1 8 2 D O C U M E N T 2 2 1 J U N E 1 9 2 2 The question “What’s the use of . . .?”[4]—if it really should have a clear sense— always only means something with an extension that expresses for whom, or better yet, for the fulfillment of whose wish should the relevant matter serve?[5] Beyond this truism I cannot go.[6] A. Einstein. 221. From Hans Delbrück Grunewald, 7 June 1922 Esteemed Colleague, Thank you very much for communicating the impressions you gained in Paris regarding Prof. Aulard.[1] If he really is honestly seeking the truth, which may well be the case, he evidently does not have the strength of character to think his thoughts through to the end nor a sufficient sense of responsibility to go over care- fully what he allows to be printed. If you have been following my Open Letters to him, the latest in the Berliner Tageblatt, 25 May and 28 May, you will have observed that he simply leaves questions I positively posed to him unanswered and in the perfidious and foolish attack on Ambassador von Schoen, whom he accuses of having purposefully falsified his last coded telegram, he himself committed a gross falsehood.[2] Mr. von Schoen points this out to him in an essay that will be appearing in the Deutsches Revue.[3] It is hard to put oneself into the mind-set of the French today. After Aulard evaded the debate with me, Professor Basch[4] pre- sented himself in his stead, not publicly but within a closed setting. This too has now been retracted again. Can such behavior be explained otherwise than that an awareness already exists that, alongside the Russians, the president of the French Republic was the true instigator of the war,[5] and that there is a lack of courage to admit this and let it be proved to them? I am having the publisher send you the latest issue of the Deutsche Nation, in which I tackle the scandalous article by Mr. von Gerlach about the Munich proceedings.[6] It is a true misfortune that the Franco-German meeting should take place in parliament under Gerlach’s presidency.[7] Thereby it is discredited from the outset. If Gerlach had a trace of real political instinct, he would have used this opportunity now also, for the salvation of humanity, to join the great united front to solve the [war-]guilt issue. But as totally biased as he is about aspects of domestic policy and full of hatred of the old regime, he did not envision this great opportunity and thus cut off for a long time to come any possibility of successful propaganda for the pacifist movement in Germany. Luckily, as Lehmann-Russbüldt[8] informed