DOC.
103
AUGUST
1915 117
103. To Hendrik A.
Lorentz
Sellin, 2
August 1915
Highly
esteemed
and dear
Colleague,
Your
negative reply
did
not
come as a
surprise,
as
I
already
had indications of
the
mood of
our
colleagues
abroad.[1]
It
is
curious in Berlin.
Professionally,
scien-
tists and mathematicians
are
strictly internationally
minded and
guard
carefully
against
any unfriendly measures
taken
against
their
colleagues living
in
hostile
foreign
countries.
Historians and
philologists, on
the
other
hand,
are
mostly
chauvinistic hotheads. The well-known and notorious “Manifesto
to
the
Civi-
lized World”
is
being deplored by
all level-headed
people
here.[2]
The
signatures
had
been
given irresponsibly,
some
without
prior reading
of
the
text.
That
is
how it
was
for Planck and
Fischer,
for
ex.,
who have
supported
upholding
inter-
national
ties in
a
very
resolute
manner.[3] I
am
going
to
talk
to Planck
about
your
suggestion.
But
I believe
that
these
persons
cannot be
prompted to
retract
their
words.[4]
I
must
admit
that
the
narrow
nationalistic sentiment
even
of
people
of
high
standing is bitterly
disappointing
to
me.
Moreover,
I
must
say
that
my respect
for
the
politically
more
advanced states has diminished
significantly
on perceiving
that
they
are
all in
the hands
of
oligarchies
that
own
the
press
and
wield
the
power
and
can
do
what
they
like. A malicious
person
has
altered
a
fine proverb
thus
“vox populi,
vox
ox.”
Add to
this that the
perceptive
and
powerful
have
no
heart
for
the
many;
there
you
have
the
sad
picture
of what
is
revered
as
the
“fatherland”
by
those who
belong
to
it. This
does not
change
with
the
boundary
posts
but
is
everywhere
essentially
the
same.
And before this
threadbare
ideal,
relations between
persons
who have
come
to
respect
one
another
privately
and
professionally
must
pale?
It
is
beyond
belief and refuses
to
enter
my
head.
It
seems
that
people
constantly
need
a
chimera for
the
sake of which
they
can
hate
one
another;
earlier it
was
religious
faith,
now
it
is
the
state.
Now to
your
second
letter. It
is
disconcerting
to
see
oneself
get
carried
away
by
social
pressure
to
say things
for which
one can
only
offer
feeble
support.[5]
The
second comment
may certainly
be
printed
with
your addition;
a
correction would
just
be in order:
If
we [want
to]
introduce
zero-point energy
to
the
Planckian resonator
(instead
of
“in
Planck’s
sense”)
...[6]
The
editing
of the first comment
is
unfortunate.
If
you
consider
it
permissible,
the
following essentially congruent
version could
perhaps
be
chosen:[7]