Displaced Scholars

Rheinstein – Salmony

222.) Rheinstein, Max (1933-1936, 1940-1944) U of Chicago / Law

Guide to the Max Rheinstein Papers 1869-1977 © 2006 University of Chicago Library

Max Rheinstein (1899-1977) Lawyer and Professor, University of Chicago. The Papers document Rheinstein’s career as a lawyer and teacher with expertise in international and comparative law, family law, and the conflict of laws. Included are personal and professional correspondence, writings, drafts of books, lectures, reviews, articles, subject files, course materials, student papers, biographical and family material, and memorabilia. Also includes material relating to the Foreign Law Program at the University of Chicago. Correspondents include Tullio Ascarelli, Reimer von Borries, Mauro Cappelletti, Roscoe Pound, and Hessel Yntema..

Max Rheinstein was born in 1899 in Bad Kreuznach, Rhineland, but was brought up and educated in Munich, Bavaria. In World War I he served in an artillery regiment of the German army stationed on the Italian front after the collapse of the Austrian armies. After the war he attended the University of Munich where he received a doctorate of law in 1924. Two years later, he left Munich for Berlin to assume the position of researcher and librarian at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Foreign and International Private Law. There he was recognized as an expert in the field and consulted by the government in matters of foreign law.

Rheinstein met Elizabeth (Lilly) Abele in Berlin where she was a librarian at the Institute. They were married in 1929, and their only child, John (nicknamed Hans or Bummel) was born in 1930.

In September 1933 Rheinstein came to the United States to study at Columbia University and Harvard Law School on a Rockefeller Foundation fellowship. Upon its completion in 1935 he chose to remain in America; his collection of newspaper clippings indicates that he had been closely following the political situation in Germany. Rheinstein’s first professional appointment in the United States was at the University of Chicago where he was a visiting professor of law in 1935. The following year he was appointed Max Pam assistant professor of comparative law; in 1942 he attained the rank of full professor.

In 1946 and 1947, Rheinstein joined the legal staff of the Office of Military Government of Germany, United States Sector (OMGUS); he advised the US military government on the reform of German law. Both officially and privately Rheinstein supported a policy of conciliatory reconstruction, lest zealous denazification should turn the German people against democracy and retard their economic recovery.

Rheinstein developed an international reputation as a legal expert in the areas of international and comparative law, family law, the conflict of laws, and the law of decedents’ estates. He was visiting professor at the universities of Puerto Rico (1943), Wisconsin (1945), Michigan (1948), Louisiana State (1949), Frankfurt (1953), Cambridge (1955), Tokyo (1961), and Brussels (1964). He held professorships at the International University of Comparative Studies in Luxembourg from 1958-1960 and the International Faculty of Comparative Law in Strasbourg from 1962 on. In 1962 he was also awarded an honorary professorship by the University of Freiburg.

At the University of Chicago Rheinstein was instrumental in the development of the Foreign Law Program, which trained American common lawyers in the two major systems of civil law, the German and the French (which is a derivative of the Napoleonic Code). After his retirement, Rheinstein remained active in the fields of comparative and family law. In 1972 he published Marriage Stability, Divorce and the Law at the University of Chicago Press. During the 1970s, he collaborated with a former student, Mary Ann Glendon, on two projects. The two were the American editors of the International Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law. He also helped edit Glendon’s book, State, Law and Family. Rheinstein died on July 9, 1977, while vacationing in Bad Gastein, Austria. http://marklogic.lib.uchicago.edu:8002/view.xqy?id=ICU.SPCL.RHEINSTEIN&c=r

************************************************************

223.) Richter, Werner (1933-1945) Elmhurst / Language & Literature

Hans Werner Richter (19081993) was a German writer.

Born in Neu-Sallenthin, Usedom, Richter is little known for his own works but found world-wide celebrity and acknowledgment as initiator, moving spirit and “grey eminence” of the Group 47, the most important literary association of the German Federal Republic of the post-war period. Richter died in Munich.

Die Geschlagenen (novel, 1949) / Sie fielen aus Gottes Hand (novel, 1951) / Spuren im Sand (novel, 1953) / Linus Fleck oder Der Verlust der Würde (1959) / Bismarck (1964) / Karl Marx in Samarkand (1966) / “Blinder Alarm” (story, 1970) / Briefe an einen jungen Sozialisten (autobiography, 1974) / Die Flucht nach Abanon (story, 1980) / Ein Julitag (novel, 1982) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Werner_Richter

************************************************************

224.) Ríos, Fernando de los (1939-1944) New School for Social Research / Political Science

Fernando de los Ríos Urruti (Ronda, 8 de diciembre de 1879Nueva York, 31 de mayo de 1949) fue un político, dirigente e ideólogo socialista español, considerado como una de las más destacadas figuras del pensamiento socialista español destacando su propuesta de un socialismo humanista, desde una perspectiva no revolucionaria y deudora de la vanguardia de la socialdemocracia política y ética europea, y de un socialismo dentro del marco político de la democracia liberal, sin concesiones a cualquier tipo de aspiraciones totalitarias.

Vida – Huérfano a los cuatro años, realizará los estudios de bachillerato en Córdoba y tras finalizarlos la familia se instala, en 1895, en Madrid donde Fernando de los Ríos continuará sus estudios en la Institución Libre de Enseñanza, dirigida por otro ilustre rondeño Francisco Giner de los Ríos.

En la capital de España realizó los estudios de Derecho obteniendo la licenciatura en 1901 tras lo que comenzó su labor como profesor en la Institución Libre de Enseñanza. Tras doctorarse en 1907, obtuvo en 1911 la cátedra de en la Universidad de Granada, donde fue profesor del más tarde poeta y dramaturgo Federico García Lorca, a quien le unió estrecha amistad.

En 1919 se afilia al Partido Socialista Obrero Español (PSOE) y participará en la elecciones de ese mismo año, resultado elegido diputado por la circunscripción de Granada. En 1920 es elegido miembro de la Comisión Ejecutiva del PSOE y como tal viajará a Rusia para ver las posibilidades de ingreso del partido en la Tercera Internacional. La percepción que obtuvo del rumbo totalitario de la Revolución Soviética hizo que De los Ríos se opusiera al ingreso del partido en la citada Internacional, lo que provocaría la escisión de un sector pequeño del partido que habría de fundar el Partido Comunista de España.

En 1923 es elegido nuevamente diputado a Cortes, en esta ocasión por la circunscripción de Madrid. / Desde 1926 perteneció a la Masonería, afiliado a la logia Alhambra de Granada, del Gran Oriente Español, adoptando como nombre simbólico Jugan. Fue elegido entre 1927 y 1929 como representante de la Gran Logia Regional del Mediodía en las sucesivas asambleas anuales del Gran Oriente Español.

Es testigo de excepción del golpe militar del general Miguel Primo de Rivera. Inmediatamente, y en contra de la opinión de destacados dirigentes de PSOE, se opone a la colaboración con la dictadura participando, en 1930, en el Pacto de San Sebastián que desembocará en la fracasada Sublevación de Jaca y su encarcelamiento.

Liberado en 1931, justo antes de la proclamación de la Segunda República Española participará en las elecciones que se celebran en junio y obtendrá nuevamente un escaño por Granada, pasando a formar parte, como ministro de Justicia, del gobierno provisional que entre el 14 de abril y el 14 de octubre formará Niceto Alcalá Zamora. Cartera que ocupará nuevamente entre el 14 de octubre y el 16 de diciembre de 1931 en el primer gobierno del Bienio reformista bajo la presidencia de Manuel Azaña.

Tras la aprobación, el 9 de diciembre de 1931, del nuevo texto constitucional, De los Ríos volverá a formar parte del nuevo gobierno, nuevamente bajo la presidencia de Manuel Azaña, ocupando la cartera de Instrucción Pública y Bellas Artes hasta el 12 de junio de 1933 en que pasó a ocupar la cartera de Estado que mantuvo hasta la dimisión, el 12 de septiembre de ese mismo año, de Manuel Azaña y la elección de un nuevo gobierno bajo la presidencia de Alejandro Lerroux.

Fue nuevamente elegido diputado por la circunscripción de Granada en las elecciones de 1933 y 1936, y al estallar la Guerra Civil fue enviado como embajador de la República a Francia y posteriormente a Estados Unidos permaneciendo al frente de la legación republicana hasta el final de la guerra en 1939, pasando entonces a ejercer como profesor en la New School for Social Research de Nueva York, ciudad en la fijó su residencia hasta su muerte.

Entre sus obras destacan: La crisis actual de la democracia (1917), Mi viaje a la Rusia soviética (1921) escrito tras el citado viaje a la Rusia bolchevique y en el que cuenta que al preguntarle a Lenin cuándo se iba a establecer la libertad en la Unión Soviética revolucionaria, este le contestó con su famosa pregunta “¿Libertad para qué?”, El sentido humanista del socialismo (1926) y Religión y Estado en la España del siglo XVI (1927). http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_de_los_R%C3%ADos

************************************************************

225.) Rosenberg, Arthur (1939-1943) Brooklyn College / History

Arthur Rosenberg (18891943) was a German Marxist historian and writer.

Born into a German Jewish middle class family in Berlin in 1889, he excelled at the Gymnasium before studying at the Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität in Berlin with Otto Hirschfeld and Eduard Meyer. Soon, he established himself as an expert in Roman constitutional history. In 1914, Rosenberg proved to be a conformist representative of the German academy, believing in the “ideas of 1914,” and signing nationalist petitions. He then was drafted into the army, working for the Kriegspresseamt (the army’s public relations office).

After Germany’s defeat in 1918, he joined the new Independent Social Democratic Party (USPD), then on its formation in 1920, joining the KPD, the Communist Party of Germany. Rosenberg served on the Executive Committee of the Third International and as a member of the Central Committee of the German Communist Party. He was strongly influenced by Karl Korsch – later, like Korsch, describing Stalinist Russia as a ‘state capitalist’ society due to the Stalinist policy pursued as the basis of the First Five Year Plan. In 1927 he was expelled by the German Communist Party, withdrew from revolutionary politics, and became a democratic socialist. In 1931 he was finally made a Professor of History at Berlin University. When the Nazis came to power in 1933 he left for Switzerland, and then spent three years in exile in Britain from 1934-37 teaching at the University of Liverpool, before moving to United States, dying in New York in 1943 as Professor of Brooklyn College.

In the 1960s, his books came to more widespread attention among German historians.

Selected works – Imperial Germany: The Birth of the German Republic, 1871–1918 (1928) / A History of Bolshevism: From Marx to the First Five Years’ Plan (1932) / Fascism as a Mass Movement (1934) / A History of the German Republic, 1918-1930 (1936) / Democracy and socialism: a contribution to the political history of the past 150 years (1938)

Biography – Mario Kessler, Arthur Rosenberg (2003) / Francis L. Carsten, Arthur Rosenberg: Ancient Historian into Leading Communist, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 8, No. 1. (Jan., 1973), pp. 63-75

External links – Mario Kessler, Arthur Rosenberg (1889-1943): History and Politics between Berlin and New York / Phillip Stetzel on Arthur Rosenberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Rosenberg

“…By contrast, history was a subject divided by national boundaries, and historians fared badly: Arthur Rosenberg, author of seminal studies of the fall of the Wilhelmine Empire and the birth of the Weimar Republic, held a temporary post at Liverpool University for three years, but then had to re-emigrate to America, while Hans Baron, an expert on the Italian Renaissance, stayed in Britain for two years jobless, before he too found a position in the USA.” http://www.ajr.org.uk/index.cfm/section.journal/issue.Feb09/article=1883

************************************************************

226.) Rosenberg, Hans (1933-1944) Brooklyn College / History

Hans Rosenberg died in Freiburg in June, aged 84. After leaving Germany in the ’30s, he taught at Brooklyn College and later at Berkeley. One of the most outstanding historians of Germany in this century, he authored several books, including the classic Bureaucracy, Aristocracy and Absolutism in Prussia, 1660-1815.Hans Rosenberg – Like many of the Meinecke students who emigrated, Hans Rosenberg (1904–1988) was what the Nazis termed a “half Jew.” His father was a Jewish merchant, while his mother came from a Protestant family of civil servants in Brandenburg. Rosenberg was raised as a Protestant but eventually became an atheist. Born in 1904, he experienced World War I and the revolution of 1918–1919 as an adolescent, and that experience turned him into a firm democrat.

GHI BULLETIN NO. 39 (FALL 2006) 31 – Of the three historians I am considering here, Rosenberg probably had the closest personal relationship with Meinecke, but was also the most critical of Meinecke’s work. He wrote to Meinecke for the first time on April 23, 1924. Stressing his interest in intellectual history and the philosophy of history, Rosenberg asked Meinecke to supervise his planned doctoral dissertation on Wilhelm Dilthey as historian. Dilthey was the most important figure in the development of intellectual history in Germany. Quite unusually, Rosenberg went on to write that he not only respected Meinecke as a “great scholar and researcher” but also had a “feeling of personal love” for him. Meinecke was a kind of father figure for Rosenberg, whose father had died in 1918. He showered Meinecke with CARE packages after 1945, and during his first Berlin stays he took lodgings across from Meinecke and saw him regularly for breakfast. Until his death, Rosenberg had a photo of a bust of Meinecke hanging as the only picture in his study; that photo now hangs alongside a photo of Rosenberg in my own study. Rosenberg had distanced himself early on from Meinecke’s style of intellectual history and its concentration on the great minds of the past. In a later brief note on Meinecke, he described himself and his friend Eckart Kehr as the “heretics” of the Meinecke school, and Rothfels, Kaehler, Holborn, Baron, Gilbert, Gerhard, and Masur as its loyal members. On Meinecke’s advice, Rosenberg wrote his doctoral dissertation and Habilitationsschrift on the historian, philosopher, and politician Rudolf Haym, a representative of classical mid-nineteenth-century German liberalism. One of his goals was to bring to light a German tradition of liberal political culture and thereby take a clear stand against the “antidemocratic, conservative-nationalist outlook” that prevailed among historians at that time. Simultaneously, though, he also made clear the limits of classical liberalism, especially its lack of connections to most of German society and its reluctance to take on the ruling powers.

Rosenberg’s move away from the history of ideas as practiced by Meinecke occurred in two stages. First, in the late 1920s, Rosenberg wrote a series of essays on collective political mentalities during the Vormärz era and their bearers in the middle and lower classes. With these essays, which appeared together in book form in 1972 under the title Politische Denkströmungen im Vormärz, he attempted to build bridges “between research on intellectual history, on social history, on political groups, on associations, on parties, and on interest groups.” Rosenberg was later quite critical of these essays and their inadequate grounding in the social sciences, but he also saw them as a first step away from the prevailing methods and issues of German historiography. Rosenberg achieved a breakthrough in historical inquiry and insight with his pioneering study of the international economic crisis of 1857–1859. Written during the Great Depression in the years 1932–1933, this study drew on the theories of economic cycles to investigate the first international economic crisis of the modern era. By adopting this approach, Rosenberg distanced himself greatly from the topics, sources, and methods prevailing in the German historical profession. He was interested above all in analyzing the influence of economics and economic cycles on politics and society. He wanted to illuminate the interactions between the triad of state, economy, and society, which had traditionally been neglected in German historiography as a result of a one-sided concentration on the state.

Rosenberg’s position became untenable once the Nazis came to power. He left for Britain in 1933. Meinecke however succeeded in preventing Rosenberg’s dismissal as researcher for the Historische Reichskommission for nearly two years. That gave Rosenberg the opportunity to improve his English and to publish three books, thereby strongly bolstering his chances of securing a scholarly position abroad. In 1935, Rosenberg left Britain for the United States. Emigration did not change his liberal political views or his scholarly interests and methods. After an extremely difficult transition period in which both Depression-era economic troubles and antisemitism played a part, Rosenberg finally succeeded in securing what was to become a permanent position at Brooklyn College in 1938. In 1959, he accepted an endowed chair at the University of California, Berkeley, and remained there until his retirement in 1970.

Rosenberg seriously considered returning to Germany after the war. On May 6, 1946, he wrote to Meinecke that “should the opportunity arise” he would be willing “to return to a German university” despite the long years of hardship likely awaiting Germany. But in 1947, he declined to take over the chair previously held by his “Habilitation-father” Johannes Ziekursch at the University of Cologne. Rosenberg’s decision was spurred in large part by the reservations of his wife, who had been quite shaken by a visit to her destroyed native city. In a letter to his wife from September 10, 1948, he expressed his regrets, however: “As far as the intellectual and political meaning and purpose of professional life within the framework of personal capabilities are concerned, teaching at a university in Germany during the next ten to fifteen years would offer an entirely unique opportunity that will not arise again. From this perspective, I realize more clearly today than I did last winter that it was a fundamental mistake and a betrayal of inner conviction, of my better conviction, to decline the call to Cologne.” A year later, Rosenberg was offered a professorship at the newly founded Free University of Berlin; once again, he declined the offer. His view that Berlin’s situation as an enclave within the Soviet zone was not viable in the long run was then probably crucial to this decision. Rosenberg did, however, teach in Berlin as a visiting professor, and he had an exceptional impact as a teacher, particularly during the semesters he spent there in 1949 and 1950. His Berlin students and, in turn, their students were to have a decisive influence in the development of social history in West Germany.

Immigration influenced Rosenberg’s historical writing in several ways. For one, it spurred him to engage in non-German historical scholarship much more intensively than he had previously. It brought him into closer contact with the fields of economic and social history, which were further developed in the United States, Great Britain, and France than in Germany. And it provided an opportunity to expand his engagement with related social science disciplines, notably economics, political science, and sociology. In addition, Rosenberg’s teaching responsibilities, which required him to deal with the whole of European history from the High Middle Ages to the present, prompted him to give more attention to the sorts of comparative questions Otto Hintze had raised, and to think about longer time-frames. He repeatedly warned his German students about the danger of intellectual provincialism that could come with overspecialization—a danger he thought was particularly acute in the field of American history—and he stressed that it was the historian’s task to analyze major historical causal connections. On the subject of specialization, Rosenberg once told me, “One knows more and more about less and less until one finally ends up knowing everything about nothing.”

Rosenberg’s research, which he was able to take up again seriously in 1940, centered on two main sets of questions: first, the formation and long-term influence of elites in German political, economic, and social life; and second, the dynamics of economic change, in particular the influence of economic cycles on mentalities, social structures, and historical processes. These questions brought him, in turn, to the subject of the Weimar Republic’s inherited burdens, its collapse, and the Nazi seizure of power. Analyzing that complex of topics was intended to help prevent such a catastrophe from ever occurring again.

Rosenberg’s main work on the first set of questions was to be a major study of the Prussian Junker class from the thirteenth century through World War II. He was interested in the long importance of the Junkers as large-scale rural landowners, as leading members of the bureaucracy, and as military officers. The study was never published in the form originally envisioned in the 1940s. An almost-finished manuscript with many notes on planned revisions survives in Rosenberg’s papers, and some sections were published during his lifetime. In 1958, he published an extensively reworked version of the central portion of the work under the title Bureaucracy, Aristocracy and Autocracy: The Prussian Experience, 1600–1815. This book was well received, not only by historians but also sociologists and political scientists in the Anglo-Saxon world. In Germany, on the other hand, little notice was taken of it on account of the lack of a translation and because of Rosenberg’s criticism of the “Prussian legend,” which ran counter to the position of many Germany historians.

Rosenberg’s papers also include outlines for two projects on the history of social elites. One of the projects, conceived around 1953–1954, would be a continuation of his completed but not-yet-published work on the German bureaucracy; it would focus on the bureaucracy, the German tradition of the authoritarian bureaucratic state, and the German elites in the century from 1815 to 1918. The second project, which Rosenberg planned in 1964, was to deal with inequality in Germany from 1348 to 1525—in other words, from the demographic crisis of the Black Death to the so-called Peasants’ War. / In his second area of interest, the impact of economic cycles, Rosenberg in 1967 published a book on the so-called Great Depression in the Bismarck era. This study had a tremendous influence on the development of the field of social history in West Germany. It examined the negative consequences of the so-called long wave of recession from 1873 to 1896 on economic, social, and political life, and on political ideas and mentalities in Germany and Austria. Here, too, Rosenberg sought to analyze the conditions that were later to make the Nazis’ rise to power possible.

As a self-described wanderer between two cultures, Rosenberg repeatedly grappled with his identity as both a German and an American. On his acquisition of U.S. citizenship, he wrote to his wife in July 24, 1944 that “one in principle [should] really look at this matter from only a practical viewpoint. With an American passport and American cash, the world will stand open to you after this war. That is the flipside of emigration. / Even an American court recently ruled that acquiring citizenship does not carry the moral obligation to become an American ‘patriot,’ but rather merely the obligation to respect American law. . . . Culturally, I am a German and will remain one forever.” Rosenberg explained his position even more clearly in a report on his Junker project that he wrote on January 31, 1947 for the president of Brooklyn College. “My outlook is no longer that of an emigrant. By degrees I have acquired the mentality of an immigrant who has taken roots in the land of his adoption. . . . At the same time, however, I do not consider it a disloyal attitude if I in a humble and restrained way . . . remain faithful to what I value as the fruitful kernel of the German university tradition which, however perverted in recent years, has made no trifling contribution to the common treasures of our Western civilization. In all fairness to my old academic masters, now dead, maimed, or half-starved, it must be said that it was the magic of that to some extent transplantable tradition rather than stirring intellectual events at Brooklyn College which furnished me with the major incentive to tackle a bigger and more difficult job [than] I had ever ventured to handle before.”

It was with great interest and personal satisfaction that Rosenberg later followed the development of the new social history in West Germany. At the urging of his wife, who wanted closer contact with her grandchildren after the death of her son from a previous marriage, Rosenberg returned to Germany in 1977. The University of Freiburg made him an honorary professor, and the University of Bielefeld awarded him an honorary doctorate. He saw these honors as “a symbolic act of intellectual restitution.” Despite initial misgivings about relocating, he eventually felt very much at home in Germany. He was in close contact with his German students and made new friends. I found it deeply moving that many residents of Kirchzarten, the Black Forest town where Rosenberg lived, attended the memorial service for him at the University of Freiburg, and paid their respects to their “dear neighbor Hans Rosenberg” in a newspaper death notice. http://www.ghi-dc.org/publications/ghipubs/bu/039/bulletin39.pdf

************************************************************

227.) Rosenberg, Hans von (1933-1940) U of Chicago / Astronomy

Going back to the 1930s unlike Harvard, Brown, and Yale, the University of Chicago was much more open to absorbing intellectuals who were dismissed from German universities and could be of use, be they Jewish or not. The case of Astronomer Hans Rosenberg is a good case in point. Chicago however did not want to assume any the costs for employing highly qualified German Jewish individuals, no matter how good and needed they may have been. Nor was Chicago ready to be haven to many. According to a November 21 1933, letter from Robert Maynard Hutchins, President of the University of Chicago to Dr. Warren Weaver of the Rockefeller foundation, “should we be able to invite Dr. Rosenberg, he would be our fifth German and possibly all that we should undertake to absorb for the present.” This letter also gives us a hint as to why: “We find it very difficult to raise money for such purposes among the Jewish donors of Chicago. They were approached by the New York agencies and contributed rather liberally there and are disinclined to repeat.”

University of Chicago archival documentation of the processes involved to save Hans Rosenberg serves as a counterpoint to the position taken by other prestigious American universities. However, it also shows that even the University of Chicago was not ready to use “hard monies” from its own endowment and/or tuition income to recruit these high-value assets from the unfortunate and dire circumstances which they found themselves in. The correspondence leaves no doubt that Chicago wanted Rosenberg because it needed him to fill a specific void. Chicago at that point had made a trade-off between “an eminent man [whose] requirements for laboratory space and expenses make it inadvisable for us to consider him. Dr. Rosenberg, on the contrary will drop into place where he will find all the requirements for his work ready to hand.”

The Rosenberg/Chicago scenario was replicated on the east coast as well. It appears that in 1939, through his astronomer colleague Harvard Professor Harlow Shapley, another much more eminent astronomer than Rosenberg, E. Finlay Freundlich, was negotiating an academic position at Tufts College (Boston) and simultaneously a “Research Associateship” at the Harvard Observatory (Cambridge). Significantly, there was not even a question or hope of a Harvard academic appointment because of the Jewish issue. Be that as it may, even Tufts was ready to offer only a non-tenure track “lecturer” position on a two year contract under the condition that the salary money came from elsewhere.

So a package was put together with $800 secured from the Rockefeller Foundation. / “The Emergency Committee for Displaced Foreign Scholars has voted to contribute twelve hundred and fifty dollars. Mr. Henry Morgenthau Senior of New York City pledged to contribute six hundred dollars…to permit us to bring to America a distinguished academic exile,” states a letter from Tuft’s College President, Leonard Carmichael dated February 14 1939. The letter goes on to say, “I wish that at this time it were possible for me to promise that Tufts College would take over the payment of Professor Freundlich’s salary at the conclusion of the [two-year] period mentioned above….At the moment, I am reluctant to ask the Trustees to make an absolute guarantee of a commitment so far in advance because the income from our total endowment…is being sharply restricted by current investment rates. If the [Rockefeller] Foundation finds it possible to assist in this matter, however, I can assure you that we shall be extremely grateful.” In other words, the hat was still in the hand.

“He became Director of the Observatory in Istanbul, and died in that city.” -H.A. Strauss

************************************************************

228.) Rosenthal, Arthur (1933-1935, 1939-1944) U of New Mexico / Mathematics

?

************************************************************

229.) Rosinski, Herbert (1936, 1939-1944) 130 Irving St., Wash. D.C. / Military and Naval Theory

The Career Of Herbert Rosinski: An Intellectual Pilgrimage … “Title The Career Of Herbert Rosinski: An Intellectual Pilgrimage. Author Richard P. Stebbins. Publisher Peter Lang. Year 1989. Pages 224 pp. Price $40.50 …” http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/45549/william-diebold-jr/the-career-of-herbert-rosinski-an-intellectual-pilgrimage Career of Herbert Rosinski, American University Studies Series … “BARNES & NOBLE – Find Career of Herbert Rosinski by Richard Poate Stebbins. Enjoy book clubs, author videos and customer reviews. Free 3-Day shipping on $25 …” search.barnesandnoble.com/Career-of-Herbert-Rosinski/Richard-Poate-Stebbins/e/9780820409030 The German army, by Herbert Rosinski | National Library of Australia “Similar Items. Book The German army / Herbert Rosinski; Book The career of Herbert Rosinski : an intellectual pilgrimage / Richard P. Stebbins; Book …” catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1641835 Publication:RAN Reading List March 2006/Classical Maritime … “Herbert Rosinski was a member of staff at the German Naval Staff College until 1936 when he left for England to escape persecution under the Nazi regime. …” http://www.navy.gov.au/Publication:RAN_Reading_List_March_2006/Classical_Maritime_Strategy

The Development of Naval Thought: Essays by Herbert Rosinski

by B. Mitchell Simpson III published by Naval War College Press, Newport, 1977

Herbert Rosinski was a member of staff at the German Naval Staff College until 1936 when he left for England to escape persecution under the Nazi regime. After that he held a variety of positions in England and the United States writing on various aspects of contemporary military affairs and strategy. This collection of his essays concentrates on the writings on Mahan and Corbett. The essays examine conflict between states, the purpose of such conflict and relationships between tactics, strategy and logistics. Of particular note is the essay on ‘German Theories of Sea Warfare’, which examines the questions of what is the objective of sea power if sea control cannot be obtained. Rather than the theories of sea control derived from predominant navies such as the RN and USN, examination of German naval thought may be more relevant to Australia’s Navy if it has to operate without a ‘great and powerful friend’.

Chapter 19

“Like Herbert Rosinski (discussed later), Delbrück sought to push Clausewitz’s theories further along the line that, he presumed, the philosopher had been …”
http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Bassford/CIE/Chapter19.htm

Based on his role in stimulating American scholars to study Clausewitz, one of the most important of all the German expatriates active in this period may have been Herbert Rosinski (1903-62). Although Rosinski published relatively little, he was an energetic proselytizer of the gospel of Clausewitzian theory. While he recognized the unfinished nature of On War, he was worshipful in his praise of it. It was his ambition to carry on where Clausewitz had left off, but although his understanding of the philosopher’s work was sophisticated and his explications often enlightening, it would be hard to argue that Rosinski made any great original contribution of his own to military theory.

Rosinski was born of well-to-do Protestant parents in Königsberg (now Kaliningrad). (41) Too young to serve in World War One, he became something of a professional student, spending the years from 1921 to 1930 in diverse studies at the Universities of Tübingen, Königsberg, Halle, and Berlin. He received his doctorate from Berlin in 1930. Forced by a change in his family’s economic situation to seek work, Rosinski served as a civilian lecturer on military and naval theory at the German Naval Academy in Kiel, where he was evidently privy to a great deal of German war planning.

In 1936, however, the Nazis forced his dismissal because of a single Jewish grandparent. Bewildered, he emigrated that same year to England and became a lecturer on military history at Oxford. After a brief internment, he emigrated to the United States in 1940. There, Rosinski struggled unsuccessfully to find a secure academic or national security-related position and never achieved anything approaching financial security. At first he also had great difficulties in securing his wife’s entry; later he found it difficult to support her. Eventually she divorced him and married his best friend. He remained a member of the household, however.

A sometimes brilliant but very erratic intellectual, Rosinski grew increasingly unable to complete a project, frequently pursuing the implications of an idea until the project expanded beyond a human capacity to cope and ultimately losing the thread of his argument. He died a thwarted and unhappy man in 1962.

Rosinski’s 1935 article on the philosopher, which appeared in Germany and the Netherlands, has frequently been cited by Clausewitz scholars.(42) It aimed at reconstructing the various stages in the development of the philosopher’s theory, based on the notes of 1816, 1818, 1827, and 1830. (43) (The dating of this last note is a matter of controversy.) (44) In fact, Rosinski’s attempt to determine the steps by which Clausewitz arrived at his mature theories is probably his greatest contribution to Clausewitz studies.

Rosinski is best remembered for his book The German Army. First published in England in 1939, in the United States in 1940, revised in 1944 and again in 1966 (with a laudatory introduction by Gordon Craig), and translated into German in 1970, it is still considered a classic. The book is, of course, written from a “Clausewitzian” point of view, although Rosinski was characteristically scathing in his conclusion that the German general staff had never understood On War. He also commented on Delbrück, evidently accepting his ideas on Frederick the Great and Napoleon, and thus his theory of the “poles” of annihilation and attrition in strategy. Typically, he went on to make the rather remarkable statement that “Unfortunately Delbrück’s own interpretation of Clausewitz was so unsystematic and inaccurate that he completely failed to grasp the real importance of his discovery and did almost as much to confuse the issue again as he had helped to clarify it.” (45) Of Bernard Brodie and Corbett, Rosinski observed, “Brodie is inclined to follow [Corbett] too closely because his scheme of naval strategy is the most convenient we possess to this day. Unfortunately, however, its distinctions are often more academic than practical.” (46)

Later, in his review of Cyril Falls’s The Nature of Modern Warfare, Rosinski was also very skeptical, though more polite, in stating his views on the reception of Clausewitz and military theory in general in the Anglo-Saxon world. He agreed with Falls that British strategic thought fell halfway between the French and the German:

Its common sense has always kept it from falling victim to the extremes of French rationalism and has made the principles of warfare in England something markedly more tough and concrete than in France. Yet its instinctive aversion to systematic thought has prevented it from deriving as much benefit from the German side as it might otherwise have done. (47)

Rosinski and Rothfels drew on similar sources and made similar arguments concerning Clausewitz and his writings. Whereas Rothfels was interested in the historical context and personality of Clausewitz himself, Rosinski concentrated on the actual military theoretical aspects and implications of Clausewitz’s work. His works on naval strategy derive largely from Clausewitz, Corbett, and the French naval thinker Admiral Raoul Castex, and he gave considerable lip service to Mahan. It was his ambition to develop those theories further into a more comprehensive understanding of war.

At one point during the war, Rosinski actually contracted with Oxford University Press to put together a collection of Clausewitz’s translated writings. This work would total “about 175,000 words, consisting of some 350 typewritten pages of text and 250 pages of editorial matter.” (48) But like many of Rosinski’s grander projects, this fell through. Indeed, a great deal of the work published under his name was actually the product of extensive posthumous editing of his papers by other writers. (49)

Rosinski hinted constantly in his writings and lectures that he had discovered the “real” key to military theory, but he never said just what it was. In his later years, Rosinski grew increasingly paranoid and delusional about his great insight:

What I have accomplished can be fairly ranked with the achievements of people like Kierkegaard, Marx, and Nietzsche…. Of course, I am not so penetrating as they were, but I have a really astounding ability to hit upon the right answers intuitively, long before their correctness has been demonstrated. Very systematic, too…. The truth must be told, because if it is not openly proclaimed–and acted upon–then the world will irretrievably go to the devil…. You see, it’s a really frightful dilemma. If I say what I know, I make myself impossible in every camp. If I don’t say it, I would have to reproach myself with being a coward and, for the sake of my own security, of having endangered the existence of the world. And, if one has once been granted such profound insights, one has the corresponding sense of responsibility. (50)

Rosinski’s limited publication record prevented him from reaching a wide audience with his deeper thought on Clausewitz, although The German Army had much that was positive to say about the military philosopher. Moreover, Rosinski’s talents as a teacher are open to some doubt. He was very skeptical of the intellectual capacities of soldiers, and his attitude could be very patronizing. (51) His great faith in military theory is in fact rather odd, given his conviction that soldiers could never understand it. As in his writing, he had great difficulty imposing realistic limits on his lectures. In a 1953 lecture at the Naval War College, Rosinski observed that “it is an extremely difficult task … to try to go into the whole of [Clausewitz’s] thoughts and then to link them up in the very narrow span of about a single hour.” Nonetheless, he proceeded to make just such an attempt, with the help of a set of graphs, charts, and slides that must have left his audience absolutely baffled. (52)

Despite the energetic support of his friend Admiral Henry Eccles, Rosinski’s lectures at Newport were discontinued in 1957. The same year saw his last lectures at the Army War College. In 1959, a new general at Carlisle wrote to Eccles:

It is true that he was not well received by the students, and probably just as true that the students were not then prepared to discuss the problems at his level. However, this is beginning to be one of the great obligations of the advanced thinkers of our day–that they must learn to communicate with more than just the specialized members of their own backgrounds and disciplines. (53)

On the other hand, Rosinski was extremely gregarious, and he traveled extensively, frequently lecturing on Clausewitz. It was through these lectures and even more through his personal contacts that he most effectively spread the gospel of Clausewitz studies. In Germany, in the early 1930s, he introduced Raymond Aron to the German military philosopher. (54) In England from 1936 to 1940, he lectured on Vom Kriege at Oxford. (55) In the United States after 1940, Rosinski discussed Clausewitz before both the American Military Institute and the American Historical Association. In Edward Mead Earle’s seminars at the Institute for Advanced Study in 1940, he had a great deal to do with stimulating the discussion of Clausewitz. (56)

Rosinski was also close to Joe Greene and played an important role in feeding his interest in On War. He wrote regularly for Greene’s Infantry Journal, almost invariably mentioning Clausewitz. He had a profound influence on Henry Eccles, who attempted to carry forward Rosinski’s quest for a grand military theory. (57) He corresponded with J.M. Palmer from 1941 to 1946, and his praise of Cyril Falls’s work encouraged that British author to press on with his attempts to apply Clausewitz’s ideas to practical military problems.

Despite his many contacts and undeniable influence, Rosinski has a decidedly mixed reputation. His disorganization and preoccupation with his own problems tended to alienate potentially valuable contacts like Earle. His self-conscious sophistication and sometimes messianic behavior irritated Bernard Brodie, whose references to Rosinski are generally sarcastic. (58) (Rosinski reciprocated.) (59) Except for The German Army and his 1935 article on the development of Clausewitz’s theories, Rosinski’s work is not as widely cited as one might expect given his many connections to other writers. (60)

In sum, he represents at once the best and the worst of the German expatriate influence on the Anglo-American understanding of Clausewitz.

http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Bassford/CIE/Chapter19.htm

Rosinski was born of well-to-do Protestant parents in Königsberg (now Kaliningrad). (41) Too young to serve in World War One, he became something of a professional student, spending the years from 1921 to 1930 in diverse studies at the Universities of Tübingen, Königsberg, Halle, and Berlin. He received his doctorate from Berlin in 1930. Forced by a change in his family’s economic situation to seek work, Rosinski served as a civilian lecturer on military and naval theory at the German Naval Academy in Kiel, where he was evidently privy to a great deal of German war planning.

In 1936, however, the Nazis forced his dismissal because of a single Jewish grandparent. Bewildered, he emigrated that same year to England and became a lecturer on military history at Oxford. After a brief internment, he emigrated to the United States in 1940. There, Rosinski struggled unsuccessfully to find a secure academic or national security-related position and never achieved anything approaching financial security. At first he also had great difficulties in securing his wife’s entry; later he found it difficult to support her. Eventually she divorced him and married his best friend. He remained a member of the household, however.

A sometimes brilliant but very erratic intellectual, Rosinski grew increasingly unable to complete a project, frequently pursuing the implications of an idea until the project expanded beyond a human capacity to cope and ultimately losing the thread of his argument. He died a thwarted and unhappy man in 1962.

Rosinski’s 1935 article on the philosopher, which appeared in Germany and the Netherlands, has frequently been cited by Clausewitz scholars.(42) It aimed at reconstructing the various stages in the development of the philosopher’s theory, based on the notes of 1816, 1818, 1827, and 1830. (43) (The dating of this last note is a matter of controversy.) (44) In fact, Rosinski’s attempt to determine the steps by which Clausewitz arrived at his mature theories is probably his greatest contribution to Clausewitz studies.

Rosinski is best remembered for his book The German Army. First published in England in 1939, in the United States in 1940, revised in 1944 and again in 1966 (with a laudatory introduction by Gordon Craig), and translated into German in 1970, it is still considered a classic. The book is, of course, written from a “Clausewitzian” point of view, although Rosinski was characteristically scathing in his conclusion that the German general staff had never understood On War. He also commented on Delbrück, evidently accepting his ideas on Frederick the Great and Napoleon, and thus his theory of the “poles” of annihilation and attrition in strategy. Typically, he went on to make the rather remarkable statement that “Unfortunately Delbrück’s own interpretation of Clausewitz was so unsystematic and inaccurate that he completely failed to grasp the real importance of his discovery and did almost as much to confuse the issue again as he had helped to clarify it.” (45) Of Bernard Brodie and Corbett, Rosinski observed, “Brodie is inclined to follow [Corbett] too closely because his scheme of naval strategy is the most convenient we possess to this day. Unfortunately, however, its distinctions are often more academic than practical.” (46)

Later, in his review of Cyril Falls’s The Nature of Modern Warfare, Rosinski was also very skeptical, though more polite, in stating his views on the reception of Clausewitz and military theory in general in the Anglo-Saxon world. He agreed with Falls that British strategic thought fell halfway between the French and the German:

Its common sense has always kept it from falling victim to the extremes of French rationalism and has made the principles of warfare in England something markedly more tough and concrete than in France. Yet its instinctive aversion to systematic thought has prevented it from deriving as much benefit from the German side as it might otherwise have done. (47)

Rosinski and Rothfels drew on similar sources and made similar arguments concerning Clausewitz and his writings. Whereas Rothfels was interested in the historical context and personality of Clausewitz himself, Rosinski concentrated on the actual military theoretical aspects and implications of Clausewitz’s work. His works on naval strategy derive largely from Clausewitz, Corbett, and the French naval thinker Admiral Raoul Castex, and he gave considerable lip service to Mahan. It was his ambition to develop those theories further into a more comprehensive understanding of war.

At one point during the war, Rosinski actually contracted with Oxford University Press to put together a collection of Clausewitz’s translated writings. This work would total “about 175,000 words, consisting of some 350 typewritten pages of text and 250 pages of editorial matter.” (48) But like many of Rosinski’s grander projects, this fell through. Indeed, a great deal of the work published under his name was actually the product of extensive posthumous editing of his papers by other writers. (49)

Rosinski hinted constantly in his writings and lectures that he had discovered the “real” key to military theory, but he never said just what it was. In his later years, Rosinski grew increasingly paranoid and delusional about his great insight:

What I have accomplished can be fairly ranked with the achievements of people like Kierkegaard, Marx, and Nietzsche…. Of course, I am not so penetrating as they were, but I have a really astounding ability to hit upon the right answers intuitively, long before their correctness has been demonstrated. Very systematic, too…. The truth must be told, because if it is not openly proclaimed–and acted upon–then the world will irretrievably go to the devil…. You see, it’s a really frightful dilemma. If I say what I know, I make myself impossible in every camp. If I don’t say it, I would have to reproach myself with being a coward and, for the sake of my own security, of having endangered the existence of the world. And, if one has once been granted such profound insights, one has the corresponding sense of responsibility. (50)

Rosinski’s limited publication record prevented him from reaching a wide audience with his deeper thought on Clausewitz, although The German Army had much that was positive to say about the military philosopher. Moreover, Rosinski’s talents as a teacher are open to some doubt. He was very skeptical of the intellectual capacities of soldiers, and his attitude could be very patronizing. (51) His great faith in military theory is in fact rather odd, given his conviction that soldiers could never understand it. As in his writing, he had great difficulty imposing realistic limits on his lectures. In a 1953 lecture at the Naval War College, Rosinski observed that “it is an extremely difficult task … to try to go into the whole of [Clausewitz’s] thoughts and then to link them up in the very narrow span of about a single hour.” Nonetheless, he proceeded to make just such an attempt, with the help of a set of graphs, charts, and slides that must have left his audience absolutely baffled. (52)

Despite the energetic support of his friend Admiral Henry Eccles, Rosinski’s lectures at Newport were discontinued in 1957. The same year saw his last lectures at the Army War College. In 1959, a new general at Carlisle wrote to Eccles:

It is true that he was not well received by the students, and probably just as true that the students were not then prepared to discuss the problems at his level. However, this is beginning to be one of the great obligations of the advanced thinkers of our day–that they must learn to communicate with more than just the specialized members of their own backgrounds and disciplines. (53)

On the other hand, Rosinski was extremely gregarious, and he traveled extensively, frequently lecturing on Clausewitz. It was through these lectures and even more through his personal contacts that he most effectively spread the gospel of Clausewitz studies. In Germany, in the early 1930s, he introduced Raymond Aron to the German military philosopher. (54) In England from 1936 to 1940, he lectured on Vom Kriege at Oxford. (55) In the United States after 1940, Rosinski discussed Clausewitz before both the American Military Institute and the American Historical Association. In Edward Mead Earle’s seminars at the Institute for Advanced Study in 1940, he had a great deal to do with stimulating the discussion of Clausewitz. (56)

Rosinski was also close to Joe Greene and played an important role in feeding his interest in On War. He wrote regularly for Greene’s Infantry Journal, almost invariably mentioning Clausewitz. He had a profound influence on Henry Eccles, who attempted to carry forward Rosinski’s quest for a grand military theory. (57) He corresponded with J.M. Palmer from 1941 to 1946, and his praise of Cyril Falls’s work encouraged that British author to press on with his attempts to apply Clausewitz’s ideas to practical military problems.

Despite his many contacts and undeniable influence, Rosinski has a decidedly mixed reputation. His disorganization and preoccupation with his own problems tended to alienate potentially valuable contacts like Earle. His self-conscious sophistication and sometimes messianic behavior irritated Bernard Brodie, whose references to Rosinski are generally sarcastic. (58) (Rosinski reciprocated.) (59) Except for The German Army and his 1935 article on the development of Clausewitz’s theories, Rosinski’s work is not as widely cited as one might expect given his many connections to other writers. (60)

In sum, he represents at once the best and the worst of the German expatriate influence on the Anglo-American understanding of Clausewitz.

************************************************************

230.) Rossi, Bruno Benedetto (1938-1944) Santa Fe, N.M. / Physics

Bruno Benedetto Rossi (19051993) was a leading ItalianAmerican experimental physicist. He made major contributions to cosmic ray and particle physics from 1930 through the 1950s, and pioneered X-ray astronomy and space plasma physics in the 1960s.

Rossi was born in Venice, Italy. After receiving the doctorate degree from the University of Bologna, he began his career in 1928 as assistant at the Physics Institute of the University of Florence where he made his first discoveries regarding the nature of cosmic rays. In 1932 he was called to the University of Padua as professor of experimental physics. There, in addition to teaching and research, Rossi planned the new Physics Institute of the University and oversaw its construction. In the fall of 1938 he was expelled from his position as a result of the racial decrees of the fascist state. Rossi was Jewish and so was his wife, Nora Lombroso (granddaughter of anthropologist, Cesare Lombroso), so they had to leave Italy and traveled to America with brief stays in Copenhagen, Denmark and Manchester, England.

They arrived at the University of Chicago in June 1939 where he was given a temporary position as research associate. Rossi immediately began a series of experiments that yielded the first proof of the decay of a fundamental particle, the mesotron, now called muon, and a precise measurement of its mean life at rest. The latter was achieved at Cornell University where he was appointed associate professor in 1942. During the war Rossi worked first as consultant on radar development at the Radiation Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and then at Los Alamos as co-director of the Detector Group responsible for development of instrumentation for experiments that supported the development of the atomic bombs.

In the fall of 1946 Rossi was appointed professor of physics at MIT where he established the Cosmic Ray Group to investigate the nature and origins of cosmic rays and the properties of the sub-nuclear particles produced in the interaction of cosmic rays with matter. In the late 1950s, when particle accelerator experiments had come to dominate experimental particle physics, Rossi turned his attention to exploratory research made possible by the new availability of space vehicles. At MIT he initiated rocket experiments that pioneered the direct measurements of the interplanetary plasma. As a consultant to American Science and Engineering, Inc. he initiated the rocket experiments that discovered the first extra-solar source of X-rays, Scorpius X-1. Rossi was made Institute Professor at MIT in 1965.

Among his contributions to the electronic techniques of experimental physics are the inventions of the coincidence circuit (Florence 1930), the time-to-amplitude converter (Cornell 1942) and the fast ionization chamber (Los Alamos, with H. Staub 1943).

Rossi retired from MIT in 1970. From 1974 to 1980 he taught at the University of Palermo. In 1990 his autobiography, titled Moments in the Life of a Scientist, was published by Cambridge University Press. He died at his home in Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1993. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Rossi

************************************************************

231.) Sachs, Curt (1933-1944) NYU / Musicology

Curt Sachs (18811959) was a German musicologist. He was one of the founders of modern organology (the study of musical instruments), and is probably best remembered today for co-authoring the Sachs-Hornbostel scheme of musical instrument classification with Erich von Hornbostel.

Sachs was born in Berlin. In his youth, he studied piano, music theory and composition. However, his doctorate from Berlin University (where he was later professor of musicology) in 1904 was on the history of art, with his thesis on the sculpture of Verrocchio. He began a career as an art historian, but promptly became more and more devoted to music, eventually being appointed director of the Staatliche Instrumentensammlung, a large collection of musical instruments. He reorganised and restored much of the collection, and his career as an organologist began.

In 1913, Sachs saw the publication of his book Real-Lexicon der Musikinstrumente, probably the most comprehensive survey of musical instruments in 200 years. In 1914 he and Erich Moritz von Hornbostel published the work for which they are probably now best known in Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, a new system of musical instrument classification. It is today known as the Sachs-Hornbostel system. It has been much revised over the years, and has been the subject of some criticism, but it remains the most widely used system of classification by ethnomusicologists and organologists.

In 1933, Sachs was dismissed from his posts in Germany by the Nazi Party because he was a Jew. Sachs consequently moved to Paris, and later to the United States, where he settled in New York City. He taught at New York University from 1937 to 1953, and also worked at the New York Public Library.

He wrote books on rhythm, dance and musical instruments, with his The History of Musical Instruments (1940), a comprehensive survey of musical instruments worldwide throughout history, seen as one of the most important. His relationship with W. W. Norton & Company began with The Rise of Music in the Ancient World (1943)[1]. Although these works have been superseded by more recent research, they are still seen as essential texts in the field.

Sachs died in 1959 in New York City. The American Musical Instrument Society has a “Curt Sachs Award”, which it gives each year to individuals for their contributions to organology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curt_Sachs

************************************************************

232.) Salmony, Alfred (1933-1944) NYU / History of Art

“Carved jade of ancient China by Alfred Salmony” * “Dr. Alfred. Salmony died from a heart attack on board the Ile de France on his way to. Europe. It is an irreparable loss to Far Eastern. Scholarship…” * NOTES ON A STONE SCULPTURE FROM GANDHARA. AN EXHIBITION ENTITLED : “THE ARTS OF INDIA AND PAKISTAN”, WAS HELD AT the. Royal Academy” * Alfred Salmony (1890–1958), formerly in Cologne, taught the history of Chinese art. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0002_0_01381.html

Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: