PLANT BREEDING AND AGRARIAN RESEARCH IN KAISER-WILHELM … · plant breeding and agrarian research...

PLANT BREEDING AND AGRARIAN RESEARCHIN KAISER-WILHELM-INSTITUTES 1933–1945

BOSTON STUDIES IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

Editors

ROBERT S. COHEN, Boston UniversityJÜRGEN RENN, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science

KOSTAS GAVROGLU, University of Athens

Editorial Advisory Board

THOMAS F. GLICK, Boston UniversityADOLF GRÜNBAUM, University of PittsburghSYLVAN S. SCHWEBER, Brandeis University

JOHN J. STACHEL, Boston UniversityMARX W. WARTOFSKY, (Editor 1960–1997)

VOLUME 260

PLANT BREEDINGAND AGRARIAN

RESEARCH IN KAISER-WILHELM-INSTITUTES

1933–1945

CALORIES, CAOUTCHOUC, CAREERS

SUSANNE HEIM

123

Susanne Heim

c© Wallstein Verlag, Göttingen 2003Originally published – Kalorien, Kautschuk, Karrieren. Pflanzenzüchtung und landwirtschaftlicheForschung in Kaiser-Wilhelm-Instituten 1933–1945, Wallstein (Göttingen), 2003, translator: SorchaO’Hagan

ISBN: 978-1-4020-6717-4 e-ISBN: 978-1-4020-6718-1

Library of Congress Control Number: 2007936989

c© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmittedin any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recordingor otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exceptionof any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being enteredand executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.

Printed on acid-free paper

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

springer.com

Contents

Introduction: Politics and Agricultural Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Sources and Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Calories – Agricultural Research, the Food Economy and War . . . . . . . . . . 15Herbert Backe and Science Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Research on Plant and Animal Breeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Foreign Currencies, Genetics and the Fodder Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Autochthonous Animal Species and Artificial Insemination . . . . . 35

The Four-Year Plan, ‘Greater Europe’,and Substitute Substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Hydrobiology and Limnology for the Four-Year Plan . . . . . . . . . . . 46Institute Projects in South-Eastern Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Research on Native Textile Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Productivization of People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69The Science of Agricultural Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Work Physiology and Nutritional Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Résumé: War as Opportunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Caoutchouc – A Vital War Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97The Development of a Research Programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Dependence on Natural Rubber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98The Kok-Sagyz Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Slave Labour for Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118Kok-Sagyz Cultivation in German-Occupied Europe . . . . . . . . . . . 118Plant Breeding Research in Auschwitz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Résumé: Scientific Productivity and Terror . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Careers – Hans Stubbe and Klaus von Rosenstiel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155Two Breeding Researchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

The Pure Air of Scientific Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156The Seamy Side of Academic Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

The Advance of Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165Wild Plants as a Genetic Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165Research Organisation in the Occupied East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

v

vi Contents

Post-War Careers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184Résumé: Creators, Experts, Servants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193Science, Nazi Rule and War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

Acknowledgements

This study was completed as part of the research programme ‘History of the KaiserWilhelm Society in the National Socialist Era’, which was initially developed un-der the leadership of Doris Kaufmann and then continued by Carola Sachse. Mycolleagues in the research programme have helped in the creation of this book overa number of years, with discussions, criticism and much useful information. I amparticularly indebted to them. During my literature research, the staff of the libraryof the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science assisted me with admirablecompetence and enthusiasm. I owe thanks to them and to Axel Hüntelmann andAnke Pötzscher, without whose help on a variety of details the book could not havebeen produced in its current form. Christine Rüter edited the manuscript in an ex-tremely professional, careful and meticulous manner and improved it in all mannerof ways. Thank you!

I am grateful to Simone Floersheim, Maria Ossowski, Eva Tichauer and BrigitteUllrich, who agreed to be interviewed and who patiently answered all my subse-quent questions. I would also like to thank Brigitte Ullrich for providing a greatdeal of expert information on the breeding of rubber plants.

The Presidential Commission of the Max Planck Society supported my workmost generously. I owe heartfelt thanks to the Commission in general and in par-ticular to its Chairman, Reinhard Rürup, who contributed valuable ideas during thefinal editing phase.

A number of personal friends read the manuscript of this study at various phasesof its development, in full and in part, and helped with criticisms, suggestions andencouragement. They know, as do I, how much I owe them.

vii

Abbreviations

AdBBAW Archive of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of SciencesAmt W Amt Wirtschaft (part of the WVHA (see below))AOK Armeeoberkommando (Army Headquarters)Aufbaustab “K” Aufbaustab Kaukasus (a spy organisation)BA Bundesarchiv (Federal Archive)BDC Berlin Document CenterBdK Bevollmächtigter für das Kraftfahrwesen (Plenipotentiary General for

Automotive Affairs)BStU Bundesbeauftragter für die Unterlagen des Staatssicherheitsdienstes der

ehemaligen DDR (Federal Commissioner for the Records of the NationalSecurity Service of the Former German Democratic Republic)

Chefgruppe La Chefgruppe Landwirtschaft (the Agriculture Group of Göring’s Economic StaffEast, under Herbert Backe)

Chefgruppe W Chefgruppe Wirtschaft (the Economics Group of Göring’s Economic Staff East)DAF Deutsche Arbeitsfront (German Labour Front)DFG Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation)ERR Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg (the special task force set up to seize cultural

assets in the occupied territories)GBChem Generalbevollmächtigter für Fragen der chemischen Erzeugung (the

Plenipotentiary General for Special Issues of Chemicals Production)HJ Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth)HSSPF Höherer SS- und Polizeiführer (Higher SS and Police Führer)IMG/IMT Internationaler Militärgerichtshof (International Military Tribunal)KfG Kopiensammlung für Grieger (archival note)KVR Kriegsverwaltungsrat (a civilian SS officer)KWS Kaiser Wilhelm SocietyKWI Kaiser Wilhelm InstituteMPS Max Planck SocietyMPI Max Planck InstituteMWT Mitteleuropäischer Wirtschaftstag (Central European Economic Conference)

ix

x Abbreviations

NA National ArchivesNL Nachlaß (unpublished works/literary estate)NSD Nationalsozialistischer Dozentenbund (National Socialist Lecturers’ Association)NSV Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt (NS People’s Welfare Organization)OKH Oberkommando des Heeres (High Command of the Army)OKW Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (High Command of the Armed Forces)LG Landgericht (district court)PA Personalakte (Human resources file)PA AA Politisches Archiv, Auswärtiges Amt (Political archive of the German Foreign

Office)RA Reichsamt (Reich Office)REM Reichsministerium für Wissenschaft, Erzieung und Volksbildung (Reich Ministry of

Science, Education and Popular Culture)RFR Reichsforschungsrat (Reich Research Council)RFSS Reichsführer SS (i.e. Himmler)RK Reichskommisariat (Reich Commissariat)RKF Reichskommissar für die Festigung deutschen Volkstums (Reich Commissioner for

the Strengthening of German Nationhood)RMEL Reichsministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (Reich Ministry of Food and

Agriculture)RMfbO Reichsministerim für die besetzten Ostgebiete (Reich Ministry for the Occupied

Eastern Territories)RMIn Reichsministerium des Innern (Reich Ministry of the Interior)RWM Reichsministerium für Wirtschaft (Reich Ministry of Economic Affairs)SBZ Sowietische Besatzungszone (the Soviet-occupied zone which later formed the

GDR)SD SicherheitsdienstSS-Ogruf. SS-ObergruppenführerStA Staatsanwaltschaft (public prosecutor’s office)TG Technische Gutsberatung (Technical Land Management)uk unabkömmlich (indispensable, i.e. released from military service)USHMM United States Holocaust Memorial MuseumVoMi Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle (Office for the Repatriation of Ethnic Germans)V-Waffe Vergeltungswaffe (‘vengeance weapon’)WiIn Wirtschaftsinspektion (Economic Inspectorate)WiStab Wirtschaftsstab (Economic Staff)WVHA Wirtschaftsverwaltungshauptamt (SS Economic and Administrative Main Office)ZfO Zentrale für Ostforschung (Centre for Research on the East)ZK Zentralkommittee (Central Committee)ZStL Zentrale Stelle der Landesjustizverwaltungen zur Aufklärung von NS-Verbrechen in

Ludwigsburg

Introduction: Politics and Agricultural Research

Of the three terms that form the title of this volume, ‘calories’, ‘caoutchouc’ and‘careers’, none carries undertones of the ‘blood and soil’ ideology or the romanti-cised view of agriculture that are often seen as the typical characteristics of NationalSocialist agricultural policies. And indeed, the subject under investigation in thisbook is not the backward-looking ideas of men such as Richard Walther Darré,1

wallowing in myths of peasants inextricably linked with their native soil. Rather, thisstudy examines a variety of attempts to eliminate continental Europe’s dependenceon imports of raw materials from overseas, examining in particular the relationshipbetween science and war. The investigation focuses on scientists working at theKaiser Wilhelm Institutes that specialised in agricultural and food research, and howthese individuals behaved towards the Nazi state and its expansionary policies. TheKaiser Wilhelm Society (KWS), founded in 1911, was an umbrella organization thatoversaw a range of scientific research institutes (KWIs). These were given excellentmaterial support and were devoted to fundamental research in specific fields of sci-ence. The funding of the institutes came from the German state and partly dependingon the institutes, from German industry. In contrast to university-based researchers,those at KWIs had no teaching obligations. The study forms part of the researchprogramme ‘History of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society in the National Socialist Era’,which is funded by the Max Planck Society, and is a summary of the findings of theproject ‘ “East” and “Lebensraum” Research at Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes’.

The political concept of Lebensraum [‘living space’], according to which theGermans saw themselves as ‘a people without space’, also took a scientific form. Assuch, it became linked with disciplines such as geography, spatial research, history,sociology and demography that used a variety of data to provide a rationale forstrategies of spatial conquest.2 At first glance, the natural sciences would seem tobe far removed from this kind of ideologised science. But agricultural research was

1 Darré had a degree in agriculture and was Minister of Food and Education from 1933 to 1944. Heoutlined his ideas on the role of the peasantry in the ‘national renewal’ of Germany in two books,Das Bauerntum als Lebensquell der Nordischen Rasse (The Peasantry as the Life Source of theNordic Race) (1929) and Neuadel aus Blut und Boden (A New Nobility from the Blood and theSoil) (1930).2 Köster, Rede über den ‘Raum’.

S. Heim, Calories, Caoutchouc, Careers, 1–13.C© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008 1

2 Introduction: Politics and Agricultural Research

in fact assigned a very specific role within the Lebensraum concept. This was tocarry out targeted research that would allow the territories seized in the east to beexploited in order to meet the needs for food and raw material of Germany, and laterof the European continent.

Germany suffered serious food shortages during the First World War. Afterwards,it was believed that this was one of the main reasons for the country’s defeat. Insimplified terms, agricultural and food policy before and during the war had beenbased on the erroneous beliefs that the war would not last long and that it wouldnot disrupt agricultural production to any major extent. Both assumptions provedfalse, but those in political power did not realise this until it was too late. Massconscription drastically reduced the supply of labour available for agriculture, andthe use of large amounts of nitrogen by the explosives industry reduced the supplyof artificial fertiliser, which also depended on nitrogen as a raw material. Above all,the war disrupted imports of animal fodder; this had a negative effect on livestockkeeping and thus on the supply of protein foods.3 During the second half of the war,especially in the ‘turnip winter’ of 1917/1918, the consequences of this supply crisisbecame dreadfully evident. The experience of this famine ‘had a similar effect onthe civilian population as the often-cited experiences of the soldiers at the front’4

and led to a huge loss of confidence in the government; reinforced by other factors,this culminated in the revolution of November 1918.

The consequences of this collapse of the agricultural economy could be felt foryears afterwards. Soils were exhausted and animal stocks had been decimated; in-vestment in both buildings and machinery had ceased during the war years, so thatmany were outdated and in need of repair. As a result, agricultural productivityremained fairly low for a considerable length of time, generally reaching pre-warlevels only by the mid-1920s.

As in other sectors of the economy, the efforts to redevelop agriculture after thewar were accompanied by a comprehensive debate about rationalising and intensi-fying production. The Reich Settlement Act (Reichssiedlungsgesetz) was passed in1919, with the dual aims of creating settlements for demobilised soldiers and usingagricultural land more efficiently. This process of ‘inner colonisation’ was intendedto compensate for the territory that had been lost after the war. Discussions on re-organising agriculture also focused on the conclusions that should be drawn fromthe collapse of the food economy during the war, to ensure that German agriculturewould be better prepared for a future conflict. Those concerned with agriculturalpolicy were in no doubt that productivity had to be increased if the country was to in-crease its self-sufficiency in agricultural products and thereby reduce its dependenceon imports. To do this, they felt, it would be necessary to completely reform agrariansocial structures and to rationalise work. And ideas on how to reduce the amount oflabour needed and how to apply scientific methods to organising work practicesin farms were already in demand in any case: from the mid-1920s onwards, the

3 Kutz, ‘Kriegserfahrung’, p. 69.4 Ibid., p. 61.

Introduction: Politics and Agricultural Research 3

general recovery of industry and the increase in urban wages once again led to labourshortages in agriculture. New training institutes were planned, where compulsoryattendance might sometimes be used to increase skills levels. Women, in particular,were to receive training because, in the eyes of the agricultural experts, their abilitieshad been proven during the war.5 In addition, the experts believed that supplies offertiliser had to be increased, that the cooperatives needed to be rationalised, andthat the mechanisation of agriculture had to be speeded up.6

Developments such as these also turned the agricultural sector into a promisingmarket for industry, especially for the armaments industry, which had been forcedby the Treaty of Versailles to reallocate much of its capacity. The agricultural histo-rian Volker Klemm has established that ‘an expanding agriculture, and agriculturalproduction that was based more closely on science, i.e. more efficient . . . providednew opportunities for promising investments’. There was the prospect of ‘increasingdemand for modern agricultural machinery, equipment, facilities, buildings, higher-performance seed and livestock, more effective mineral fertilisers, chemical pesti-cides and industrially-produced fodder’.7 Low-interest loans were used to encourageinvestment in these areas. Investments by farmers were further influenced by rela-tively low prices for agricultural machinery and other industrial goods, and targetedpropaganda promoted intensification, so that what has occasionally been called a‘wave of rationalisation’ is described as having passed over German agriculture.8

The consequences for peasant agriculture will be described here only in brief,more or less in note form: Indebtedness grew quickly, leading to a surge in farmforeclosures and, from 1928 onwards, to the development of a militant peasants’movement in northern Germany.9 Although this movement was organised by peas-ants and focused on foreclosures and the extent to which farms were in debt becauseof taxes and loans, it attracted agitators from the cities on both the left and theright. They whipped up feelings against the Weimar ‘system’ and the ‘shame ofVersailles’, picking up on ‘an antipathy towards large cities that had flared up in1929/1930 as never before’.10

The question of most interest for the present study is to what extent the intensifi-cation and modernisation of agriculture influenced the development of agriculturalresearch in Germany. From the early 1920s onwards, many research institutes andexperimental farms were set up – in 1922, the Experimental and Research Cen-tres for Dairy Farming (Versuchs- und Forschungsanstalten für Milchwirtschaft) inKiel (for northern Germany) and in Weihenstephan (for southern Germany), andsimilar centres for animal breeding in Tschechnitz, near Breslau, and in Grub, nearMunich. In 1923, the Research Centre for Cereals Processing (Forschungsanstalt für

5 Von Braun, Hebung der landwirtschaftlichen Produktion, p. 16.6 Aereboe, Agrarpolitik, p. 553; Ritter, Einwirkung, p. 110.7 Klemm, Agrarwissenschaften, p. 8.8 Poppinga, Bauern, p. 44.9 Between 1924 and 1928, the total indebtedness of German agriculture increased from 3 billionto almost 10 billion Reichsmark; Stoltenberg, Politische Strömungen, p. 108.10 Bergmann, Agrarromantik, p. 325.


Getreidearbeiten) was set up in Berlin, and, in 1924, two research centres on fruit-growing and market gardening in Eisenheim (in Bavaria) and in Berlin–Dahlem.Further institutes followed, researching agricultural work practices and market reg-ulations, and other agricultural topics.11 The universities at Gieÿen, Göttingen,Hohenheim (near Stuttgart), Leipzig, Halle, Jena, Hamburg and Königsberg allestablished their own independent institutes for animal breeding and dairy farm-ing. Within a few years, the Agricultural College in Berlin (LandwirtschaftlicheHochschule) developed its Institute of Animal Breeding and Genetics of DomesticAnimals, and became a world leader in its subject; the agricultural institutes at theUniversity of Breslau were among the best equipped in Europe.12

The KWS was rather slow to follow these examples. In 1922, it took overthe poorly-equipped German Entomological Institute in Berlin–Dahlem (DeutschesEntomologisches Institut), which had been founded in 1886 as the National Ento-mological Museum and was concerned with the control of insects believed to bedamaging to agriculture and forestry.13 But it was not until 1928 that the KWSopened its first new institute dealing with agricultural research, the KWI for PlantBreeding Research (KWI für Züchtungsforschung) in Müncheberg. Plans for thisinstitute had been developed some 11 years previously, but had been left on icein the meantime. The new institute was mainly concerned with issues related toplant utilisation, such as developing new strains and increasing crop yields.14 In themid-1930s, the KWS took over two further institutes that had been created duringthe boom of the early 1920s: the Institute for Limnological Research and Lakes Ex-ploitation (Institut für Seenforschung und Seenbewirtschaftung) and the Bast FibreResearch Institute (Institut für Bastfasererforschung). In 1938, the Society decidedto set up an Institute for Animal Breeding Research (Institut für Tierzuchtforschung)in Dummerstorf, near Rostock. During the Second World War, the Society greatlystrengthened its agricultural science expertise: the Institute for the Science of Agri-cultural Work (Institut für landwirtschaftliche Arbeitswissenschaft) in Breslau wasformally opened in 1940, the German-Bulgarian Institute for Agricultural Research(Deutsch-Bulgarisches Institut für landwirtschaftliche Forschung) was set up inSofia in 1942, and the Vine Breeding section at the KWI for Plant BreedingResearch was converted into a separate institute, but initially remained atMüncheberg. And, in 1943, the KWI for Cultivated Plants (KWI für Kulturpflanzen-forschung) was opened in Vienna.

During the first 30 years of the twentieth century, biology in general and geneticsin particular developed rapidly, and breeding research was part of this development.At the Müncheberg institute, experiments focusing on increasing crop yields wereaccompanied by basic research on genetics. By this time, the decisive role that genesplayed within the cell nucleus had been recognised, but the precise manner in which

11 Tornow, Entwicklungslinien, p. 123.12 Klemm, Agrarwissenschaften, p. 10.13 Jansen, ‘Schädlinge’.14 On the KWI for Plant Breeding Research and differences between its methods and those of theKWI for Biology, see Harwood, Styles, esp. chapter 6, and Gausemeier, ‘Netzwerk’.


this worked was not yet clear; nor was it known what role cell plasma played ininheritance, to what extent environmental factors could influence hereditary charac-teristics, or what role mutation played in evolution.15 Genetics formed the basis ofinterdisciplinary cooperation between zoologists, botanists and chemists, establish-ing itself as a primary biological discipline. For breeding research in particular – asfor eugenics – the apparent link between hereditary characteristics and individualgenes opened up the possibility of ‘improvements’ by breeders and eugenicists,although a range of other practical factors also came into play in practical breed-ing work. Genetics based on Mendel’s laws provided the plant breeders with thescientific basis for new selection processes, promising more targeted breeding ofindividual characteristics than had been possible with the simple selection breedingprocesses used until then.

German genetics research was also at the leading edge of the discipline world-wide, especially after the Fifth International Congress of Genetics was held in Berlinin 1927. After this conference, there was a revival of contacts between Germanscientists and their foreign colleagues that had been dormant since the First WorldWar. Erwin Chargaff, a biochemist who did postdoctoral work at the Institute forHygiene at Berlin University in the early 1930s, describes in his memoirs the inter-disciplinary nature of research in natural sciences and the sense of new beginningsand openness to new ideas that he found in academic circles in Berlin, making itrefreshingly different from the ‘nagging, malevolent, and immobile Vienna’16 thathe had encountered previously. Chargaff’s memoirs do not otherwise tend to idealisethe past, but this epoch is presented as a period during which he himself felt ‘thatthe last rays of the setting sun of the civilized 19th century were falling on myhead’, and as one of the ‘greatest eras’ in the Kaiser Wilhelm Society.17 For Chargaffthis was part of a better world that was disappearing before his eyes, a world thathad nothing to do with the ominously approaching era of National Socialism. Likemany of his contemporaries, Chargaff did notice the increasing political instability,but at the same time enjoyed ‘the most sparkling cultural life that [he would] everencounter’.18 His colleague Georg Melchers, who worked at the KWI for Biologyfor many years, reports a similar atmosphere in Göttingen during the same period;the enthusiasm for new discoveries and interesting scientific questions allowed himto push to the back of his mind the harbingers of National Socialism that werebecoming noticeable (in the university perhaps even more so than outside).19 BothChargaff and Melchers rejected the Nazi regime, albeit from different perspectives.As a Jew, Chargaff was forced to emigrate and left Germany in the spring of 1933,while Melchers was able to stay in the country and continue his research throughoutthe war. Both were fascinated by the new scientific territory being explored and

15 Sapp, Beyond the Gene, esp. p. 54.16 Chargaff,Heraclitean Fire, p. 48.17 Ibid., p. 51.18 Ibid., p. 75.19 Melchers, ‘Ein Botaniker’.


the stimulating atmosphere, especially within the Kaiser Wilhelm institutes, andignored the fact that science in general, and biology in particular, was in no sensean alternative world untouched by political realities.

One of the main pioneers in establishing genetics as a leading biological sub-discipline was Erwin Baur, director of the KWI for Plant Breeding Research, anda scientist with exceptional organisational skills. His close links with leading seed-breeding companies had played a major role in the foundation of the new institute,which had been set up to investigate plant breeding issues of practical relevance thatwere too complicated for commercial plant breeding companies to explore. Baurcombined an interest in scientific issues that had practical applicability with strongopinions on agricultural policy, which should, he believed, be focused on achievingautarky. He was also a committed member of various eugenic and racial hygiene as-sociations20 and was involved in the publication of relevant journals. Baur believed,in Harwood’s words, that genetics was ‘the key element in a rationally planned so-ciety’21 and as relevant to increasing agricultural production as it was to controllingsupposed ‘signs of degeneration’ in human society by means of population policy.Harwood describes Baur as a typical exponent of a pragmatic way of thinking thatdeveloped in science during the first 30 years of the twentieth century. He contraststhis with the style that developed at the KWI for Biology, which was founded in1915.22 There, research focused less on short-term results and on the ‘improvement’of crop plants, and more on issues of developmental biology and the theory of evo-lution.23 Broadly speaking, practical breeding research at the Müncheberg institute,and research into theoretical biology at the KWI for Biology, were separated ininstitutional terms, but their research goals often overlapped and influenced eachother. After all, it was also in the interest of breeding researchers that answers tobasic biological questions would be found.

The research subjects used to gain these insights were usually the standard ob-jects used by genetics research i.e. plants such as the snapdragon Antirrhinum majusand the willowherb Epilobium, or animals such as the Drosophila fly or the flowermoth, all of which could easily be reproduced under laboratory conditions and hada limited number of chromosomes, or in which hereditary characteristics could betraced particularly well for other reasons. In addition, research was carried out on‘practical’ subjects such as maize or, especially in the US, mice.

Although work had only just begun on understanding the complex issues sur-rounding genetic inheritance, some scientists, in particular the ‘pragmatists’, feltentitled to draw implications for humans and human society from their new knowl-edge, by warning against ‘signs of degeneration’ and calling for active ‘genetic

20 For example, Baur was a member of the German Society for Genetics (Deutsche Gesellschaftfür Vererbungswissenschaft) and the German Society for Racial Hygiene (Deutsche Gesellschaftfür Rassenhygiene); Weindling, Health, p. 301. See also Gilsenbach, ‘Erwin Baur’, and Kröner etal., Erwin Baur; Hagemann, Erwin Baur.21 Harwood, Styles, p. 240.22 Ibid., pp. 227–274.23 Gausemeier, ‘Netzwerk’; Harwood, Styles.


care’ (Erbpflege).24 And because of this tendency to transfer the findings and valuejudgements developed in plant and animal breeding more or less unquestioningly tohuman genetics and social conditions, agricultural research is deserving of attention,beyond its direct area of influence, because it also influenced the eugenics debate.

Under Nazi rule, however, breeding research had no need to attempt to legitimiseitself as a test area for eugenics, although it did gain prestige and importance inthe context of the general debate on eugenics and racial hygiene. Its importancewas unquestioned because it contributed to increasing agricultural productivity in anumber of ways. From the start, breeding research formed part of the scientific basisfor the ‘production battle’, the autarky policy and the Four-Year Plan to prepare fora possible war. At this point only slightly over 80% of German consumption of agri-cultural products was supplied by home production; indeed, for some products, thepercentage imported was considerably more than 20%. Agricultural science couldboast that it had contributed to a considerable increase in per-hectare yields in agri-culture over the first 30 years of the twentieth century, even though it took years foroverall agricultural productivity to recover from the First World War and regain its1914 levels. And Germany was not the only country in which increasing productionand import substitution were seen as goals for agriculture research, just as the ideaof autarky was not a German invention.

Immediately after taking power, the Nazi government created a number of agri-cultural policy instruments. The Reich Food Estate (Reichsnährstand) was set upin 1933. Membership of this organisation was compulsory for all those involved inthe production and marketing of agricultural products, i.e. farmers/peasants, farmworkers, dealers and the entire processing industry.25 Market regulations were in-troduced for the most important agricultural products, under which farmers weregiven guaranteed prices for their products. It must be said, however, that the priceswere fixed at a relatively low level, while prices for equipment and supplies couldvary. In addition, obligatory cartels were introduced for processing companies.26

The fundamental goal of the market regulations was to keep consumer prices forthe most important foodstuffs low, or rather to ensure that they could be adjusted bythe state in order to cater to the interests of either peasants or industry, dependingon the situation. This set of instruments was accompanied by the introduction of theHereditary Entailment Act (Reichserbhofgesetz), which protected peasants from debtforeclosure but also placed strict limitations on their ability to use the land as collateralfor loans, to sell it or to have it disposed of as they wished after their death.27

24 On the linking of discourses on plant genetics and human genetics, not just in Germany but alsoin the US and the Soviet Union, see Flitner, ‘Agrarische Modernisierung’, p. 94; Kühl, Interna-tionale der Rassisten. Weindling, Health, p. 301 refers to Erwin Baur, among others, who usedhis knowledge of plant genetics to justify his eugenic demands and would use the example of afield of wheat or a strain of Antirrhinum majus to explain the results that degeneration and negativeselection would have on the population.25 Corni/Gies give an extensive account of the Reichsnährstand; see Corni/Gies, Brot, pp. 75–250.26 Grundmann, Agrarpolitik; Bauer, Nationalsozialistische Agrarpolitik, pp. 43–46.27 Grundmann, Agrarpolitik.


Along with these changes in the system for production and sale of agriculturalproducts, far-reaching reforms were also introduced in the organisation of agricul-tural research. The main agent of these changes was Konrad Meyer, a professor ofagricultural science and, from 1933 onwards, a head of department in the ReichMinistry of Education.28 In the latter role, he reorganised agricultural research atuniversities and colleges with the aim of ensuring that they were based on the guid-ing principles of Nazi agricultural policy.29 After only a few months, Meyer initiatedthe Reich Working Group on Agricultural Science (Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft fürLandbauwissenschaft) to improve the coordination of the numerous research groupsand to focus their activities on issues related to agricultural practice and the priori-ties of Nazi agricultural policy. The organisation was renamed the Research Service(Forschungsdienst) in the following year. As head of this new compulsory bodyfor agricultural science, Meyer had acquired far-reaching powers.30 After the warstarted, he became head of Himmler’s Planning Office (Planungsamt) and was oneof the authors of the General Plan for the East (Generalplan Ost), which envis-aged the forced resettlement and murder of several million Russian civilians and the‘Germanisation’ of large areas of the occupied territories.31

In 1934, some two years before economic preparations for war were commencedunder the aegis of the Four-Year Plan, an agricultural ‘Production Battle’ was pro-claimed. The main purpose of this campaign was to increase domestic agriculturalproduction so that foreign currency that would otherwise have been needed for im-porting food could be reallocated to imports of armaments.32 Agricultural researchwas to contribute to this goal (and had been doing so since before the ‘ProductionBattle’ was proclaimed) by carrying out research on plants containing oils and pro-teins. These would, it was hoped, help fill the ‘fats gap’ and ‘protein gap’ that hadbeen identified in agricultural production. When the Four-Year Plan was launched,this aim of import substitution was stepped up further. Along with the production offoodstuffs, a new objective was to grow crops for industrial use, such as fibre cropsfor producing alternative fabrics.

Under the leadership of Konrad Meyer, who, in addition to his other roles, washead of the ‘Agricultural Science and General Biology’ branch of the newly-foundedReich Research Council (Reichsforschungsrat) from 1937 onwards, and had been

28 Meyer had studied agricultural sciences in Göttingen (where one of his teachers was the laterdirector of the KWI for Biology, Fritz von Wettstein) and had obtained his Ph.D. with a thesis onwheat genetics. After spending two years working in agriculture, he returned to the Institute forPlant Cultivation at the University of Göttingen as an assistant and, during the period that followed,had a major part in disseminating Nazism throughout the university; Becker, ‘Nahrungssicherung’,p. 635. See also Hammerstein, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, pp. 175–179; Stoehr, ‘VonMax Sering zu Konrad Meyer’. In Meyer’s unpublished autobiography, Über Höhen und Tiefen(Through Highs and Lows) (typewritten manuscript), he describes his work as a research organiserin detail. I am grateful to Matthias Burchard, who made this document accessible to me.29 Becker, ‘Nahrungssicherung’, p. 639.30 Ibid., p. 640.31 See Aly/Heim, Architects, pp. 93 and 253 ; Rössler, ‘Konrad Meyer’.32 Backe, ‘Bauerntum’, p. 111.

Sources and Literature 9

vice-president of the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemein-schaft or DFG) since 1936, agricultural research received extremely generous fund-ing. Agricultural research did not just receive more funds than any other subjectarea; in fact, in most years it received more funding than all the other natural scienceand technical branches put together (except for 1940 and 1942).33 Research at theKaiser Wilhelm institutes was funded not just by the DFG, however, but to a largeextent also by the Reich Ministry of Food and Agriculture (hereinafter referred toas the RMEL or, for the sake of simplicity, the Food Ministry or the AgricultureMinistry). The undersecretary in this ministry, Herbert Backe, had considerable in-fluence within the Kaiser Wilhelm Society.

When the regime initiated its expansionary policies in 1938, the areas of activityfor agricultural research expanded too, in several stages. After the Austrian An-schluss and the occupation of Czechoslovakia, the first task was for the areas that hadbeen added to the Reich to be ‘attached’ in a variety of ways. This included scientificinstitutions; institutes were moved from the old Reich area to the new territories andnew institutes were established in these areas. A similar process occurred, slightlylater, with the economic and cultural expansion in south-eastern Europe, which wasaccompanied by initiatives to set up new institutes for agricultural research. Fur-thermore, once the war started and in particular after the invasion of the SovietUnion, the entire geographical context of the autarky policy changed, and with it,that of agricultural research. Planning and research were no longer limited to theborders of the German Reich, but could extend across an imagined continent-wideEuropean economic area under German leadership. Scientists were encouraged todevelop animals and plants that were specially adapted to the agricultural conditionsof the occupied territories, in order to maximise the potential for exploitation. Afterthe occupation of large parts of the Soviet Union, research on non-tropical rubberplants, which had been very limited until then, was expanded considerably. In paral-lel, the science of agricultural work began to develop agricultural equipment suitedto the conditions in the east and was able to apply this knowledge to the planningof new settlements. At the same time, plant genetic resources and research potentialin the occupied territories were to be assimilated into German research and madeaccessible for further scientific work ‘in the service of food independence’. Finally,during the second half of the war, the research being done at the KWI for WorkPhysiology, also funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, on the optimal utilisation ofscarce food resources became increasingly important.

Sources and Literature

This study is based mainly on the sources contained in the Historical Archives ofthe Max Planck Society (MPS). The files prepared by the staff of the AdministrativeHeadquarters of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society who were in charge of looking after

33 Wieland, ‘Aufgaben’, p. 43.


individual institutes were particularly useful, as the surviving archives of the insti-tutes themselves are usually incomplete. For some of the institutes discussed here(e.g. the KWI for Animal Breeding Research), all their own files have been lost.For others, it is only by comparing their files with those of the Bundesarchiv, forexample, that we can gain an impression of what is missing from the institutes’ files.Unfortunately, the problem of incompleteness is particularly serious in respect of theinvolvement of Kaiser Wilhelm institutes in research on the east and on Lebensraum.For example, the documents contained in the MPS archives contain almost no ref-erences at all to the cooperation between the KWI for Plant Breeding Research andthe agricultural research unit at Auschwitz concentration camp. But such documentsmust have existed – not just because there was, at least for a period, close coopera-tion between the two, extending even to the transfer of the caoutchouc research cen-tre to Auschwitz, but also because documents on the issue are contained in the filesof the Plenipotentiary for Plant Rubber (Sonderbeauftragter für Pflanzenkautschuk)that have been preserved in the Bundesarchiv. Of particular interest were the files ofthe KWI for Plant Breeding Research, which have only recently been returned to theHistorical Archives of the MPS. For many years, these files had been believed lost,but in reality they had been confiscated by the Red Army at the end of the war andhad been stored under lock and key in the former Special Archive in Moscow. Theyare now available as microfiche copies in the Dahlem MPS archive. They containthe correspondence between Wilhelm Rudorf and several of his colleagues and staff,several of whom worked as scientists or research organisers in the occupied easternterritories, and provide us with insights that could not have been gained from thefiles available up to now.

For the reasons already suggested, the chapter on caoutchouc research, in partic-ular, could not have been written without files other than those contained in the MaxPlanck archives. These included the files of the Plenipotentiary, mentioned above,and documents contained in the archive of Continental, the tyre company. However,these sources do not allow us to reconstruct the role of the KWI for Plant Breed-ing Research in full. For example, the files of the Plenipotentiary contain mainlydocuments that throw light on the role played by the SS in the caoutchouc project,and the documents in the Continental archives reveal certain aspects of the chemicalindustry’s reservations about the research project, but very little about the researchwork itself. It was thus all the more helpful that several contemporary witnesseswho had carried out research on the rubber plant Taraxacum kok-sagyz, either asprisoners in Auschwitz concentration camp or as employees of the Müncheberginstitute, were willing to provide me with information. To their accounts were addedinformation gained from records of trials by the Zentrale Stelle der Landesjus-tizverwaltungen in Ludwigsburg. These records contain the minutes of interviewswith several former prisoners who were members of the plant breeding detail inAuschwitz.

For the section on the careers of individual scientists, the most important sup-plement to the MPS archive was the DFG’s documentation on research funding,stored in the Bundesarchiv in Koblenz, and personnel files on various individualsin various university archives. Another important source was the archive of the


Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences (Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademieder Wissenschaften), especially the files of the correspondence between Hans Stubbeand many of his colleagues at home and abroad. However, although the documentaryrecord is relatively good, it was only possible to reconstruct the general outlines ofsome of the important issues, such as Stubbe’s work on biological weapons.

The literature on the history of the KWS generally focuses on the biologicalinstitutes and those involved in armaments research; until now, little attention hasbeen paid to the agricultural institutes.34 Brief overviews have been written for eachof these institutes,35 but these do not deal with the issue of the role that the expansiontowards the east played in the development of research. This is not entirely sur-prising for publications that focus on the ‘survival’ of the institutes under the Naziregime, not their involvement in that regime. The anniversary publications producedboth by the MPS and by individual institutes do provide some important data on thehistory of its member institutes, but in general they present their activities as anuninterrupted path of scientific advancement, from one outstanding achievement tothe next.36 Biographies of some of the scientists with whom this study is concernedalso provide extensive information on their characters and work, even though somebiographers seem to not to have maintained sufficient professional distance fromtheir subjects.37

Jonathan Harwood has investigated in detail the KWI for Plant Breeding Re-search, which is of central importance for this study. However, he concentrated onworking methods, research areas and styles of thought in this institute and others,without exploring the way these changed during the German expansion to the east.38

Volker Klemm has investigated agricultural research during the Third Reich in gen-eral and his work has been an important source for this volume although the KaiserWilhelm institutes are only of minor interest for him. And Michael Flitner’s workis the authority on the use and ownership of plant genetic resources, relevant to thisstudy in the context of the expansion towards the east.39

The literature on the KWS’s activities in agricultural science is not very ex-tensive overall, but with regard to the project on breeding natural rubber plants,it is almost non-existent. The corresponding chapter of this book is thus based,apart from primary sources and a few contemporary publications, on an unpub-lished Diplom thesis by Alexander Schlichter, some fragmentary portrayals in the

34 On the history of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society see, among other sources, Vierhaus/vonBrocke (eds.), Forschung; vom Brocke/Laitko (eds.), Kaiser-Wilhelm/Max-Planck-Gesellschaft;Kaufmann (ed.), Geschichte; Sachse/Massin, Biowissenschaftliche Forschung.35 Kazemi, ‘Tierzuchtforschung’; Macrakis, ‘Survival’.36 Kraut, ‘Max-Planck-Institut für Ernährungsphyiologie’; Witt, ‘Max-Planck-Institut fürTierzucht’; 50 Jahre Tierzucht- und Tierproduktionsforschung Dummerstorf; Rübensam, 70 Jahre;Rudorf (ed.), Dreiÿig Jahre.37 Käding, Engagement; Schattenberg/Spaar, Rudolf Schick; Kröner et al, Erwin Baur.38 Harwood, Styles. Important information on the research activities of the KWI for Plant BreedingResearch and the KWI for Animal Breeding Research is also given in Deichmann, Biologen.39 Klemm, Agrarwissenschaften; Flitner, Sammler.


literature and the few publications that exist on the topic of the ‘plant breedingdetail’ in Auschwitz.40

In June 2000, agricultural research under National Socialism was the topic of aworkshop held as part of the research programme ‘History of the Kaiser WilhelmSociety in the National Socialist Era’. This workshop focused mainly (though notexclusively) on the Kaiser Wilhelm institutes and their role in the context of theautarky policy and the expansion towards the east. The results of this workshop andof some thematically-related studies have been published as Volume 2 of the seriesGeschichte der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft im Nationalsozialismus. They throwlight on some previously little-explored aspects of the history of plant breeding, andon some institutes and individuals, including two of the scientific institutions underGerman leadership in the occupied territories.41 One topic could be dealt with onlyto a very limited extent in the latter volume, and it forms the focus of the presentstudy: the question of how research perspectives and methods changed with theexpansion towards the east.

As indicated by its title, this study is divided into three main sections, each ofwhich analyses agricultural and food research from a different perspective. Thefirst section discusses Herbert Backe and his ideas for the food economy. As anundersecretary in the RMEL, Backe was responsible for planning the wartime foodeconomy, but he was also an enthusiastic supporter of the Kaiser Wilhelm institutesand in this role was responsible for integrating agriculture and food research intothe planning of the war economy. The extent to which this influenced the researchagenda and practice at the KWS is illustrated by reference to eight of its institutesand the plans for two more centres. These eight institutes (and the two planned)were concerned with optimising yields from crop plants and livestock, with creatingalternative raw materials, and with using the findings of ergonomics and nutritionscience to increase workers’ productivity. The second section investigates the organ-isation of and networks in agricultural research and the manner in which agriculturalresearch results were converted into practical agricultural policy, using as an exam-ple a project to produce natural rubber in German-occupied areas using non-tropicalplants. Although the production of chemical rubber was developing apace, naturalrubber was still needed by the rubber-processing industry, especially for makingtyres. The natural rubber project was therefore considered to be a critical step inovercoming a strategic supply bottleneck. It was run by a network of institutions,in which both the SS and the KWI for Plant Breeding Research played major parts.This research network made extensive use of the Nazi regime’s repertoire of forciblemeasures, from occupying land for cultivation right through to having research donein concentration camps: in 1944, the KWI for Plant Breeding Research moved itscaoutchouc research centre from Müncheberg to Auschwitz.

40 Schlichter, Forschung; Wieland, ‘Aufgaben’; Deichmann, Biologen; Shelley (ed.), Criminal Ex-periments; Zieba, ‘Nebenlager Rajsko’.41 The agricultural research unit in Puławy, in occupied Poland, and the German-Greek Institutefor Biology; see Meducki, ‘Agrarwissenschaftliche Forschungen’, and Zarifi, ‘Forschungsinstitutfür Biologie’.


The final section of this study also focuses on breeding research. The careersof two plant breeding researchers are used as examples to explore the relation-ship between scientists and the Nazi regime, the interests which each side had incooperating with the other, the extent to which the scientists had the freedom tomake decisions and take action, and the role that scientists’ self-image as ‘pureresearchers’ played in this cooperative relationship.

Overall, the present study attempts to investigate the interactions between scien-tific research and the policies of occupation in the occupied territories. One issueto be examined is whether National Socialism, as is frequently assumed, preventedscientific development or whether it in fact created space and opportunities for re-search. In addition, the goal is to find out to what extent scientists in the KaiserWilhelm institutes took action on their own initiative. Did they develop their owninitiatives, based on their own research agenda, for using research resources thatwere available to them only because of the expansionary policy? And finally, thestudy will examine whether and to what extent members of staff of the KaiserWilhelm Society made use of the National Socialist state’s forcible measures, evenif this meant disregarding the fundamental rights, sometimes even the life, of otherhuman beings.

Calories – Agricultural Research,the Food Economy and War

Herbert Backe and Science Policy

In my opinion, the fact that individuals such as Backe, the former Reich Minister of Food, orBaron v. Schröder, the banker, were members of the Senate of the Kaiser Wilhelm Societyis of no significance. The Senate of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society always included membersof the national government. These individuals had not played a leading role in the KaiserWilhelm Society in previous eras and they did not do so during the Third Reich. For themost part, they did not make themselves felt and refrained from exerting their influence inany way.

Letter from Otto Hahn to Anton Pfeiffer, 2 June 19471

Herbert Backe had been a member of the Senate of the Kaiser Wilhelm Soci-ety since 1937, initially in his role as undersecretary and later as a Minister. In1941, he was appointed Vice-President of the Society, after forcefully arguing that‘his’ Ministry, the Reich Ministry of Food and Agriculture, was contributing morefunds to the KWS than the Reich Ministry of Education and that for this reason,it should have more influence in the KWS’s decision-making bodies.2 Backe wasthe key decision-maker for the funding of all the institutes of the Society involvedin ‘agricultural research’ in the broadest sense of the term. Minutes of the meet-ings of the KWS Senate3 and entries in the diary kept by Backe’s wife4 testify tohis very high level of interest in the Kaiser Wilhelm institutes. This is also con-firmed by his daughter.5 Herbert Backe committed suicide in 1947 while in Allied

1 MPS Archive, Gründungsakten 12. I am grateful to Mark Walker for bringing this document tomy attention.2 Telschow, Memorandum on a visit to Backe, 29 May 1940, MPS Archive, Abt. I, Rep. 1A, Nr.2605/1. See also Macrakis, Surviving the Svastika, p. 134.3 The minutes of the Senate meetings are stored in the reading room of the MPS Archive.4 Ursula Backe’s conversations with her husband included discussions on issues related to hisprofessional life. Her diary is kept by the Bundesarchiv in Koblenz. I am grateful to her daughter,Armgard Henning, who provided me with copies of the few entries related to the Kaiser WilhelmSociety.5 Personal communication by Armgard Henning, 7 March 2000. Her brother, Albrecht Backe, hasalso kindly provided me with additional information.

S. Heim, Calories, Caoutchouc, Careers, 15–95.C© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008 15

16 Calories – Agricultural Research, the Food Economy and War

Herbert Backe (1896–1947), c. 1944

custody awaiting trial. Before doing so, he composed a short review of his life,which also contains a few sentences about the Kaiser Wilhelm Society. Backe hadhad a friendly relationship with Heinrich Himmler, but here he writes that Himmlerhad lacked ‘any conception of an economic division of labour’. Himmler had wantedto do everything himself, together with the SS, even including breeding horses andlivestock for the settlers in the east. ‘It was pure dilettantism, especially when theymoved on to breeding using cross-breeding methods, which I also carried out, butonly within the scientific institutes in the KWS.’6 Evidently, Backe saw the KaiserWilhelm Institutes as his institutes in which he had research carried out, just asHimmler did in the Ahnenerbe foundation – except that Backe felt, justifiably, thathis own scientific empire was better qualified than that of the SS.

Backe set great store on scientific research to solve the problems that faced hisministry. In mid-June 1942, he informed the KWS, through its General Secretary,

6 Herbert Backe, Großer Bericht Ziegenhain, Bundesarchiv Koblenz, N 1075 (NL Herbert Backe),vol. 3, p. 46.

PLANT BREEDING AND AGRARIAN RESEARCH IN KAISER-WILHELM … · plant breeding and agrarian research...

Documents

Transcript of PLANT BREEDING AND AGRARIAN RESEARCH IN KAISER-WILHELM … · plant breeding and agrarian research...