News
How the Nazi years influenced the Nobel Prize in Literature
Der Nobelpreis und die deutschsprachige Literatur. Eine Studie über die Vergabekriterien des Literaturnobelpreises 1901-1971
« How the Nazi years influenced the Nobel Prize in Literature
Newswise — Paulus Tiozzo studied the Nobel Prize and German literature for his thesis. Previously inaccessible archival material shows how members of the Swedish Academy viewed German literature during the two World Wars and the influence that Adolf Hitler and Nazism had on the Nobel Prize.
Few prizes give rise to so much emotion, discussion and debate as the Nobel Prize in Literature. Every year, there is great speculation about which author the Swedish Academy might award the Prize to. But anyone who thinks they might be able to identify some pattern or logic behind the process of determining the prize winners won’t have an easy task, according to Paulus Tiozzo.
“It all depends on what the members of the Swedish Academy were thinking at a particular time. And it’s not just about the candidate’s ability as an author, but also personal factors, such as whether a member of the Academy liked or disliked the author for political reasons.”
His thesis in the subject area of German is a historical study of the Nobel Prize in Literature and its criteria seen from the perspective of the German authors nominated for the Prize between 1901 and 1971.
So what are the criteria for being nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature? Among other things, Alfred Nobel wrote that the Prize should go to a person who, during the previous year, in the field of literature, produced the most outstanding work in an idealistic direction. No more detail about what this means is provided.
“So this has been interpreted from the different perspectives of the members of the Swedish Academy. I argue that you cannot understand the history of the Nobel Prize unless you look at its specific historical context in each instance. Many people have advanced thoughts and opinions on this matter, but I demonstrate more concretely, based empirical evidence, how the authors nominated were assessed.”
Ambivalent relationship to Nazism
That he looked at the period up to 1971 was for purely practical reasons. The documents relating to the decision-making process surrounding the Nobel Prize are subject to a strict non-disclosure rule for 50 years, after which the archives are released. The Nobel Library in Stockholm includes nomination letters, statements of opinion, minutes of meetings and correspondence.
The time span chosen, and the fact that he looked at German-speaking literature, mean that a portion of the material deals with how Germany was viewed before and during Nazi rule. For example, the Nobel Committee’s chair Per Hallström firmly rejected the first nomination of Hermann Hesse 1931.
“Hallström himself had written propaganda in support of Germany, and thought that Hesse, with his pacifist stance, had behaved contemptuously and lacked pride in his nation.”
Those who sat on the Nobel Committee had an especially great influence on the Nobel Prize – the chair of this Committee in particular. Per Hallström had this role for 24 years, from 1922–1946, and compiled several hundred opinions on authors.
“He had an ambivalent relationship with Nazism. He was fascinated by Hitler and the national revolutionary aspects of Nazism appealed to him. But on the other hand, he was very critical of its anti-Semitism.”
According to Paulus Tiozzo, the Nobel Committee took a generally cautious approach at this time and tried not to fall into any politically motivated traps.
“If the Prize had been given to an author who had been forced to flee from Nazi Germany for political reasons, there would probably have been some kind of backlash from there, and it was this that the Swedish Academy wanted to avoid. It did not either want to give the Prize to any author who appeared to be officially sanctioned by the Nazis. In general, much thought was given to how the choice of Nobel Laureates might affect the image of the Academy. The same applied to candidates from the Eastern bloc during the Cold War. It is likely that similar political considerations are still weighed into the decision, even though it is difficult to know this with certainty.”
New insights into the Nobel Prize as a phenomenon
What surprised him most during his work on the thesis is how German literature was viewed in Sweden during the 20th century, especially by the members of the Academy.
“You get an impression of Sweden being dominated by German literature at the time, but that impression is not correct. Swedish authors and literary scholars were much more critical and nuanced than you might think and were not unreserved admirers of Goethe, Schiller and other German 19th century writers. English and French authors were admired on the other hand. This is one of the reasons why many German Nobel Prize candidates were rejected.”
What do you hope your thesis will lead to?
“Hopefully it will lead to new insights into the Nobel Prize as a phenomenon and also on the importance of German literature outside Germany. I also hope that it stimulates interest in more research in both literary history and the Nobel Prize.”
German-speaking authors awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature 1901–1971
1902 Theodor Mommsen Germany
1908 Rudolf Eucken Germany
1910 Paul Heyse Germany
1912 Gerhart Hauptmann Germany
1919 Carl Spitteler Switzerland
1929 Thomas Mann Germany
1946 Hermann Hesse Germany/Switzerland
1966 Nelly Sachs Germany/Sweden
During the years 1940–1943, no Prize was awarded because of World War II
https://www.gu.se/en/news/how-the-nazi-years-influenced-the-nobel-prize-in-literature
Source: University of Gothenburg
Every year on the first Friday in August, beer lovers around the world come together to celebrate International Beer Day. In 2026, the celebration falls on Friday, August 7, offering the perfect opportunity to discover new brews, support local breweries, and enjoy time with friends.
Founded in 2007 in Santa Cruz, California, International Beer Day has grown into a global event observed in dozens of countries. The celebration recognizes not only the beverage itself but also the brewers, bartenders, servers, and everyone who helps bring beer from the brewery to your glass.
Whether you’re a fan of crisp lagers, hoppy IPAs, rich stouts, refreshing wheat beers, or adventurous sour ales, International Beer Day is a great excuse to step outside your comfort zone and sample something new. Many breweries and pubs celebrate with special releases, tasting flights, live entertainment, brewery tours, and food pairings.
As the craft beer movement continues to flourish across the United States, this annual celebration is also a reminder of the creativity and community that local breweries bring to neighborhoods large and small.
If you decide to celebrate, remember to drink responsibly, arrange for a designated driver or rideshare if needed, and support your favorite local brewery.
Cheers to International Beer Day!
Related Links
- 4 Daily Brain Health Habits for Better Cognition
Daily Brain Health Habits: Your brain works hard for you, so it’s only fair to return the favor by practicing simple everyday habits to keep this important organ strong and thriving. Start by tweaking your daily routine to focus on these four habits and eating nourishing recipes like California Grape and Sardine Avocado Toast. - Raise a Glass: Celebrate International Beer Day on August 7
Every year on the first Friday in August, beer lovers around the world come together to celebrate International Beer Day. In 2026, the celebration falls on Friday, August 7, offering the perfect opportunity to discover new brews, support local breweries, and enjoy time with friends. Founded in 2007 in Santa Cruz, California, International Beer Day has grown into a… Read more: Raise a Glass: Celebrate International Beer Day on August 7 - Protein-Packed Snacking for Back-to-School Season
Back-to-School Season: As busy families prepare for hectic school days, it can be invaluable to have nutritious grab-and-go options on hand for lunches and snacks. Having one less thing to worry about makes a difference when you’re juggling work, school, sports practices and games, and other extracurriculars while trying to keep everyone fed and happy. - 5 Tips to Make Hosting Easy and Fun
From celebratory parties to casual get-togethers, hosting is a wonderful way to bring people together, share laughs and make memories. Of course, planning and hosting can be quite a bit of work, so a little preparation can go a long way to ensure an enjoyable time for everyone, including the host. - The Nutrient-Packed Fruit Families are Adding to Their Fruit Bowls
Busy families are looking for snacks that do more than simply satisfy hunger – they want foods that deliver great taste along with meaningful nutrition. Nutrient-Packed Fruit? For a fresh twist on breakfast, brunch or an afternoon snack, try this Kiwi and Whipped Feta Toast.
🍽️ Love discovering great food and drink? Join the conversation! Share your thoughts in the comments and subscribe to the STM Daily News Food and Drink newsletter for the latest recipes, restaurant news, food trends, and culinary stories delivered straight to your inbox.
Economy
Donor States vs. Recipient States: Where Does Your Federal Tax Dollar Go?
Some states send Washington more money than they receive, while others receive considerably more federal spending. Here’s what “donor state” really means—and why the numbers don’t necessarily measure government dependency.
Every year, Americans send trillions of dollars to Washington through income taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes and other federal revenues. The federal government then sends trillions back across the country through Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military spending, federal salaries, contracts, grants, infrastructure projects and dozens of other programs.
But the money doesn’t necessarily return to the states in the same proportions in which it was collected.
That’s where the terms “donor state” and “recipient state” come in.
What Is a Donor State?
Simply put, a donor state sends more money to the federal government than it receives back in federal spending.
Imagine taxpayers and businesses in a state contribute $100 billion to the federal government during a year. If federal spending within that state totals only $80 billion, the state has effectively contributed $20 billion more to the federal government than it received.
A recipient state experiences the opposite: federal expenditures within the state exceed the amount collected there in federal revenue.
These aren’t official federal government classifications, however. They’re terms commonly used by researchers analyzing the flow of money between individual states and Washington.
Only Three Donor States in 2023?
According to an August 2025 analysis from the Rockefeller Institute of Government using preliminary federal fiscal year 2023 data, only three states had negative balances—meaning they contributed more federal revenue than they received in federal expenditures.
Those states were:
New Jersey: approximately $18.9 billion more contributed than received.
Massachusetts: approximately $6.8 billion more contributed than received.
Washington: approximately $54 million more contributed than received.
At first glance, that might suggest nearly every other state depends financially on those three states.
The reality is considerably more complicated.
COVID Changed the Numbers
Historically, several wealthy states—including California and New York—have frequently appeared on the donor side of the equation.
The enormous federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted that pattern.
Trillions of dollars in extraordinary federal spending flowed into states through stimulus payments, business assistance, unemployment programs, healthcare funding, state and local government assistance and other programs.
Even after the emergency phase of the pandemic ended, some of those expenditures continued influencing federal balance-of-payments calculations.
That’s one reason examining a single year can produce a misleading picture.
California: Recipient Today, Historical Donor
California provides perhaps the best example.
In fiscal year 2023, California technically received slightly more federal spending than it contributed—approximately $342 more per person.
But look at the longer-term numbers and the picture changes.
Using a nine-year average that excludes COVID-related spending, Rockefeller Institute researchers calculated California’s average balance at approximately negative $29 billion.
In other words, over a more typical period, California has historically contributed substantially more to the federal government than it received.
Its enormous economy, high incomes and large number of taxpayers generate tremendous amounts of federal revenue.
New York Tells a Similar Story
New York has also historically ranked among America’s major donor states.
Yet in 2023, New York had a positive federal balance of approximately $13.3 billion, receiving roughly $1.04 in federal expenditures for every $1 it contributed.
Researchers attributed much of the change from New York’s historical pattern to lingering pandemic-era federal expenditures.
As those programs disappear from the calculations, New York could return to its traditional position as a donor state.
Arizona Is a Net Recipient
Arizona presents a different picture.
Over the Rockefeller Institute’s nine-year analysis, Arizona averaged a positive federal balance of approximately $44.5 billion.
Even after excluding COVID-related spending, Arizona’s average remained positive at roughly $35.3 billion.
That means federal expenditures flowing into Arizona have substantially exceeded federal revenue collected from the state.
But that doesn’t mean Arizona simply receives tens of billions of dollars in “welfare.”
Federal spending includes far more than public assistance.
Arizona hosts military installations, federal lands and agencies, defense and aerospace operations, veterans programs and a significant retiree population receiving Social Security and Medicare.
All of those expenditures count toward the state’s federal balance.
Texas Receives More Than It Sends
Texas also had a substantial positive balance in 2023.
Federal expenditures exceeded revenues collected from Texas by approximately $80 billion, making it one of the country’s largest net recipients in total dollars that year.
Again, the number needs context.
Texas is home to major military installations, NASA operations, defense contractors, federal infrastructure projects and millions of Social Security and Medicare recipients.
Those federal dollars all count as money flowing back into the state.
The Surprising Leader: Virginia
If recipient-state status simply meant dependency on federal welfare programs, Virginia would seem like an unlikely candidate to lead the country.
Yet Virginia recorded the nation’s largest positive federal balance in 2023 at approximately $145.4 billion.
Why?
Location.
Virginia sits next to Washington, D.C., and contains an enormous concentration of federal employees, military installations, government contractors and defense spending.
Neighboring Maryland ranked second with a positive balance of approximately $81.1 billion.
The numbers illustrate why federal balance-of-payments statistics should not automatically be interpreted as measurements of welfare dependency.
A recipient state isn’t necessarily a “welfare state.” Federal expenditures include Social Security, Medicare, military installations, defense contracts, federal salaries, research, infrastructure, grants and other programs.
Where Does the Federal Money Actually Go?
Federal expenditures flowing into a state can include:
- Social Security
- Medicare and Medicaid
- Military bases and personnel
- Defense contracts
- Federal employee salaries
- Highway and transit funding
- Scientific and university research
- Agricultural programs
- Veterans benefits
- Disaster assistance
- Federal grants
- Infrastructure projects
- Federal agency operations
A state containing a large military installation, federal laboratory or government agency can therefore receive billions of federal dollars without that money having anything to do with traditional public assistance programs.
Why Wealthier States Often Become Donors
Federal income taxes are progressive.
People with higher incomes generally pay a larger percentage of their income in federal income taxes.
States containing large concentrations of high-income households and highly profitable companies can consequently generate enormous amounts of federal revenue.
That helps explain why states such as California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have historically appeared frequently among net contributors.
The federal government doesn’t earmark the taxes collected in California exclusively for California.
The money enters the national treasury and helps finance programs throughout the United States.
In that sense, federal taxation intentionally redistributes resources geographically as well as economically.
So Are Donor States “Subsidizing” Recipient States?
In a broad accounting sense, yes.
Federal revenue collected disproportionately from some states helps finance federal expenditures occurring elsewhere.
But describing the relationship simply as one state “paying for” another leaves out important context.
Federal spending follows national priorities rather than state borders.
A Navy base in Virginia protects the entire country. NASA facilities in Texas conduct missions funded by taxpayers nationwide. Social Security benefits paid to a retiree in Arizona may reflect payroll taxes that person paid while working decades earlier in California, Illinois or New York.
Americans and businesses also move between states throughout their lives.
The federal system was never designed to ensure that every dollar collected within a state’s borders would eventually return to that same state.
The Bigger Picture
The donor-state debate is often used as political ammunition, particularly when politicians argue about which parts of the country are supporting others.
The numbers are real, but they require context.
A state can move from donor to recipient status because of a recession, natural disaster, military spending, demographic changes, infrastructure investments or extraordinary events such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
That’s why examining several years of data generally tells us more than looking at a single year.
Ultimately, the donor-versus-recipient calculation reveals something fundamental about the United States:
Federal taxes don’t remain where they’re collected.
They become part of a national pool used to fund programs, obligations and investments across all 50 states.
And depending on where you live, your state may be putting more into that pool—or taking more out—at any particular moment.
Related External Links
- Rockefeller Institute of Government – 2025 Balance of Payments Report
- USAspending.gov – Explore Federal Government Spending
- USAspending.gov – Federal Spending Guide
- IRS – Individual Income Tax Data by State
- IRS – Federal Taxes Collected by State
🍽️ Love discovering great food and drink? Join the conversation! Share your thoughts in the comments and subscribe to the STM Daily News newsletter for the latest recipes, restaurant news, food trends, and culinary stories delivered straight to your inbox.
Food Truths
The Truth About the “Chemical” in McDonald’s Burger Buns: Should Consumers Be Concerned?
What’s in the Burger Buns:The “yoga mat chemical” controversy changed how consumers view food additives. Here’s what azodicarbonamide is, why McDonald’s removed it, and what the science actually says.
For years, headlines and social media posts have warned consumers about a so-called “yoga mat chemical” found in hamburger buns served by major fast-food chains. The claims sparked widespread concern, prompted petitions, and eventually led several restaurant companies—including McDonald’s—to change their recipes.
But what was the chemical, and is there actually a health risk today?
What Was the Controversial Ingredient?
The ingredient at the center of the controversy was azodicarbonamide (ADA), a chemical used as a dough conditioner. It helped improve the texture of bread, making dough easier to handle and producing softer, more consistent buns.
Ironically, the same compound is also used in manufacturing certain foamed plastics, including some yoga mats and shoe soles. That connection gave rise to the viral nickname, “the yoga mat chemical.”
While the comparison was technically accurate, it also lacked important context. Food-grade azodicarbonamide and industrial applications are very different, and many chemicals have multiple uses across industries.
Why Did People Become Concerned?
The concern wasn’t simply that ADA was used in food. Scientists focused on what happens during baking.
When bread is baked, most azodicarbonamide breaks down into other compounds. Some laboratory studies involving animals raised questions about one of these breakdown products, called semicarbazide (SEM), when administered in high doses.
Those findings prompted some countries to take a more cautious regulatory approach.
Why Is It Banned in Some Countries?
The European Union and Canada do not permit azodicarbonamide as a flour treatment agent. Their food safety policies often follow the precautionary principle, removing ingredients when safer alternatives exist or when scientific uncertainty remains.
In contrast, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has determined that azodicarbonamide is safe when used within approved limits.
These differing regulations don’t necessarily mean one side believes the ingredient is dangerous while the other believes it is harmless. Instead, they reflect different philosophies about regulating food additives.
Does McDonald’s Still Use It?
No.
McDonald’s removed azodicarbonamide from its U.S. hamburger buns in 2014 following growing consumer demand for simpler ingredient lists.
Today’s buns no longer contain the ingredient, joining a broader trend among food manufacturers to eliminate additives that have become controversial with consumers.
Are There Other Ingredients Consumers Should Know About?
Modern commercial bread still contains ingredients designed to improve freshness, texture, and shelf life.
These may include:
- Calcium propionate to prevent mold
- Ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) as a dough conditioner
- Enzymes that improve consistency
- Emulsifiers that help maintain softness
These ingredients have been evaluated by food safety agencies and are generally recognized as safe when used according to regulations.
The Bigger Health Picture
Nutrition experts generally agree that focusing on one ingredient can distract from the larger issue.
The greatest health risks associated with fast food are more closely linked to:
- High sodium intake
- Excess saturated fat
- Added sugars
- Large portion sizes
- Frequent consumption of ultra-processed foods
An occasional fast-food meal is unlikely to determine someone’s long-term health. Overall dietary patterns, physical activity, sleep, and other lifestyle factors have a much greater impact.
Consumer Awareness Is Changing the Food Industry
Whether or not an ingredient poses a measurable health risk, public concern can influence corporate decisions.
Over the past decade, many food companies have reformulated products to remove controversial ingredients, reduce artificial additives, and simplify ingredient labels. In many cases, those changes have been driven as much by consumer preferences as by regulatory requirements.
The Bottom Line
The “yoga mat chemical” story captured public attention because it combined science, food safety, and memorable marketing. While azodicarbonamide was once used in some hamburger buns, including those supplied to McDonald’s, the company removed it from its U.S. buns years ago.
Current evidence suggests consumers are better served by paying attention to their overall diet rather than worrying about a single ingredient that has already disappeared from many products.
Being an informed consumer means looking beyond the headlines, understanding the science, and recognizing that nutrition is about the complete picture—not just one ingredient.
Related External Links
- U.S. FDA – Food Additives & GRAS Ingredients Information for Consumers
- U.S. FDA – Food Additives and Petitions
- FDA – Azodicarbonamide (ADA) Food Substance Database
- Electronic Code of Federal Regulations – 21 CFR §172.806 (Azodicarbonamide)
- FDA – Types of Food Ingredients and Why They’re Used
- Health Canada – Permitted Flour Treatment Agents
- McDonald’s USA – Nutrition Calculator & Ingredient Information
🍴 What’s your favorite food, recipe, or dining spot? Tell us in the comments! Then subscribe to the STM Daily News Food and Drink newsletter for fresh recipes, restaurant news, food trends, and delicious stories delivered straight to your inbox. Join our growing community of food lovers today!
