I N T R O D U C T I O N T O V O L U M E 1 3 l v felt “unfortunately compelled to decline the nomination to the ‘Committee on In- tellectual Cooperation’ retroactively, after all” (Doc. 263). To Curie he was more candid: “Not only on the occasion of Rathenau’s tragic death, but also on other oc- casions I perceived that very strong anti-Semitism prevails among those I have to represent to some extent at the League of Nations and generally there is a mental- ity of a kind that makes me unsuited to be the representative and intermediary per- son” (Doc. 262). Curie was greatly disappointed: “[I]t is precisely because dangerous and harmful trends of public opinion exist that it is necessary to combat them and in this regard you can exert an excellent influence solely by virtue of your personal reputation, without having to put up a fight for the cause of tolerance” (Doc. 268). A concerted effort by the League to persuade Einstein to reconsider ensued. Gilbert Murray, vice-chairman of the committee, pleaded with him: the committee was “in danger of having the Latin element overrepresented and the Germanic ele- ment almost left out [...] this would be a fatal defect” (Doc. 273). Einstein coun- tered that “an indescribable anti-Semitism among the intellectuals” was intensified by the disproportionate number of Jews in German public life and by their pursuit of international goals. He believed that German intellectuals did not regard him as “their representative,” mostly because of his avowed internationalism and his Swiss citizenship, and also because “a Jew is unsuited to serve as a connecting link between the German and international intelligentsia.” Instead, a “real German” such as Adolf von Harnack or Max Planck should be chosen (Docs. 275 and 286). Murray persisted, and Einstein replied: “Even if elected members from the var- ious countries should not be viewed as direct representatives of their countries, they must act as psychological links between the Committee and the individual coun- tries. […] I am being regarded by the guild of local intellectuals as so alien that one absolutely could not feel that Germany was being represented de facto on the com- mittee” (Doc. 309). Sometime between 25 and 29 July, Einstein changed his mind again, most likely due to a visit by Pierre Comert in Berlin, who, on 28 July, reported to the League’s undersecretary-general that Einstein’s letter of resignation “no longer exists.”[19] But Einstein did not travel to the first ICIC meeting in Geneva in early August, and, given that he was to depart for Japan, he asked his friend, the psychologist Max Wertheimer, to stand in for him. Wertheimer declined—being a Jew, a native Ger- man Bohemian, and now a Czechoslovak were serious impediments in his own mind. He suggested that Einstein choose “a notable Christian and linguistically very gifted scholar” who could listen and report, and proposed the Berlin econo- mist Carl Brinkmann (Doc. 360). In early March 1923, Brinkmann volunteered to be Einstein’s assistant on the committee. As Brinkmann wrote Einstein, he “may be of use to you and the cause as a ‘goy’” (Doc. 440).