Читаем Fascist Pigs: Technoscientific Organisms and the History of Fascism полностью

After the Nazis seized power, the seed market, like everything else related to agriculture, would be centrally regulated. A meeting held in December 1933 between RNS officials and BRA scientists was to clarify the respective tasks considering plant protection, the first assuming all responsibilities in economic issues and the latter exclusively scientific ones.[54] In practical terms this meant the transfer of control of the regional network of local Plant Protection Offices from the BRA to the RNS. Such change was also a reaction to repeated criticisms concerning BRA activities by Erwin Baur, a major German geneticist and the first director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institut für Züchtungsforschung (Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Plant Breeding), who urged the BRA to make a choice between being a bureaucratic office and being a research institute. Baur argued that the BRA couldn’t have it both ways.[55] Baur had it wrong, for that was just what happened.

Eduard Riehm—the director of the BRA from Otto Appel’s retirement in 1933 till 1945, whose administration thus coincided with the life span of the Nazi regime—reacted to the reproach by invoking Baur’s privileged connections to H. Dietrich, former agriculture minister of the Reich from 1928 to 1930 and member of the left-leaning German Democratic Party (Deutsche Demokratische Partei). Riehm called Baur a “badischen Demokrat” and promised to align the BRA with the new order, well in tune with his membership in the NSDAP.[56] And in truth the idealized neat separation between bureaucratic and scientific spheres in plant protection during the Nazi years was, as we shall see, meaningless. Riehm, in 1936, was the first to assert the major role of his institution at the service of the Battle of Production.[57]

The Seed Decree of March 1934 confirms the importance of seed circulation for the streamlined RNS. The creation of a standardized certifying system and the prevention of selling uncertified seed, overseen by local branches of the RNS, contributed to the varietal cleansing of the market that allegedly was leading to the steep increases in yield demanded by the Battle for Production. In the apparent strict division of economic and scientific tasks between the RNS and the BRA, this regulation of the seed market clearly fell under the jurisdiction of the RNS. Nevertheless, what happened was that the previous Varietal Registry Commission of the BRA in Berlin-Dahlem was simply renamed the Office for Varietal Registration (Sortenregisterstelle) of the RNS, keeping its incumbency of producing the List of Approved Varieties now to be enforced by RNS officers.[58] In addition, these RNS officers were also trained at the BRA in short courses on seed certification.[59] Instead of just spreading the list among the members of the DLG, as had been done before the Nazis seized power, the list was now distributed through the extended network of the RNS.[60] More important, this was not just a service for better informing peasants about the best breeds. RNS officials used it instead to confirm which breeds could be cultivated in the national soil and which breeds could not. Apparently there was no resistance to having part of the RNS bureaucratic structure inside the BRA.

We now have a clearer picture of the entanglements between the work undertaken at the BRA and the institutionalization of the RNS. The control by the latter of the German seed circuit was built on standards developed in the laboratories of the first. Without the sprout test developed by BRA researchers in connection with the research on wart disease, there would have been no biological basis for the RNS’s varietal list. The RNS could undertake seed cleansing as an important part of its Battle for Production thanks to the sprout tests conducted by the BRA.

Перейти на страницу:

Все книги серии Inside Technology

Fascist Pigs: Technoscientific Organisms and the History of Fascism
Fascist Pigs: Technoscientific Organisms and the History of Fascism

In the fascist regimes of Mussolini's Italy, Salazar's Portugal, and Hitler's Germany, the first mass mobilizations involved wheat engineered to take advantage of chemical fertilizers, potatoes resistant to late blight, and pigs that thrived on national produce. Food independence was an early goal of fascism; indeed, as Tiago Saraiva writes in Fascist Pigs, fascists were obsessed with projects to feed the national body from the national soil. Saraiva shows how such technoscientific organisms as specially bred wheat and pigs became important elements in the institutionalization and expansion of fascist regimes. The pigs, the potatoes, and the wheat embodied fascism. In Nazi Germany, only plants and animals conforming to the new national standards would be allowed to reproduce. Pigs that didn't efficiently convert German-grown potatoes into pork and lard were eliminated.Saraiva describes national campaigns that intertwined the work of geneticists with new state bureaucracies; discusses fascist empires, considering forced labor on coffee, rubber, and cotton in Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Eastern Europe; and explores fascist genocides, following Karakul sheep from a laboratory in Germany to Eastern Europe, Libya, Ethiopia, and Angola.Saraiva's highly original account — the first systematic study of the relation between science and fascism — argues that the "back to the land" aspect of fascism should be understood as a modernist experiment involving geneticists and their organisms, mass propaganda, overgrown bureaucracy, and violent colonialism.Inside Technologyedited by Wiebe E. Bijker, W. Bernard Carlson, and Trevor J. PinchA list of the series appears at the back of the book.

Tiago Saraiva

История

Похожие книги

100 великих интриг
100 великих интриг

Нередко политические интриги становятся главными двигателями истории. Заговоры, покушения, провокации, аресты, казни, бунты и военные перевороты – все эти события могут составлять только часть одной, хитро спланированной, интриги, начинавшейся с короткой записки, вовремя произнесенной фразы или многозначительного молчания во время важной беседы царствующих особ и закончившейся грандиозным сломом целой эпохи.Суд над Сократом, заговор Катилины, Цезарь и Клеопатра, интриги Мессалины, мрачная слава Старца Горы, заговор Пацци, Варфоломеевская ночь, убийство Валленштейна, таинственная смерть Людвига Баварского, загадки Нюрнбергского процесса… Об этом и многом другом рассказывает очередная книга серии.

Виктор Николаевич Еремин

Биографии и Мемуары / История / Энциклопедии / Образование и наука / Словари и Энциклопедии
1917 год. Распад
1917 год. Распад

Фундаментальный труд российского историка О. Р. Айрапетова об участии Российской империи в Первой мировой войне является попыткой объединить анализ внешней, военной, внутренней и экономической политики Российской империи в 1914–1917 годов (до Февральской революции 1917 г.) с учетом предвоенного периода, особенности которого предопределили развитие и формы внешне– и внутриполитических конфликтов в погибшей в 1917 году стране.В четвертом, заключительном томе "1917. Распад" повествуется о взаимосвязи военных и революционных событий в России начала XX века, анализируются результаты свержения монархии и прихода к власти большевиков, повлиявшие на исход и последствия войны.

Олег Рудольфович Айрапетов

Военная документалистика и аналитика / История / Военная документалистика / Образование и наука / Документальное