Cuniolo_FINALFORPUBLICATION.docx


Heidegger’s support for antisemitic
measures as Rector of the University of
Freiburg, 1933-19341

Andrea Cuniolo
University of St. Andrews

Abstract

The relationship between Martin Heidegger and Jewish colleagues has long been
controversial. Although Heidegger always denied being an antisemite, he also undertook
significant action against Jews during his time as the rector at Freiburg University, promoting
antisemitic policies such as the Aryanization of university staff and students and the
destruction of Jewish authors’ books. There were some exceptions to these policies, but even
these exceptions did not completely go against the political will of the Nazi Party, thus
showing Heidegger’s ultimate support of the Nazi regime.

1 I would like to thank Dr. Tomasz Kamusella for having been my supervisor and having given me advice on my
work and Dr. Claudia Kreklau for having been my second marker and encouraging me to publish my work. I
would also like to thank Prof. Howard Louthan, Prof. Meyer Weinshel and the entire editorial board of Central
Europe Yearbook for allowing me the opportunity to publish my undergraduate dissertation and the two
anonymous reviewers for their comments.

39



Introduction

Martin Heidegger was one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century, but he was
also a member of the Nazi Party between 1933 and 1945, the entire duration of Nazi rule.2
Heidegger served as rector of the University of Freiburg between April 21st, 1933, and April
23rd, 1934, during the first year of the Nazi era. Evaluating Heidegger’s relationship with
Jews during his period as rector of the University of Freiburg is extremely important for two
reasons. The first: the persecution of Jews was swift and immediate following the Nazis’
seizure of power in 1933 with the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service
(Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums, henceforth in this article known as
GWB). The second: this was the moment when Heidegger was most active in politics.
Although Heidegger would never again have such great political power (although he retained
the ability to influence policies and measures as an eminence grise). It was, however, during
his rectorate that Heidegger had administrative authority that directly affected Jews at the
university.3

In April 1933, the academic senate of Freiburg elected Wilhelm von Möllendorf, a doctor and
a member of the SPD, as rector of the university. However, Möllendorf “resigned” after a few
days because of his unwillingness to cooperate with Nazi authorities and his refusal to
implement antisemitic measures. Möllendorf refused to dismiss Jewish members of the
university staff, to remove non-Aryan books from the library, and to allow the circulation of
antisemitic propaganda throughout the university.4 In a 1966 interview, Heidegger reported
that he was pressured by two previous rectors, Joseph Sauer and von Möllendorf himself, to
take the rectorship for the sake of the university:

On the very day he was removed, von Möllendorf came to me and said: "Heidegger, now you
must take over the rectorship," I said that I lacked experience in administration. The
vice-rector at that time, Prof. Sauer (Theology), likewise urged me to become a candidate for
the rectorship. For otherwise the danger would be that a party functionary would be named
rector. The younger faculty, with whom I had been discussing the structure of the University
for many years, besieged me to take over the rectorship. For a long time I hesitated. Finally I
said that I was ready to take over the office in the interest of the University, but only if I could
be certain of the unanimous agreement of the Plenum.5

However, this is far from the truth. Ott argues that Prof. Wolfgang Schadewaldt, a committed
Nazi and a professor of Classics, proposed Heidegger as a new rector and planned the

5 Martin Heidegger, ‘Now Only a God Can Save Us: Der Spiegel’s Interview (September 23, 1966)’, Martin
Heidegger: Philosophical and Political Writings, ed. Manfred Stassen, trans. Maria P. Alter and John D. Caputo
(London: Routledge, 2003), 25.

4 Ott, Martin Heidegger, 141.

3 By the 1930’s, the University of Freiburg had become one of Germany’s most prestigious universities (not to
mention, one of its oldest). Prominent scholars of the time included Edmund Husserl, who was at the time the
most important German philosopher.# Husserl was of course not the only prestigious academic in the humanities
at Freiburg in the first half of the twentieth century, but Heidegger himself arrived at the university to serve as
Husserl’s assistant in 1928.# Another preeminent scholar in Freiburg during this time was Eugen Fink.# In
addition, Edith Stein, one of the most important phenomenological philosophers, studied there for her PhD with
Husserl as her advisor.# Freiburg's excellence was also not limited to the humanities. Freiburg also had a
prestigious medical clinic and university hospital.# Among the illustrious members of the Faculty of Sciences
were Georg von Hevesy and Hermann Staudinger, who both won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1943 and
1953, respectively.

2 Rundiger Safranski, Heidegger e il suo tempo (Milan: Garzanti, 2008), 302-321.

40



removal of von Möllendorf to facilitate the Gleichschaltung process.6 Moreover, Knowles
reported that shortly before his election as rector, Heidegger was already in contact with the
Nazi Ministry of Education and enjoyed its full confidence in pursuing all the policies that his
predecessor refused.7 Therefore, Heidegger’s defence is not true.

Many scholars, both in history and philosophy, would agree that Heidegger was pivotal in the
implementation of antisemitic measures. For instance, Wolin, Knowles, Ott, Faye, and Farìas8

have portrayed Heidegger as an extremist in politics or as the stereotypical Nazi bureaucrat
who only sought to obey orders from above. However, there are a few dissenting views.
Among Heidegger’s defenders are Karl Moheling and Heidegger’s son Hermann. Hermann
Heidegger frequently tried to rehabilitate his father: as the editor of a volume about his
father’s life and actions, he underlined many times that Martin Heidegger tried to distance
himself from the government and to keep some Jewish colleagues of his at the university.9
Similarly, Moheling presents Heidegger’s rectorate as an act of opposition to Nazism.10

Moheling considers one sign of Heidegger’s opposition to antisemitic policies to be his
resistance to the publication of antisemitic posters.11

This article will argue that as rector, Heidegger implemented Nazi policies at their very best
and supported ideologically and culturally antisemitic policies via the “Against the
Un-German Spirit” campaign, regarded as the natural continuation of the GWB.12 Even when
he attempted to protect some Jewish colleagues, Heidegger's position should not be
interpreted as opposition to the antisemitic measures: he either sought to defend the
university's prestige or to apply the exceptions provided by the GWB.

The Aryanization of the University under Heidegger

Heidegger implemented antisemitic policies at Freiburg University during his rectorate,
despite his postwar claims that he became rector to prevent the politicization of the
university.13 At his trial in 1945 and in Der Spiegel’s interview of 1966, he tried to present
himself as an opponent of Nazism and its antisemitic policies. In fact, in the interview and his
deposition, he claimed that he accepted the rectorate under pressure from his predecessor, von
Möllendorf. This was to prevent a bureaucrat, as opposed to a scholar, from occupying the
leading position in the university, which would destroy the university’s independence.14 But it
is the opposite which is true: Heidegger worked together with the Ministry of Baden to
implement the GWB and other antisemitic policies aimed at limiting the presence of Jews at

14 Ibid.

13 Martin Heidegger, ‘The Rectorate 1933/34: Facts and Thoughts’, The Review of Metaphysics 38: 3 (March
1985), 483; Heidegger, ‘Now Only a God Can Save Us’, 27.

12 Guillaume Payen, Martin Heidegger : Catholicisme, révolution, nazisme (Paris, Éditions Perrin, 2016), 397.
11 Ibid.

10 Karl A. Moheling, ‘Heidegger and the Nazis’, Heidegger: The Man and the Thinker, ed. Thomas Sheehan
(Chicago: Precedent Publishing, 1981), 35.

9 Hermann Heidegger, ‘Preface’, The Review of Metaphysics 38: 3 (March 1985), 468-469

8 Ott, Martin Heidegger, 133-262; Adam Knowles, ‘Martin Heidegger’s Nazi Conscience’, Probing the Limits
of Categorization, ed. Christina Morina and Krijn Thijs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 168-183;
Richard Wolin, Heidegger’s Children (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), pp. 36-37; Emmanuel Faye,
Heidegger: The Introduction of Nazism into Philosophy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), 39-58;
Victor Farìas, Heidegger and Nazism (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1987), 79-177.

7 Knowles, ‘Martin Heidegger’s Nazi Conscience’, 183.
6 Ott, Martin Heidegger, 143.

41



the university. Most importantly, the GWB aimed to expel all Jewish public servants from
their roles, including university staff.15

Knowles suggests that Heidegger implemented the GWB with great enthusiasm and zeal,16

and there is material proof that this affirmation is correct. On April 28th, 1933, just a few
days after his election, Heidegger sent a letter to all faculty deans, urging them to expel
Jewish instructors from the university.17 He even failed to support Edmund Husserl, a close
friend who had Jewish parents and had converted to Lutheranism. This episode indicates how
much Heidegger was willing to sacrifice for the implementation of the new law; it had mainly
been thanks to Husserl’s recommendations that Heidegger had won a place at the University
of Freiburg as a tenured professor.18 Additionally, Husserl’s and Heidegger’s families were
close, almost inseparable before Hitler’s rise to power.19 Despite this, Heidegger did not
reciprocate in this moment of need. Husserl received his letter of dismissal on April 14th,
1933, and was bitterly disturbed by it, calling it “the greatest affront of my life.”20 However,
Heidegger did not return the favour to his former mentor and confirmed the order of
dismissal.21

Further episodes indicate that Heidegger desired the full implementation of the GWB. On
June 7th, 1933, Heidegger sent to the minister of Baden a dossier on Prof. Liefmann, a Jewish
member of the Freiburg Law School.22 The dossier included the results of three examinations
commission on Prof. Liefmann’s war wounds.23 Although not explicitly specified, the
purpose was clearly to demonstrate Liefmann’s eligibility to remain at Freiburg University as
a former frontline soldier, based on the Frontkämpferprivileg (section 2 of article 3 of the
GWB).24 Commissioning not just one but three exams suggests that Heidegger was extremely
scrupulous in granting one of the few GWB exceptions and wanted to implement it at its very
best. Additionally, this episode proves that Heidegger was in close contact with the minister,
with whom he had to work for the application of the GWB.

Overall, Heidegger supported the Aryanization of the university and filled the gaps left by
dismissed Jewish staff with Aryan professors. The GWB applied “if only one parent or
grandparent is of non-Aryan descent,”25 but Heidegger's half-Jewish assistant, Dr. Werner
Brock, remained until August 1933 to “rearrange the seminar library.”26 Heidegger did not
protest his ultimate dismissal.27 On March 18th, 1934, Heidegger simply communicated to
the Minister of Culture and Education of Baden that Brock, his former student, had been

27 Faye, Heidegger, 43.
26 Knowles, ‘Martin Heidegger’s’, 188.

25 ‘First Regulation for Administration of the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, 11 April
1933’, The Nazi Germany Sourcebook, 151-152.

24 ‘Law’, 151.
23 Ibid.

22 Martin Heidegger, ‘Richiesta di benevolo esame per il Prof. Liefmann’, Discorsi ed altre testimonianze del
cammino di una vita, 114.

21 Knowles, ‘Martin Heidegger’s’, 168.
20 Ibid.
19 Yvonne Sherratt, Hitler’s Philosophers (Yale: Yale University Press, 2013), 75.
18 Tom Rockmore, On Heidegger’s Nazism and Philosophy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), 25.
17 Ibid., 173.
16 Knowles, ‘Martin Heidegger’s Nazi Conscience’, 179.

15 ‘Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, 7th April 1933’, The Nazi Germany Sourcebook, ed.
Roderick Stackelberg and Sally A. Winkler (London, Routledge 2002), 150-151.

42



replaced as his assistant by Dr. Brocker, a non-Jewish philosopher, 28 and to whom he granted
a status equal to the ordinary assistant.29 Hence, it can be argued that Heidegger was working
towards the overall Aryanization of the university staff, just as the Nazis programmed.
Indeed, the Ministry of Baden was satisfied by Heidegger’s actions in the process of
Aryanization, deeming them “exemplary.”30 Additionally, Brocker was nominated as
Heidegger’s new assistant because he showed “camaraderie and spiritual superiority,”31

meaning that Brocker was a committed Nazi. This promotion furthered GWB objectives to
build a new class of civil servants aligned with Nazi ideology.32

Heidegger’s support of the GWB was so strong that he was willing to sidestep faculty
members and ignore all complaints about the feasibility of the policy. Some faculty deans
requested more explanations on how to classify those who (after 1935 with the passage of the
Nuremberg Laws) be considered Mischlinge, or Jews who had converted to Christianity.33

Others were not ready to fire the most skilled technicians in their laboratory or the best
paediatricians in the clinic.34 However, Heidegger did not respond to these complaints and
ordered the full implementation of the GWB with a letter to all faculty deans on April 28th,
1933.35 Heidegger’s order for the full dismissal of all Jewish university staff members, even if
this went against more practical concerns, demonstrates his enthusiastic support of this
measure and strong adherence to the principles of duty as rector.

Heidegger persecuted not only Jewish staff members but Jewish students as well, supporting
the implementation of the Law for the Overcrowding of Schools and Universities issued on
April 25th, 1933. On May 3rd, Heidegger wrote to faculty deans that Jewish students could
make up a maximum of only 1.5% of the new class of students and 5% of returning
students.36 Heidegger’s implementation of the Law against Overcrowding immediately after
the GWB follows the logic of “cumulative radicalization” typical of the Nazi regime.37 This
policy drastically reduced the number of Jewish students at Freiburg, meaning that the
university was even more Aryanized.

Moreover, on May 6th, 1933, Heidegger sent faculty deans a circular from Minister Eugen
Fehrle: following an order by the Ministry of Education of Baden, scholarships would not be
available to Marxists or Jews, while members of the SA and SS would receive priority.38 In
an article in the Freiburger Studentenzeitung, Heidegger stated further that the scholarship
ban applied to any student who was not pure Aryan (including half-Jews), with the only
exception being “students of non-Aryan stock who themselves fought on the front line or
whose fathers died during the First World War.”39 This policy exceeded what was originally

39 Ibid.
38 Ibid., 344.
37 Ibid., 345.

36 Guillaume Payen, Martin Heidegger's Changing Destinies: Catholicism, Revolution, Nazism (Yale: Yale
University Press, 2023), 344.

35 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
33 Knowles, ‘Martin Heidegger’s’, 173.

32 Saul Friedlander, Nazi Germany and the Jews: The Years of Persecution, 1933-1939 (London: W&N, 2007),
27.

31 Heidegger, ‘Equiparazione’, 248.

30 Adam Knowles, Martin Heidegger’s Fascist Affinities: A Politics of Silence (Stanford, Stanford University
Press, 2019), 5.

29 Ibid.

28 Martin Heidegger, ‘Equiparazione agli assistenti ordinari’, Discorsi ed altre testimonianze del Cammino di
una Vita, 248.

43



demanded by the minister40 and is thus another example of the value Heidegger placed on
racist policy.41 Heidegger was fully complicit in the cumulative radicalization of antisemitic
policies coming from above.

In a 1929 letter to Victor Schworer, Heidegger declared that “the Judaization of Germany’s
spiritual life must be stopped”42 and that a restoration of the German spirit could be achieved
with “indigenous forces and educators.”43 With all these actions, Heidegger was trying to
accomplish goals that he had already made clear. This letter reinforces that Heidegger’s
support for the GWB was not only dictated by political opportunism, nor was it a simple,
isolated event in his life. Instead, it supported a project that he had deeply desired for a very
long time. For this reason, it is impossible to think of Heidegger’s actions as a “compromise”
or casual mistakes, as he defined them in his interview with Der Spiegel.44 These actions
were intentional.

Heidegger willingly supported the new measures included in the GWB and the Law Against
Overcrowding of Public Schools. For this reason, Heidegger was a crucial element in
building a politicized university, just as the Nazis intended. Indeed, the very scope of the
expulsion of Jewish teachers and students was a form of Nazification of the university. The
objective of the GWB was to build a university that expelled all politically unreliable civil
servants and kept only Aryans.45 In substance, Heidegger did not behave any differently from
the other Nazi rectors who actively persecuted Jews and acted as “race experts.”46 As rector,
he obeyed orders from the ministry and sometimes radicalized them even further. For this
reason, Karl Moehling’s thesis that Heidegger’s rectorate should be read as an act of
resistance to Nazism and its programme is false.47

The ideological antisemitic policies: Against the Un-German Spirit

Even before Heidegger was elected rector, the Ministry of Baden put pressure on von
Möllendorf to implement cultural policies aimed at expelling Jewish and un-German
influence from the university. Among these were the publication of the “Twelve Theses
against the Un-German Spirit” and the exclusion of books by non-Aryan authors from the
library.48 It is important to highlight Heidegger’s role in these policies, not merely because
Heidegger’s predecessor refused to implement them.49 Book burnings were normally seen as
the natural continuation of previous policies like the GWB.50 Indeed, if the GWB restored
public offices, book burnings were thought of by the Nazis as a restoration of culture.51

Cultural control had always been in the Nazi’s plans, and they had long advocated for a

51 Ibid.
50 Payen, Martin Heidegger’s Changing Destinies, 353.
49 Ibid.
48 Heidegger, ‘Now only a god’, 25; Heidegger, ‘The Rectorate’, 491-492.
47 Moheling, ‘Heidegger and the Nazis’, 31-43.

46 Bela Bodo, ‘The Role of Antisemitism in the Expulsion of non-Aryan students’, Yad Vashem Studies, 30
(2002), 228.

45 Friedlander, Nazi Germany and the Jews, 27.
44 Heidegger, ‘Now only a god’, 28.
43 Ibid.

42 Martin Heidegger, ‘The Jewish Contamination of German Spiritual Life: Letter to Victor Schower (1929)’,
Martin Heidegger: Philosophical and Political Writings, trans and ed. Manfred Stassen (London: Continuum,
2003), 1.

41 Ibid.
40 Ibid.

44



German press that excluded any Jewish influence.52 The 24th section of the Nazi Party
programme stated explicitly that “the Party fights the Judeo-Materialistic spirit.”53 At
universities, the destruction of “un-German” books naturally followed the expulsion of
non-Aryan teachers.54 The overall aim was to create a university environment in which there
could be no corruption of young minds.55

Heidegger said in his interview with Der Spiegel and a brief titled “The Rectorate” that he
forbade the publication of an antisemitic poster called “Against the Un-German Spirit,”
implying that he was hostile to the campaign from the very beginning.56 These posters
identified measures that had to be taken to preserve the German language and culture from
Jewish contamination.57 Joseph Goebbels himself ordered this type of placard to be published
in German universities.58 Freiburg’s previous rector, von Möllendorf, was hostile to the
publication of these posters.59 This point is particularly dear to Heidegger’s defenders like
Moheling and Hermann Heidegger, who found evidence of Heidegger’s disagreement with
Nazi racial policies in this incident.60 Heidegger described the episode as follows:

On the second day after I had assumed office, the "student leader" with two
companions visited me as Rector and demanded again the posting of the Jewish
proclamation. I declined. The three students left remarking that the prohibition would
be reported to the National Student Leadership. After a few days, a telephone call
came from the Office of Higher Education [SA Hochschulamt], in the highest SA
echelons, from the SA Leader Dr. Baumann. He demanded the posting of the so-called
proclamation since it had already been posted in other universities. If I refused I
would have to reckon with removal, if not, indeed, with the closing of the University. I
attempted to win the support of the Badish Minister of Culture for my prohibition. The
latter explained that he could do nothing in opposition to the SA. Nevertheless, I did
not retract my prohibition.61

This account was thought to be true even by scholars who have taken an extremely critical
stance against Heidegger, like Ott, Rockmore and Safranski.62

Nonetheless, there is material evidence that this prohibition may not have occurred,
suggesting that in fact, Heidegger supported this piece of antisemitic policy. Krebs reports in
his autobiography that these posters were distributed all over Freiburg and even published in
the Freiburger Studentenzeitung, a student newspaper, on May 2, 1933.63 Although
Heidegger had not yet given his inaugural speech (“The Self-Affirmation of the German
University,” read on the 27th of May), he was already in charge and had the power to prohibit

63 Hans Krebs, Reminiscences and Reflections (Oxford: Claredon Press, 1981), 72 [N.B. Krebs reports the
“Twelve Theses” fully in his autobiography, adding that “[m]uch of the fanatic, mystic, weird, and hysterical
quality of the German text is softened by translation”].

62 Ott, Martin Heidegger, 188; Rockmore, On Heidegger’s Nazism, 78, 98, 112; Safranski, Heidegger, 310.
61 Heidegger, ‘Now only a god’, 26; Heidegger, ‘The Rectorate’, 491-492.
60 Moheling, ‘Heidegger and the Nazis’, 35; Hermann Heidegger, ‘Preface’, 468-469.
59 Heidegger, ‘Now only a god’, 25.
58 Hermann Heidegger, ‘Preface’, 469.
57 Krebs, Reminiscences, 68-69.
56 Heidegger, ‘Now only a god’, 25-26; Krebs, Reminiscences, 70.
55 Ibid, 352.
54 Ibid.
53 Ibid.
52 Ibid.

45



the publication altogether. Krebs, a credible witness since he was present at Freiburg at the
time this happened, put blame especially on Heidegger, saying that contrary to his
predecessor, Heidegger approved the publication of the posters.64 This evidence suggests that
Heidegger lied in his Der Spiegel interview about his resistance to antisemitic initiatives. This
episode reveals one of the most important mistakes made by those defending Heidegger’s
position, such as his son or Moheling. Both had simply accepted as fact that Heidegger
prohibited the publication of the anti-Jewish decrees or the book burning at the university,
without analysing whether this claim was true.65

There is also evidence that Heidegger supported the destruction of non-Aryan books. In his
Der Spiegel interview, Heidegger argued that his resistance to Nazi racial policies can also be
found in his prohibition of the book burning in front of the university’s main building.66

These book burnings were scheduled to take place on May 10th 1933 across Germany as the
culmination of the campaign “Against the Un-German Spirit”.67 Hermann Heidegger
mentioned this point as a sign that his father always tried to distance himself from the Nazi
regime, using his power as rector to counter this policy.68 Nevertheless, there is material proof
that this supposed prohibition by Heidegger never took place: Italian philosopher Ernesto
Grassi and other eyewitnesses saw a book burning in Freiburg on May 10, in front of the
university library.69

Moreover, Heidegger supported the eradication of liberalism at the university, which was
seen as a Jewish disease. Thesis 10 of the ‘Jew Notice’ called for “the determination and
ability to overcome Jewish intellectualism and the threat it contains: the decay of the spirit of
the German people through liberalism.”70 When writing to the University of Munich about
the Jewish philosopher Hönigswald, Heidegger highlighted Hönigswald’s liberalism as a
threat leading inevitably “to a generic logic and mundane conscience.”71 This decadent
“mundane conscience” is in sharp contrast with the “German spiritual life.”72 Heidegger also
claims that Hönigswald’s liberalism “deviates the attention from man in his historical rooting
and the popular tradition of his origin in blood and soil.”73 This was not the only time that
Heidegger wrote something like this. In his Black Notebooks, Heidegger defines the Jew as
someone incapable of having a relationship with the soil.74 Heidegger further strengthens his
attack against Hönigswald’s philosophy, saying it is “insidious” and “has already deceived
and deviated many young people.”75 An emphasis on deception is also found in Thesis 5 of
the poster “Against the Un-German Spirit”: if a Jew “writes in German, he lies.”76 Hence, it
can be argued that Heidegger was trying to defend the university from the liberal corruption
that the Nazis despised so much in a battle against the un-German spirit. Indeed, the main

76 Krebs, Reminiscences, 69.
75 Ibid.
74 Donatella Di Cesare, Heidegger e gli ebrei: I “Quaderni Neri” (Turin: Bollati Boringhieri, 2014), 171-172.
73 Ibid.
72 Heidegger, The Jewish contamination’, 1.
71 Heidegger, ‘Hönigswald’, 248.
70 Krebs, Reminiscences, 69.
69 Ott, Martin Heidegger, 189.
68 Hermann Heidegger, ‘Preface’, 468.
67 Ott, Martin Heidegger, 189.
66 Heidegger, ‘Now only a god’, 29.
65 Moheling, ‘Heidegger and the Nazis’, 35; Hermann Heidegger ‘Preface’, 468-469.
64 Ibid.

46



concern of Heidegger was not allowing Hönigswald to corrupt young people.77 The expulsion
of Hönigswald then was also part of a Nazi cultural policy.

Heidegger expressed similar thoughts even in private, thus demonstrating his commitment to
the cause and that he did not support this campaign out of mere political opportunism. Further
evidence of Heidegger’s deep support for this kind of policy can be found in his letter to
Schworer, in which he expressed concern about tutelage of the “German spiritual life”78 and
stopping its growing Judaization “in a larger and a narrower sense.”79 The destruction of
Jewish works was a way to stop the process of Judaization.

In sum, Heidegger’s claims that he resisted antisemitic cultural policies are false. Instead, it
seems that Heidegger supported them, thus deepening his commitment to National Socialism
and antisemitism. Arguably, Heidegger supported almost the epuration of Jewish influence at
the university. This means that the historian should be very sceptical when treating
Heidegger’s Der Spiegel interview and his brief “The Rectorate: Facts and Thoughts” as
reliable sources when it comes to the implementation of antisemitic policies at Freiburg
University.

The Exceptions to the Policies: What value do they have?

The evidence here reported proves that Heidegger was a useful instrument in the hands of the
Nazis and implemented antisemitic policies. Nonetheless, on some occasions, Heidegger
resisted some antisemitic measures: these episodes are important pieces of his defence of his
actions as rector in his interview with Der Spiegel. There were cases in which Heidegger
attempted to retain some Jewish staff members at the university.

In his interview with Der Spiegel, Heidegger strongly emphasized that he tried to resist the
firing of Professor George von Hevesy.80 There is proof that Heidegger tried to keep him at
Freiburg, and Hermann Heidegger used this episode as evidence that his father was not a
committed Nazi.81 Indeed, on July 12, 1933, Heidegger wrote to the Minister of Culture of
Baden that dismissing von Hevesy from his role would be detrimental to the international
reputation of the university.82 Nonetheless, this should not be seen as a defence of Jews at the
university, but rather as a defence of the prestige of the university. A close reading of the
letter reveals that Heidegger was much more concerned with avoiding the possible decline of
the international reputation of the university. Heidegger writes that “a permanent dismissal
would cause the German Science and particularly to our University near the border [with
France] a great damage that may not be repaired in the long run.”83 Heidegger also states that
he is writing this letter “with full consciousness of the necessary and indispensable actuation
of the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service,”84 meaning that he did not
think of his action as an act of rebellion. Additionally, it must be mentioned that von Hevesy
had recently won a considerable amount of money from the Rockefeller Foundation, which

84 Ibid.
83 Ibid., 132.

82 Martin Heidegger, ‘Parere sul congedo von Hevesy e Frankel’, Discorsi ed altre testimonianze del Cammino
di una Vita, 132-133.

81 Hermann Heidegger, ‘Preface’, 468.
80 Heidegger, ‘Now only a god’, 31.
79 Heidegger, ‘The Jewish Contamination’, 1.
78 Ibid.
77 Payen, Martin Heidegger’s Changing, 356.

47



he was going to use to fully renovate the Department of Physical Chemistry at Freiburg.85

Losing von Hevesy would have meant losing the money.

The fact that Heidegger was more concerned with defending the prestige of the university
rather than von Hevesy as an individual is proven if we compare his case that of Hans Krebs,
a fellow chemist who was dismissed. Von Hevesy had already made extremely important
contributions to the literature in radiochemistry. He had discovered the element of hafnium in
1922 and was an authority in his field by 1933.86 Additionally, it was at Freiburg that von
Hevesy had begun his research on the isotopes that would win him the Nobel Prize for
Chemistry in 1943.87 In contrast, Krebs was still quite young and not internationally
recognized. By December 1932, he was only admitted as a Privatdozent of Internal
Medicine.88 Krebs had done important work on the cycle of urea synthesis, but this was the
only important discovery he had made so far.89 He would not discover the Citric Acid Cycle
(today is known as the Krebs’ cycle) until 1937, four years after his dismissal from
Freiburg.90 For this research, Krebs received the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1953.91 It seems
that Heidegger tried to keep at Freiburg only people who were famous, while he did not care
much for the unknown. Hence, it is impossible to think of Heidegger’s actions as a defence of
the Jews, as he presented them in his interview with Der Spiegel.92

It is also worth noting that the exceptions to the GWB, namely those listed in section 2 of
article 3, were overall quite vague and left a lot of room for interpretation on the part of the
rector.93 Heidegger displayed this on July 17, 1933, when he tried to retain Eduard Frankel, a
classical scholar. Heidegger again made it clear that his main concern was maintaining the
international reputation of the university. Indeed, Heidegger wrote to the minister that Frankel
was an excellent scholar and considered “among the best of German science on the antiquity
in Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, England and the United States.” He remarks that the
University’s reputation would be tarnished if Frankel were fired.94 Heidegger opens the letter
by claiming that Frankel’s name does not appear in the list of those who fought at the front
because of an ailment in his left arm and hand.95 Heidegger tried instead to keep Frankel
based on his service at the Thesaurus Linguae of Munich.96 In this case, Heidegger is trying
to apply article 3, section 2 of the GWB, which protected non-Aryan civil servants who had
been in charge before 1914 from dismissal.97 This means that Heidegger’s request should not
be seen as an action against the law; it was instead an attempt to apply the law fully.

97 Ibid., 137; ‘Law’, 151.
96 Ibid.
95 ‘Law’, 151.

94 Martin Heidegger, ‘Parere sul Professor dr. Eduard Frankel’, Discorsi ed altre testimonianze del Cammino di
una Vita, ed. Hermann Heidegger (Genoa: Il Melangolo, 2005), 136.

93 Ott, Heidegger, 207-208.
92 Heidegger, ‘Now only a god’, 31.
91 Ibid., 165-179.
90 Ibid., 105-118.
89 Ibid., 51-60.
88 Krebs, Reminiscences, 50.
87 Ibid., 134-135.

86 John D. Cockfort, ‘George de Hevesy 1885-1966’, Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, 13:
13 (November 1967), 137.

85 Ott, Martin Heidegger, 207.

48



However, the ministry believed Heidegger’s justifications were insufficient, so Frankel was
dismissed and moved to Oxford.98 Despite this rejection, Heidegger did not resign in protest,
nor did he pressure the government to withdraw its decision—he simply obeyed.99 Frankel’s
failed defence reveals the difference between Heidegger and his predecessor, Professor von
Möllendorf. When von Möllendorf was urged to dismiss the Jewish members of staff by the
minister, he simply refused and resigned in protest; Heidegger did not show any sign of
protest or disapproval for Frankel’s dismissal and continued his position as rector until April
1934. This characterizes Heidegger as an obedient Nazi worker, who faithfully submitted to
the minister. Nonetheless, these actions also demonstrate, as Payen argued, that Heidegger’s
support for the GWB was not absolute. The cases of von Hevesy and Frankel show that
whenever antisemitic policies clashed with the university’s prestige, they would be less
welcome.100

Heidegger tried to keep some Jewish professors at Freiburg by appealing to the GWB’s two
exceptions. For example, Heidegger defended his colleague Prof. Fritz Pringsheim, a jurist,
from dismissal. Pringsheim had been a frontline soldier during the First World War and was
very proud of his military service.101 For this reason, he could remain at Freiburg under
section 2 of Article 3 of the GWB.102 Heidegger sent Pringsheim’s certificate of war to the
Ministry of Karlsruhe and told him that he did not have to fear for his position.103 Here we
have an example of Heidegger using his position as an intermediary between the university
and the ministry to allow a Jewish professor to stay. Hermann Heidegger reported that his
father confessed he wanted Pringsheim to stay at Freiburg. Heidegger’s request was
granted.104 The ministry allowed Pringsheim to stay until 1935, when he was dismissed
because of the Nuremberg Laws.105 Heidegger was not responsible for this final dismissal
because he had resigned in 1934, one year before the Nuremberg Laws came into effect.
Nonetheless, this episode should not be read as an act of opposition to Nazi racial policies.
Indeed, the strategy employed in Pringsheim’s case was a mere application of a comma of the
law (paragraph 2). Hence, much more than a “protection,” Heidegger’s actions constituted a
full application of the law.

Heidegger also points out in the Der Spiegel interview that he defended Prof. Siegfried
Joseph Thannhauser, a Jewish professor of internal medicine.106 Thannhauser should have
been dismissed from the university, but Heidegger claims that in a meeting, he persuaded the
Minister of Baden to retain Thannhauser at Freiburg.107 Hermann Heidegger used the defence
of Thannhauser several times to show that his father was not a full-blooded Nazi.108 However,
it must be noted that Thannhauser had been a front-line soldier in the First World War, so he

108 Rockmore, On Heidegger’s Nazism, 78; Hermann Heidegger, ‘Introduction’, 468.
107 Ibid.
106 Heidegger, ‘Now only a god’, 31.
105 Hermann Heidegger, ‘Notes to “Chiaro segnale per Karlsruhe”’, 144; Honoré, ‘Fritz Pringsheim’, 218.

104 Hermann Heidegger, ‘Notes to “Chiaro segnale per Karlsruhe”’, Discorsi ed altre testimonianze del Cammino
di una Vita, 701.

103 Martin Heidegger, ‘Chiaro segnale per Karlsruhe’, Discorsi ed altre testimonianze del Cammino di una Vita,
257.

102 ‘Law’, 151.

101 Tony Honoré, ‘Fritz Pringsheim (1882-1967)’, Jurists uprooted: German-speaking Lawyers Émigré in
Twentieth-Century Britain, ed. Jack Beatson and Reinhard Zimmermann (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2004), 210-211.

100 Payen, Martin Heidegger’s Changing Destinies, 344.
99 Ott, Martin Heidegger, 208.

98 Hermann Heidegger ‘Notes to “Parere sul Professor dr. Eduard Frankel”’, Discorsi ed altre testimonianze del
Cammino di una Vita, ed. Hermann Heidegger (Genoa: Il Melangolo, 2005), 701.

49



was exempt from dismissal under section 2 of the same law.109 Thus, this should again not be
seen as an opposition to the GWB.

The two examples of Pringsheim and Thannhauser disprove Farìas’ argument that Heidegger
was an extremist who persecuted Jewish teachers protected by the law.110 Heidegger applied
the GWB fully, including its three exceptions. Of course, this does not mean that Heidegger
was less guilty of having executed antisemitic laws. Instead, it indicates that he always
operated within the legal frameworks the Nazis gave him, without excessive or fanatic
persecution as Farìas argued.

Another means by which Heidegger tried to avoid antisemitic legislation was recommending
his former Jewish students for positions abroad. This point was often remarked on by those
who wanted to minimize the extent of Heidegger’s support for antisemitic policies. For
example, Karl Jaspers reported to the Freiburg Denazification Committee that Heidegger’s
support of some of his former Jewish students abroad mitigated his support for Nazi racial
policies.111 For example, historian of philosophy Paul Kristeller lost his job at Freiburg
because of the Civil Service Law.112 Heidegger recommended him for a position at the
University of Basel in Switzerland. The case of Kristeller is rather peculiar, since a petition to
the minister for his maintenance at the University of Freiburg would have impossible under
the GWB. Kristeller was born in 1905 to a Jewish family and did not serve as a frontline
soldier, nor was he employed in the civil service before 1914.113 In addition, Kristeller had
completed his Ph.D. only in 1928 and did not have the same international reputation as von
Hevesy or Frankel.114 He was too young to be renowned in academia. For these reasons,
Heidegger tried to sustain his former student by recommending him to Prof. Haberlin at Basel
for a position there. In his letter, dated 30th April 1933, Heidegger praises Kristeller’s work
and highlights his influential works on Ficino and Renaissance philosophy.115 Also, it is
interesting to note that Heidegger opens this letter by saying, “Kristeller asked me to write to
you.”116 This line is important because it shows that in some cases, Heidegger still kept in
contact with and replied to some of his Jewish students and was willing to help them.

A case analogous to Kristeller’s was that of Dr. Werner Brock, another of Heidegger’s Jewish
students whom he also recommended to Prof. Haberlin at the University of Basel. On 11
August 1933, Heidegger wrote a letter stating that Brock was an excellent scholar and
deserved absolute precedence before every candidate for the habilitation (second Ph.D.).117

Heidegger writes that “if an oral declaration from me is necessary, I will be available to come
to Basel in September.”118 Heidegger cared about Brock’s well-being to a great extent and
demonstrated this with the great support that he offered him. Hermann Heidegger also

118 Ibid.

117 Martin Heidegger, ‘Il dr. Brock medita di cambiare abilitazione’, Discorsi ed altre testimonianze del
Cammino di una Vita, 144.

116 Ibid.

115 Martin Heidegger, ‘Raccomandazione per il dr Kristeller’, Discorsi ed altre testimonianze del Cammino di
una Vita, 82.

114 Ibid., 6.
113 Ibid., 3.
112 Paul Oskar Kristeller, ‘A Life of Learning’, ACLS Occasional Paper 12 (April 1990), 7.

111 Karl Jaspers, ‘Letter to the Freiburg University Denazification Committee, December 22nd, 1945’, in Richard
Wolin (ed.), The Heidegger Controversy: A Critical Reader, (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1992), 148.

110 Farìas, Heidegger and Nazism, 161.
109 Anonymous, ‘Siegfried’.

50



reported that in 1934, thanks to Heidegger’s help, Brock obtained a scholarship to
Cambridge.119

Philosopher Karl Lowith, one of Heidegger’s philosophy students in Marburg, is a further
case that is very similar to those of Kristeller and Brock.120 Heidegger supported him and
advised him when he emigrated to Italy after the GWB came into effect and he was dismissed
from the University of Marburg.121

Overall, the cases of Brock, Kristeller and Lowith suggest that while Heidegger’s support for
antisemitic measures was strong within Germany, he was still well-disposed towards his
former students abroad. However, it is important to note that these actions were not taken
against the Nazi government. In fact, by recommending Jewish students abroad, Heidegger
did not violate any piece of antisemitic legislation and fully respected the goal of the
Aryanization of the German university. As already mentioned, Brock was replaced by
Brocker, an Aryan philosopher.122

Heidegger was, however, less supportive of other antisemitic cultural policies on some
occasions. For example, the seventh thesis of the ‘Twelve Theses,’ which Heidegger (falsely)
claimed he had banned across Freiburg, prescribed that works by Jewish authors should
appear in Hebrew and, if in German, should be labelled as translations.123 Heidegger did not
comply with this rule, arguing that it was too extreme and that “everyone is making a fool of
himself as best as he can.”124 However, this singular act of defiance does not negate the
overall support Heidegger gave to the battle “against the un-German spirit” required of him
by the party. The significance of this episode is thus questionable.

In summary, some antisemitic policies related to the university were not well-received by
Heidegger. Indeed, Heidegger did try to keep some Jewish members of staff at the University
of Freiburg, although this action should not be interpreted as a defence of the Jews as
Moheling or Hermann Heidegger claim. Indeed, these actions were either a defence of the
prestige of the university or a thorough application of the GWB. The image of Heidegger that
emerges is not a fanatic as Faye125 tries to argue, but neither is it a great defender of the Jews
as Hermann Heidegger suggests. Instead, Heidegger was much more likely a cold executor of
orders from above when it came to applying exceptions of the Civil Service Law, and a
calculator when it came to defending the prestige of the university. This means that
Heidegger never really tried to do much against such antisemitic policies.

Conclusion

In summary, evidence shows that Heidegger, in his capacity as rector, did participate in the
persecution of the Jews via the implementation of antisemitic regulations at the University of
Freiburg. He duly obeyed the minister when it came to implementing the Law for the

125 Faye, Heidegger, 151-173.
124 Ibid.
123 Payen, Martin Heidegger’s Changing Destiny, 354.
122 Heidegger, ‘Equiparazione’, 251.
121 Ibid., 82.

120 Karl Lowith, My Life in Germany before and after 1933: A report, trans. Elizabeth King (Chicago: University
of Illinois Press, 1994) 45-47.

119 Hermann Heidegger, ‘Notes to “Il dr. Brock medita di cambiare abilitazione”’, Discorsi ed altre
testimonianze, 144.

51



Restoration of the Professional Civil Service. Additionally, he adhered to other antisemitic
policies such as the Law against Overcrowding of Schools and Universities and the campaign
against the un-German spirit. In other words, Heidegger supported both the physical
expulsion of the Jews and the attempted erasure of their intellectual work. Moreover, in cases
where he defended a colleague against dismissal, he never went against the rules of the Civil
Service Law and duly submitted to the will of the Ministry of Baden. Considering these
factors, it is very difficult to excuse Heidegger from the charges of having participated in the
Nazi government. His defence in the Der Spiegel interview and in “The Rectorate” is far
from reality. Hence, there is no way in which Heidegger can be redeemed or excused, as
some scholars, such as Moheling and Heidegger’s son Hermann, have tried to do.

Heidegger was indeed an obedient Nazi. It is not possible to think of Heidegger as ‘neither an
uncritical fellow traveller nor an active party member,’ as his son Hermann described him.126

Instead, as Knowles argues, Heidegger was an active perpetrator.127 Nevertheless, the
extremist painting of Heidegger given by Faye is not correct. Indeed, there were some cases
in which Heidegger preferred to defend the university’s prestige rather than following the
minister’s requests immediately. For this reason, the stances taken by Faye and Knowles are
too extreme. The scholar closest to the truth is Wolin, who argues that while it is undeniable
that Heidegger was a Nazi, this does not mean he was a “dyed-in-the-wool Nazi.”128 Indeed,
there were occasions on which his fanaticism did not comply with the Nazis’ demands, like in
the cases of Kristeller and Brock. Nevertheless, there are no signs that Heidegger opposed
antisemitic policies. Moreover, the evidence found in private letters and the Black Notebooks
suggests that Heidegger was deeply convinced that what he was doing was right. This makes
it impossible to think of Heidegger as anything but antisemite, and a supporter of Nazi racial
policies.

But what type of guilt does Heidegger incur for his implementation of these policies? It may
be possible to recur to Karl Jaspers’ fourfold understanding of German guilt. Jaspers explains
that criminal guilt arises when someone breaks a particular law.129 In this case, Heidegger is
not culpable since he did not technically break any law.130 Then there is political guilt: “This,
involving the deeds of statesmen and the citizenry of a state, results in my having to bear the
consequences of the deeds of the state whose power governs me and under whose order I
live. Everybody is co-responsible for the way he is governed.”131 Heidegger is guilty of
having voluntarily submitted to Nazism and its delirious racial policies.132 Moreover, there is
moral guilt, which Jaspers describes as follows: “I, who cannot act otherwise than as an
individual, am morally responsible for all my deeds, including the execution of political and
military orders. It is never simply true that ‘orders are orders.’”133 Heidegger was responsible
for a type of moral guilt from his actions as rector, his persecution of the Jews, and his
despicable behaviour toward many such as Husserl.134 Most importantly, there is
metaphysical guilt, about which Jaspers states, “There exists a solidarity among men as
human beings that makes each co-responsible for every wrong and every injustice in the

134 Rockmore, On Heidegger’s Nazism, 295.
133 Jaspers, The Question, 25-26.
132 Rockmore, On Heidegger’s Nazism, 295.
131 Jaspers, The Question, 25.
130 Rockmore, On Heidegger’s Nazism, 295.
129 Karl Jaspers, The Question of German Guilt (New York: Fordham University Press, 2000), 25.
128 Wolin, Heidegger’s Children, 180.
127 Knowles, ‘Martin Heidegger’s Nazi Conscience’, 183.
126 Hermann Heidegger, ‘Introduction’, 468-469.

52



world, especially for crimes committed in his presence or with his knowledge. If I fail to do
whatever I can to prevent them, I too am guilty.” 135 Both Heidegger and his defenders who
excuse or deny his affiliation to Nazism must accept that they have metaphysical guilt, since
if someone endorses a movement like Nazism, he necessarily preaches the superiority of one
“race” over all others.136

In summary, there is enough evidence to prove that Heidegger was an active supporter of
Nazism as rector of Freiburg University. Heidegger did not try to oppose antisemitic policies
and in fact supported them vigorously. Thus, he was a committed Nazi and a persecutor of the
Jews in his capacity as rector.

Bibliography
Primary Sources

Heidegger, Elfriede ‘Sincera e immutata gratitudine’, Discorsi ed altre testimonianze del
Cammino di una Vita, ed. Hermann Heidegger (Genoa: Il Melangolo, 2005), 81.

Heidegger, Martin, ‘The Jewish Contamination of German Spiritual Life: Letter to Victor
Schower (1929), Martin Heidegger: Philosophical and Political Writings, trans. and
ed. Manfred Stassen (London: Bloomsbury, 2003), 1.

Heidegger, Martin, ‘Now Only a God can save us: Der Spiegel’s Interview (September 23,
1966)’, Martin Heidegger: Philosophical and Political Writings, trans. Maria P. Alter
and John D. Caputo, ed. Manfred Stassen (London: Bloomsbury, 2003), 24-48.

Heidegger, Martin, ‘Raccomandazione per il dr Kristeller’, Discorsi ed altre testimonianze
del Cammino di una Vita, ed. Hermann Heidegger (Genoa: Il Melangolo, 2005), 82.

Heidegger, Martin, ‘Richiesta di benevolo esame per il Prof. Liefmann’, Discorsi ed altre
testimonianze del cammino di una vita, ed. Hermann Heidegger (Genoa: Il
Melangolo, 2005), 114.

Heidegger, Martin, ‘Solstizio d’Estate 1933’, Discorsi ed altre testimonianze del cammino di
una vita, ed. Hermann Heidegger (Genoa: Il Melangolo, 2005), 123.

Heidegger, Martin, ‘Hönigswald, dalla Scuola Neo-Kantiana’, Discorsi ed altre testimonianze
del Cammino di una Vita, ed. Hermann Heidegger (Genoa: Il Melangolo, 2005), 124.

Heidegger, Martin, ‘Parere sul congedo dei colleghi v. Hevesy e Frankel’, Discorsi ed altre
testimonianze del cammino di una vita, ed. Hermann Heidegger (Genoa: Il
Melangolo, 2005), 132-133.

Heidegger, Martin, ‘Parere sul Professor dr. Eduard Frankel’, Discorsi ed altre testimonianze
del cammino di una vita, ed. Hermann Heidegger (Genova: Il Melangolo, 2005),
136-137.

Heidegger, Martin, ‘Il dr. Brock medita di cambiare abilitazione’, Discorsi ed altre
testimonianze del Cammino di una Vita, ed. Hermann Heidegger (Genova: Il
Melangolo, 2005), 144.

Heidegger, Martin, ‘Spiccate doti filosofico sistematiche’, Discorsi ed altre testimonianze del
Cammino di una Vita, ed. Hermann Heidegger (Genova: Il Melangolo, 2005), 203.

Heidegger, Martin, ‘Equiparazione agli assistenti ordinari’, Discorsi ed altre testimonianze
del Cammino di una Vita, ed. Hermann Heidegger (Genova: Il Melangolo, 2005), 248.

136 Ibid.
135 Jaspers. The Question, 26.

53



Heidegger, Martin, ‘Chiaro segnale per Karlsruhe’, Discorsi ed altre testimonianze del
Cammino di una Vita, ed. Hermann Heidegger (Genova: Il Melangolo, 2005), 257.

Heidegger, Martin, ‘The Rectorate 1933/34: Facts and Thoughts’, in The Review of
Metaphysics 38: 3 (March 1985), 481-502.

Jaspers, Karl ‘Letter to the Freiburg University Denazification Committee, December 22nd,
1945’, in Richard Wolin (ed.), The Heidegger Controversy: A Critical Reader,
(Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1992), 148.

Krebs, Hans Adolf, Reminiscences and Reflections (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981).
Kristeller, Paul Oskar, ‘A Life of Learning’, ACLS Occasional Paper 12 (April 1990), 1-16.
Lowith, Karl, My Life in Germany before and after 1933: A report, translated by Elizabeth

King (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1994).
‘Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, 7th April 1933’, The Nazi Germany

Sourcebook: An Anthology of Texts, eds. Roderick Stackelberg and Sally A. Winkle,
(London: Routledge, 2002), 150-151.

‘First Regulation for Administration of the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil
Service, 11 April 1933’, The Nazi Germany Sourcebook, eds. Roderick Stackelberg
and Sally A. Winkle (London: Routledge, 2002), 151-152.

Secondary sources

Anonymous, ‘Siegfried Joseph Thannhauser’, DGIM History – Commemoration and
Remembrance: The German Society of Internal Medicine in the National Socialist
Era, no date, https://www.dgim-history.de/en/biography/Thannhauser [accessed 29th

March 2023]
Bodo, Bela, ‘The Role of Antisemitism in the Expulsion of non-Aryan students’, Yad Vashem

Studies, 30 (2002), 189-202.
Cockfort, John D., ‘George de Hevesy 1885-1966’, Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the

Royal Society 13: 13 (November 1967), 125-166.
Di Cesare, Donatella, Heidegger e gli ebrei: I “Quaderni Neri” (Turin, Bollati Boringhieri

2014).
Farìas, Victor, Heidegger and Nazism (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1987).
Faye, Emmanuel, Heidegger: The Introduction of Nazism into Philosophy (New Haven, CT:

Yale University Press, 2009).
Friedlander, Saul, Nazi Germany and the Jews - Volume 1: 1933-1939: The Years of

Persecution (London: W&N, 2007).
Heidegger, Hermann, ‘Preface’, The Review of Metaphysics 38: 3 (March 1985), 468-469.
Heidegger, Hermann, ‘Notes to “Sincera ed immutata gratitudine”’, Discorsi ed altre

testimonianze del Cammino di una Vita, ed. Hermann Heidegger (Genova: Il
Melangolo, 2005), 579.

Heidegger, Hermann, ‘Notes to “Chiaro segnale per Karlsruhe”’, Discorsi ed altre
testimonianze del Cammino di una Vita, ed. Hermann Heidegger (Genoa: Il
Melangolo, 2005), 701.

Heidegger ‘Notes to “Parere sul Professor dr. Eduard Frankel”’, Discorsi ed altre
testimonianze del Cammino di una Vita, ed. Hermann Heidegger (Genoa: Il
Melangolo, 2005), 701

Honoré, Tony, ‘Fritz Pringsheim (1882-1967)’, Jurists uprooted: German-speaking Lawyers
Émigré in Twentieth-Century Britain, eds. Jack Beatson and Reinhard Zimmermann
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 206-232.

54



Knowles, Adam, ‘Martin Heidegger’s Nazi Conscience’, Probing the Limits of
Categorization, eds. Christina Morina and Krijn Thijs (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2018), 168-186.

Knowles, Adam, Martin Heidegger’s Fascist affinities: A Politics of Silence (Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 2019).

Lewy, Gunter, Harmful and Undesirable: Book Censorship in Nazi Germany (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2016).

Mohanthy, J. L., Edmund Husserl’s Freiburg Years. (New Haven, Yale University Press,
2011).

Ott, Hugo, Martin Heidegger: A Political Life (New York: Breghan Books, 1993).
Moheling, Karl A., ‘Heidegger and the Nazis’, Heidegger: The Man and the Thinker, ed.

Thomas Sheehan (Chicago: Precedent Publishing, 1981), 31-43.
Payen, Guillaume, Martin Heidegger: Catholicisme, révolution, nazisme (Paris: Editions

Perrin, 2016).
Payen, Guillaume, Martin Heidegger's Changing Destinies: Catholicism, Revolution, Nazism

(Yale: Yale University Press, 2023).
Quesada Martìn, Julio, “Martin Heidegger: Anti-Semitism and Metaphysics in the Schwärze

Hefte (1939-1941). The Attack (Angriff) on Husserl”, Philosophy International
Journal 3: 2 (June 2020), 1-7.

Rockmore, Tom, On Heidegger’s Nazism and Philosophy (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1992).

Rockmore, Tom ‘Philosophy or Weltanschauung? Heidegger on Hönigswald’, History of
Philosophy Quarterly 16: 1 (January 1999), 97-115.

Safranski, Rundiger, Heidegger e il suo Tempo (Milan: Garzanti, 2008).
Sherratt, Yvonne, Hitler’s Philosophers (Yale: Yale University Press, 2013).
Wolin, Richard, Heidegger’s Children (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001).

55