Certain complex salts, notably ferro‐ and ferricyanides, have susceptibilities much lower than those predicted by the Bose‐Stoner ``spin only'' formula. The first interpretation was that given by Pauling on the basis of (I) directed wave functions. In the present paper it is shown that alternative explanations are possible with (II) the crystalline potential model of Schlapp and Penney, or with (III) Mulliken's method of molecular orbitals. In any of the theories, the interatomic forces, if sufficiently large, will disrupt the Russell‐Saunders coupling, and make the deepest state have a smaller spin, and hence smaller susceptibility, than that given by the Hund rule. This situation is not to be confused with that in normal paramagnetic salts, such as sulphates or fluorides, where only the spin‐orbit coupling is destroyed. The similarity of the predictions with all three theories is comforting, since any one method in valence usually involves rather questionable approximations. Because of this similarity, a preference between the theories cannot be established merely from ability to interpret the anomalously low magnetism of the cyanides. Covalent bonds, as in cyanides, seem to be more effective in suppressing magnetism than are ionic ones, as in fluorides, but so far the evidence to this effect is empirical rather than theoretical.