What do you think?
Rate this book
Serving the Reich: The Struggle for the Soul of Physics under Hitler
Serving the Reich tells the story of physics under Hitler. While some scientists tried to create an Aryan physics that excluded any ‘Jewish ideas’, many others made compromises and concessions as they continued to work under the Nazi regime. Among them were three world-renowned physicists:
Max Planck, pioneer of quantum theory, regarded it as his moral duty to carry on under the regime.
Peter Debye, a Dutch physicist, rose to run the Reich’s most important research institute before leaving for the United States in 1940.
Werner Heisenberg, discovered the Uncertainty Principle, and became the leading figure in Germany’s race for the atomic bomb.
After the war most scientists in Germany maintained they had been apolitical or even resisted the regime: Debye claimed that he had gone to America to escape Nazi interference in his research; Heisenberg and others argued that they had deliberately delayed production of the atomic bomb.
Mixing history, science and biography, Serving the Reich is a gripping exploration of moral choices under a totalitarian regime. Here are human dilemmas, failures to take responsibility, three lives caught between the idealistic goals of science and a tyrannical ideology.
Max Planck, pioneer of quantum theory, regarded it as his moral duty to carry on under the regime.
Peter Debye, a Dutch physicist, rose to run the Reich’s most important research institute before leaving for the United States in 1940.
Werner Heisenberg, discovered the Uncertainty Principle, and became the leading figure in Germany’s race for the atomic bomb.
After the war most scientists in Germany maintained they had been apolitical or even resisted the regime: Debye claimed that he had gone to America to escape Nazi interference in his research; Heisenberg and others argued that they had deliberately delayed production of the atomic bomb.
Mixing history, science and biography, Serving the Reich is a gripping exploration of moral choices under a totalitarian regime. Here are human dilemmas, failures to take responsibility, three lives caught between the idealistic goals of science and a tyrannical ideology.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published October 10, 2013
40 people are currently reading
747 people want to read
About the author
Philip Ball
66 books499 followersPhilip Ball (born 1962) is an English science writer. He holds a degree in chemistry from Oxford and a doctorate in physics from Bristol University. He was an editor for the journal Nature for over 10 years. He now writes a regular column in Chemistry World. Ball's most-popular book is the 2004 Critical Mass: How One Things Leads to Another, winner of the 2005 Aventis Prize for Science Books. It examines a wide range of topics including the business cycle, random walks, phase transitions, bifurcation theory, traffic flow, Zipf's law, Small world phenomenon, catastrophe theory, the Prisoner's dilemma. The overall theme is one of applying modern mathematical models to social and economic phenomena.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews
July 8, 2024
This book examines the state of physics under the Third Reich, the accommodations, evasions, and willful blindness of scientists to the hellmouth at the heart of Hitler’s Germany, a hellmouth which many of them profited from and whose cause they furthered. It ends with an examination of the post-war justifications they conjured up to make themselves appear as heroes who had actually obstructed efforts toward an atomic bomb.
It focuses on the lives of three Nobel prize winners. First is Max Plank, the revered elder statesman, who only wanted to see German physicists continue to do useful research and who, to that end, acceded without public protest to the Nazis’ increasingly vile demands.
Next was Peter Debye, an able administrator who helped some Jewish colleagues emigrate or, later, escape from Germany and certain death. By no means racist himself, he nevertheless became a passive accomplice to the crimes around him, “a man who assiduously avoided hard moral choices, and did so not by bending with the wind, but rather by cleaving to a traditional sense of duty – to science and to a system of honour – that made such choices seem unnecessary, even unwholesome….[he] seemed reluctant to accept that a scientist has any obligations except to science.” (p. 259)
Finally there was Werner Heisenberg, the most craven of the lot. During the war he presented himself as the face of German physics in the service of the Nazi state, and accepted funding to research nuclear reactions with the goal of eventually creating nuclear weapons. He was also one of the leading scientists to spin post-war fantasies about courageously risking their lives to derail Nazi nuclear research, and “it never seemed to matter to Heisenberg...whether these stories were rigorous, consistent or plausible. It was enough that they should confer some degree of moral impunity...Paul Lawrence Rose, inclined to believe the very worst of these men at all times, considers their stories a fantasy concocted to preserve their dignity, reputation, and ‘honor’ – the latter being understood in the distinctly German sense of one’s inner integrity, rather than (as others might see it) the moral orientation of one’s actions." (p. 236)
Genuine heroes are few and far between, although one shining example was Paul Rosbaud, who spied for the British, risking his life repeatedly to pass along vital information about German weapons research, including the V-1/V-2 programs and Norwegian heavy water production.
The book does a good job looking at the increasingly claustrophobic atmosphere Germans lived under. Many had thought that Hitler’s antisemitism was a passing phase which would fade as his position became more secure. It actually got worse. Nazi policies were about race, not religion. Anyone with three or more Jewish grandparents was a Jew, regardless of whether the children or grandchildren were religious or secular Jews or Christians. Initially there were exemptions, such as for Jews who had served on the front lines in World War I, but the 1935 Nuremberg laws revoked them, also stripping Jews of their citizenship and relabeling them “subjects”. As a result, German math and science were gutted, their leading experts emigrating, many to perform vital research for the Allies during the war.
There is an interesting discussion of Aryan versus Jewish science. For the most part, even though the Nazis despised Einstein, they did recognize the validity of Relativity, as they did Niels Bohr’s quantum mechanics. There was, however, a wacky fringe group which loudly disagreed. They consisted mostly of experimental rather than theoretical physicists, and while they had done good work in the lab, they lacked the necessary mathematical skills to wrap their minds around the new physics. Instead, they developed the notion that “there was a Jewish ways of doing science, which involved spinning webs of abstract theory that lacked any roots in the firm and fertile soil of experimental work. The Jews...turn debates about objective questions into personal disputes.” (p. 98) No serious scientists agreed with this position.
To help the reader understand what was happening with the progress toward a theory of nuclear fission, chapter 8 discusses the experiments which gradually unveiled the composition of the atom and its nucleus, the concept of nuclear decay, and how nuclei could be manipulated. The author’s explanations are clear and well written, so that even those without an interest in German physics, but who want to understand how scientists arrived at the principles of fission, would benefit from reading this chapter. For instance, in examining slight differences in the expected versus the actual mass of the nuclei
Serving the Reich will give the reader much to think about in terms of responsibility, accountability, and personal courage. The stakes were high, and defying the Nazis could have terrifying consequences. There are some important nuances to consider here, because it is short-sighted to simply dismiss them as cowards, and “the lesson is not that the German physicists, as a group, failed to offer sufficient opposition to Hitler. That conclusion is hard to deny, but it is a brave person who asserts without hesitation that he or she would have done better, shown better judgment, been braver, had a clearer view of where choices would lead.” (p. 279)
However, even setting aside questions of personal courage under a fanatical and murderous regime, the scientists still have much to answer for. “The self-justification of German scientists after the war was not so much an act of evasion as a genuine belief that there was nothing to feel guilty about. And to outsiders, this attitude did and does remain nigh incomprehensible. To feel no responsibility at having worked under, and in some sense for, a racist, genocidal gang of criminals seemed in indicate a sheer absence of moral reason.” (p.245)
This book will will also make readers consider the present in terms of the past, especially as our modern world faces its own threats to democracy. This quote from Mein Kampf could have been written by certain of our political strategists today, particularly those who say we live in a “post-truth” world: “The nationalization of the great masses can never take place by way of half measures, by a weak emphasis upon a so-called objective viewpoint, but by a ruthless and fanatically one-sided orientation as to the goal to be aimed at...One can only succeed in winning the soul of a people if...one also destroys at the same time the supporters of the contrary.” (p. 30)
We may soon be facing our own questions about courage, collusion, and accountability.
It focuses on the lives of three Nobel prize winners. First is Max Plank, the revered elder statesman, who only wanted to see German physicists continue to do useful research and who, to that end, acceded without public protest to the Nazis’ increasingly vile demands.
Next was Peter Debye, an able administrator who helped some Jewish colleagues emigrate or, later, escape from Germany and certain death. By no means racist himself, he nevertheless became a passive accomplice to the crimes around him, “a man who assiduously avoided hard moral choices, and did so not by bending with the wind, but rather by cleaving to a traditional sense of duty – to science and to a system of honour – that made such choices seem unnecessary, even unwholesome….[he] seemed reluctant to accept that a scientist has any obligations except to science.” (p. 259)
Finally there was Werner Heisenberg, the most craven of the lot. During the war he presented himself as the face of German physics in the service of the Nazi state, and accepted funding to research nuclear reactions with the goal of eventually creating nuclear weapons. He was also one of the leading scientists to spin post-war fantasies about courageously risking their lives to derail Nazi nuclear research, and “it never seemed to matter to Heisenberg...whether these stories were rigorous, consistent or plausible. It was enough that they should confer some degree of moral impunity...Paul Lawrence Rose, inclined to believe the very worst of these men at all times, considers their stories a fantasy concocted to preserve their dignity, reputation, and ‘honor’ – the latter being understood in the distinctly German sense of one’s inner integrity, rather than (as others might see it) the moral orientation of one’s actions." (p. 236)
Genuine heroes are few and far between, although one shining example was Paul Rosbaud, who spied for the British, risking his life repeatedly to pass along vital information about German weapons research, including the V-1/V-2 programs and Norwegian heavy water production.
The book does a good job looking at the increasingly claustrophobic atmosphere Germans lived under. Many had thought that Hitler’s antisemitism was a passing phase which would fade as his position became more secure. It actually got worse. Nazi policies were about race, not religion. Anyone with three or more Jewish grandparents was a Jew, regardless of whether the children or grandchildren were religious or secular Jews or Christians. Initially there were exemptions, such as for Jews who had served on the front lines in World War I, but the 1935 Nuremberg laws revoked them, also stripping Jews of their citizenship and relabeling them “subjects”. As a result, German math and science were gutted, their leading experts emigrating, many to perform vital research for the Allies during the war.
There is an interesting discussion of Aryan versus Jewish science. For the most part, even though the Nazis despised Einstein, they did recognize the validity of Relativity, as they did Niels Bohr’s quantum mechanics. There was, however, a wacky fringe group which loudly disagreed. They consisted mostly of experimental rather than theoretical physicists, and while they had done good work in the lab, they lacked the necessary mathematical skills to wrap their minds around the new physics. Instead, they developed the notion that “there was a Jewish ways of doing science, which involved spinning webs of abstract theory that lacked any roots in the firm and fertile soil of experimental work. The Jews...turn debates about objective questions into personal disputes.” (p. 98) No serious scientists agreed with this position.
To help the reader understand what was happening with the progress toward a theory of nuclear fission, chapter 8 discusses the experiments which gradually unveiled the composition of the atom and its nucleus, the concept of nuclear decay, and how nuclei could be manipulated. The author’s explanations are clear and well written, so that even those without an interest in German physics, but who want to understand how scientists arrived at the principles of fission, would benefit from reading this chapter. For instance, in examining slight differences in the expected versus the actual mass of the nuclei
the atomic masses were still not quite exact multiples of that of hydrogen. They were always slightly less: there was a ‘mass defect’. [They] realized that in this tiny deficit resided the immense power of the nucleus. As protons come together and fuse to form a nucleus, a little bit of their mass is converted to energy, in accord with Einstein’s equivalence of mass and energy E=mc2. The release of this energy is what makes the nucleus stable: it is called the binding energy. As Einstein’s iconic equation implies, the energy equivalent of mass is enormous, being multiplied by the speed of light squared. (p. 167)
Serving the Reich will give the reader much to think about in terms of responsibility, accountability, and personal courage. The stakes were high, and defying the Nazis could have terrifying consequences. There are some important nuances to consider here, because it is short-sighted to simply dismiss them as cowards, and “the lesson is not that the German physicists, as a group, failed to offer sufficient opposition to Hitler. That conclusion is hard to deny, but it is a brave person who asserts without hesitation that he or she would have done better, shown better judgment, been braver, had a clearer view of where choices would lead.” (p. 279)
However, even setting aside questions of personal courage under a fanatical and murderous regime, the scientists still have much to answer for. “The self-justification of German scientists after the war was not so much an act of evasion as a genuine belief that there was nothing to feel guilty about. And to outsiders, this attitude did and does remain nigh incomprehensible. To feel no responsibility at having worked under, and in some sense for, a racist, genocidal gang of criminals seemed in indicate a sheer absence of moral reason.” (p.245)
This book will will also make readers consider the present in terms of the past, especially as our modern world faces its own threats to democracy. This quote from Mein Kampf could have been written by certain of our political strategists today, particularly those who say we live in a “post-truth” world: “The nationalization of the great masses can never take place by way of half measures, by a weak emphasis upon a so-called objective viewpoint, but by a ruthless and fanatically one-sided orientation as to the goal to be aimed at...One can only succeed in winning the soul of a people if...one also destroys at the same time the supporters of the contrary.” (p. 30)
We may soon be facing our own questions about courage, collusion, and accountability.
July 5, 2014
Subtitled ‘the struggle for the soul of physics’, Philip Ball’s book takes us deep into the conflicted (and conflicting) stories of how German physicists responded to the growing power of the Nazis, their attitude to Jews, and their responses to the strictures of the Second World War.
In principle Ball does this by examining the lives and work of three physicists – the old guard Max Planck, a Dutch immigrant Peter Debye, and the seemingly amoral Werner Heisenberg – but in practice we see the impact of the regime and culture on many other physicists from intense supporters of the Nazis to those who did their best to oppose the regime.
Over the years these German scientists have been portrayed as everything from enthusiastic supporters of the Third Reich to secret saboteurs who did all they could to slow down the German development of nuclear weapons. Ball resolutely refuses to paint them either black or white, instead giving us every possible detail of shades of grey.
This is, without doubt, the fairest and most honest approach, given the lack of concrete information, but sometimes Ball’s concern to remain neutral and portray history as it was, rather than the usual ‘as the historian wants it to be’ can make the book a bit of a hard slog. Reading a Philip Ball book is a bit like attending a lecture by a scientist who absolutely knows his stuff, and is prepared to go off on lots of interesting side diversions, but nonetheless is very pernickety and precise, insisting on weighing everything up from every possible angle, so that just sometimes not only is the moral position of the scientists entirely grey, so is the storytelling.
This is a fascinating period in the history of physics, and it is indeed interesting to see how these well known (and less well known) characters played their part. Often the answer is ‘in a human, if rather detached, way – wanting as much as possible to get on with life, even if it meant ignoring some difficult truths.’ There is a feeling that somehow scientists should be more able to face reality – but in fact, in many ways they can be even more withdrawn than a typical citizen. Either way, with such ambiguous circumstances, combined with attempts after the war to modify the record to make things look less unpleasant, the result is inevitably a messy history that can never definitively tell us what happened. So don’t expect to come out of this with a clear picture – but do expect to know a lot more about the thinking of these key figures outside of their work in physics.
In principle Ball does this by examining the lives and work of three physicists – the old guard Max Planck, a Dutch immigrant Peter Debye, and the seemingly amoral Werner Heisenberg – but in practice we see the impact of the regime and culture on many other physicists from intense supporters of the Nazis to those who did their best to oppose the regime.
Over the years these German scientists have been portrayed as everything from enthusiastic supporters of the Third Reich to secret saboteurs who did all they could to slow down the German development of nuclear weapons. Ball resolutely refuses to paint them either black or white, instead giving us every possible detail of shades of grey.
This is, without doubt, the fairest and most honest approach, given the lack of concrete information, but sometimes Ball’s concern to remain neutral and portray history as it was, rather than the usual ‘as the historian wants it to be’ can make the book a bit of a hard slog. Reading a Philip Ball book is a bit like attending a lecture by a scientist who absolutely knows his stuff, and is prepared to go off on lots of interesting side diversions, but nonetheless is very pernickety and precise, insisting on weighing everything up from every possible angle, so that just sometimes not only is the moral position of the scientists entirely grey, so is the storytelling.
This is a fascinating period in the history of physics, and it is indeed interesting to see how these well known (and less well known) characters played their part. Often the answer is ‘in a human, if rather detached, way – wanting as much as possible to get on with life, even if it meant ignoring some difficult truths.’ There is a feeling that somehow scientists should be more able to face reality – but in fact, in many ways they can be even more withdrawn than a typical citizen. Either way, with such ambiguous circumstances, combined with attempts after the war to modify the record to make things look less unpleasant, the result is inevitably a messy history that can never definitively tell us what happened. So don’t expect to come out of this with a clear picture – but do expect to know a lot more about the thinking of these key figures outside of their work in physics.
July 8, 2016
Un libro de pobre gente que, además, son físicos, pero sobre todo son pobre gente que no hace prácticamente nada (con alguna excepción) respecto a los nazis. Muchas páginas muy bien documentadas analizando cartas, discursos, el testimonio de alguien que pasaba por allí, alguien que oyó algo, buscando si hay alguna traza de no estar conforme con el régimen nazi, o de ser antisemita. No sabemos, quizá sí, quizá no, quizá esta expresión denote que era un poquitín nazi... y en general a uno le deja la sensación de que eran todos pobre gente, que a veces se imaginaban que hacían algo en un sentido o en otro, pero que no hacían mucho. Y claro, la pregunta es siempre ¿acaso habría hecho usted más, se habría alzado contra el Tercer Reich? Pues desde luego después de leer este libro no, porque te deja el espíritu chafado, listo para freír un sanjacobo congelado y poco más.
El remate de la pena es Heisenberg encargado de las investigaciones atómicas, que ni sabe cuánto se tardaría en hacer una bomba, ni sabe cuánto uranio haría falta y está perdido. Le capturan y ni se plantea que le hayan puesto micrófonos en la habitación. Luego ve la bomba de Hiroshima y cree que es un cuento, que no es posible que la hayan construido los americanos. Y al final penurias de posguerra intentando convencer de que estuvo poniendo palos en las ruedas de Hitler cuando resulta que no consiguió hacer la bomba porque no vio claro que pudiese conseguirlo.
Salvando a los físicos tiene reflexiones que valen la pena, como esta:
"Esta perspectiva cuasi-mística de la teoría cuántica que los físicos parecieron alentar se acoplaba al reciente rechazo, durante la era de Weimar, de los supuestos males del materialismo: el comercialismo, la avaricia y la invasión de la tecnología."
o
"El culto cosificado a la naturaleza (que es lo contrario a respetarla), siempre ha estado al borde de una ideología fundamentalmente fascista".
Y otras cuestiones como si el alemán es capaz de tener una libertad personal, íntima, introspectiva, generar un mundo interior en el que es libre, mientras a la vez es absolutamente obediente a la ley. Si el alemán es capaz de hacer esto y por tanto capaz de una sumisión total al orden mientras conserva un espacio interior, un mundo dentro de su teutona cabeza.
De estas perlas hay varias por aquí y por allá, y uno se las apunta y sale mejor de lo que entró.
Uno acaba con la certeza de que habría sido mucho mejor, y más fácil, que estos físicos se hubieran dedicado a lo que realmente Hitler y Himmler querían investigar, que es la sandez de la Cosmogonía Glacial. El Hielo Cósmico, una tontada que te conecta con los atlantes. Si algunos físicos, en lugar de estar ahí debatiéndose entre si firmar las cartas con Heil Hitler o no, se hubieran entregado en cuerpo y alma a la gilipollez del Hielo Cósmico todo habría ido bien. Sus superiores, encantados; contribución a la ventaja nazi en la guerra, cero o negativa, y habrían dejado una bonita historia, porque es una pena muy grande que pongas a un chorro de premios Nobel en un libro con nazis y te salgan tan pochos.
El remate de la pena es Heisenberg encargado de las investigaciones atómicas, que ni sabe cuánto se tardaría en hacer una bomba, ni sabe cuánto uranio haría falta y está perdido. Le capturan y ni se plantea que le hayan puesto micrófonos en la habitación. Luego ve la bomba de Hiroshima y cree que es un cuento, que no es posible que la hayan construido los americanos. Y al final penurias de posguerra intentando convencer de que estuvo poniendo palos en las ruedas de Hitler cuando resulta que no consiguió hacer la bomba porque no vio claro que pudiese conseguirlo.
Salvando a los físicos tiene reflexiones que valen la pena, como esta:
"Esta perspectiva cuasi-mística de la teoría cuántica que los físicos parecieron alentar se acoplaba al reciente rechazo, durante la era de Weimar, de los supuestos males del materialismo: el comercialismo, la avaricia y la invasión de la tecnología."
o
"El culto cosificado a la naturaleza (que es lo contrario a respetarla), siempre ha estado al borde de una ideología fundamentalmente fascista".
Y otras cuestiones como si el alemán es capaz de tener una libertad personal, íntima, introspectiva, generar un mundo interior en el que es libre, mientras a la vez es absolutamente obediente a la ley. Si el alemán es capaz de hacer esto y por tanto capaz de una sumisión total al orden mientras conserva un espacio interior, un mundo dentro de su teutona cabeza.
De estas perlas hay varias por aquí y por allá, y uno se las apunta y sale mejor de lo que entró.
Uno acaba con la certeza de que habría sido mucho mejor, y más fácil, que estos físicos se hubieran dedicado a lo que realmente Hitler y Himmler querían investigar, que es la sandez de la Cosmogonía Glacial. El Hielo Cósmico, una tontada que te conecta con los atlantes. Si algunos físicos, en lugar de estar ahí debatiéndose entre si firmar las cartas con Heil Hitler o no, se hubieran entregado en cuerpo y alma a la gilipollez del Hielo Cósmico todo habría ido bien. Sus superiores, encantados; contribución a la ventaja nazi en la guerra, cero o negativa, y habrían dejado una bonita historia, porque es una pena muy grande que pongas a un chorro de premios Nobel en un libro con nazis y te salgan tan pochos.
March 3, 2017
The book is quite interesting, and its aim is to write a definitive account on the situation of three major figures in both Quantum Physics and Germany. Both Plack and Heisenberg are studied extensively in other books and magazines, but it's the first time I've read an account on Debye as well, probably because he's one of the most controversial physicists who have worked under the regime. Overall the book is well written and addresses both questions about physics and history, trying to cast a light on the most important aspects of quantum mechanics. The fact that it deals only with those aspects that are necessary to the dissertation is a plus, for me, as the other phenomena, despite their obvious physical importance, are of no use for a discussion about politics. The only problem I could find in the book is that the approach is quite repetitive, thus it ends up being a bit boring after a while, especially if you know already a big chunk of what the author is talking about.
January 9, 2025
Interessantissimo viaggio nel mondo della fisica tedesca durante il nazismo, con un focus speciale sulle storie di Heisenberg, Plank e Debye, storie tanto diverse ma legate da un filo comune che sembra una caratteristica comune a tutta la scienza tedesca, sia durante il terzo Reich che nel dopoguerra. Un libro scritto con rigore storico, che apre tante questioni, apporta tante fonti e propone delle letture, ma non fornisce certezze. Allo stesso tempo un libro ricco di aneddoti che ci aiuta ad avvicinarci agli scienziati tedeschi del tempo e ci offre l'occasione di ripercorrere i passi più importanti della fisica nucleare negli anni 30 e negli anni di guerra, da una prospettiva diversa rispetto a quella usuale statunitense.
October 18, 2015
Este libro está centrado en la historia de un personaje, un Premio Nobel de Física llamado Peter Debye. Todo esto sucedía en tiempos de Hitler. Todos aquellos físicos, aquellos científicos de esa época, trabajaban realmente para su país. Y las cosas que hacían tenían repercusión en la guerra. Entonces, el autor no para de preguntarse si realmente la ciencia es apolítica y podemos separar a los científicos del resto del mundo en estos aspectos.
¿Es criticable que aquellos científicos alemanes trabajaran para su país en tiempos del Reich? Desde el sofá y la seguridad de nuestras casas, es fácil criticarlos; pero como dice el autor, a ver quién es el que levanta la mano y afirma que lo hubiera hecho en aquellos tiempos mejor que ellos.
Es un libro muy riguroso, con numerosas fuentes y bien informado; y los dos capítulos finales, donde extrae las conclusiones son absolutamente maravillosos por su argumentación.
Si eres amante de la historia de la ciencia, este libro te gustará.
¿Es criticable que aquellos científicos alemanes trabajaran para su país en tiempos del Reich? Desde el sofá y la seguridad de nuestras casas, es fácil criticarlos; pero como dice el autor, a ver quién es el que levanta la mano y afirma que lo hubiera hecho en aquellos tiempos mejor que ellos.
Es un libro muy riguroso, con numerosas fuentes y bien informado; y los dos capítulos finales, donde extrae las conclusiones son absolutamente maravillosos por su argumentación.
Si eres amante de la historia de la ciencia, este libro te gustará.
October 7, 2019
Never really got into to this, i found the decision to jump back and forth in time in Chapters a bit of an irritation when maybe a straight linear telling of the events would have been a better choice. Also the constant quarreling, and back and forth letter writing between scientist's, lecturer's, University chiefs became very tiresome, and felt a bit trite and meaningless given the circumstances of the time. I understand at the time the letters were written they weren't fully aware of the horrors to come. I think i was expecting a different book and so gave up after Chapter 7.
lost-interest
February 17, 2016Not rated because I may pick it up again later in my life. The topic is interesting, but the writing is really academic and I can't push through it right now.
March 20, 2020
Interessante e ben documentato, esposto in modo chiaro e preciso
August 26, 2015
I thoroughly enjoyed Philip Ball’s book, Serving the Reich – The Struggle for the Soul of Physics Under Hitler. It examines the relationship between science and politics through the lens of the actions of Peter Debye, Max Planck, and Werner Heisenberg during the backdrop of Nazi Germany. Ball notes, “None of these three men were enthusiastic about Hitler’s regime, yet all were leaders and guides of German science – managerially, intellectually, and inspirationally – and they each played a major part in setting the tone of the physics community’s response to the Nazi era.” (p.5)
It struck me that the regime in Nazi Germany arose because educated and concerned people lacked the will to take action to stop it . . . before it was too late. This situation in the mid-1930s seems to have parallels to the challenges President Obama faces as ISIS emerges in the Middle East to replace the remnants of Al-Qaida. Is it too late to stop such evil from rearing its ugly head again?
Ball highlights, “The encroachment of Nazi ideology in physics was not a state-sanctioned enterprise but an ultimately fruitless attempt at self-promotion by a few eminent yet embittered individuals.” Political sycophants, who were generally poor-performing scientists, came to positions of authority in German science and by 1935, “1 in 5 German scientists (or 1 in 4 physicists) had been dismissed.”
Ball adds, “The Nazis insisted not just on who did science, but on what science was done.” Jewish scientists could not practice science and such religious intolerance forced scientists, such as Albert Einstein, to leave Germany for America. He wrote, on April 5, 1933, “I did not wish to live in a country where the individual does not enjoy equality before the law, and freedom of speech and training . . .” (p.76)
Anti-semitism was rampant in nearby German-speaking Austria too. Chelsea Wald, wrote in SCIENCE, in March 2013, “The [Austrian Academy of Sciences] may have been particularly hostile to Jews and nonconformists even before the Nazis arrived, said historian Mitchell Ash of the University of Vienna. After the Anschluss [the annexation of Austria to Germany in March 1938], only 9% of the regular members were forced out on ‘racial’ or political grounds, while nearly half of the University’s faculty members were dismissed. That means membership was ‘not entirely based on meritocratic, but also on folkish and anti-Semitic criteria,’ even before the Nazi ideology took over, Ash said.”
The Nazis were bad for Germany and Austria, and the Nazi regime was bad for German science too.
After World War II, many scientists remained in denial over what happened, including the horrors of the Nazi treatment of prisoners and even the Holocaust. Werner Heisenberg, of Uncertainty Principle fame, exemplifies this denial of the past. “He was apt to refer to ‘the bad side of Nazism,’” as Ball writes, “with the implication that there was a ‘good’ side too.” Heisenberg argued that the Nazis would have become civilized if they had won the war – give or take 50 years.
What compels highly trained people to ignore the atrocities around them? Ball believes, in this case, “What seems most to have compromised Heisenberg was a craving for approval – even that of a corrupt regime whose methods and principles he disdained.” Maybe keeping your nose to the grindstone and waiting for kudos is not the way to halt evil in its tracks.
Elder statesmen in the physics community, Max Planck, was “paralysed by a predicament for which his conservative education had never prepared him. He is,” as Ball depicts, “. . . a genuinely tragic figure. Planck found it difficult to challenge authority in a German society were maintaining structure and taking orders unquestioningly from the political leadership was ingrained.
Meanwhile, a solid scientist like Peter Debye was simply “an ordinary man in extraordinary circumstances.”
The question Ball asks, “What could Planck, Heisenberg, and Debye done differently?” As it turns out, nothing!
I recommend that this period piece about 1930s-era scientists dealing with an oppressive regime be read. It forces us to think about what we would do in such circumstances. It brought to light some notions that Ball attempts to address for us and the global scientific community of the 21st century:
1. It’s a delusion of some scientists that reason and moral virtue go hand-in-hand.
2. Scientific training rarely incorporates an ethical dimension.
Enjoy the read!
It struck me that the regime in Nazi Germany arose because educated and concerned people lacked the will to take action to stop it . . . before it was too late. This situation in the mid-1930s seems to have parallels to the challenges President Obama faces as ISIS emerges in the Middle East to replace the remnants of Al-Qaida. Is it too late to stop such evil from rearing its ugly head again?
Ball highlights, “The encroachment of Nazi ideology in physics was not a state-sanctioned enterprise but an ultimately fruitless attempt at self-promotion by a few eminent yet embittered individuals.” Political sycophants, who were generally poor-performing scientists, came to positions of authority in German science and by 1935, “1 in 5 German scientists (or 1 in 4 physicists) had been dismissed.”
Ball adds, “The Nazis insisted not just on who did science, but on what science was done.” Jewish scientists could not practice science and such religious intolerance forced scientists, such as Albert Einstein, to leave Germany for America. He wrote, on April 5, 1933, “I did not wish to live in a country where the individual does not enjoy equality before the law, and freedom of speech and training . . .” (p.76)
Anti-semitism was rampant in nearby German-speaking Austria too. Chelsea Wald, wrote in SCIENCE, in March 2013, “The [Austrian Academy of Sciences] may have been particularly hostile to Jews and nonconformists even before the Nazis arrived, said historian Mitchell Ash of the University of Vienna. After the Anschluss [the annexation of Austria to Germany in March 1938], only 9% of the regular members were forced out on ‘racial’ or political grounds, while nearly half of the University’s faculty members were dismissed. That means membership was ‘not entirely based on meritocratic, but also on folkish and anti-Semitic criteria,’ even before the Nazi ideology took over, Ash said.”
The Nazis were bad for Germany and Austria, and the Nazi regime was bad for German science too.
After World War II, many scientists remained in denial over what happened, including the horrors of the Nazi treatment of prisoners and even the Holocaust. Werner Heisenberg, of Uncertainty Principle fame, exemplifies this denial of the past. “He was apt to refer to ‘the bad side of Nazism,’” as Ball writes, “with the implication that there was a ‘good’ side too.” Heisenberg argued that the Nazis would have become civilized if they had won the war – give or take 50 years.
What compels highly trained people to ignore the atrocities around them? Ball believes, in this case, “What seems most to have compromised Heisenberg was a craving for approval – even that of a corrupt regime whose methods and principles he disdained.” Maybe keeping your nose to the grindstone and waiting for kudos is not the way to halt evil in its tracks.
Elder statesmen in the physics community, Max Planck, was “paralysed by a predicament for which his conservative education had never prepared him. He is,” as Ball depicts, “. . . a genuinely tragic figure. Planck found it difficult to challenge authority in a German society were maintaining structure and taking orders unquestioningly from the political leadership was ingrained.
Meanwhile, a solid scientist like Peter Debye was simply “an ordinary man in extraordinary circumstances.”
The question Ball asks, “What could Planck, Heisenberg, and Debye done differently?” As it turns out, nothing!
I recommend that this period piece about 1930s-era scientists dealing with an oppressive regime be read. It forces us to think about what we would do in such circumstances. It brought to light some notions that Ball attempts to address for us and the global scientific community of the 21st century:
1. It’s a delusion of some scientists that reason and moral virtue go hand-in-hand.
2. Scientific training rarely incorporates an ethical dimension.
Enjoy the read!
December 7, 2018
A nuanced essay on a subject of great relevance. Ball is less sparkling a historian of science than he is a science popularizer. But he's certainly a thoughtful one, and the book in review is important. I didn't learn much reading it that I wasn't aware of already, but I was encouraged to a subtler and more critical reading of "the facts" than I'd previously done. For that, kudos to the author.
April 2, 2016
I wrote about this book here. (I'm a big fan.)
March 16, 2018
內容零落，沒有重點，不容易啃的一本傳記型報導。科學家沒有比其他群體更高尚、但也沒有更卑劣。
April 6, 2020
ottimo libro di studio. parecchi spunti interessanti e proposta di lettura degli avvenimenti sotto indagine condivisibile.
August 13, 2025
Una investigación exhaustiva en el papel de los científicos durante el nazismo. Se centra en la figura de tres físicos prominentes. Max Planck, el patriarca de la física alemana y fundador de la teoría cuántica; ya anciano en la época. Peter Debye, de origen holandés, más joven que Planck y que ocupaba un puesto importante dirigiendo un instituto científico de primera línea. Y Werner Heisenberg, el niño prodigio de la física alemana. El libro se centra en sus trayectorias bajo el nazismo, tanto antes de la guerra como durante la misma. Ello tiene especial importancia por cuanto estos científicos pudieron impulsar la investigación de una bomba atómica. Cada uno de ellos está descrito en el libro con sus debilidades y fortalezas. Planck aborrecía el nazismo pero primaba en él su sentido del deber y su patriotismo. Debye abandonó Alemania cuando se le exigió nacionalizarse alemán. Heisenberg es el que más se implicó con el nazismo, realizando viajes a los países ocupados con el objetivo de que sus científicos colaboraran con Alemania. En cada caso, la tibieza moral, la falta de compromiso en la lucha contra la dictadura y el afán de seguir una carrera científica exitosa pueden explicar sus actitudes. No eran nazis pero no se oponían públicamente al régimen.
February 21, 2023
A great book that thoroughly delivers on the accurate title.
I don’t know enough about physics to comment on whether the information is accurate, but all information is backed up and delivered as comprehensively researched. I’m not one for physics, chemistry or maths, but Ball the author delivers these topics in an understandable way to any adult mind. Yes, the book’s information is dense but the interspersing of history, politics, chemistry, physics and details of the mundane keep the prose readable as your mind gains a break following from topic to topic, and links across topics are explained to help build your comprehensive knowledge base to understand the layer material in the book.
The book approaches Hitler’s reign over Germany, and subsequent happenings including World War Two, from a fresh perspective that isn’t looked at in schools, which is why I enjoyed it so much.
I don’t know enough about physics to comment on whether the information is accurate, but all information is backed up and delivered as comprehensively researched. I’m not one for physics, chemistry or maths, but Ball the author delivers these topics in an understandable way to any adult mind. Yes, the book’s information is dense but the interspersing of history, politics, chemistry, physics and details of the mundane keep the prose readable as your mind gains a break following from topic to topic, and links across topics are explained to help build your comprehensive knowledge base to understand the layer material in the book.
The book approaches Hitler’s reign over Germany, and subsequent happenings including World War Two, from a fresh perspective that isn’t looked at in schools, which is why I enjoyed it so much.
August 9, 2017
An interesting analysis of the morals and implications of the physists who worked during the Third Reich years. Philip Ball takes us on a journey through the life's and times of these scientists, what they did, and the legacy of their work. In the end he shows us that there are no simple answers or easy explanations and that we must strive to understand the complexities of that time period. In short there are no clear answers and not everything is what it seems.
September 7, 2017
There is much to think about in this book, and much that could have been added. Detailed data about funding levels and distributions, comparison between actual spending levels in the US and Germany on nuclear fission research during WW II are missing, though the levels are compared, and the intra-Germany distribution of research spending is also missing.
Scientific research, I expect, follows the money, as it cannot be done without funding, though 'hot' areas may also draw funding to them.
Scientific research, I expect, follows the money, as it cannot be done without funding, though 'hot' areas may also draw funding to them.
January 22, 2022
Not an easy reading. Very interesting, though. It gives its best when telling the private lives of scientists and explaining the history of scientific discoveries.
A little less engaging when dealing with hypotheses about the political views of scientists, which is difficult to infer a posteriori and, in the end, quite useless, as the actions of these people likely had nothing to do with political believes, and more with personal convenience (family, friends, career).
A little less engaging when dealing with hypotheses about the political views of scientists, which is difficult to infer a posteriori and, in the end, quite useless, as the actions of these people likely had nothing to do with political believes, and more with personal convenience (family, friends, career).
October 24, 2017
Una excelente investigación acerca de muchos de los nombres más controvertidos de la ciencia Alemana durante el periodo del Tercer reich y el ambiente en el que la misma ciencia vivía bajo el totalitarismo nacionalsocialista
July 19, 2018
Really interesting read about the place of science and scientists in politics; gives perspectives of 3 people who under normal circumstances would have been seen as exceptional scientists (and they were) but were compromised by an impossible situation. Lots to think about.
May 7, 2019
15/20.
January 13, 2020
Very useful book; helps understand the struggle of scientists during the Nazi regime. Great source for essays; I used the book for my coursework!
April 18, 2016
This is a difficult book to evaluate. On the face of it, it investigates what happened to physics under National Socialism in the Third Reich, concentrating particularly on three scientists, viz. Max Planck, Peter Debye and Werner Heisenberg. However, my reading of it is that Philip Ball's primary motivation in writing this book was to investigate the question of what responsibilities scientists owe society as a whole under any form of government, and in particular, the role that moral choices play in this regard. Towards this end, he looks at the most extreme example of this dilemma, namely the response of German Science to living under the Nazi regime. A book with the title "The struggle for the soul of science" won't have much appeal; a book with Hitler , specifically, and Nazis, implicitly, in the title is going to sell much better. The difficulty with the book is figuring out what Ball is trying to say. On the one hand, he correctly points out that the belief that only democracies can nurture scientific creativity (a view that many in the science community would concur with) is a myth. The historical record clearly shows that scientific creativity can flourish under totalitarianism (both left and right) and dictatorships. Nazi Germany may have failed to develop nuclear weapons, but it did develop rockets and jet aircraft. During the Cold War, when state oppression in the Soviet Union was more extreme than in Nazi Germany, Soviet scientists were capable of inventive scientific research. Today's Chinese scientists are proving that, despite the rote learning of China's traditional education system, democracies have no monopoly on creativity. On the other hand, he also puts the case that scientists have a moral and professional responsibility to society as a whole beyond just being responsible for the calibre of their research, or formally responsible in a bureaucratic sense when in administration. As for his own position, it is not easy to ascertain, although he does drop hints here and there.
As for the three German scientists investigated in the book (although many more are mentioned throughout the narrative) the picture is mixed. Max Planck's case is a tragic one; he was what one would call of the old school, cautious, conservative, traditional and nationalistic. His nationalism was nothing like that of the Nazis; not jingoistic, instead he was dedicated to the service of the state and homeland. Tragically, the nature of his character meant that open defiance to constituted authority was unthinkable. Consequently, he was tempermentally unable to provide any effective opposition to the National Socialist regime after 1933. Coupled with the loss of one son in WW1 and another in WW2, he died in 1947 a broken man. The case of Peter Debye is uncertain. Dutch by birth, he spent over three decades working in Germany, and only escaped to the US in 1940 when the Nazis gave him an unacceptable ultimatum: convert to German nationality to be able to continue to work in Germany. During the war, he did not work on the Manhatten Project mainly because his security clearance did not come through until 1945 (some people suspected him of being a German spy). In 2006, a Dutch journalist wrote a book accusing him of Nazi collusion. An examination of the record shows that there is nothing to this accusation. Nevertheless, questionmarks remain, mainly because of his character: intensely private (he kept no diary), he cared only about science, and nothing about politics. Consequently, he was politically naive, with the result that the least worst accusation made about him was to be guilty of opportunistic behaviour. The problem is that we don't know why he did what he did; this leaves us with the anomalous Scottish verdict of "not proven". The case of Werner Heisenberg is clearer: like Planck, he was conservative and nationalistic, but without moral scruples. He was only concerned with the "honour" of German physics and possessed the ego to believe that only he could "save", or preserve, it. Consequently, he was prepared to cooperate with the Nazi regime and never apologised for this after the War, instead proceeding to perform (along with others) a "whitewash" of the reputation of German physics. He is not a sympathetic character.
In conclusion, this is an interesting book, which has been marked down because of the uncertainty about what the author is trying to say. Nevertheless, it does raise important questions about the responsibilities of science to society as a whole under any type of regime.
As for the three German scientists investigated in the book (although many more are mentioned throughout the narrative) the picture is mixed. Max Planck's case is a tragic one; he was what one would call of the old school, cautious, conservative, traditional and nationalistic. His nationalism was nothing like that of the Nazis; not jingoistic, instead he was dedicated to the service of the state and homeland. Tragically, the nature of his character meant that open defiance to constituted authority was unthinkable. Consequently, he was tempermentally unable to provide any effective opposition to the National Socialist regime after 1933. Coupled with the loss of one son in WW1 and another in WW2, he died in 1947 a broken man. The case of Peter Debye is uncertain. Dutch by birth, he spent over three decades working in Germany, and only escaped to the US in 1940 when the Nazis gave him an unacceptable ultimatum: convert to German nationality to be able to continue to work in Germany. During the war, he did not work on the Manhatten Project mainly because his security clearance did not come through until 1945 (some people suspected him of being a German spy). In 2006, a Dutch journalist wrote a book accusing him of Nazi collusion. An examination of the record shows that there is nothing to this accusation. Nevertheless, questionmarks remain, mainly because of his character: intensely private (he kept no diary), he cared only about science, and nothing about politics. Consequently, he was politically naive, with the result that the least worst accusation made about him was to be guilty of opportunistic behaviour. The problem is that we don't know why he did what he did; this leaves us with the anomalous Scottish verdict of "not proven". The case of Werner Heisenberg is clearer: like Planck, he was conservative and nationalistic, but without moral scruples. He was only concerned with the "honour" of German physics and possessed the ego to believe that only he could "save", or preserve, it. Consequently, he was prepared to cooperate with the Nazi regime and never apologised for this after the War, instead proceeding to perform (along with others) a "whitewash" of the reputation of German physics. He is not a sympathetic character.
In conclusion, this is an interesting book, which has been marked down because of the uncertainty about what the author is trying to say. Nevertheless, it does raise important questions about the responsibilities of science to society as a whole under any type of regime.
February 25, 2017
Very serious, well researched book. Would have liked to understand what drove the author to undertake such a massive project. Couldn't find any insight into that inside the book. Maybe I missed it? You have to be into physics to really enjoy this. Was not for me at this point in time.
March 31, 2015
"Most scientists in Germany ... made accommodations and evasions in the face of the intrusions and injustices of the Nazi state: perhaps lodging minor complaints, ignoring this or that directive, or helping dismissed colleagues, while failing to mount any concerted resistance. They were primarily concerned to preserve what they could of their own careers, autonomy and influence." (3)
"The struggle against Deutsche Physik, although frustrating for the German physicists who rejected it, offered a convenient narrative after the war by supplying a criterion for partitioning physicists into those who were Nazified and those who resisted them. In this view, if you had opposed Aryan physics, you had in effect opposed the Nazis -- all the guilt of the National Socialist era could be transferred to [Philip] Lenard, [Johannes] Stark and their supporters. Better still, one could use this division to apportion scientific competence: the Aryan physicists were universally poor scientists, their opponents always sufficient." (105)
"In the post-war years, Heisenberg and Weizsacker oscillated between suggesting that they were passively 'spared the decision' of whether to make a bomb because of a lack of funding, and that they actively manipulated the situation so that there was no prospect of them ever having to face the dilemma. ... But it never seemed greatly to matter to Heisenberg and Weizsacker whether these stories were rigorous, consistent or plausible." (217)
"Debye's occasional self-interest and limited moral engagement, Heisenberg's insecurity and egotism, Planck's prevarication and misconceived notion of duty -- none are profound character flaws, and all would have been minor blemishes on a fundamentally decent nature in happier circumstances. It is the grave misfortune of these men that the enormity of the conditions in the Third Reich amplified these eminently forgivable traits, transforming them into what some have deemed to be irredeemable faults." (243)
"The struggle against Deutsche Physik, although frustrating for the German physicists who rejected it, offered a convenient narrative after the war by supplying a criterion for partitioning physicists into those who were Nazified and those who resisted them. In this view, if you had opposed Aryan physics, you had in effect opposed the Nazis -- all the guilt of the National Socialist era could be transferred to [Philip] Lenard, [Johannes] Stark and their supporters. Better still, one could use this division to apportion scientific competence: the Aryan physicists were universally poor scientists, their opponents always sufficient." (105)
"In the post-war years, Heisenberg and Weizsacker oscillated between suggesting that they were passively 'spared the decision' of whether to make a bomb because of a lack of funding, and that they actively manipulated the situation so that there was no prospect of them ever having to face the dilemma. ... But it never seemed greatly to matter to Heisenberg and Weizsacker whether these stories were rigorous, consistent or plausible." (217)
"Debye's occasional self-interest and limited moral engagement, Heisenberg's insecurity and egotism, Planck's prevarication and misconceived notion of duty -- none are profound character flaws, and all would have been minor blemishes on a fundamentally decent nature in happier circumstances. It is the grave misfortune of these men that the enormity of the conditions in the Third Reich amplified these eminently forgivable traits, transforming them into what some have deemed to be irredeemable faults." (243)
November 23, 2013
Serving the Reich
At the end of the Second World War the allies were chasing down scientists as quickly as possible in a game of cat and mouse not just across Germany but especially around Berlin. The biggest race was that between the USA and Russia and they were looking for physicists specifically so they could put them to use for their own specific purposes using developments that had come about under Nazi Germany. We just have to look at the nuclear physicist and rocket specialist that in some cases were literally smuggled out of Germany to various research facilities the allies had. This book is an interesting explanation as to the development of the importance of science and specifically physics under Nazi patronage and how those scientists used this to their advantage while ignoring the consequences of their actions.
This area of historical research has been written about well and often by many others the difference with this book by Phillip Ball is that it is far more comprehensive and well written making it a pleasure to read. What I like about Ball’s research and writing is that he does his best to be even handed, while not afraid to point the finger when necessary.
While Ball discuss’ the physics community at large he also focuses especially on three Noble laureates in Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg and the Dutchman Peter Debye. A lot of the new material in this book comes from the archives of Peter Debye who moved to America in 1940 which makes fascinating reading. I can highly recommend this book as an important addition to the debate on the Sciences during the Nazi Period.
At the end of the Second World War the allies were chasing down scientists as quickly as possible in a game of cat and mouse not just across Germany but especially around Berlin. The biggest race was that between the USA and Russia and they were looking for physicists specifically so they could put them to use for their own specific purposes using developments that had come about under Nazi Germany. We just have to look at the nuclear physicist and rocket specialist that in some cases were literally smuggled out of Germany to various research facilities the allies had. This book is an interesting explanation as to the development of the importance of science and specifically physics under Nazi patronage and how those scientists used this to their advantage while ignoring the consequences of their actions.
This area of historical research has been written about well and often by many others the difference with this book by Phillip Ball is that it is far more comprehensive and well written making it a pleasure to read. What I like about Ball’s research and writing is that he does his best to be even handed, while not afraid to point the finger when necessary.
While Ball discuss’ the physics community at large he also focuses especially on three Noble laureates in Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg and the Dutchman Peter Debye. A lot of the new material in this book comes from the archives of Peter Debye who moved to America in 1940 which makes fascinating reading. I can highly recommend this book as an important addition to the debate on the Sciences during the Nazi Period.
August 12, 2015
Al servicio del Reich.
Los tiempos de guerra llevan al límite los escenarios éticos y morales en los cuales vivimos. Lo que en muchos casos sería una acción que desataría indignación entre la sociedad, en otros tiempos y circunstancias significan algo diferente.
Este libro habla de 3 personajes importantes en la Historia de la ciencia Peter Debye, Max Plank y Heisenberg. los 3 alemanes que vivieron una época interesante en los tiempos Adolf Hitler y la Alemania Nazi. Estos tres cientificos estuvieron a cargo de institutos de investigación que tuvieron como meta entender las fuerzas atómicas y esa nuevo fenómeno descubierto por los Curie hacia algunos años, la radiactividad.
Los hechos son expuestos y nos dejan con la interrogante, ¿al estar en la misma posición que ellos cual hubiese sido nuestra reacción? ¿Nos hubiésemos indignado ante los abusos del poder del Reich? ¿Hubiéramos huido del pais buscando refugio? ¿ayudaríamos a nuestros colegas judíos a escapar? ¿Buscaríamos sacar mejor provecho de la situación y arriesgarnos lo menos posible?
Durante mucho tiempo la ciencia se ha proclamado apolítica, indiferente de los partidos y decisiones nacionales. Esta presunción fue arrasada con el estallido de las bombas atómicas al final de la segunda guerra mundial. El cientifico ya no puede ser solo observador de la dinámica mundial, sino que debe de plantearse hacia donde va el conocimiento y como pueden ser sus aportaciones cambiar la faz de la tierra, para la paz o para la aniquilación total.
Los tiempos de guerra llevan al límite los escenarios éticos y morales en los cuales vivimos. Lo que en muchos casos sería una acción que desataría indignación entre la sociedad, en otros tiempos y circunstancias significan algo diferente.
Este libro habla de 3 personajes importantes en la Historia de la ciencia Peter Debye, Max Plank y Heisenberg. los 3 alemanes que vivieron una época interesante en los tiempos Adolf Hitler y la Alemania Nazi. Estos tres cientificos estuvieron a cargo de institutos de investigación que tuvieron como meta entender las fuerzas atómicas y esa nuevo fenómeno descubierto por los Curie hacia algunos años, la radiactividad.
Los hechos son expuestos y nos dejan con la interrogante, ¿al estar en la misma posición que ellos cual hubiese sido nuestra reacción? ¿Nos hubiésemos indignado ante los abusos del poder del Reich? ¿Hubiéramos huido del pais buscando refugio? ¿ayudaríamos a nuestros colegas judíos a escapar? ¿Buscaríamos sacar mejor provecho de la situación y arriesgarnos lo menos posible?
Durante mucho tiempo la ciencia se ha proclamado apolítica, indiferente de los partidos y decisiones nacionales. Esta presunción fue arrasada con el estallido de las bombas atómicas al final de la segunda guerra mundial. El cientifico ya no puede ser solo observador de la dinámica mundial, sino que debe de plantearse hacia donde va el conocimiento y como pueden ser sus aportaciones cambiar la faz de la tierra, para la paz o para la aniquilación total.
August 27, 2016
This was an extremely interesting read, mostly about three of the physicists that made or refused to make any moral choices about the environment they were working in in the 1930's in Germany.
It's not the lightest read on the planet, but if Science and whether its practitioners are morally obligated to question the political environment they find themselves working in, whether they should always consider the ramifications of their research interests you, then I think this is well worth a read.
It made me think a lot, about humans, the choices they face and the ones they make, especially in non normal environments.
I'd definitely read this again in the near future.
It's not the lightest read on the planet, but if Science and whether its practitioners are morally obligated to question the political environment they find themselves working in, whether they should always consider the ramifications of their research interests you, then I think this is well worth a read.
It made me think a lot, about humans, the choices they face and the ones they make, especially in non normal environments.
I'd definitely read this again in the near future.
November 5, 2014
I rather enjoyed this book. Other reviews have called it a slog, or a slow read, and they are right. But it is still an incredibly interesting, detailed, neutral, and unassuming discussion of science and politics and how they are connected.
As a German and a scientist, this book spoke to me in particular. Most writing on the topic is very absolutist and judgmental, which I find off putting in such a difficult complex topic.
Well done, I can only suggest this be read.
As a German and a scientist, this book spoke to me in particular. Most writing on the topic is very absolutist and judgmental, which I find off putting in such a difficult complex topic.
Well done, I can only suggest this be read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews