The Battle Line at Louvain (1914)
“Where they burn books, they will also burn people” — Heinrich Heine
I’ve written before about the book burning ceremonies (“bücherverbrennung”) that the Nazi Party arranged in 1933 following their seizure of power and passing of the Berufsbeamtengesetz (“Law for the Restoration of the Professsional Civil Service”) dismissing public servants from German Universities (see essay below).
In that context, book burnings functioned as an overt, public and aggressive rejection of ideas considered sympathetic with socio-democratic, intellectual, left-leaning, and/or “Jewish values”. In addition, of course, the campaigns also served as mechanisms for the promulgation of censorship and suppression, including of free speech and the dissemination of knowledge. The latter, partly in order to promote a nationalistic alternative to theoretical physics later known as “German” physics (see essay below).
Interestingly, Deutsche Physik — which by the 1930s had grown to be overtly anti-semitic — had its origins not in anti-semitism but in anti-anglocentrism1 some 20 years prior. Indeed, the origins of Deutsche Physik can be traced back to war atrocities committed by German soldiers during World War I, and the public denial of those acts by 93 prominent but misled German intellectuals (12 of whom were already Nobel laureates, two of whom later would be and six of whom were Jewish or of Jewish descent).
Consider this a warning story about the dangers of politicizing knowledge and the “relative ease with which the internal conventions of science could be abrogated by mobilizing political passions” (Wolff, 2003).
The German Invasion of Belgium
Following Austria’s declaration of war on Serbia, the German government sent an ultimatum to Belgium on August 2nd 1914 demanding passage through the country despite its neutrality. Two days later, the Belgium government refused the German demands with the backing of the British government which guaranteed military support. The German government responded by declaring war on August 4th and on the same day, the Imperial German Army crossed the border into Belgium.
By August 19th about 15,000 troops — including infantry, artillery and cavalry — descended upon the university town of Louvain (or “Leuven”) in Central Belgium. Despite not encountering any resistance from the population, due to a perceived counter-attack, German troops soon began a massacre of murder, pillaging, arson and other war crimes towards the town’s civilian population. Over the course of five days 248 civilians were killed, most of the town’s remaining 10,000 residents exiled, 1,500 deported and some 2,000 homes, including about 1/6th of the town’s structures destroyed.
Among the buildings lost during the atrocities was the Central Hall and University Library of the Katholieke Universiteit te Leuven. On the 25th of August at around 11:30 German soldiers doused the 14th century cloth hall near the main square of the town with gasoline and set it ablaze. The historic library housed more than 300,000 written works, including significant historical collections, 750 priceless medieval manuscripts and the personal libraries of various professors, judges, notaries, solicitors and physicians, all of which was destroyed (Derez, 2016).
Although the town’s fate was only one of several over the course of the German campaign in Belgium2, its destruction and the burning of its library would soon become a symbol of a battle line in a growing culture war between Germany and the English-speaking world. As described in an August 28th article in the The Times, Louvain was indeed the “Oxford of Belgium”, “the most celebrated seat of learning in the Low Countries” which, within a mere ten hours, had been “committed to the flames by the ruthless barbarians who have set forth to spread German culture throughout the globe”3. Among the atrocities committed towards Belgian civil society the devastation of Louvain’s historic library captured the world’s imagination, wrote historian Mark Derez, “for in no way could it have been considered a military target” (Derez, 2016).
‘Manifest der 93’
The physical sciences, perhaps more so than other disciplines, are unique in that their laws apply regardless of context, be they political, environmental or even celestial. Thus — one hopes — physicists, chemists and biologists might share an “internationalism based upon the universality of natural knowledge as well as on the necessity for widespread, unrestricted communication and exchange of information” (Wolff, 2003). Unfortunately, as the events following the sack of Louvain demonstrated, natural scientists are no different to the rest of us with regards to their vulnerabilities, sympathies and “political passions”.
On October 4th 1914 a proclamation entitled ‘Manifest der 93’ (originally “An Die Kulturwelt!”) was published in the Berliner Tageblatt, featuring the signatures of 93 prominent German intellectual elites. The manifest expressed the group’s support for Germany in the ongoing World War. Among its signatories were 14 Nobel laureates, including Max Planck (1858-1947), Paul Ehrlich (1854-1915), Fritz Haber (1868-1934), Wilhelm Röntgen (1845-1923), Philipp Lenard (1862-1947), Wilhelm Wien (1864-1928) and mathematician Felix Klein (1849-1925). The manifest was written with the purpose of contradicting their perceived negative impression of Germany in the foreign press, especially in Britain. It was spread around the world through thousands of letters in ten different languages (Wolff, 2003).
The manifest had been authored by writer Ludwig Fulda (1862-1939) in collaboration with dramatist Hermann Sudermann (1857-1928), philosopher Alois Riehl (1844-1924), Nobel Prize-winning chemist Emil Fischer (1852-1919), zoologist Ernst Haeckel (1838-1919) and the Mayor of Berlin Georg Reicke. The text, quite articulate, expresses moral indignation, scorn, accusations and attacks on perceived “enemies” of Germany such as foreign governments and academic institutions, as well as fellow German scholars whom the signatories proclaimed had “wronged the German nation”. An English translation of the text in its entirety is available here.
Notable in its elegant prose is the repeated use of denials of the form “It is not true” followed by descriptions of events from the war, such as “It is not true that Germany is guilty of having caused this war.”, “It is not true that we trespassed in neutral Belgium.” and “It is not true that our warfare pays no respect to international laws.” With the benefit of hindsight, among the most objectionable of these passages is the following, written less than five weeks after the atrocities in Louvain:
“It is not true that our troops treated Louvain brutally. Furious inhabitants having treacherously fallen upon them in their quarters, our troops with aching hearts were obliged to fire a part of the town as a punishment. The greatest part of Louvain has been preserved. The famous Town Hall stands quite intact; for at great self-sacrifice our soldiers saved it from destruction by the flames. Every German would of course greatly regret if in the course of this terrible war any works of art should already have been destroyed or be destroyed at some future time, but inasmuch as in our great love for art we cannot be surpassed by any other nation, in the same degree we must decidedly refuse to buy a German defeat at the cost of saving a work of art.”
Of the 93 signatories to the text, 21 were natural scientists and four were Solvay Prize winners4 (MacLeod, 2018). For German readers of the text, published in the “Berlin Daily”, it likely struck them no differently than the propaganda commonly found in other newspapers and magazines at the time5. The Kaiser (Wilhelm II) had repeatedly proclaimed that German science and the nation were one and the same. Overnight, as MacLeod writes, “it seemed, scientific internationalism was no longer a guarantee of political neutrality” (MacLeod, 2018).
Outside Germany, however, the reception to the manifest was quite different.
International Reaction
“Louvain! Shall be our Battle Cry!” — Popular British march
Although the German propaganda machine had worked hard to downplay the harm caused by its 1st Army in Louvain (and apparently succeeded among German intellectuals) within weeks of learning of the atrocities, the city had “suddenly found itself at the center of a genuine culture struggle [...] [for] when a university town was ablaze, intellectuals could hardly remain aloof” (Derez, 2016). Poets, writers, academics, musicians, cultural critics and other learned figures across the western world spoke out against the vicious attack on the ruche de la pensée, the city’s center of knowledge.
“Manifestos rained down. Under the heading of Louvain, English universities and institutions of higher learning gave written voice to their disgust” (Derez, 2016)
In a private letter addressed to signatory Wilhelm Wien (1864-1928), Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz (1853-1928) expressed his frustration with the manifesto, writing:
“If you had issued an enthusiastic appeal to the students, or if you had said ‘We cannot believe that’ instead of ‘It is not true,’ then no one would have anything to accuse you of. Instead, however, the signers had spoken in a most celebratory manner and extremely positively of things they could have known nothing about.”
Among those who chose to protest in public were 117 British scientists (including Bragg, Crookes, Fleming, Lamb, Lodge, Ramsay, Rayleigh and J.J. Thompson) who on October 21st published a ‘Reply to German Professors’ which in its entirety is available here. The letter, signed 'British Scholars’ opens as follows:
“We see with regret the names of many German professors and men of science, whom we regard with respect and, in some cases, with personal friendship, appended to a denunciation of Great Britain so utterly baseless that we can hardly believe that it expresses their spontaneous or considered opinion. We do not question for a moment their personal sincerity when they express their horror of war and their zeal for "the achievements of culture." Yet we are bound to point out that a very different view of war, and of national aggrandizement based on the threat of war, has been advocated by such influential writers as Nietzsche, von Treitschke, von Bülow, and von Bernhardi, and has received widespread support from the press and from public opinion in Germany. This has not occurred, and in our judgment would scarcely be possible, in any other civilized country. We must also remark that it is German armies alone which have, at the present time, deliberately destroyed or bombarded such monuments of human culture as the Library at Louvain and the Cathedrals at Rheims and Malines.”
In proper English fashion, their text ends with the polite expression of their “real and deep admiration for German scholarship and science”, ending:
“We have many ties with Germany, ties of comradeship, of respect, and of affection. We grieve profoundly that, under the baleful influence of a military system and its lawless dreams of conquest, she whom we once honored now stands revealed as the common enemy of Europe and of all peoples which respect the law of nations.
No less influenced by the official line in British politics at the time than those of their German counterparts, the 117 British scientists thus took a stand to too support the war, as their colleagues in Germany had done weeks prior, writing:
We must carry on the war on which we have entered. For us, as for Belgium, it is a war of defense, waged for liberty and peace.”
Two Germanies
“The ‘two Germanies’ of music and beauty, and of iron and blood were dissolved into one, dominated by war.” — MacLeod (2018)
Not all the intellectuals approached by Fulda accepted his invitation to sign the German manifesto, and some who did were not aware of what they were signing. Notably absent was Albert Einstein (1879-1955), who in 1915 would instead sign his name to a pacifist counter-manifesto referred to as the Aufruf an die Europäer (“Manifesto of the Europeans”). Another name that was notably absent was prominent mathematician David Hilbert (1862-1943), who distrusted Fulda’s motives and refused to sign. This did not go unnoticed by the German propaganda machine, and when Hilbert’s classes at Göttingen resumed in November of 1914, his students turned away from him, as if he were a traitor (Reid, 1970). Among those who later claimed not to know what they were signing were Planck, Fischer and Klein (Wolff, 2003). Planck, for instance, had been traveling and without knowing the formulation of the text authorized his children to sign it on his behalf. Astronomer Wilhelm J. Foerster (1832-1921), whose signature may have been added without his permission, soon rescinded his endorsement and set to work on the “Manifesto of the Europeans”, which he co-authored with Georg Friedrich Nicolai (1874-1964). Others notable for refusing to sign the manifest was composer Richard Strauss (1864-1949) , who later wrote that “declarations about war and politics are not fitting for an artist” (Strauss & Rolland, 1968).
Among those who did sign the document and remained proud to endorse it was Wilhelm Wien, a renowned German physicist and professor in Würzburg who three years prior had won the Nobel Prize in Physics “for his discoveries regarding the laws governing the radiation of heat”. Motivated by national and conservative leanings and his perceived failure of Manifest der 93 Wien, in late 1914 he took it upon himself to “take a stand against the unbelievable lies from abroad” (Wolff, 2003) by drafting a proclamation (“aufforderung”) against the “Englishness” (Engländerei) influencing German physics. The translated text is available in its entirety below:
Proclamation
Because of the war, the relations of physical scientists to enemy countries will undergo revision. This will effect our relationship with England particularly in view of the hostile declaration drafted by English scholars without any understanding of the German mind and signed by eight well-known English physicists (Bragg, Crookes, Fleming, Lamb, Lodge, Ramsay, Rayleigh, J. J. Thomson).
Two lines of the signatures are missing now! It has been demonstrated by their action that the long-standing efforts to reach a better mutual understanding with the English have failed and cannot be resumed in the foreseeable future. The steps we have taken in the interest of a rapprochement between the scientific communities of both peoples are no longer justified. Thus, we must eliminate the unjustified English influence on German physics.
Naturally, this does not mean a rejection of English scientific ideas and suggestions. But the frequently criticized “Ausländerei” of the Germans has become so evident in our science that it appears necessary to draw attention to it.
On this basis we limit ourselves for now to propose that all physicists observe the following rules:
1. In citing the literature, the English should no longer receive greater consideration than our countrymen, as has happened often in the past;
2. German physicists should no longer publish in English journals, except to respond;
3. Publishers should only accept scientific works written in German and
translations only if, in the opinion of experts, the translated works are particularly important contributions to the literature;
4. Government money is not to be used for translations.
E. Dorn. F. Exner. W. Hallwachs. F. Himstedt. W. König.
E. Lecher. O. Lummer. G. Mie. F. Richarz. E. Riecke.
E. v. Schweidler. A. Sommerfeld. J. Stark. M. Wien. W. Wien.
O. Wiener.Wien circulated drafts in the German physics community from December 22nd 1914 to January 19th 1915, reporting overwhelming acceptance and support from colleagues, including Arnold Sommerfeld (1868-1951), Phillip Lenard (1862-1947) and Johannes Stark (1874-1957). Formulated not as a counter-manifesto to the British, but rather, as a “self-education” targeted towards German-speaking physicists, the proclamation was printed in 700 copies which were sent out to German and Austrian universities in March of 1915 (Wolff, 2003).
Aftermath
By 1921 a report in The New York Times found that of the 76 surviving signatories to the ‘Manifest der 93’, 60 expressed varying degrees of regret for signing. Some of the signatories, two in particular, remained devoted to the contents of Manifest der 93, Wien’s Aufforderung and indeed, extreme extension to them. Although Wien occasionally expressed racist sentiments in the years following the Treaty of Versailles, he did so in private rather than public and always with a measure of restraint, as in this personal note to Lenard (Wolff, 2003):
“I also agree that the Semitic influence should be stemmed, but without that ‘Spektakelantisemitismus’ (“anti-Semitic uproar”) from which nothing positive will result.”
Wien did not reject Einstein’s theory of relativity and indeed nominated both Einstein and Lorentz for the Nobel Prize in 1918.
Lenard and Stark on the other hand, as early as the 1920s began supporting Adolf Hitler publicly. Their legacy, tarnished by this support and their pursuit of the “German physics” would later fail and be supplanted by the work of another German physicist, Werner Heisenberg (1901-76) who would go on to employ “Jewish physics” in the German nuclear weapons program, which was initiated in 1939.
To this day, the burning of the library in Louvain remains a battle line, which we should be wary to ever cross again, for as Heinrich Heine (1797-1856) so eloquently once stated, “where they burn books, they will also burn people”.
Related Privatdozent Essays
About
At the time of the writing of this essay, the Privatdozent newsletter goes out to 11,779 subscribers via Substack.
References
Derez, M., 2016. The flames of Louvain: a library as a cultural icon and a political vehicle. What do we lose when we lose a library, pp.25-36.
MacLeod, R., 2018. The mobilisation of minds and the crisis in international science: the Krieg der Geister and the Manifesto of the 93. Journal of War & Culture Studies, 11(1), pp.58-78.
Reid, C. 1970. Hilbert*. Heidelberg: Springer.
Strauss, R. & Rolland, R. 1968. Rollo Myers (ed.). Richard Strauss & Romain Rolland: Correspondence. Calder, London. p. 160.
Wolff, S.L., 2003. Physicists in the" Krieg der Geister": Wilhelm Wien's" Proclamation". Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 33(2), pp.337-368.
EDIT 11.15.24: Spelling “weary”. Clarification about using old name “Louvain” (vs current “Leuven”)
Anti-anglocentrism in Germany during World War I emerged as a rejection of increasing influence of British language and perspectives on German culture
Across four Belgian provinces some 18,000 homes were destroyed and 5,000 citizens were killed ().
The Times, 2014. The March of the Huns. On this day: August 28th 1914. Available at: <https://www.thetimes.com/article/the-march-of-the-huns-5kgdqmzb0sc>
Ernest Solvay (1838-1922) was a Belgian chemist, industrialist and philanthropist whose Solvay Conferences rose to prominence in the physics community.
The many references are a plus.
The University Library building was rebuilt after WWI with donations from US and crests of US States are on the pillars of the building.