2 8 D O C U M E N T S 3 2 , 3 3 J A N U A R Y 1 9 2 1
31. From George B. Jeffery[1]
365 Pinner Road, Harrow, Middlesex, 23 January 1921
[Not selected for translation.]
32. From Paul Zacharias
Nuremberg, 23 January 1921
Dear Professor,
The attack predicted by me did in fact take
The enclosed poem that was
sent to me, and which I’d like you to return, provides you with the proof. In addi-
tion, the Lehmann-Rüssbuldt affair, in connection with you personally, was the
topic of a lively debate at a meeting here on 7 inst. On this occasion I explained that
I had written you and that your reply regarding any position would first have to be
When you write that the Entente did not need Mr. L.-R.’s revelations to be
informed about the fact that military equipment was in the hands of unauthorized
then one can consequently say that these revelations were there-
fore, at the very least, quite superfluous. Irrespective of this, there is, however, a
considerable difference between whether the country’s enemy gathers information
through its own observations and through the services of psychologically inferior
informants or whether Mr. L. in his capacity as secretary of the League of his New
performs services, about their value, one can be of a very differing
In my view it ought to be altogether forbidden that all sorts of people not offi-
cially commissioned to do so seek opinions abroad about such matters. Above all
else, the press ought to cut off the speakers’ way to fame by dead silence about such
interviews. Then such things would immediately stop, because based on experience
their attraction would often instantaneously be eliminated if there is no possibility
of entertaining or annoying a larger audience and thereby getting the feeling of
being an executor of a mission deemed to be important.
With many thanks for your kind lines and courteous compliments also from my
wife to you and your esteemed family, yours very sincerely,
Dr. Zacharias.
33. To Nikolai M. Fedorovsky[1]
[before 27 January 1921]
Previous Page Next Page