything.

But they were still unacquainted with the “pragmatic” spirit of the new philosophy. The definitions that were needed were produced with the greatest speed, even though they did not satisfy the requirements of the German professors with respect to anthropological, ethnological, or philological accuracy, or even logical consistency. From the very beginning it was obvious that there was no scientific definition of an “Aryan,” except that he was a person who spoke a language belonging to the “Aryan linguistic family.” Such a definition, however, was impossible; otherwise everyone who spoke Yiddish, which is basically a German dialect, would be an Aryan. Thus from the beginning it was not the “Aryan,” but rather the “non-Aryan”
who was defined. The definition of a non-Aryan included everyone who had at least one non-Aryan grandparent. The grandparents, however, were defined as non-Aryan if they professed the Jewish religion; they were defined, that is, in terms of a criterion that has nothing to do with race in the ethnological sense. It was simply taken for granted that two generations earlier there were no persons of Jewish origin who professed the Christian religion.

This cunning combination of definitions on the basis of origin and religion achieved the intended political purpose: namely, to exclude an entire group of people that it was feared could exert a dangerous political or ideological influence on the students. The definition, however, was not characterized by the scientific clarity and precision that the professors required. Quite a few would have been ready to co-operate in carrying out a political purge of the universities, but it would have to be done in a scientifically unobjectionable manner.

The attempt to exclude the Jews everywhere, but to talk only of non-Aryans, gave rise to many difficulties. According to the customary meaning and usage of the word “Aryan” prior to the advent of the Nazis, there were other non-Aryans besides the Jews. At first rather unpleasant sensations were aroused by the idea that such peoples as Hungarians and Finns, who were very popular with the National Socialists, were to be branded as non-Aryans. On the other hand, one could not very well call a Hungarian an Aryan. Consequently, it was decided that a non-Aryan status is determined by means of the official definition using the religion of the grandparents. Nevertheless, even if anyone — a Hungarian, for instance — can prove that he is not a non-Aryan, it does not follow that he is an Aryan. Thus one of the fundamental rules of ordinary logic was dropped: namely, the principle of the excluded middle, which says that a thing either has or does not have a certain characteristic; there is no other possibility. According to the new official mode of expression, however, a Hungarian was neither a non-Aryan nor an Aryan.

As the new regime achieved political successes the number of people who were neither Aryans nor non-Aryans grew ever greater. The Japanese were soon the outstanding members of this group. Finally, however, when their anti-British policy led the National Socialists to seek the friendship of the “Semitic” Arabs, the latter were also included among the “non-non-Aryans.” Previously the Jews had been opposed because, it was said,
they belonged to the “Semitic” race. Now, however, with the inclusion of this race among the noble races, it was asserted that the Jews did not belong to any race at all, but instead formed a mongrel “anti-race.”

But since a criterion of race that was not based on a religious confession was still wanted, it was finally decided to consider as related to the German race every other race that lived in “compact settlements” and not, like the Jews, scattered in separate cities and commercial centers.

The definition that had been so anxiously awaited was thus successful, and the universities were thoroughly purged according to this pattern. At first there were still several exceptions. All those professors were retained who had been appointed by the Imperial German government and not by the Republic, because it was assumed that the latter had favored the Jews. Furthermore, all those were allowed to remain who had fought for Germany or her allies in the World War of 1914–18.

In time, however, all these exceptions were dropped and the purge became more rigorous. Soon a further step was taken, and all teachers were dismissed whose wives were non-Aryans according to the official definition.

The “racial” purge was accompanied by a simultaneous political purge. But the principles upon which it was based were much less distinct. The professors who were dismissed included all those who had taken an active part in the work of the Social Democratic and Communist parties, or who had belonged to the Freemasons or to a pacifist organization. All other principles were vague. This purge was even more baffling than the racial one, since in the latter case the individual’s fate was predestined and he could do little to improve it. On the other hand, by means of good behavior anyone could hope to make good any previous political sins. Thus many professors who were formerly known as “democrats” now began to express in a very obtrusive manner their sympathy with the racial purge and with other catchwords of the ruling party. Or one saw such democratic sinners engaged in studying the application of the race theory to such fields as mathematics, chemistry, and so forth. On the other hand, many former supporters of the old nationalist and monarchist groups assumed an attitude of reserve toward the new masters. Actually some of those who had been victims of the first political purge were later reinstated after they had shown signs of “improvement.”

In order to make the change even more thorough, advantage
was taken of this opportunity to pension off, because of age, many older professors who were not suspect on either racial or political grounds. It was believed that they would be unable to adapt themselves to the new regime. As a result of all these measures it was possible to appoint many new teachers whom the government considered reliable and who it was believed would teach in the light of the new philosophy.

When the purge began, Einstein was fortunately not in Germany. It was immediately evident, however, that the hostility of the new rulers to certain scientific groups was concentrated to an astonishing and even frightening degree against Einstein. Just as the general enthusiasm for Einstein’s theory is an amazing phenomenon in the history of science, so the persecution of a man who advanced such abstract theories is likewise very puzzling.