Serving the Reich

by Philip Ball

  In the mid-thirties all officials: van Ginkel (2006), 32.

  The question was how would they sign it: Delbruck (1978).

  will not have surprised you: van Ginkel (2006), preprint version provided by the author, 25.

  I couldn’t care less!: Eickhoff (2008), 90.

  We must move away!: ibid., 23.

  an immediate settlement of the Jewish question: S. L. Wolff, in Hoffmann & Walker (eds) (2011), 128.

  quite considerable foreign currency receipts: Hentschel (1996), 181.

  The DPG is still very backward: Hoffmann & Walker (2006a), unpaginated.

  the handling of the Jewish question: ibid.

  I can assure you: Wolff, op. cit., 132–3.

  moral stamina: van Ginkel (2006), 33.

  seemed to have a very high opinion: ibid.

  by exercising [this] self-censorship: Eickhoff (2008), 96.

  If you are thinking of appointing: van Ginkel (2006), 96

  Debye engaged in an exclusive: Eickhoff (2008), 47.

  I think that the racial issue: ibid., 96–7.

  was not interested if [a] man: ibid., 24.

  Today, among . . . contemporary Germans: Peierls (1985).

  the Jewess endangers this institute: Sime (1996), 163.

  He has, in essence, thrown me out: ibid., 185.

  political objections exist: Hentschel (1996), 171.

  When we last spoke: Sime (1996), 196.

  The assistant we talked about: ibid., 202.

  At the Dutch border: Rhodes (1986), 236.

  You have made yourself as famous: Sime (1996), 205.

  I very much hope that by now: Eickhoff (2008), 100.

  connected with a survival mechanism: ibid., 148.

  The last years have not passed: Reiding (2010), 291–2.

  Debye moved, as a prominent scientist: ibid., 275.

  Chapter 8

  *1 This glow is technically not fluorescence but phosphorescence. Fluorescent materials glow only while they are being irradiated, for example with light or X-rays, while phosphorescent substances can capture and store energy, continuing to glow even in the dark.

  *2 This is just the first step in a whole series of decays, which proceeds via radon (element 86). The radon, being a volatile gas, will escape, but the disintegration of nuclei continues until it reaches the stable, non-radioactive element lead (element 82).

  †3 As we will see shortly, there are in fact different types of uranium with different half-lives; this is the half-life of the most abundant natural form.

  *4 The prize was initially going to be given just to Pierre and Becquerel; only a late intervention from the Swedish mathematician Magnus Mittag-Leffler, a progressive advocate of women’s rights, ensured that Marie was included. Her husband might have otherwise declined.

  *5 A third particle is emitted in beta decay too: a neutrino (or its antiparticle, the anti-neutrino), postulated by Wolfgang Pauli in 1930, who wanted to call it the neutron. Enrico Fermi revived the idea in 1934 in his theory of beta decay, when he gave this neutral, ultralight particle its present name, ‘little neutron’. The neutrino was not definitively detected experimentally until 1956.

  †6 Bethe went to Cornell University in 1935 and worked on the Manhattan Project. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1967 for his work on nuclear fusion and the formation of elements in stars.

  *7 It’s not quite so simple, as Szilard realized: the liberated neutrons would have to be captured by other nuclei with adequate efficiency, so that they don’t just escape from the radioactive material. The efficiency of neutron capture determines the amount of substance needed to sustain the chain reaction: the critical mass.

  *8 The standard chemical technique for separating decay products was to mix them in solution with known, lighter elements that could be precipitated as insoluble salts by adding the right ingredient: barium was precipitated by adding sulphate, for example. An element chemically similar to the one precipitated would come along with it, usurping some of the same spaces in the crystal lattice of the salt.

  *9 These were the experiments described earlier in which Fermi was hoping to make elements heavier than uranium by neutron capture. What he did not realize is that his slowed neutrons were in fact causing fission of uranium—exactly what Hahn and Strassmann reported four years later. It was a possibility that almost no one envisaged. One person did, however: a German chemist named Ida Noddack, who, like Meitner and the Curies mother and daughter, made significant contributions to nuclear science in an almost wholly male environment. But Noddack did not make her argument for fission very persuasive in 1934—indeed, when her claim was submitted to Naturwissenschaften, Paul Rosbaud considered it ‘pretentious’ and a manuscript ‘exactly of [the] sort we don’t like in scientific publications’. Rosbaud did not hold Noddack in much regard, and considered it fortunate that she did not receive the Nobel Prize for which she was nominated three times.

  the field of atomic physics: Eickhoff (2008), 45.

  I have seen my death!: G. Landwehr, Gottfried (1997). In A. Hasse (ed.), Röntgen Centennial: X-rays in Natural and Life Sciences, 7. World Scientific, Singapore.

  because the question was entirely new: S. Quinn (1995). Marie Curie: A Life, 143. Simon & Schuster, New York.

  Rutherford, this is transmutation: M. Howarth (1958). Pioneer Research on the Atom, 83–4. New World Publications, London.

  some fool in a laboratory: Rhodes (1986), 44.

  could be tapped and controlled: ibid.

  It can even be thought: P. Curie (1905). ‘Radioactive substances, especially radium’. 1903 Nobel Prize in Physics Lecture. Available at http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1903/pierre-curie-lecture.pdf.

  always tired without being exactly ill: Quinn, op. cit., or Reid (1974), Marie Curie.

  in a very inflamed: Rhodes (1986), 45.

  It was quite the most incredible: ibid., 49.

  to get some experience: ibid., 52.

  To change the hydrogen: ibid., 140.

  We can only hope that: ibid., 141.

  there was something quite new: ibid., 162.

  anyone who looked for a source: ibid., 27.

  time cracked open: ibid., 13.

  inner rectitude: Sime (1996), 37.

  possess[es] a special gift: ibid., 25.

  Amazons are abnormal: ibid., 26.

  Oh, I thought you were a man!: ibid., 33.

  I value my personal freedom: ibid., 157.

  Perhaps you can suggest: Rhodes (1986), 253.

  pretentious . . . exactly of [the] sort: P. Rosbaud, letter to S. Goudsmit. In Samuel Goudsmit Papers, Series IV, Alsos Mission: Box 28, Folder 42, 15. American Institute of Physics.

  We permit ourselves to direct your attention: Kramish (1986), 53.

  Chapter 9

  *1 In seeking for solutions, Baeumker wrote to Ludwig Prandtl at Göttingen, mentioning that he understood Debye to have been granted leave of absence ‘for the duration of the war’. The implication that the war might be over in six months or so reflects a common view in Germany at that time, and it is worth bearing in mind that Debye might have considered that to be possible too.

  *2 In early 1946, when Debye’s application for US citizenship was being considered, he told the FBI that he had never answered Telschow’s letter of 1940 asking about his plans, and that he’d heard no more subsequently from the KWG. This is clearly untrue. He told Telschow in 1940 that he’d not received any previous letters, while subsequently there was a fair amount of correspondence with Berlin, as we’ll see. It is understandable that, during deliberations about his naturalization, he would wish to suppress these facts. His deception here certainly doesn’t warrant the

  melodramatic conclusion that Martijn Eickhoff draws: that Debye ‘could pull the wool over people’s eyes’ and ‘was caught between several incompatible stories and could barely talk about his own past in Nazi Germany any more without doing violence to historical truth’.

/>   *3 Sybe Rispens claims that the two women lived well in Berlin on Debye’s ‘royal salary’. Quite aside from the unfairness of that imputation, it is not even clear how easy it was to access Debye’s salary at all: Mathilde struggled in late 1941 to give her sister Elizabeth access to her Berlin bank account. And Debye was unable to send them money from America, since the deteriorating relations between the United States and Germany had resulted in a freeze on bank transfers in June 1941.

  for military technological ends: Eickhoff (2008), 102.

  In response to Dr Telschow’s: ibid.

  There was no question of surrender: ibid., 105.

  stay at home and write a book: Davies (1970), 209.

  knowledge and approaches for military objectives: Eickhoff (2008), 103.

  Until now the institute: Rockefeller Foundation Archives, RF RG 1.1, Series 200D, Box 136, Folders 1677–8, letter from P. Debye to W. E. Tisdale, 7 October 1939.

  Dr Peter J. W. Debye: van Ginkel (2006), 41.

  In my view there is also the possibility: Eickhoff, 106.

  for the duration of the war: ibid.

  I had to give up all these beautiful laboratories: Debye (1964), 34.

  German physics has lost: Hoffmann (2005), 311.

  the large-scale research: ibid., 317.

  increasing acceptance of physics: ibid., 319.

  our technical development: R. W. Gerard (1949), ‘The scientific reserve’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists October, 276–80, here 277.

  3,000 more physicists could perhaps: Hoffmann (2005), 319.

  If someone wanted to research: Beyerchen (1977), 191.

  Some of my colleagues think: van Ginkel (2006), 53.

  suspicious of him: ibid.

  extremely mercenary: Eickhoff (2008), 129.

  not loyal even to the field: van Ginkel (2006), 102.

  could not be trusted: ibid.

  has no emotional reaction: ibid., 101.

  Einstein advised that he has never: ibid., 55.

  Einstein said that he does not believe: ibid.

  unspoiled soul: van Ginkel (2006), 57.

  he found Einstein in fact to be: interview with Caroline Debye, 1 April 1970. Debye archives of the Regionaal Historisch Centrum Limburg, Maastricht, 8.

  secret purpose: van Ginkel (2006), 54.

  since I had no possibility: A. Einstein, letter to J. G. Kirkwood, 17 June 1940. In Albert Einstein Archives, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, 9–150.

  Those suspicions are entirely groundless: P. Debye, letter to A. Einstein, 12 June 1940. In Albert Einstein Archives, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, 9–145.

  symptomatic of the kind of hysteria: Rockefeller Foundation Archives, op. cit., memo from W. Weaver, 13 June 1940.

  has every confidence that Debye: ibid.

  the result of Jewish prejudice: van Ginkel (2006), 58.

  declined to attend: Rockefeller Foundation Archives, op. cit., memo from W. Weaver.

  some of Debye’s colleagues: ibid.

  Debye is a man of high character: van Ginkel (2006), 59.

  The army has made this move: Rockefeller Foundation Archives, RF Officer Diaries, disk 16 (Warren Weaver), memo of 6 February 1940, 19–20.

  the chances are infinitely against: Eickhoff (2008), 124.

  I could have done so: ibid., 140.

  should not be entrusted: van Ginkel (2006), 127.

  took it with immense good humour: van Ginkel (2006), 69.

  Accepting the Baker lectureship: Eickhoff (2008), 111, n.6.

  Debye has now practically: ibid., 114.

  keep the back door open: ibid., 154.

  My letters remain unanswered: ibid., 117.

  was caught between several: ibid., 131.

  It is curious that about four weeks ago: ibid., 118.

  against the wishes: ibid.

  as soon as you are again able: van Ginkel (2006), 73.

  Professor Debye states that he is: Eickhoff (2008), 119.

  Peter Debye continued the negotiations: van Ginkel (2006), 71.

  strange: S. L. Wolff, private communication.

  Hilde and Maida prefer: Eickhoff (2008), 25.

  so he won’t lose everything: ibid.

  that his wife was born in Germany: ibid., 120.

  royal salary: Rispens (2006b).

  It would be undesirable: Eickhoff (2008), 122.

  somewhere in Czechoslovakia: van Ginkel (2006), 82.

  it was common for scientists: Hoffmann & Walker (2006a).

  Many nasty things have been said: Delbrück (1978).

  Going away without any kind of security: ibid.

  Chapter 10

  *1 Joliot-Curie took advantage of his relative liberty to work for the French Resistance. When he was first seized by the Germans, they wanted to know what had happened to the heavy water that had been sent to France in 1939 by the sympathetic head of the Norwegian plant at Vemork. It had been put on a ship that sunk, Joliot-Curie told them. In fact it had already been shipped to Britain.

  *2 Now notorious for his Holocaust denial and links to neo-Nazi organizations, Irving conducted important research on the German nuclear work in the 1960s. His books on the subject are, however, marred by too great a readiness to accept the story that Heisenberg in particular gave him, along with their sympathy—unsurprising in retrospect—for the German point of view in general.

  more than ten times as powerful: Heim, Sachse & Walker (eds) (2009), 343.

  in the foreseeable future: Cassidy (2009), 321.

  enormous significance: ibid.

  success can be expected shortly: ibid.

  once in operation: Hentschel (1996), 300.

  one can say that the first time: Bernstein (ed.) (2007), 121.

  it was from September: Irving (1967), 114.

  hitherto unknown explosive: Walker (1995), 158.

  I thank you for the rehabilitation: Heim, Sachse & Walker (eds) (2009), 359.

  probably have become critical: C. F. von Weizsäcker (1991). ‘Die bombe war zu teuer’, Die Zeit 24 May, 18. Available at http://www.zeit.de/1991/17/die-bombe-war-zu-teuer.

  the sun will continue to shine: Cassidy (2009), 359.

  Germany needs me: ibid., 370.

  I am in a rather sad and violent: S. Goudsmit (1948), letter to P. Rosbaud, April. In Samuel Goudsmit Papers, Series IV, Alsos Mission: Box 28, Folder 43, 21. American Institute of Physics.

  Don’t think that Heisenberg: P. Rosbaud (1948), letter to S. Goudsmit, April, ibid.

  I doubt that I or most of the physicists: Cassidy (2009), 355.

  Chapter 11

  *1 Laue’s presence did provide some sober balance and realism in the physicists’ discussions. But he was not immune to the prevailing sense of entitlement and affront. While the German scientists were held in Belgium awaiting a decision on what to do with them, Laue organized a weekly scientific colloquium. This routine came quickly to seem inviolable, as though the establishment of arbitrary ‘traditions’ might offer a veneer of academic normality. According to Harteck, when Laue was told by an English officer to prepare for transfer to England the following day, he replied ‘That’s impossible!’ On asking why, the officer was told ‘Because I have my colloquium then.’ Perhaps the colloquium could be rearranged for another time, the officer suggested gently. ‘But could you not have the airplane come some other time?’ Laue replied.

  *2 It was Powers’ book that first inspired Michael Frayn to write his 1998 play Copenhagen, about the wartime meeting of Bohr and Heisenberg, although Frayn by no means accepts uncritically Powers’ account of Heisenberg’s motives and character.

  *3 Arnold Kramish, for whom Heisenberg is irredeemable, makes the insinuation that he and Weizsäcker were acting as spies for the Nazis. This might seem a crude and unlikely accusation, but perhaps it depends on what one means by spying. Scientists on wartime visits like this might well be expected to provide an account of their actions, and Weizsäcker did subsequently file a report for the
army saying that no work on uranium fission was being conducted in Copenhagen. ‘Obviously Professor Bohr does not know that we are working on these questions,’ Weizsäcker wrote, adding that ‘of course, I encouraged him in this belief’.

  *4 These letters, publicly released after much anticipation in February 2002 in response to Frayn’s play, evidently created discomfort among Heisenberg’s defenders. Weizsäcker, who died in 2007, pronounced Bohr’s memory ‘deeply mistaken’.

  †5 This remark was reported third-hand: it was filed in 1945 by the Dutch-American astronomer Gerard Kuiper, a member of the Alsos mission, to whom it had been related by Casimir. Casimir alleged that Heisenberg had said this to him during a private walk in Leiden, during which he had also learnt that Heisenberg knew at that time about the German concentration camps. It isn’t clear that Casimir’s report can be taken at face value.

  *6 Towards the end of the war, the scientists made some suggestions that a bomb might be only a year or two away—but even then, no extensive, industrial-scale effort was engaged to make it happen, not least because bombing and competing war priorities rendered that impossible.

  *7 Until 1949 this institution was recognized only in the British zone of occupied Germany.

  *8 Niels Bohr was less obliging: he replied to Jordan’s request for a letter of exoneration by sending the physicist a list of Bohr’s friends and relatives who had died under the Nazis.

  †9 In the trials Mentzel was identified as a ‘lesser offender’ and sentenced to two and a half years in prison. But he was immediately released after the sentence was pronounced in early 1948 because his internment since the end of the war was deemed to have satisfied it already. His boss Bernhard Rust would probably have fared little worse, had he not committed suicide in May 1945.

  *10 Verschuer remained a professor of genetics at Münster until 1965.

  *11 The V-1 and V-2 rockets killed around 15,000 people in Britain and Belgium; but in some ways it is yet more appalling how many perished in their manufacture: around 20,000 slave labourers died in the rocket manufacturing camps, having worked under unthinkable conditions.

  That’s impossible!: Bernstein (ed.) (2001), 53.

  I don’t think they know the real Gestapo: ibid., 78.

  Things can’t go on like this: ibid.

  It won’t do: ibid.