The Wagner–Schreiner matter
From the autumn of 1940, the authorities attempted to Nazify the university. Two new regulations introduced that autumn would play a significant role in this. In October, the Ministry of Church and Education was granted the right to make political appointments to academic positions, and in December, the state retirement age was lowered from 70 to 65 years. A key, albeit controversial, figure behind the scenes was pharmacology professor Klaus Hansen (1895–1971), who caused considerable turmoil within the faculty and actively supported the German side during the occupation (2). Among his main opponents were none other than the anatomy professors Schreiner and Mohr.
Hansen wrote to Minister Skancke on 20 December pointing out that Schreiner was 66 years old and thus 'fell below the age limit'. The position should therefore be considered vacant. He suggested that a practical solution would be for Schreiner to be dismissed at the end of 1940, with Wagner subsequently taking over (9, p. 175). The minister also wished to dismiss Schreiner, who was a troublesome figure for the occupation authorities. Students who were sympathisers of the Norwegian Nazi Party had repeatedly reported him to the Ministry for making statements that were allegedly politically charged (2, p. 149). At the same time, Wagner was approached by Hansen, who asked if he was willing to contact Skancke about the professorship that would soon be vacant (Figure 3). Wagner did so, but he wanted to 'make it clear to everyone at the university that this was a political appointment'. Given the circumstances, he argued, the appointment would inevitably be seen as political, so this would be the best way to deal with it (8, p. 299).
In January 1941, Wagner came into open conflict with his boss and mentor, Schreiner. Wagner resigned from his position on 20 January 1941 (Figure 4). The reason, according to Wagner, was the 'harassment' Schreiner had subjected him to since April 1940, and he believed that 'the political situation' had been a contributing factor (6, p. 58). The criticisms of Schreiner were relatively trivial. Didrik Arup Seip described them as 'ridiculous trivialities' in his memoir (6, p. 148). For instance, Schreiner had conveyed a practice message through a technical assistant with whom Wagner had a strained relationship. Over the winter, the matter escalated, and there was correspondence back and forth and a series of meetings (2, p. 140). Jansen believed the accusations were 'trivialities that seemed ridiculous', but he argued they had to be taken seriously 'because they were being systematically framed within a political context that they in no way had' (Jansen's emphasis) (8, p. 124). Schreiner felt that Wagner had always had a tendency to exaggerate trivial matters (8, p. 144). Initially, Schreiner was prepared to settle the conflict (8, p. 62), but this changed over the course of the winter. 'Any cooperation with a man who has behaved like Dr Wagner is, of course, impossible' (8, pp. 134 - 6). Wagner's behaviour would, under normal circumstances, have led to immediate suspension, wrote Seip, but as things stood, 'we had no choice but to pursue the matter' (6, p. 155). He had clashed with almost all his colleagues, behaved in a threatening manner toward subordinates and been disloyal to the department's leadership (2, p. 140).
The Ministry concluded that 'due to how the situation unfolded, no further action would be necessary'. In April, Wagner was informed that Schreiner's dismissal 'would not be pursued, and the question of appointing him as professor was therefore moot'. Wagner remained formally in his position as prosector until the summer of 1941, but his involvement in teaching ceased in April (8, p. 406–8).
It was not just individual incidents at the department that made the situation unbearable for Wagner. For him, it was excruciating to hear 'all the toxic talk about the things that were dear to me (...) I'm glad that it's finally over' (8, p. 122). Wagner had also been pro-German before the war. This was widely known, but as a scientist, he did not want to take an active part in political activities, and he therefore distanced himself from the Norwegian Nazi Party until September 1941 (8, p. 400). During the situation, Wagner had also renounced his membership in the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters. He returned his diploma in February 1941 and asked to be removed from the membership register (19, p. 407).
In the spring semester of 1942, a new chapter in the matter unfolded. A proposal was made to reinstate Wagner as a lecturer in anatomy. Minister Skancke supported the proposal, but the new prorector, Adolf Hoel (1879–1964), advised him to let the matter drop in order to avoid a new major conflict. 'He followed my advice, and Wagner did not return.' (20, p. 50)
The verdict in Wagner's treason trial shows that the court gave a brief and concise description of the events. It describes what happened in April 1940 as 'some episodes' that were relatively insignificant. The judgement states that Wagner perceived this as attempts by Schreiner and Jansen to exclude him from the work at the department, 'which was obviously not the intention'. Wagner misunderstood what had happened, and he exaggerated the episodes, resulting in him acting 'rather recklessly' towards Schreiner. These events, along with Wagner's continued sympathy for the occupying forces and the Norwegian Nazi Party, led to a 'chilly relationship' between Wagner, Schreiner and their colleagues at the department. Wagner felt excluded, and the verdict notes that 'he became nervous and was out of kilter' (8, p. 402).