¹ Schwartz, Richard A., ‘The F.B.I, and Dr. Einstein’, The Nation, (1983), 237, pp. 168–73.Google Scholar

² Sayen, Jamie, Einstein in America, The Scientist's Conscience in the Age of Hitler and Hiroshima, New York, 1985, p. 253.Google Scholar

³ Schwartz, Richard A., ‘Einstein and the War Department’, Isis, (1989), 80, pp. 281–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar, on p. 284.

⁴ Auswärtiges Amt, Politisches Archiv: IV Politik 12China, Band 5. (This file, and the Swiss one mentioned in note 9, were consulted during research for an article on the Noulens Affair. As the question was raised by the referee for BJHS, I herewith declare that I am aware neither of having had nor of any reason why I should have had privileged access to these archives.) A very short but mostly correct sketch of the Noulens Affair can be found in MacKinnon, Janice R. and MacKinnon, Stephen R., Agnes Smedley, Berkeley, 1988, pp. 148–9.Google Scholar For more information see Litten, Frederick S., ‘The Noulens Affair’Google Scholar, in preparation.

⁵ Bundesarchiv Koblenz: Reichskommissar für die Überwachung der öffentlichen Ordnung, R 134/72 (see Ritter, Ernst, Reichskommissar für Überwachung der öffentlichen Ordnung und Nachrichtensammelstelle im Reichsministerium des Inneren – Lageberichte (1920–1929) und Meldungen (1929–1933), Munich, 1979).Google Scholar For a communist account of the ‘League’ see Die Liga gegen Imperialismus und für nationale Unabhängigkeit, Leipzig (Karl-Marx-Universität), 1987.Google Scholar

⁶ According to the Europa Yearbook 1931?, cited by Woodhead in his article of 28 August 1931 in the Shanghai Evening Post. See also the file in the Bundesarchiv Koblenz (preceding note).

⁷ The ‘conservative’ Woodhead had argued that Einstein and other German intellectuals were either ignorant of the activity of the League (which assumption he seems to prefer) or, if not, at least naïve; the ‘left-wing’ Smedley had retorted that they were neither. Today the political epithets would probably be reversed regarding the stance toward Einstein's ‘involvement’.

⁸ Auswärtiges Amt, Politisches Archiv: IV Politik 12 China, Band5 (also containing copies of the newspaper articles by Woodhead and Smedley).

⁹ Bundesarchiv Bern: Bestand E 2001, C 3/85 Beuret-Ruegg. Judging by their place in the file the Einstein telegram and the first reply by Borah were presumably sent in September and October 1931; the copies are not dated. Borah's intervention is mentioned in:Münzenberg, Willi, ‘Lebenslängliches Zuchthaus für die Rueggs’, Internationale Presse-Korrespondenz, (1932), 70, pp. 2229–31, on p. 2230.Google Scholar

¹⁰ It cannot, of course, be ruled out that Einstein's name was used in the telegram without his knowledge or his specific permission, although I don't regard this as very likely.

¹¹ Dukas, Helen and Hoffmann, Banesh (eds.), Albert Einstein – The Human Side – New Glimpses from his Archives, Princeton, 1979, pp. 84, 151.Google Scholar Note his opinion of killing people who are ‘worthless’ in a social sense, which contrasts with his usual reputation as humanitarian.

¹² Sayen, , op. cit. (2), p. 264.Google Scholar

¹³ Gross, Babette, Willi Münzenberg, Stuttgart, 1967, pp. 214–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ See e.g. Agence Havas, 2 09 1931.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Deakin, F. W. and Storry, G. R., Richard Sorge – Die Geschichte eines grossen Doppelspiels, Munich, 1965, p. 93.Google Scholar This information came from documents found in one of Noulens' flats.

¹⁶ By changing ‘Einstein's Berlin office’ to ‘Einstein's IAH office’ the charges cited by Schwartz, , op. cit. (1), p. 169Google Scholar, become quite credible.

¹⁷ Willoughby, Charles A., Shanghai Conspiracy, New York, 1952, p. 307.Google Scholar