D O C . 2 8 4 J A N U A R Y 1 9 2 0 2 3 7 ness once. In any case, the effectiveness of their slogans is great, for the war ma- chines of the Entente that had ground up the German Army are melting away in Russia like snow in the March sun.[16] Those fellows have politically talented peo- ple at the top. Recently I read a pamphlet by Radek—with all due respect, he knows his trade![17] You think I should speak out in England? If I had anything really sensible to say, I would do so. But I see that they are deeply entrenched in their own problems. What can they do to alleviate the plight? They, like the Americans, are sending out relief missions. But little can be done against this mass destitution.[18] The peace treaty goes much too far, however. But since its fulfillment is impossible anyway, it is better that its demands be objectively unfulfillable rather than just barely intolerable! One has to consider that the citizen on the opposing side had to get something in black and white as thanks for the glorious bravery.[19] Acting against the treaty would only make sense if one believed in its real importance, which is not the case with me.[20] I am traveling to England in the spring, by the way, in or- der to have a medal handed out to me and to have a peek at the monkey farce [Af- fentheater] from the other side.[21] The Spengler did not leave me unscathed either.[22] One readily submits to one of his suggestions in the evening, only to smile about it the next morning. You can see that the whole monomania comes from schoolmaster mathematics. Euclid-Descartes is his antithesis, which he then works into everything with—as one is happy to admit—genuine wit.[23] Such things are amusing and, if tomorrow someone says the opposite with the requisite wit, then it’s amusing again, and the devil knows what the truth is! The thing about causality plagues me very much too.[24] Is the quantumlike ab- sorption and emission of light ever conceivable in the sense of the condition of complete causality, or is a statistical residue left? I must admit that I lack the cour- age of conviction here. But only very reluctantly do I give up complete causality. Stern’s interpretation is incomprehensible to me because I cannot find a clear meaning for the statement that nature was “comprehensible.”[25] The question whether or not there is strict causality makes clear sense, even though never at any time does it have a definite answer. Sommerfeld’s book is nice, although I must say frankly that his persona does not ring quite true to me, for God knows what sub- conscious reason.[26] I am very glad that your letters were of use at the ministry.[27] It does credit to those people for you truly did not mince words. Much has gotten better after all. Imagine ever having written like that in the old days! Now even the dictatorial omnipotence of you full professors is supposed to be put to a grisly end, as I heard recently just you wait![28]