The Origins and Announcement of the Competition

At first glance it may seem to be merely an accident of history that the famous/infamous House of Krupp should have unwittingly been the midwife in the birth of a new, allegedly "scientifically based" eugenics movement. An examination of the history of the competition, however, reveals that the owner of Europe's leading cast-steel and armaments firm might well have had personal and political reasons for wishing to sponsor the contest which Schallmayer later own.

Friedrich Alfred Krupp (1854–1902), the initiator and sponsor of the contest,^[3] was the grandson of the founder of the industrial dynasty.^[4] Although the Essen-based family prospered as merchants and tradesmen from the time the very first Krupp, a refugee, arrived at the city gate in 1587, the modern Firma Friedrich Krupp was established just after the Napoleonic Wars. At this time Friedrich Alfred's grandfather, Friedrich Krupp (1787–1826), decided to cast his lot with the forces of industrial modernity and invest his family's fortune in the production of cast steel, a metal hitherto manufactured only in England.^[5] In the long run, however, it was the foresight, ruthlessness, and good timing of the sponsor's father, Alfred (1812–1887), der grosse Krupp that transformed the modest House of Krupp into an economic force with which the newly created German Reich, and ultimately the world, had to reckon.

The secret behind Alfred Krupp's economic fortune was his decision to utilize the firm's first-rate cast steel in the production of weapons of war. Traditionally, weapons such as cannons and guns were made of bronze, and it took Krupp years of prodding to convince the hardheaded, conventional generals of Prussia's War Ministry of the military desirability of steel. Ultimately,

however, several years after the recognition bestowed upon Krupp at the 1851 London World's Fair for his steel barrel field gun, Prussia did take notice of the man who would later become Germany's favorite son.^[6] When his cast-steel munitions proved their superiority on the battlefields of Sedan as well as on the streets of Paris, the personal success of Alfred Krupp and his now moderately large industrial concern became forever tied to the fortunes of the newly founded German Reich.^[7]

During the 1860s and 1870s Krupp acquired a near monopoly over the requisite materials and machines for his tools of war. This monopoly does not, however, in itself account for the firm's remarkable degree of productivity and power. Krupp's near-total control over his Kruppianer , as his workers were called, was at least as important to the Krupp dynasty. In fact, the political subservience and economic efficiency achieved by Krupp's paternalism so impressed Bismarck that the latter modeled his own social welfare legislation on Krupp's conservative revolution in worker control.^[8] Concerned only to perpetuate the industrial dynasty's fortune "for times perennial," Krupp established what was essentially a company town in the middle of Essen. In return for their absolute loyalty to the firm, Krupp workers were provided with housing as well as health and old-age insurance—a measure rooted in the idea that only when a worker's minimal requirements were met would he be in the physical and mental condition to produce at full capacity. Krupp thus managed to gain control over "his men," thereby preventing the development of any incipient working-class consciousness or political activity on the part of his labor force. His fear and hatred of both the Social Democratic party and the trade unions were legendary. To make sure that his more that 50,000 workers did not become indoctrinated with dangerous ideas, Krupp even had their trash cans checked for socialist newspapers and literature.^[9]

When Alfred Krupp died in 1887, Friedrich Alfred was only too anxious to continue his father's role as master and protector of the firm. Like his father, the well-being of the firm was closest to Fritz's heart. But unlike his father, he did cultivate one outside

interest: zoology. The new master of the House of Krupp even fancied himself as a marine biologist.^[10] Prevented by his father from actively pursuing his interest in biology while still an adolescent, as a grown man he indulged himself in the study of aquatic life and oceanography, apparently with some limited measure of professional success.^[11] Whether or not, as one Krupp biographer suggests, Fritz actually received an invitation by the marine biologist and founder of the famous Zoological Research Station in Naples, Anton Dohrn (1840–1909), to participate in the researches undertaken there, he undoubtedly remained in contact with Dohrn and his associates over the years.^[12] Krupp was so convinced of the importance of the scientific work undertaken at Naples that he contributed 100,000 marks toward the construction of a biological laboratory at the site.^[13]

Given his interest in deep-sea life, Krupp wanted to involve Germany's most distinguished marine biologist and one of its most controversial public figures, Ernst Haeckel, in his plans for the contest. The subsequent history of the German eugenics movement owes much to this decision. By 1890 Haeckel had long since become interested in problems which transcended his careful investigations of the medusa. It was Haeckel's role as apostle of Darwin in Germany that accounted for his extraordinary popularity and notoriety among his numerous admirers and enemies. And just as the original Christian apostles did not merely preach the message of Christ, but also interpreted it to fit the needs of the early church, so too did Haeckel go beyond a mere explication of Darwin's theory of descent and sought to interpret its social and political meaning.

Part of the social and political meaning that Haeckel attributed to Darwinism was its incompatibility with socialism—an interpretation which undoubtedly appealed to Krupp. Beginning in 1877, in his famous debate with the eminent German pathologist Rudolf Virchow at the Fiftieth Conference of the German Association of Naturalists and Physicians,^[14] Haeckel sought to publicly sever the link between Darwinism and Social Democracy that had been forged by several prominent German socialists. During the 1860s and 1870s Social Democratic leaders such

as Friedrich Albert Lange, August Bebel, and Karl Kautsky—to name only the most important—embraced Darwinism and viewed it both as a legitimation of the inevitability and desirability of socialism, and as a justification for materialism and atheism.^[15] Haeckel, however, considered socialism to have "the most dangerous and objectionable character which, at the present time, any political theory can have," and asserted during the 1877 debate that Darwinism

is anything rather than socialist! If this English hypothesis is to be compared to any political tendency—as is, no doubt possible—that tendency can only be aristocratic, certainly not democratic, and least of all socialist. The theory of selection teaches that in human life, as in animal and plant life everywhere, and at all times, only a small chosen minority can exist and flourish, while the enormous majority strive and perish miserably and more or less prematurely. . . . The cruel and merciless struggle for existence which rages throughout all living nature, and in the course of nature must rage, this unceasing and inexorable competition of all living creatures, is an incontestable fact; only the picked minority of the qualified "fittest" is in a position to resist it successfully, while the great majority of the competitors must necessarily perish miserably. We may profoundly lament this tragical state of things, but we can neither controvert it nor alter it. "Many are called but few are chosen." The selection, the picking out of these "chosen ones" is inevitably connected with the arrest and destruction of the remaining majority.^[16]

Haeckel's uncompromising antisocialist interpretation, while certainly reflecting his own personal political position, was also designed to promote the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution in the public schools by demonstrating that it presented no threat to the political status quo.

Given these views Krupp was undoubtedly delighted when the biologist Heinrich Ernst Ziegler (1858–1925) informed him of Haeckel's willingness to preside over a written contest designed to demonstrate, once and for all, that the new biology was anything but staatsfeindlich (a threat to the state).^[17] Sometime before January, 1900 (the exact date is not known) the details of what became known as the Krupp Preisausschreiben were ironed out.

"Toward the advancement of science and in the interest of the Fatherland," Krupp donated 30,000 marks to be used in a contest to answer the question: "What can we learn from the theory of evolution about internal political development and state legislation?"^[18] Wishing to remain anonymous, Krupp did not involve himself personally with the administration and execution of the contest; it appears that Ziegler, who was asked to be a judge for the contest, did much of the work. Krupp did, however, choose to formulate, in collaboration with his "scientific friends," not only the general question but also a number of specific guidelines pertaining to both the form and content of the entries.

It was not sufficient for those interested in the exceedingly generous 10,000 marks first prize simply to discuss the political and social meaning of Darwin's theory. In addition to answering the general question, all participants had to take a stand on a number of issues. First, every contestant was expected to discuss the importance of heredity in the evolutionary process and to take sides on this hotly debated issue. In effect, the rules required a contestant to choose between Lamarckism or Weismannism. Since the political lesson that could be drawn from evolutionary theory varied greatly depending upon whether or not one believed in the inheritance of acquired characters or traits, it was essential to clearly articulate and defend a position on the subject. Moreover, those participating in the contest were asked to comment on the relative importance of nonhereditary factors such as customs, tradition, and education in the process of social evolution, and to select historical examples to buttress their opinions. And, finally, the regulations required all contestants to evaluate the political tendencies and parties in Germany ("from the revolutionary movements, on the one hand, to those of stagnation or reaction on the other") from the standpoint of their compatibility with the teachings of Darwin's theory of descent. All entries were expected to demonstrate "scientific merit" while simultaneously avoiding unnecessary technical jargon so as to be accessible to a lay audience. Although the contest was not limited to Germans, all manuscripts had to be presented in German.^[19]

From all available sources we cannot say for certain whether Krupp himself actually handpicked those who, in addition to Haeckel and Ziegler, were to serve as judges for the contest. It seems reasonable to assume, however, that all of them were, if not openly sympathetic to Krupp's political conservatism, at least no friend of Germany's Social Democratic party. Fritz Krupp, as staunch an opponent of socialism as his father, could hardly have allowed sympathizers of Bebel to have the last word on the new biology—especially considering that he himself was paying to have the word spread. A brief look at the background of some of the judges supports this assumption.

All entries were examined by two different panels. The first Schiedsgericht (panel of judges) was composed of three respected scholars: Ziegler, zoologist; Johannes Conrad (1839–1915), economist; and Dietrich Schäfer (1845–1929), historian. These three men, representing three diverse and relevant fields, independently judged and ranked all manuscripts. A prize committee consisting of Haeckel, Conrad, and a Stuttgart geologist and paleontologist, Eberhard Fraas (1862–1915), was also established to settle any disparities and deadlocks among the three judges as to which entries merited a prize, and exactly which prize they deserved. The prize committee not only acted as final arbiter in the absence of a unanimous decision regarding the rank order of a particular manuscript but also communicated the official announcement of the judges' decision to the contestants.^[20]

Of the three judges who made up the Schiedsgericht, two are known to have harbored conservative political views. Ziegler, probably the most influential man on the panel and a personal acquaintance of Krupp, made no secret of his disgust for Social Democracy. A dedicated student of August Weismann in Freiburg,^[21] Ziegler was convinced that both the recent findings of his teacher on the subject of heredity, and Weismann's reinterpretation of Darwinian evolution, effectively eliminated the possibility of environmental factors playing a role in the evolutionary development of the human race. Since socialist theorists such as Bebel argued for the compatibility of Darwinism and

socialism on the false assumption that a new environment (in the case of humans, a new form of society) would create a new species of humans, Ziegler felt compelled to set the story straight once and for all in a work entitled, Die naturwissenschaft und die socialdemokratische Theorie (Science and Social Democratic Theory).^[22] This work, allegedly an objective comparison of the views of Darwin and Bebel (as representatives of science and Social Democracy respectively), was actually an example of nascent scientism—in this case, an attempt to legitimize the political status quo by using science (biology) to discredit the efficacy and desirability of socialism. The zoologist's political sympathies were certainly close to those of the National Liberals—the party of big business.^[23] Clearly, Ziegler was, from Krupp's point of view, an acceptable judge. The second judge, Johannes Conrad, was a member of the National Liberal party until that party's shift to protectionism in the 1880s.^[24] The political leanings of the third member of the panel, Fraas, are unknown, although his position as curator of a royal scientific institution in Stuttgart precluded his holding any radical political opinions. Whether the judges were actually selected by Krupp or not, all had the appropriate credentials for the job.

The Krupp competition was announced by the members of the prize committee on January 1, 1900. Interested parties had until December 1, 1902 to submit their entries. In the period between the announcement and the final deadline for manuscripts, no less than sixty contestants formally entered the competition: forty-four from Germany, eight from Austria, four from Switzerland, and two each from the United States and Russia.^[25] Of the original sixty, as Ziegler tells us, the panel of judges immediately disqualified fifteen entries for misinterpreting the question, being too short or otherwise insignificant, or propagating "very strange views" written in a totally inappropriate style.^[26] Most of the remaining forty-five works, while differing widely in emphasis and intellectual orientation, could best be described as a heterogeneous collection of social Darwinist tracts.

The political tendencies of the entries and the ideological convictions of the authors indeed reflected virtually the entire spectrum of political opinion in turn-of-the-century Wilhelmine Germany, with the exception of the Catholic Center party. In his analysis of the results of the competition, Ziegler grouped Germany's political parties not into the traditional divisions of right and left but rather arranged them according to the degree to which the state was expected to intervene and carry out ascribed functions in society. According to this division there was only one contestant representing the extreme right, anarchy, and only a few "insignificant" authors defending Marxist socialism.^[27] Several manuscripts demonstrated greatest sympathy with what Ziegler conveniently but most inappropriately designated as the "middle parties"—the National Liberals and Free Conservatives.^[28] These works, he claimed, could not be characterized as being guided by great principles; rather, authors of Bismarck's political persuasion evaluated "each prospective law according to its practical usefulness for the individual and the society as a whole."^[29] For the position of classical liberalism of the kind articulated by Herbert Spencer, Ziegler was able to claim but a single representative out of dozens of contestants. This one tract was the only work to "principally defend the old ideal of liberalism of direct universal suffrage, which is now in operation in the Reich" (at best a half truth considering its limitation to Reichstag elections). Many of the other entries proposed changes in the suffrage laws. This, according to Ziegler, suggested "that in educated circles the ideal [direct universal suffrage] has lost much of its old magic since its implementation."^[30]

Although Darwin's theory of natural selection could best be linked to some sort of liberalism, most of the entries did not mirror the views of the celebrated English apologist of strict laissez-faire capitalism. As Ziegler himself recognized, the times were no longer ripe for liberalism.

It is striking that the liberal view found expression merely in the above-mentioned treatise. This is all the more the case since it [liberalism] so easily lends itself to the principles of the theory of selec-

tion. I believe this can only be explained if one recognizes that in our day the general tendency points in another direction. Our times wish an increasing amount of social legislation, and this is possible only in the company of a strong state which, in the interest of the good of all, both dares to limit the freedom of the individual and regulates economic processes.^[31]

In the aftermath of economic recession, Germany's turn to protectionism, and Bismarck's social legislation, liberalism, never very strong in Germany, was largely discredited. Reflecting the general shift in social and economic philosophy, approximately one-third of all entries advocated some form of state socialism as the alleged "political" consequence of an accurate interpretation of Darwinian evolution.^[32] As we have seen, in Germany state socialism was by no means a radical philosophy.

On March 7, 1903, the prize committee announced the winners of the competition. In addition to a first prize and two second prizes, there were also five lesser monetary awards, apparently made possible by an increase in the total amount of money allotted by the Krupp family for the contest.^[33] All eight award-winning manuscripts were to be published both individually and as part of a series entitled: Natur und Staat: Beiträge zur naturwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaftslehre (Nature and State: Contributions Towards a Scientific Study of Society). Underwritten over a period of fifteen years by the prestigious Jena-based science publishing company Gustav Fischer Verlag, the original series was expanded to encompass not only seven of the award-winning essays but also three additional works, including a lengthy treatise by one of the judges, Heinrich Ziegler, with the title Die Vererbungslehre in der Biologie und in der Soziologie (Heredity in Biology and Sociology). The decision to publish manuscripts as part of a series almost certainly attracted a greater amount of attention to the theme of the contest and to the individual responses than would have been possible had the entries merely been printed without any obvious connection to one another. From all indications, the contest and the series Natur und Staat served well the purpose of Fritz Krupp and the judges to

demonstrate that Darwin's theory neither "possessed the state-damaging character attributed to it by its opponents," nor in any way "destroyed morals." Darwinism was shown to be inimical to Social Democracy, and, although opposed to Christian morality, it could be said to lay the groundwork for a new ethics with "a scientific-sociological basis."^[34]