3.9 Article

The hepatopathologist Hans Popper (1903-1988). An early victim of National Socialism in Austria. German version

期刊

PATHOLOGE
卷 40, 期 4, 页码 457-466

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00292-019-0617-0

关键词

Emigration and immigration; Liver diseases; National Socialism; Austria; Pathologists

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In 1988, the father of modern hepatology Hans Popper died. His medical merits are numerous and outstanding and have already been praised many times. In particular, his research on liver diseases has gained widespread recognition. Much less well known is the fact that Popper was dismissed from the University of Vienna due to his Jewish ancestry after the Anschluss (annexation) of Austria to the Third Reich and subsequently emigrated to the USA.Popper's biographers, who primarily belonged to his close circle of friends and colleagues, were unquestionably aware of this central caesura in Popper's life. However, the scientific analysis and presentation of this very event has been incomplete and, moreover, feeds heavily from the personal memories of the authors, which are inevitably subjective. For precisely this reason, the present contribution focuses on Popper's role as apolitically persecuted Jew and the resulting implications.The study comes to the conclusion that Popper shows all the characteristics of aNazi victim, namely aJewish background, the dismissal from university, the threat of persecution by the Gestapo, and the subsequent forced emigration. Popper decided against remigration after 1945 and instead earned professional recognition in the USA and later worldwide. In the 1980s, Popper was criticized for his permissive attitude towards his former academic teacher, the doctor and Nazi criminal Hans Eppinger. Even if he did not completely succeed in making his behavior in the Eppinger Case understandable and comprehensible, the events gradually fell into oblivion, as evidenced by several recent posthumous statements of honor in German-speaking countries.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据