Portrait of the Academy

The Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities (HAdW) is the state academy of Baden-Württemberg. As a learned society and a non-university research institution, it serves as the strong, impartial voice of science within the state and beyond. The Academy upholds Baden-Württemberg’s outstanding reputation as a center of scholarship and, in the grand tradition of academies, provides a unique forum for high-level scholarly discourse. It is founded on science-driven processes, serves the scientific community, and recognizes its social responsibility.

The Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities responded to the challenge posed by National Socialist ideology and its implementation by the state in the same way as nearly all academic institutions in Germany. The guiding principle behind its actions was organizational survival—the preservation of the institution. To achieve this goal, almost any price was paid—above all, the abandonment of the assertion of rights, collegiality, and solidarity with persecuted members, as well as the compromise of academic standards in new elections. The opportunistic tactic of adapting as much as possible—and often proactively conforming—in order to preserve an identity that had become questionable led to a culpable failure. Although the Academy did not conduct any research projects typical of the Nazis, five National Socialists were elected in the 1934–35 elections, three of them to vacant seats in disciplines traditionally under the Academy’s purview (astronomy, geology, physiology). The “Nazi faction,” although a small minority among the 37 full members, immediately set about expelling the Jewish members from the Academy under the leadership of the physiologist Johann Daniel Achelis. Since those affected were initially unwilling to yield to the pressure and resign, the Mathematical and Natural Sciences class came to a complete standstill between the summer semester of 1936 and the end of 1937—meetings were no longer held, and the 1937 annual meeting was also canceled. Within the “Cartel of German Academies of Sciences,” Heidelberg became a pioneer in pushing for a uniform Reich-wide solution regarding the expulsion of “non-Aryan” members, while the Reich Ministry of Education, Science, and Public Enlightenment (REM) reserved the right to make the final decision in 1936. In February 1937, Otto Heinrich Erdmannsdörfer, Vice President of the Mathematical and Natural Sciences Division, noted that, according to a survey, a minority of the division’s members still advocated “for the non-Aryans to remain under all circumstances,” even though just a few months earlier, the “battle sheet” of the Heidelberg group of the NSDStB, *Der Heidelberger Student*, had sharply attacked the Academy for its outdated understanding of science and demanded the “complete purge” of “Jews and friends of the Jews.” In silent protest against the treatment of Jewish members, the botanist Ludwig Jost left the Heidelberg Academy in 1937. The Philosophical and Historical Class remained completely out of these disputes and merely pointed to the necessity of achieving uniform regulations throughout the Reich.

On November 15, 1938, a “Schnellbrief” from the REM demanded that the Reich Citizenship Law of 1935 (Reich citizens are “citizens of German or related blood”) be applied to full and corresponding members. Those affected were to be urged to resign; in the event of refusal, the Ministry would revoke their membership. The order was repeated on February 1, 1939, and was then enforced in Heidelberg as well for “Jews, persons of mixed blood, and men married to Jewish women or women of mixed blood in the first degree,” although not entirely without exceptions.

The result of the forced resignations or removals from the membership list was as follows: Of the 37 full members (as of April 1, 1933), seven were expelled from the Academy (four from the Mathematical and Natural Sciences Class, three from the Philosophical and Historical Class); of the 38 corresponding/associate members, five were expelled (one from the Mathematical and Natural Sciences Class, four from the Philosophical and Historical Class).

In the elections held in the years that followed until the end of the war, supporters of the regime, critics of the regime, and those with little ideological affiliation were elected. The 1939 statutes, which simultaneously introduced the “Führer principle” and made supplementary elections contingent upon confirmation by the ministry, expanded the recruitment area for full members beyond Heidelberg to include southwestern Germany and now also encompassed the universities and institutions of higher education in Freiburg, Karlsruhe, Darmstadt, and Frankfurt; after the conquest of Alsace, Strasbourg was added. Heads of research institutes and industrialists were also eligible for election.

The financial situation of the Heidelberg Academy remained precarious, so that only two new major projects could be launched in the Philosophical and Historical Class: the edition of the works of Nicholas of Cusa (Cusanus) (1925–2015) and “Die Deutschen Inschriften,” covering the period from approximately 500 to 1650 (ongoing since 1935, with preliminary work beginning in 1930)—a project supported by nearly all German academies as well as the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

As the Academy sought to make a fresh start after May 8, 1945, two questions stood out above all others: How would the Academy treat those members who, as “non-Aryans,” had been forced out of the Academy during the years of the Third Reich? And how should the Academy treat those members who could be accused of serious misconduct during the twelve years of Nazi rule—in particular, active participation in the “purge” of the Academy? The first question was easy to answer. The members who had been expelled or had resigned were invited to rejoin the Academy as Corresponding Members. Most accepted this invitation, but not all. Apparently, not everyone felt that the Academy had struck the right tone in this delicate process of reconciliation.

The Academy had a much harder time dealing with members who had a tainted past. It initially resorted to introducing “suspended membership,” which, depending on the denazification proceedings and the university’s decisions, could—but did not necessarily—lead to reinstatement. In 1950, the Academy decided to determine the lifting of suspended memberships in accordance with the rules for new elections. In fact, the Mathematics and Natural Sciences Division rejected the reelection of members with a tainted past in some cases. On the other hand, however, even members with serious taints were reelected. The Academy lacked the courage to make a clean break—or, indeed, to make a clear decision at all. In his history of the Heidelberg Academy, published in 1994—which contains an extensive analysis of this topic—the historian Wennemuth described the Academy’s handling of its past as “hesitant, half-hearted.”

For the Academy, however, the past remained a pressing issue well beyond the immediate postwar years—namely, in the form of the question of whether it should, or even must, examine how candidates of the relevant age had behaved during the years of the Third Reich when considering their admission. As far as can be ascertained, there has never been a fundamental debate on this issue within the Academy. Even in individual admissions cases, the question of whether a candidate might have been directly or indirectly implicated in the injustices of the Nazi dictatorship was apparently never raised. Even if one acknowledges that there were reasons for the Academy not to link admissions to a kind of second, belated denazification process, one must nevertheless critically note: The Academy apparently saw no reason to reflect fundamentally on its own conduct in this matter or to explain why it acted the way it did.

• Udo Wennemuth, Wissenschaftsorganisation und Wissenschaftsförderung in Baden. Die Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften 1909-1949 (Heidelberg 1994).
• Udo Wennemuth, “The Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities Third Reich,” in *Acta historica Leopoldina* No. 22 (1995), pp. 113–132.
• Volker Sellin (ed.), The Europe of Academies (Heidelberg 2010).
• Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities ed.), Members of the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities Who Were Deprived of Their Rights and Expelled During the Third Reich Academy of Sciences and Humanities Heidelberg 2009).
• Volker Sellin and Sebastian Zwies (eds.), The Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities Reflected in Its Inaugural Addresses, 1944–2008 (Heidelberg, 2009), including a list of full members, 1909–2008.
• Volker Sellin, Eike Wolgast, and Sebastian Zwies (eds.), Research Projects of the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities Heidelberg, 2009).
• Ditte Bandini and Ulrich Kronauer (eds.), *Fruits from the Tree of Knowledge: A Festschrift in Honor of the Research Associates* (Heidelberg, 2009).
• Herbert von Bose, “The Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities,” in Jörg Kreutz, Wilhelm Kreutz, and Hermann Wiegand (eds.), *In omnibus veritas: 250 Years Academy of Sciences and Humanities Electoral Palatinate Academy of Sciences and Humanities Mannheim (1763–1806)*, Mannheim 2014, pp. 221–231.
• Tonio Hölscher, “Athena as the Emblem of the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities,” *Athena* 1-2021, 6–9.
• Uta Hüttig and Hans-Georg Kräusslich (eds.), The Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities Reflected in Its Inaugural Addresses, 2009–2023 (Heidelberg, 2024),including a list of full members from 2009 to 2023.
• Matthias Ohm, “The Medals of the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities,” Athene 2-2024, pp. 35–37.
• Matthias Ohm, “Academia in Nummis: Medals of the Mannheim and Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities,” in: Numismatisches Nachrichtenblatt, Issue 11/2024, pp. 413–420.