lA"rticles RUSSELL, EINSTEIN AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF NON-ABSOLUTE PACIFISM DAVID BLITZ1 Philosophy and Honors Program / Central Connecticut State U. New Britain, CT 06°50, USA [email protected] Russell and Einstein shared a commitment to a form ofpacifism which Russell termed "non-absolute pacifism", or "relative political pacifism". Despite a 1947 disagreement on the roles of the United States, the Soviet Union and the immediate measures to be taken for world peace, Russell and Einstein were able· to collaborate again in 1955 due to their shared philosophy. Newly discovered annotations by Einstein on a 1947 Russell article are used to analyze their dis­ agreement, while their later statements are used to illustrate their shared com­ mitment to a type of pacifism which allowed, exceptionally, for a justified war in the special circumstance ofan enemy opposed to "life as such". INTRODUCTION n 9 July 1955 Bertrand Russell held a press conference at Caxton Hall, Westminster, where he presented a statement against O nuclear world war, co-signed by Albert Einstein and nine other leading scientists, all but one ofwhom were or eventually became Nobel 1 I wish to thank Carl Spadoni ofArchives and Research Collections, McMaster U. Library, for help in locating documents used in this article, as well as the Editor. Per­ mission to quote from Einstein's 1947 letter to Russell was granted by The Albert Einstein Archives, Jewish National and University Library, Hebrew U. ofJerusalem. russell: the Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies n.s. 20 (winter 2000-01): 101-28 The Bertrand Russell Research Centre, McMaster U. ISSN 0036-016)1 102 DAVID BLITZ Russell, Einstein andNon-Absolute Pacifism 103 prizewinners. 2 The statement ended with a resolution: Scientists on the same topic, held at County Hall, London, on 3-5 August 1955, which was the first meeting on the problem of nuclear In view ofthe fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certain­ world war to attract scientists from both the West and the East.6 This ly be empl'oyed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of tradition was continued through the Pugwash Conferences (awarded the mankind, we urge the Governments ofthe world to realize, and to acknowledge Nobel Prize for Peace in 1995), which were organized in direct response publicly, that their purposes cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently,. to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of to the Russell-Einstein resolution when the Canadian-American indus­ dispute between them) trialist Cyrus Eaton offered his summer house at Pugwash, Nova Scotia, for this purpose. The Russell-Einstein manifesto was all the more poign­ The Russell-Einstein statement (or manifesto, as it is also known) was ant for the fact that it was the last document Einstein signed before his widely reported in the press.4 Jt was significant not only for the fame of death. Russell's description of the last occasion that he interacted with its two principal signatories, but also because ofthe signature ofFrederic Einstein is touching: Joliot-Curie, a Nobel prizewinner in chemistry and a member of the French Communist Party.5 This the first time both non-Communist I was among those who almost always agreed with him. He and I both and Communist scientists had signed a joint declaration against nuclear opposed the First World War, but considered the Second unavoidable. He and I were equally perturbed by the awful prospect of H-bomb warfare. We agreed and world war. This event was followed up by a World Conference of to make a joint pronouncement on this subject in conjunction with any emi­ nent men ofscience who were willing to cooperate. I drew up a statement and sent it to Einstein. Before getting an answer from him, while travelling by air 2 The complete list of signatories, with their country of residence and Nobel Prize from Rome to Paris, I learnt ofhis death. On arrival in Paris, I found his letter (where awarded) was: Russell (UK 1950, literature), Einstein (us 1921, physics), Percy W agreeing to sign. This must have been one ofthe last acts ofhis life.? Bridgman (us 1946, physics), Hermann J. Muller (us 1946, physiology and medicine), Cecil F. Powell (UK 1950, physics), Joseph Rotblat (UK 1995, peace), Frederic Joliot­ Russell placed the emphasis here on his agreements with Einstein, Curie (France 1935, chemistry), Leopold Infeld (Poland), Hideki Yukawa Oapan 1949, physics), Max Born (Germany 1954, physics), Linus Pauling (us 1954, chemistry; 1962, which were substantial and based on a common adherence to a form of peace). In the hurried days leading up to the finalization ofthe list, Russell inadvertently non-absolute pacifism. This paper will consider the history of the left out Born's name, an omission which he subsequently corrected. Russell-Einstein cooperation, with emphasis on a disagreement in 1947 3 Russell, "Scientists Appeal for Abolition ofWar", Bulletin ofthe Atomic Scientists, II on the advisability of acting jointly against the danger of war-eight (Sept. 1955): 237. years before their final collaboration.8 In considering this disagreement, 4 The transcript of the press conference is entitled "Press Conference by the Earl Russell at Caxton Hall, Westminster on Saturday, 9th July 1955". It includes a brief prefatory remark by Joseph Rotblat followed by Russell's presentation of the statement, the statement itself, and questions and answers with journalists. The press conference was 6 The conference proceedings were contained in the journal World: for World Trade also released as a recording entitled Notice to the World with the subtitle"... renounce and World Law, no. I (winter 1955-56): 34. war or perish! ... world peace or universal death!" (Audio Masterworks LPA 1225). 7 Preface to Einstein on Peace, ed. Otto Nathan and Heinz Norden (New York: 5 The Russell-Einstein manifesto was not the only protest against nuclear and world Simon and Schuster, 1960), p. XV; Papers II: 591. war. Lawrence S. Wittner in Resisting the Bomb: a History ofthe World Nuclear Disarma­ 8 The most extensive discussion, including quotations from the letter by Einstein, ment Movement 1954-1970 (1997), Vol. 2 of'his exhaustive The Struggle against the Bomb occurs in BRA, 2: 7-10. Nathan and Norden, in their comments on this campaign in (Stanford: Stanford U. P., 1993), indicates other actions in the period 1954-56, which he Einstein on Peace, discuss Einstein's correspondenc~ with John Dewey on the subject of terms a period of"the gathering storm" against nuclear weapons. In particular, a parallel contributing to the campaign (p. 425), bl;lt don't mention the less successful exchange of appeal was organized by Max Born, assisted by Otto Hahn, which led to the July 1955 views with Russell. Clark discusses Russell's negative reaction, but only briefly (Clark, p. conference of Nobel laureates, who presented the declaration known as the Mainau 522). He mentions the disagreement, with a quotation from Russell's letter concerning Declaration, from the town in Germany where 18 of them met. Eventually, 52 Nobel his wish to avoid the mistake ofappeasement he had made in the late 1930S, in Einstein: laureates signed it, though, lacking Einstein's name and limited to non-Communists, its the Life and Times (New York: World, 1971), p. 589. Ray Monk, in Vol. 2 of his biogra­ impact was not as great as that ofthe Russell-Einstein resolution. See Wittner, 2: 7. phy ofRussell, quotes Russell's letter to Einstein on the same point (Monk, 2: 300). 104 DAVID BLITZ Russell, Einstein and Non-Absolute Pacifism 105 a better understanding can be achieved of Russell's concept ofpacifism, command assent, not as a partisan, but as the representative of the interests of with respect both to its general principle of opposition to war and to the whole. Very soon resistance to it would seem to be hopeless, and wars would cease. Force directed by a central authority is not open to the same exceptions it allowed for threats of force-and actual war-in order to abuse, or likely to cause the same long-drawn conflicts, as force· exercised by prevent world war. quarrelling nations, each of which is the judge in its own cause. Although· I firmly beli~ve that the adoption ofpassive instead ofactive resistance would be RUSSELL AND EINSTEIN ON PACIFISM good if a nation could be convinced of its goodness, yet it is rather to the ulti­ mate creation ofa strong central authority that I should look for the ending of Russell noted that during the First World War both he and Einstein war. But war will only end after a great labour has been performed in altering men's moral ideals, directing them to the good of all mankind and not only of adopted an anti-war position. How Russell became a pacifist, based on a 1o debate with the French logician Couturat during the Boer War some the separate nations into which men happen to have been born. fifteen years earlier, has already been traced in a previous article. in this Russell juxtaposes his ideal position-passive resistance to war based journal.9 But I want to focus on the most interesting statement which on love ofhumanity-to his practical position-the need for a coercive Russell made, among the many papers and books he devoted to analyz­ supra-national force to enforce peace. This theme of the necessity for ing the causes ofwar and the need for peace, during this time. On 8-9 world government in order to end war is one to which Einstein would July 1915 the League for Peace and Freedom held a "Conference on Paci­ also subscribe, along with the use offorce by the international authority fist Philosophy ofLife" at Caxton Hall, London.