5 0 4 D O C U M E N T 3 4 9 S E P T E M B E R 1 9 2 2
könnten. Nach meiner Meinung kann die Allgemeinheit den Wirtschaftskampf der
Individuen mildern, aber nicht ersetzen.
In der Hoffnung, dass ich alle Ihre Fragen richtig verstanden und beantwortet ha-
be, bin ich mit ausgezeichneter Hochachtung Ihr ergebener
TLC. The New Leader, 6 October 1922, p. 11 (Einstein 1922m [Doc. 347]), in English translation.
[43 343]. The letter is addressed “Herrn H. N. Brailsford London.”
[1]For Brailsford’s questions, see Doc. 343.
[2]Despite a modest increase in the average income of professors, their real income had decreased
dramatically. The cost of living index had risen by a factor of 11.67 in the period between 1913 and
June 1921 (for a brief discussion of professors’ income, see Feldman 1997, p. 216, and pp. 545–547).
[3]For example, extraordinary professors had to rely primarily on teaching and examination fees,
a source of income that, due to inflation and the inability of students to pay their dues, had declined
considerably. Privatdozenten (instructors who received only occasional teaching assignments, and
who traditionally never received salary), were in real economic distress. Most of them were forced to
take construction jobs during their vacations (see Ringer 1969, pp. 61–64, and 107).
[4]Due to the increases in the costs of paper and printing, by mid-1922 the wholesale price of books
had risen to a hundredfold of its prewar value (see Kühnert 2009, p. 153).
[5]The monetary depreciation, due to inflation, and the dismal economic situation in Germany after
the war, the decline of purchasing power of the middle class, and the new luxury tax implemented by
the recent tax reforms (see note 6) had plagued the intellectual workers and their patrons (see Feldman
1997, pp. 527–555).
[6]The value of the mark had been decreasing steadily since late 1919. The exchange rate of the
mark to the dollar had increased from 4.20:1 in July 1914 to 1,465.87:1 in September 1922 (Feldman
1997, p. 5).
The tax increases were an implementation of reform proposals made by Matthias Erzberger in the
winter of 1919/20. Erzberger, political adviser to Chancellor Wirth and former minister of finance un-
der the Bauer government, had proposed a tax reform that was to create a fiscal union throughout the
Reich, decrease the deficit, and help the Reich meet its reparations obligation. The reforms were im-
plemented on 1 April 1920 (see Feldman 1997, pp. 160–165, 233, and 354–358).
[7]See Doc. 343, note 3.
[8]For previous criticism of the Allied countries’ reparations policies, see Docs. 293 and 334.
[9]Since the revolution and the armistice in November 1918, German firms, as well as private indi-
viduals, were either transferring money abroad or hoarding it for tax evasion or to avoid bankruptcy
due to the Allies’ projected reparation demands. One of Erzberger’s early measures, soon after his
appointment as minister of finance in August 1919, was to propose the “Law against Capital Flight
and Capital Flight Abroad,” which went into effect on 8 September 1919. Nevertheless, due to pres-
sures from banks and businesses, the law remained in effect only until 1 October 1920. Ironically, Erz-
berger’s tax reforms were viewed by his opponents as the reason for capital flight and a “stimulus for
[tax] evasion” (see Feldman 1997, pp. 135, 163, and 212).
349. To Richard B. Haldane
Berlin, den 11. Sept. 22.
Hochverehrter Lord Haldane!
Ich danke Ihnen herzlich für Ihre wohlwollende Antwort und für Ihre so wert-
volle
Unterstützung.[1]
Ich habe garnichts dagegen, dass mein Name denjenigen
Previous Page Next Page