Volumes of The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell


Volume 24: Civilization and the Bomb, 1944–47

QUOTATIONS*                                                             IN PROGRESS
Edited by Kenneth Blackwell


* Russell's assessments of individual books that drew his interest during the period of this volume and the next will be found together in the fall 2013 issue of the Bertrand Russell Society Bulletin, no. 148, pp. 9–12.


“At the beginning of the Great War he [Crompton Llewelyn Davies] held a post under the Government, but his wife was an Irish nationalist, and in the troubles between the Irish and the British Government his loyalty to her and ardent agreement with her opinions made his position untenable, and he reverted to private practice. In 1921, it was he who drafted the treaty of peace that established Irish self-government, though this was never publicly known.

“If I were tempted at any time to any failure of honesty, the thought of his disapproval would still restrain me. A man's spirit lives on, in some sense, while his memory survives, and to all who knew him well, the memory of C.D. is as vivid as on the day he died.
(“The Most Unforgettable Character I Ever Met”, c.1944; 1, 24: 13, 16)  

“What I have found most unforgettable is a certain kind of moral quality, a quality of self-forgetfulness, whether in private life, in public affairs, or in the pursuit of truth. ... Worldly success seldom comes to such men, but they inspire love and admiration, in those who know them, surpassing what is given to those who are less pure of heart.
(“Eminent Men I Have Known”, c.1944–49; 2, 24: 22–3)  

“I respected his unshakable devotion to liberal principles and his refusal to be stampeded into admiration of totalitarianism provided it wore a Russian dress.

“It is a misfortune to the world that his influence is absent at this time when violence and rival fanaticisms have spread ruin throughout vast regions and when lack of comprehensive vision is preventing statesmen in many countries from coping with the appalling dangers that are evident to every thinking person.
(“H. G. Wells—the Man as I Knew Him”, 1946; 5, 24: 33)  

         “I have lectured in universities to large classes, half female; almost all of the female half were charming, and on a desert island any one of them would have been completely satisfactory.

         “The women for whom men feel a life-long passion, and who rouse the sleeping poet that exists in most of us, have in them something rare and exceptional, something irreplaceable and unique, something that the lover feels to be important, as life and death, the sea and the stars, are important. What gives some women this glory?

“The beauty that makes a great man greater and a lesser man a slave is the sort that comes and goes, like a gleam of sun on a stormy day, suggesting a vision of a magic world through a rarely unshuttered window.
(“What Makes a Woman a Fascinator?”, 1944; 6, 24: 38, 38, 39)  

“In spite of having a ‘modern side’, they [the ‘public’ schools] still attach a ridiculous importance to Latin and Greek; at the preparatory schools which aim at scholarships for their pupils at public schools, boys have to spend time on Latin grammar which, if they are to be adapted to the modern world, might be far more profitably spent on science and modern languages.

         “Every democrat must wish to get rid of class distinctions, and class distinctions are most firmly rooted in our educational system. I think a sound educational system would provide exceptional opportunities for exceptional pupils, but it would not select the exceptions on the ground of their parents' income. Nor do I think it possible successfully to inject a modicum of democracy into institutions so imbued with the feeling of class superiority as are the public schools.
(“A Waste of Public Money”, 1944; 7, 24: 42)  

“If democracy is to be fully realized in England, the educational advantages attaching to money must not be allowed to persist.

         “Schools which stand outside the regular state-provided system and have a certain degree of educational independence serve a very useful purpose as safeguards against excessive uniformity and as a field for testing new theories not yet generally accepted.
(“Democracy and Ability in Education”, 1945; 8, 24: 45, 46)  

         “In fact, the prohibition of collusion cannot be defended on any rational ground. This is obvious if one thinks of any other kind of transaction. Suppose, for instance, I wished to buy a house. If the law were what it is in the case of divorce, I should have to make it appear that the owner was unwilling to sell, although he sometimes stayed in other houses. If it appeared that he was as anxious to sell as I to buy, the sale would be forbidden, and he would be told that he must live in that house for the rest of his life. Few people would think this an improvement on the present state of the law, and yet the analogy is exact.
(“Make Divorce Easier”, 1945; 9, 24: 51)  

“Christianity and Buddhism, the earliest religions which were not confined to any one race, brought into the world the idea of universal brotherhood; liberalism, albeit sometimes hesitant and always incomplete, has kept this ideal alive, whereas Marxism and fascism reject it. For this reason I regard these, from a moral point of view, as reactionary movements which seek to deprive humanity of the ethical values evolved during the last two thousand years, and may yet block the road to any durable peace if statesmen fail to display true insight and sound judgment.
(“The Value of Philosophy”, 1945; 11, 24: 57)  

“Mathematical ability does not show itself so early—usually not till the age of ten or eleven, but when it does show itself it may be quite as marked and quite as specialized as genius in music.

         “I sometimes think—though this goes against much that I wish to believe—that greatness is more likely to be achieved by those who have been solitary and somewhat neglected in childhood than by those who have been surrounded by sympathetic encouragement and all the external materials of happiness.

“A certain independence—which need not be driven into the form of rebellion—is a quality of infinite value, which may show itself quite early in childhood.
(“Is the Child the Father of the Man?”, 1945; 12, 24: 59, 61, 61)  

“It is one of the drawbacks to asceticism that it sees no harm in pleasures other than those of sense, and yet, in fact, not only the best pleasures, but also the very worst, are purely mental.

         “Male domination has had some very unfortunate effects. It made the most intimate of human relations, that of marriage, one of master and slave, instead of one between equal partners. It made it unnecessary for a man to please a woman in order to acquire her as his wife, and thus confined the arts of courtship to irregular relations.

“I think perhaps one of the wisest things ever said was when Cromwell said to the Scotch before the battle of Dunbar: ‘I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.’ But the Scotch did not, and so he had to defeat them in battle. It is a pity that Cromwell never addressed the same remark to himself.

“Long calculations that certain evil in the present is worth inflicting for the sake of some doubtful benefit in the future are always to be viewed with suspicion, for, as Shakespeare says: ‘What's to come is still unsure.’

“There will have to be a realization at once intellectual and moral that we are all one family, and that the happiness of no one branch of this family can be built securely upon the ruin of another. At the present time, moral defects stand in the way of clear thinking, and muddled thinking encourages moral defects. Perhaps, though I scarcely dare to hope it, the hydrogen bomb will terrify mankind into sanity and tolerance.
(“Ideas That Have Harmed Mankind”, 1946; 13, 24: 66, 72, 74, 74, 76–7)  

“But every human death by starvation is preceded by a long period of anxiety, and surrounded by the corresponding anxiety of neighbours. We suffer not only the evils that actually befall us, but all those that our intelligence tells us we have reason to fear.

“Moloch would not help the corn to grow unless he was allowed to feast on the blood of children. A similar opinion was adopted by the Evangelicals of Manchester in the early days of industrialism, when they kept six-year-old children working twelve to fourteen hours a day, in conditions that caused most of them to die.

“If I could think that deer and squirrels, nightingales and larks, would survive, I might view this catastrophe [the extermination of the human race] with some equanimity, since man has not shown him- self worthy to be the lord of creation. But it is to be feared that the dreadful alchemy of the atomic bomb will destroy all forms of life equally, and that the earth will remain for ever a dead clod senselessly whirling round a futile sun.

         “Man, viewed morally, is a strange amalgam of angel and devil. He can feel the splendour of the night, the delicate beauty of spring flowers, the tender emotion of parental love, and the intoxication of intellectual understanding. In moments of insight visions come to him of how life should be lived and how men should order their dealings one with another. Universal love is an emotion which many have felt and which many more could feel if the world made it less difficult. This is one side of the picture. On the other side are cruelty, greed, indifference and overweening pride.

“Christ said ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’, and when asked ‘who is my neighbour?’ went on to the parable of the Good Samaritan. If you wish to understand this parable as it was understood by his hearers, you should substitute ‘German’ or ‘Japanese’ for ‘Samaritan’.

“Christianity, as soon as it conquered the State, put an end to gladiatorial shows, not because they were cruel, but because they were idolatrous. The result, however, was to diminish the widespread education in cruelty by which the populace of Roman towns were degraded. Christianity also did much to soften the lot of slaves. It established charity on a large scale, and inaugurated hospitals. Although the great majority of Christians failed lamentably in Christian charity, the ideal remained alive and in every age inspired some notable saints. In a new form, it passed over into modern Liberalism, and remains the inspiration of much that is most hopeful in our sombre world.

“I find it often urged that an international government would be oppressive, and I do not deny that this might be the case, at any rate for a time, but national governments were oppressive when they were new and are still oppressive in most countries, and yet hardly anybody would on this ground advocate anarchy within a nation.

“When we survey the long development of mankind from a rare hunted animal, hiding precariously in caves from the fury of wild beasts which he was incapable of killing; subsisting doubtfully on the raw fruits of the earth which he did not know how to cultivate; reinforcing real terrors by the imaginary terrors of ghosts and evil spirits and malign spells; gradually acquiring the mastery of his environment by the invention of fire, writing, weapons, and at last science; building up a social organization which curbed private violence and gave a measure of security to daily life; using the leisure gained by his skill, not only in idle luxury, but in the production of beauty and the unveiling of the secrets of natural law; learning gradually, though imperfectly, to view an increasing number of his neighbours as allies in the task of production rather than enemies in the attempts at mutual depredation—when we consider this long and arduous journey, it becomes intolerable to think that it may all have to be made again from the beginning owing to failure to take one step for which past developments, rightly viewed, have been a preparation.

“All that is necessary to save mankind from disaster is the step from two independent States to one—not by war, which would bring disaster, but by agreement.
(“Ideas That Have Helped Mankind”, 1946; 14, 24: 80, 82, 86–7, 87, 88, 88, 91–2, 92–3, 93)  

         “One useful technique which scientific philosophy teaches consists in the transformation of every problem from a concrete to an abstract form.

“[W]hen for the two concrete problems we substitute a single abstract problem in which the letters A and B replace the names of nations or communities about which we have strong feelings, it becomes very much easier to see what sort of con- siderations ought to be involved in arriving at any impartial solution.
(“A Plea for Clear Thinking”, 1947; 15, 24: 97, 97)  

“Democracy, after all, is a form of government, and you could have a perfect democracy in a given laboratory if the majority decided what everybody was to do, and that would not satisfy me. The majority would then be a big Hitler, and I don't think there would be any great advantage in that, because a man of exceptional ability is very likely to see a useful piece of research which the majority cannot see the advantage of.

“I think that justifying any rather skilled intellectual activity to the taxpayer is the kind of thing that leads to a great many undesirable consequences. I have seen the sort of thing it leads to, for instance, in America where state universities get into trouble if they teach anything that any taxpayer dislikes.

“I, too, am a socialist, and I think that if socialism is to work well it requires a very great deal of delegated power. In the sphere of science this is particularly important because science is a thing that the general public cannot hope to understand or to judge—it is too technical and too difficult.
(“Should Scientists Be Public Servants?”, 1945; 19, 24: 105, 107, 108)  

“The rule of the majority has the merit that, at worst, it is a minority that is coerced, and at best, where it is generally accepted, all except a handful of extremists consent to decisions arrived at by the recognized democratic process.

         “In present-day politics we find Russia opposing all attempts to ascertain the wishes of the majority—in Poland, Hungary, Rumania, and Greece, and in the question of the fusion of the German Social Democrats with the Communists.
(“What Is Democracy?”, 1946; 20, 24: 115, 115)  

“He [Alan Nunn May] had undertaken certain work for the Government, and had submitted to the obligations of the Official Secrets Act; both public and private life become very difficult if men who have made promises are liable to break them at any moment on what they consider conscientious grounds. It was open to him not to undertake work for the Government, or to resign his position, but I do not see what justification there could be for giving a solemn undertaking and then breaking it.

“While America alone possesses the secret this advantage should be used, not for national aggrandizement, but to compel acquiescence in a monopoly of atomic power in the hands of an international authority. It is clear that Russia will not submit to any international control except as a result of fear. Any step, therefore, that lessens Russia's occasions for fear tends to prevent that internationalization of this weapon which we must all desire.
(“Should a Scientist Be Free to Tell?”, 1946; 21, 24: 119, 119)  

         “The Soviet Government is trying to give a new meaning to the word ‘Democracy’. In the Soviet State, and in the States over which it has control, it is not the majority that governs, but a certain Party which asserts that it governs in the interests of those who have little or no property, who, being the majority, are considered to constitute the democracy. This is an entirely novel use of the word. Democracy, as so defined, does not necessarily, or even probably, secure the advantages for the sake of which democratic systems have been advocated in the past.
(“What Is Democracy?”, 1946; 22, 24: 122)  

         “The doctrine of genes is wholly rejected, not on empirical grounds, but because it is held that nothing so stable can exist in living matter.

         “The interpretation of dialectical materialism which has found favour is more reminiscent of Hegel than of Marx, and more reminiscent of Heraclitus than of Hegel—in fact, of Heraclitus as caricatured in Plato's Theaetetus rather than of the man himself.

“At genetic conferences [in the USSR], as a result of newspaper agitation, enthusiastic workers from collectives, like the turbulent monks who troubled early Church Councils, took a vehement part in the debate, and helped to decide purely theoretical issues.
(“Soviet Genetics”, 1946; 24, 24: 130, 130–1, 132)  

“It is true that, on the economic side, the growth of vast industrial organizations has necessitated a new approach to the problem of distributive justice, but in other respects I have found no reason to abandon the ideals that I imbibed in youth: freedom of speech, toleration, democracy, and respect for the individual so far as the need of maintaining public order permits. These ideals are, in the political sphere, the counterpart of scientific method in the intellectual sphere, and where either is abandoned the other suffers.

         “The pragmatic advantages of science were irresistible, but the attitude of indifference to authority which it inculcated could not be confined to strictly scientific matters. The American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the growth of democracy in England were its natural consequences.

“Why should a man enjoy exceptional power or wealth merely because he is the son of his father? Why should white men have privileges denied to those with other complexions? Why should women be subject to men?

“Such violent upheavals are unavoidable wherever minorities cling to despotic power, but, however necessary, revolutions inspired by hate are not the best means of creating a better world, since those who hate their oppressors are apt, when they can, to imitate the crimes against which they have rebelled.
(“A Scientist's Plea for Democracy”, 1947; 25, 24: 136, 137, 138, 140)  

“There are people in this country who regard as gospel truth whatever their favourite newspaper says, with the result, not infrequently, that their opinions are even more stupid than if they were illiterate.
(“Science and Democracy”, 1947; 26, 24: 141)  

“Speaking historically, the State is an organization representing the collective forces of the community as employed against criminals at home and enemies abroad. This force, except in times of revolution or tyranny, is subject in its internal employment to law, and the original service of the State was the substitution of law for private violence in regulating the relations of citizens.

“The State, in fact, is a collection of individuals entrusted, for one reason or another, with more power than falls to the lot of the average man. Collectively these individuals who constitute the State may quite possibly have a corporate interest of their own, inimical to the general interest of the public, and it is to guard against this possibility that safeguards of individual liberty are necessary.

“There will be a new oligarchy which may become more powerful than the capitalists in a capitalistic democracy. If this is not to happen there must be organizations representing the interests of wage-earners as opposed to politicians and officials. There must, in short, be Trade Unions, and, since it will be the business of Trade Unions to be able, when necessary, to combat the State, Trade Union officials must be independent of the State and responsible only to their own vocational constituencies. The weapon of the strike, although it is a dangerous and anarchic weapon only to be used in the last resort, must not be completely sacri- ficed, and it must not be thought that a section of wage-earners can never be justified in protesting against a decision of a centralized Socialist State.

“We have concentrated attention upon impartiality in the law courts, and have ignored the importance of earlier impartiality in police investigations. This is one example of the ineffectiveness of former safeguards owing to the growing efficiency of organizations connected with the State.

         “In the long run, however, institutions alone, however necessary, will not suffice to safeguard individual liberty, for liberal institutions will not function without a certain national temper and a general principle of tolerance: minorities must submit to laws they dislike, and majorities must not be tyrannical.
(“The Taming of Power”, 1947; 27, 24: 143, 144, 145, 146, 147)  

“Many times during the Blitz, people in America used to say to me: ‘You must be glad to be out of it.’ I felt as if they had congratulated me on being absent from the death-bed of my wife or one of my children, and I used to wonder whether most Americans were indeed so different from most English people that they would be glad to be out of their country at such a time, or whether it was merely that all people are unable to imagine suffering totally outside their experience. And then I would remind myself that my own reserve had probably given the impression that I did not care.

“I find much American speech very pleasant to listen to, and much of the slang refreshingly expressive. But I wish they would frankly call it American, and not English.

“Patriotism which has the quality of intoxication is a danger not only to its native land but to the world, and ‘My country never wrong’ is an even more dangerous maxim than &lsquoMy country, right or wrong’.

“I was surprised when I discovered that in America a lecturer was expected to appear in evening dress. English people, having heard from Americans that there is less formality in the United States than in England, find themselves giving offence by behaving as if at home. This applies also to debate and argument, which is conducted in America more politely, and with less downright assertion of differences, than is customary in England.

“A visiting lecturer, at the end of a long day, has an hour's lecture, and then an hour of questioning. At length, dead tired, he is rescued by his host and hostess, and hopes to be able to relax. But he may find that they expect him to explain quantum theory and the theory of relativity, the relative merits of the American and British schemes for an international currency, and so on.

“When an Englishman lives in America, he notices that trade union leaders are not, as at home, part of the governing class, but are still regarded by the majority of well-to-do people as dramatically wicked.

“British imperialism, the bugbear of American Anglophobes, is milder than most others, and is genuinely intended to give place to self-government in due course, but the problems of the transition are more difficult than they appear to those without the relevant knowledge and experience.
(“Can Americans and Britons Be Friends?”, 1944; 28, 24: 155, 157, 158, 159, 159, 161, 162)  

“The first and most vivid emotion [of the returning traveller absent since Munich] is one of thankfulness to find so many things unchanged. Every church that has survived the blitz, every street that shows no sign of damage, every scene of rural peace and beauty glimpsed from the train, is balm to the homecoming exile's fears. In places and in people the returned traveller notices first their dear familiarity.

         “The patience and courage of those who have been exposed to danger and disaster at the hands of the Germans are beyond all praise, and the small amount of bitterness is truly astonishing.

“I have found everywhere among those who are doing the real work a new feeling for social and economic justice, for the abolition of privilege, and against the entrenched holders of power, in spite of the fact that those men have successfully led the nation to victory.
(“How War Has Changed the British People”, 1944; 29, 24: 164, 164, 165)  

“In effect, therefore, in spite of legal freedom, American radio is a powerful force in support of the plutocracy.

         “Mr. Thomas considers radio primarily as a means of entertainment. This, however, is not its most important function. Its most important function is to create opinion, and, when it is commercial, to sell goods.

“I do not believe that the benefits which the nation derives from the B.B.C. could survive if it were subject to commercial competition. I believe, on the contrary, that the result would be a general lowering of the political intelligence of the nation, which would be unfortunate at any time, but at the present time utterly disastrous.
(“I Am Thankful for the B.B.C.”, 1944; 30, 24: 167, 168, 169)  

         “In all technical matters, Americans are more progressive than we are. They are quicker to adopt new processes in industry, more receptive of new methods in medicine and surgery, more modern in their systems of cataloguing and indexing. Wherever there is some clear and undeniable material advantage in view, I think we must admit their superiority.

“Speaking generally, there is much more intolerance in the United States than there is here. Among the rich, it requires great social courage to say a good word for the President. You will be made to regret it if you criticize American treatment of negroes or defend British policy in India; either will be regarded as a proof of moral depravity.

“Circumstances are likely to force the United States into some kind of imperialism, probably non-territorial, but I have considerable confidence that American influence in backward countries will, on the whole, be exercised wisely and humanely.
(“Britain—U.S.A.”, 1944; 31, 24: 171, 172, 174)  

         “One of the things that struck me most forcibly in 1896, and that subsequent experience has confirmed, is that America is much more monarchical than England. In every direction there is more one-man power and less government by committees.

“Boys may love their mothers or their teachers, but they cannot take them as models to be imitated, because they are going to grow up into men, not into women. If the natural savagery of boys is to be tamed, it must be by men; and in America men, in general, do not perform this function.

         “Almost all English people, when they go to America, are amazed by the strength of anti-semitism. ... Anti-semitism and the colour bar introduce a poison of intolerance into the social system, which is very dangerous and threatens to spread to various unpopular minorities, both of race and of opinion.

“What I am thinking of is power behind the scenes—power to control appointments, to win favours from the police, to secure the right kind of newspaper publicity, to practise successful lobbying, and so on. This kind of power determines which among young men shall achieve conspicuous success in business or journalism or education; those who do not have its backing, unless they become authors or trade union leaders, remain throughout life obscure and unsuccessful, whatever abilities they may possess.

“America will inevitably be forced into a kind of non-territorial imperialism, but I have considerable confidence that American influence will, on the whole, be exercised wisely and humanely. Indeed, in this field I have more belief in Americans than most of them have in themselves. I think their hegemony will be kindly and tolerant to a greater degree than that of any European country would be, and whatever pangs I may feel as a patriot I look to the Empire of America for the best hopes that our distracted world permits.
(“Some Impressions of America”, 1944; 32, 24: 176, 177, 179, 180, 181)  

         “All sensible people in Great Britain know that good relations with the United States are indispensable, not only to our prosperity, but to our very existence.

“As regards India, we have no just claim to remain there after the end of the war against Japan; we have stated repeatedly that the Cripps offer remains open, involving Dominion status with the right of secession. America will probably see to it that we carry out this promise, in spite of the wish of our Conservatives to evade it.

“It may, however, be possible for our oil interests to strike a bargain with those of America, on the condition of joint opposition to the ambitions of Russia.
        Such a prospect must be highly distasteful to every liberal-minded man, as well as to all who hope to postpone as long as possible the outbreak of the next world war.

         “Third: whatever the peace treaties may bring in the way of a world authority— and I fear they will not bring much—we ought to seek as close a federation of the nations of Western Europe as is politically feasible, and we ought to aim at common administration of the African possessions of these various nations, more particularly the British, French, Belgians and Portuguese. All questions of defence ought to concern the federation as a whole, not only its several members.
        In this way it might acquire sufficient strength to be not a temptation to predatory Powers, and thus remove one of the causes of war.
(“The Twilight of the British Empire”, 1944; 33, 24: 183, 184, 185, 186)  

“I am the more perturbed [by the conflict of US and UK nationalisms] since I find in myself a proneness to respond to British nationalism and to contemn that of America, which I can only control by a great effort towards impartiality.

“When an American feels a glow of warmth about his country, he is not thinking, as an Englishman might, of hedgerows and the song of the cuckoo and wild roses in June, of village churches that keep alive what was best in the middle ages, or even of the traditional pomp of kings and Lord Mayors and Judges in their wigs. Shakespeare speaks of the English as ‘this happy breed of men’; Lincoln speaks of the Americans as ‘dedicated to a proposition’.

“It is the point of view which dominated American policy from the rejection of the Versailles Treaty to the passing of the Neutrality Act. Since 1939, the men who have been in charge of the American Government have succeeded, by the exercise of amazing tact and skill, in preventing the United States from signing its own death warrant by permitting the defeat of the British; but few people on this side of the Atlantic know how difficult it has been to achieve this success, or how powerful are the anti-British forces which may assert themselves hereafter.

“We have now little power to do harm in China, but we still do harm where we can. Until we undertake a drastic reform of the Foreign Office, friends of mankind abroad will continue to think ill of us, and not without cause.

“But while a United States of Europe would be infinitely desirable if it were possible, it would not advance the welfare of mankind if the motive of its formation were hostility to the United States of America.

         “The result of this system is that, while Presidents of universities are part of the governing class, mere men of learning are nobodies, having something of the position of Greek slaves in the Roman Empire.

“A man who is in their bad books [those of the very rich] can succeed as an author, but in hardly any other career; that is why American literature is so largely Radical.

“Human beings of different nations do not differ so much as they think they do; they have the same pains and pleasures, similar loves and hates, and an equal admixture of good and bad. Mutual hatred can only injure both; mutual esteem is enjoined not only by the moral law, but by common prudence.
(“British and American Nationalism”, 1945; 34, 24: 189, 190, 193, 194, 194, 197, 199, 200)  

         “Now our histories, not unnaturally, are written from the standpoint of Western Europe; this has led us to give the name of the ‘Dark Ages’ to what was, in fact, one of the most brilliant periods of human history.

         “Western Europe—the half of a peninsula in the great land mass of the Eastern hemisphere—has had an almost monopolistic importance in culture. But can we be sure that it will continue? From Dante and Shakespeare through Bach and Beethoven to Einstein and quantum theory, all that was best in literature and art and science during the last six hundred years came out of this small region. And what was true of culture was true also of political and military power. Now the great centres of power are moving eastward and westward, to Russia and the United States, and it is to be expected that the centres of culture will move likewise, to the Western hemisphere, to Russia, and beyond Russia into Asia. In such a movement, from the standpoint of civilization as a whole, there is nothing to regret. Indeed it is probable that what is good in the culture of Western Europe will acquire a new freshness by migration, just as Greek ideas did when, at the Renaissance, they acquired a new home in the West.

“Enthusiasm for new programmes of economic centralization has made large sections of opinion unduly blind to the need of preserving the fruits of past victories. In some circles, to proclaim oneself still an advocate of political democracy is to incur the suspicion of being a hide-bound Conservative. I regard this attitude as profoundly mistaken, and I look to Great Britain to provide a practical refutation.

“Income tax and death duties have practically abolished the idle rich.

“The great problem of our time is to secure order and central direction without regimentation and without killing the opportunities for personal initiative.

         “What is to be the guiding principle in the European settlement is not yet clear, but I hope—and not without reason for the hope—that it will be collective security, combined with the greatest amount of national independence that is compatible with this principle. Here also we have a great opportunity, where national interest and the welfare of mankind go hand in hand. We can, if we are wise, make up for what we have lost in material power by a gain in moral leadership. In this new role our country can be as great and as beneficent as it has ever been in the past, and what is best in our patriotic emotions can find full scope.
(“Where Do We Go Now?”, 1945; 35, 24: 204, 205, 206, 206, 207, 207)  

         “Both in justice to India and for the sake of our honour and prestige among the United Nations a definite announcement should be made now of a fixed date—say one year after the cessation of hostilities with Japan—upon which we are prepared to hand over India to a representative provisional Government.
(“Future of India”, 1945; 36, 24: 215)  

“Therefore, if I were to take part in the Government, I should announce immediately at a certain date a day twelve months after the end of the Japanese war that we British shall wash our hands of India. I should announce that now, so that Indians may have plenty of time to get together and see how best they can work together.

“The domination of the White Man over the rest of the world since the sixteenth century is coming to an end. It will not go on any more in Asia which is awake.
(“Promise Freedom to India after War with Japan”, 1945; 37, 24: 215, 216)   

“I do not think that failure to reach agreement should continue to be used by the British as an excuse for doing nothing; failing agreement, I think a constitution should be imposed, but it should be framed with a view to securing the greatest realizable measure of acquiescence. I do not think the British should have sole responsibility either for framing or for enforcing such a constitution.

“But in the interests of world peace no State ought to be completely free of all international control.
(“The Future in India”, 1945; 38, 24: 217, 218)  

“As an Englishman I should, however, avoid the appearance of supporting any party in India both because I lack the knowledge that would justify taking any side in the matter and because the whole basis of the case of an Englishman who supports Indian independence is that Indians should settle their own political affairs.
(“Message to India”, 1945; 39, 24: 219)  

         “The campaign of abuse and innuendo inaugurated by the Prime Minister [Churchill] has done much to discredit democratic processes among those who are voting for the first time.
(“Election Survey”, 1945; 40, 24: 221)  

“I think a second chamber a mistake, but if there has to be one it is better it should be an indefensible abuse. Any imaginable reformed second chamber would be a more formidable obstacle to progress than the present House of Lords.
(“Should We Abolish the House of Lords?”, 1947; 41, 24: 223)  

“But Germany cannot be kept in subjugation forever, and, therefore, during the period of subjugation Germans must be taught to acquiesce in a status of equality with other nations, as opposed to the claim to be the ‘master race’. I believe the necessary process of re-education to be possible, though by no means easy.

         “The road to peaceful prosperity must not be barred if the bitterness of defeat is ultimately to grow less. And it should be made clear that sooner or later Germany will be restored to equality with other great powers, but that this will not be done until the world is convinced that there is no longer a danger that the example of Bismarck, the Kaiser, and Hitler will be followed.

         “Parents who have been active in the work of the Nazi Party, or have been concerned in carrying out any of the more abominable features of its policy, should be deprived of the custody of their children, since their influence might undo whatever good could be achieved during school hours. Children brought up in such homes can hardly be expected to become good citizens, and we must recognize limits to the parent's right to inflict moral degradation on his sons and daughters.

“To rescue the really great Germans of the past from undeserved ill fame, and restore to them that respect which is their due, should be an essential part of the reformed education.
        But there have been some Germans who have been honoured in German schools, not only recently, but ever since the achievement of German unity in 1871, who much less deserve to be held up as models for the admiration of the young. Charlemagne, the Emperor Barbarossa, Frederick the Great, and Bismarck were all unscrupulous ruffians.

“There have been in the newspapers pictures of German boys, varying in age from seven to fourteen, who had been captured sniping our troops. They were very terrible pictures, showing faces filled with murderous hate. The crime of the Nazis, who took these children and distorted them into fiends, is as black as any crime imaginable—worse than that of Herod, who murdered only the bodies of his victims. Some people have expressed the opinion that these boys are lost beyond hope of redemption. I cannot take this despairing view, and no true Christian can take it. Even for the worst of sinners repentance is still possible; moreover, these boys have not chosen evil, but actually have been forced into it.

“To give the right kind of understanding and love requires a special talent; most of us can only give love where we find qualities that we think lovable. But there are people—I have found them most frequently among Quakers—who have the power of feeling a quite genuine love even for those whom most of us find utterly repulsive.

“To this I should reply, first, that German children are in no way responsible for the war, but will in fact have suffered great damage by it. Apart from the physical damage there is the moral damage of having been born into a society filled with brutality and envenomed hate. By victory the responsibility of these children becomes ours, and I cannot see that their being children of enemies has anything to do with it.

“For our own sakes, as much as for theirs, everything possible must be done to cause the children to look upon us as their friends. In this matter Christian charity and practical wisdom go hand in hand.

         “There are no rational grounds for despair about the re-education of Germans, who are not congenitally or racially different from ourselves. What they are now they have been made by circumstances, and other circumstances will make them different.
(“Can We Re-Educate Germany?”, 1945; 42, 24: 228, 228–9, 229, 229, 231–2, 232, 233, 233, 234)  

“At outbreak of the present war, democracy survived in the English-speaking world, in France, Switzerland, Belgium, Holland, and Scandinavia, but nowhere else.

“Men who, throughout the years of German occupation, have shown the courage and tenacity required for guerilla fighting, and have at last seen their cause triumphant, not unnaturally feel that they should have more say in determining their country's policies than should be allowed to those who have secured a quiet life by prudent accommodations with the enemy. On the average, the men of the resistance movements, naturally, are more progressive than less adventurous citi- zens, and are more anxious for radical economic reforms. Under the influence of Russia, those who are most progressive in economic questions are apt to have no faith in democracy, and so support of democracy is in danger of finding itself in a paradoxical alliance with conservatism.

“If we genuinely desire that democracy should have a fair chance of success, we shall have to make provisions against the illegal seizure of power by Fascist groups, and also by Communist groups.

“In the absence of law, there is liberty only for gangsters.
(“Obstacles to Democracy in Liberated Countries”, 1945; 43, 24: 236, 237, 238, 239)   

“After a period of anxiety, their [the Japanese government's] victories over China and Tsarist Russia led them to think themselves invincible, and to embark upon the insane career of conquest which is now leading them to utter disaster.

(“The Future in China and Japan”, 1945; 44, 24: 243, 243, 244, 244–5)  

         “The formula of unconditional surrender, in the case of Japan even more than in that of Germany, is foolish, and calculated to prolong the war unnecessarily. What we should demand of Japan is clear: surrender of all her conquests on the mainland of Asia and in the islands outside Japan proper, and total disarmament for a period of years.

“It is likely that Manchuria, including Port Arthur and the Chinese Eastern Railway, will be claimed by the Soviet Government, on the ground that it belonged to the Tsarist Government before the Russo-Japanese war.

“The Chinese communists, unlike those of most other countries, are an agrarian party, standing for the abolition of landlords and the promotion of cooperation among the actual cultivators—both essential if the appalling poverty of peasants is to be relieved. But Chiang Kai-shek and the officers of his army (who are largely of the landlord class) will not willingly concede these reforms. The problem will have to be solved by a compromise, if civil war is to be avoided.

“It is difficult to improve the economic position of the ordinary inhabitant of India or China or Japan except by measures which will rouse opposition in white countries, not only on the part of capitalists, but also on the part of many of the wage-earners. It would be unjust and unwise to prevent emigration to tropical and sub-tropical countries, or to erect discriminatory tariff barriers against exports from Asiatic countries. White men have no divine right to superiority, either politically or socially, and the sooner this is universally acknowledged the better.
(“The Future in China and Japan”, 1945; 44, 24: 243, 243, 244, 244–5)  

         “Let us take the economic problems first. There will be, to begin with, the necessity of keeping populations alive until agriculture can be revived in regions devastated by the war.

(“A Philosophy for Reconstruction”, 1945; 45, 24: 248, 248, 249, 251, 251, 251)  

         “Making good the enormous destruction and deterioration of goods and industrial capital will be a stupendous task. The Russians plan to achieve it in Russia by means of German forced labour, but this plan cannot be adopted in capitalist countries. Outside Russia, reconstruction will involve investment of capital, and the United States is almost the only country that has much capital to invest.

“It may be assumed that, for some twenty years or so after the end of the present war, weariness and the tasks of reconstruction will prevent any large-scale conflicts.

         “For the moment, the only method is the very unsatisfactory one of spheres of influence. If the whole world could be neatly mapped out into separate regions, each under the tutelage of one of the five Great Powers, a precarious peace might last for a considerable time. At present, the Russians do what they like in Poland, and we do what we like in Greece.

“Since the fall of Trotsky, the Soviet Government has ceased to support revolutionary movements in other countries, and cooperation between Russia and the West should now be as possible as between Mohammedan and Christian countries.

         “The third step—which can only be taken after the other two—will be to establish a genuine and effective League against aggression, in which the Great Powers, as well as the others, agree to settle disputes by peaceful means, and to resist aggression even when perpetrated by a Great Power.
(“A Philosophy for Reconstruction”, 1945; 45, 24: 248, 248, 249, 251, 251, 251)  

“Sound strategy demanded that Germany should be defeated first, but no one that I have met feels that the war is over. There is natural relief at the end of German air attack, and rejoicing that European countries which have been long enslaved to the Nazis have now recovered their freedom.

“Now all this will be different, and everything humanly possible will be done to bring the Japanese war to a speedy end.

         “The world has been horrified by the revelation of the bestialities of which human beings are capable. This horror is necessary, but it should be balanced by recollection of the excellent things that men can do.

“I have great confidence in the Chinese desire for peace, and I am therefore persuaded that a powerful China will be a benefit to mankind.
(“What the European Victory Means to China”, 1945; 46, 24: 254, 254, 255, 255)   

         “The recent revelations of Nazi cruelty in concentration camps have produced a feeling of horror which is both just and inevitable.

“Above all, we must not forget that most of the victims in concentration camps, before the war, numbering hundreds of thousands, were Germans, who proved, by the very sufferings which rouse our indignation, the heights of heroism to which many Germans could rise in resistance to the Nazis.

“To those whose business it was to know such things, the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis were known from the very beginning; undoubtedly the British Govern- ment knew of them. Nevertheless it went out of its way to make concessions to Hitler which it had steadily refused to his less ferocious predecessors. It may be said, and perhaps said truly, that since war against the Nazis was bound to be a grim and terrible business, it was right to try appeasement first.

“So long as ruthless and cruel men have power, hatred may be necessary in order to generate the energy required for fighting them; but, when they have been defeated, the important thing is to understand how they became so evil, and what enabled them to terrorize peaceable populations.

“To diminish the amount of cruelty in the world, it is not retaliatory cruelty that is required, but—except towards the hopelessly brutalized—understanding, sympathy, provision of economic opportunities, and stability within a framework of law.

(“The Problem of Cruelty”, 1945; 47, 24: 257, 257, 257–8, 258, 259)  

         “The Soviet Government, not unnaturally, has viewed the Western Powers with considerable suspicion. Churchill, though he advocated the Russian Alliance in the years immediately preceding the outbreak of the present war, was one of the strongest advocates of intervention in Russia in 1918 and 1919; there was no reason to suppose that he would remain friendly to the Soviet Republic after the defeat of Germany and Japan.

         “The victory of the Labour Party and the results of the Potsdam Conference have made it possible to be far more hopeful than would have seemed rational a month ago. It may be confidently expected that British policy will not be imperialistic, and will not support reactionary factions in the parts of Europe where it is influential. This must greatly diminish Russian suspicions and also the occasions for friction.

“Stalin has apparently revived all the imperialistic policies of the old Russia, and already he has taken some ominous steps as regards Turkey.

         “There is, so far as I can see, only one way of averting the spread of totalitarian despotism, and that is the growth, in the West, of a powerful Radical movement genuinely devoted to the most far-reaching economic reconstruction, but also determined to preserve democracy with its adjuncts of free speech, free press, and freedom for opposition political parties.

“There should not be a policy of mere appeasement, which would only lead, as it did after Munich, to a violent reaction in unfavourable circumstances.

(“Hopes and Fears for Tomorrow”, 1945; 48, 24: 263, 263, 264, 265, 266, )  

         “In Eastern Europe now mass deportations are being carried out by our Allies on an unprecedented scale, and an apparently deliberate attempt is being made to exterminate many millions of Germans, not by gas but by depriving them of their homes and of food, leaving them to die by slow and agonized starvation.
(“Mass Deportations”, 1945; 49, 24: 271)  

“It is frequently said that the entire German nation is responsible for the horrors of Belsen and Buchenwald which were committed in its name. This contention is unjust, since the facts were never fully made public, and the penalties for criticism were more than the bravest man could be expected to face.
(“Mass Deportations”, 1945; 50, 24: 272)  

By the unanimous testimony of all who have knowledge of the facts, the Russians, and the Poles with Russian acquiescence, are perpetrating a vast atrocity larger in scale, and scarcely less horrible in detail, than those perpetrated by the Nazis in concentration camps.

         “Only great firmness now can prevent the world from marching towards another world war. Acquiescence at this stage is bound to lead, as it did in the case of the Nazis, to continually fresh offences, until at last, perhaps in very unfavourable circumstances, the Western Powers find themselves compelled to resist.
(“Letter on Russian Deportations”, 1945; 51, 24: 273, 273)  

“We therefore suggest that those who acquired the habit of sending food parcels to England while other countries were inaccessible should send them now, through a relief organization, to be distributed wherever they are most needed.
(“Food Parcels Still Needed”, 1945; 52, 24: 276)  

“The Russians, however, seized almost all live stock and stores of food and agricultural machinery, transported all able-bodied men to forced labour in Russia or Poland, and indulged in such wholesale rape that women have not dared to work on the land. There is consequently not nearly enough food left in Eastern Germany to feed even the normal population. What food there is goes largely to the Russian troops, which are not fed from home as are the British or Americans.

         “The armies of occupation cause additional problems. In some localities of the Russian zone practically every woman between fifteen and sixty has been raped; between 20 and 60 per cent, according to the locality, have been infected with venereal disease. In the American zone a very large number of hungry women are pregnant by American soldiers; the resulting children will presumably be left to die of hunger and cold while the fathers continue to enjoy the grossly excessive rations of the American army. I have no information as to conditions in the British zone in this respect.

         “It must be admitted that the ruthless behaviour of the Russians, Poles, and Czechs is intelligible in view of what they have suffered at the hands of the Germans. I have no wish whatever to minimize the crimes of the Germans in the days of their power.

“The Government could sanction a voluntary scheme by which those who so desired could forego part of their rations for purposes of relief. Restaurant meals could be rationed, for it is still possible for those who eat regularly in restaurants to be grossly overfed. By these means, and by a rigorous campaign against waste, the problems of the British zone could be mitigated. But no adequate solution is poss- ible except by international agreement.
(“The German Disaster”, 1945; 53, 24: 279, 280–1, 281, 281)   

“The Russians, and the Poles with Russian encouragement have, I regret to say, adopted a policy of vengeance, and have so far as I am able to discover, committed atrocities very much on the same scale and of the same magnitude as those of which the Nazis were guilty. That is a very horrible thing.

“I am a whole-hearted supporter of the present Government, both in their foreign policy and in their home policy.... I find in the Government's pronouncement on this question a certain grudging spirit, as though they were looking to see, not how much we can do, but how little.

“The Minister of Food has refused to let us know what our stocks of food are, and I am not able to see any public ground on which that refusal can be justified. There seems to be no reason why we should not be allowed to know.

“I am not sure whether the Government quite realizes the extent to which people's consciences are stirred by this appalling calamity, especially to the children. After all, I should be the last to minimize the guilt of the Germans who determined German policy, but when you think of quite young children you cannot really say that they are responsible.

“We must learn to feel internationally if we are to have any hope of world peace. There will not be peace in the world so long as we think in terms of nations rather than in terms of individuals, and think it is right that a German child should suffer because German men have been wicked. That sort of thing is the sort that will make wars go on and on and on.
(“Situation in Central Europe”, 1945; 54, 24: 283, 283, 284, 285, 285)   

         “I agree that we want them to live, but at the same time, in order to avoid friction with Russia, we agreed at Potsdam to a policy which we must have known would not be carried out as it was on paper, and would inevitably result in what has happened.

“That [the next world war] is probably coming in any case. We may as well be ready for it. What you propose is just Munich over again. We tried it out with Hitler and it didn't work. Why should we think it would work next time?

“Wherever you look, in any direction, you find the Russians are playing the imperialistic game in the old-fashioned style.

         “I am more interested in looking Russia in the face, but I should like to look America in the face too.

“The Eastern Germans would never be allowed to cooperate with the Western Germans. So I don't see that we need be so frightened about German recovery.

“It seems to me that it does not very much matter which political policy we adopt towards Germany; the really vital thing, more vital than I can say, is that we should try as far as we can to mitigate the wholesale horror that is there, the starvation, the rape, the spread of venereal disease, the spread of other diseases; what is really the destruction of a nation. And I think I should be willing to adopt any political device that will save people from the fear that Germany is again going to be powerful in the military sense, provided it is linked with food supplies, medical care, lorries. That is the important thing. I should acquiesce in any political arrangement to make them not dangerous, provided that the humanitarian task was dealt with from the point of view of ordinary decency so as to make me not ashamed to be alive.
(“What Should Now Be Our Policy towards Germany?”, 1946; 55, 24: 287, 289–90, 291, 291, 292, 294)  

“America and Russia might survive, though each would suffer immense damage, but western Europe would perish. This is perhaps the most important reason for seeking to overcome enmities that have no longer any relation to the actualities of our time.

“But the fear of this danger [of French militarism], during the Franco-Prussian war, led Liberal opinion in England sadly astray. Fixation on one nation as the eternal enemy is not wise, and ignores the circumstances which lead different nations successively to take up the role of aggressors. History shows that these circumstances have to do with oppor- tunity, not with some imaginary innate national disposition.

         “The ultimate solution lies, not in restoring absolute sovereignty to Germany, but in an agreed limitation of all national sovereignties. Only so can peace be made secure, and only so can we feel confident that no other nation will, in the course of time, repeat the crimes for which the Germans are being punished.
(“German Recovery: a European Interest”, 1947; 56, 24: 297, 298, 299)  

         “Europe, the cultural heir of Greece and Rome and the source of scientific knowledge and technique, is in danger of losing all that has made our Continent of value to the world. The damage done by two great wars within a generation has been immense, and a third, if it comes, may make it impossible for Europe to continue to contribute to the civilization that Europeans have created. There have been analogous events in history, though on former occasions their scale was not so vast.

         “The economic argument for a measure of cooperation is very strong.

“Past conflicts are past, and however great may be the psychological effort involved, it is with the world of today, not of yesterday, that our political thinking must concern itself.
(“United Europe”, 1947; 57, 24: 302, 302, 303)  

         “It is impossible to imagine a more dramatic and horrifying combination of scientific triumph with political and moral failure than has been shown to the world in the destruction of Hiroshima.

“As I write, I learn that a second bomb has been dropped on Nagasaki.
        The prospect for the human race is sombre beyond all precedent. Mankind are faced with a clear-cut alternative: either we shall all perish, or we shall have to acquire some slight degree of common sense. A great deal of new political thinking will be necessary if utter disaster is to be averted.

“The immediate result must be a rapid end to the Japanese war, whether by surrender or by extermination. The power of the United States in international affairs is, for the time being, immeasurably increased; a month ago, Russia and the United States seemed about equal in warlike strength, but now this is no longer the case.

         “If America were more imperialistic there would be another possibility, less Utopian and less desirable, but still preferable to the total obliteration of civilized life. It would be possible for Americans to use their position of temporary superiority to insist upon disarmament, not only in Germany and Japan, but every- where except in the United States, or at any rate in every country not prepared to enter into a close military alliance with the United States, involving compulsory sharing of military secrets. During the next few years, this policy could be enforced; if one or two wars were necessary, they would be brief, and would soon end in decisive American victory.

“But if science is to bring benefits instead of death, we must bring to bear upon social, and especially international, organization, intelligence of the same high order that has enabled us to discover the structure of the atom.
(“The Atomic Bomb”, 1945; 58, 24: 309, 310, 310, 311, 311)  

“I, like other Socialists, had high hopes of Russia until I went there in 1920; ever since then I have felt, with increasing conviction, that the kind of State which the Soviet Government is engaged in creating is not one that Western Socialists should admire, and that the attempt to ignore its evils has had a disastrous effect upon Left wing movements.

“Here is a summary of Koestler's indictment: It would appear that Stalin's main purpose, as regards the internal affairs of Russia, has been to re-establish economic inequality, with inheritance, special schools for the children of the rich, and a hereditary aristocracy of wealth and power. In pursuit of this aim he has ruthlessly depressed the standard of living of ordinary wage-earners.

“Tourists moved freely in Nazi Germany before the war, but not in Soviet Russia, where it was considered imperative to hide the living conditions of the mass of the people.

         “At two crucial moments, the Soviet Government showed a tenderness for the Nazis, first in 1929, when German Communists were ordered to support Hitler against the Social Democrats, and again in 1939, at the time of the Pact with Germany.

“We must expect, on Stalin's part, greater hostility to the present British Government than to that of Mr. Churchill.
(“What Is the Truth about Russia?”, 1945; 59, 24: 313, 313, 314, 315, 315)  

“The Russian Revolution again turned us into enemies of Russia, which we could afford to be while Germany was weak. With extraordinary unwisdom, our foreign policy remained anti-Russian after the rise of Hitler. This would have led to our defeat in the war now just ended, if our folly had not been surpassed by Hitler's in wantonly attacking the Soviet Union.

“Russia has annexed Eastern Poland and the Baltic Provinces, has established subservient governments in Poland, Bulgaria, and Rumania, and is demanding Port Arthur and a half share of the Chinese Eastern Railway. If this is not imperialism, what is?
        This is not the end of Russia's ambitions. Ancient designs against Turkey and Persia are being revived. There are reasons for suspicion as to Russian intentions in Eastern Germany.

         “I do not think peace can be permanently preserved by a policy of appeasement, such as we pursued towards Germany until after Munich. Such a policy encourages continually greater demands on the other side, until a point is reached where further yielding is thought, rightly or wrongly, to be impossible; then war results in circumstances made more unfavourable by previous concessions. In the case of Russia, this point would be reached, at latest, when attempts were made to establish a communist government in France by unconstitutional means. What is wanted is not vague appeasement, but a clear policy, publicly proclaimed, making clear in advance what issues we consider vital.

         “The present British Government can, and I hope will, acquire great moral prestige by abandoning certain imperialist claims. In regard to India, dramatic and unequivocal pronouncements should be made, embodying what is in fact our policy, but stating it in a manner to appeal to the imagination. Hong Kong should be restored to China by the peace treaty.

         “These things are necessary if we are to aspire, as we legitimately may, to the moral leadership of Socialist Europe.

         “What is evil in the Soviet system is very largely the outcome of fear generated by Western hostile intervention after the last war.
(“What Should Be British Policy towards Russia?”, 1945; 60, 24: 318, 318, 318–19, 319, 319, 320)  

“The suggestion that nations should agree not to use the new weapon has been made, although all experience shows that such agreements are not kept when once war has broken out.

         “Some people hope that, in the future, wars may be avoided because it will be known that they will bring universal destruction. This is contrary to all that past history entitles us to expect.

“Nations often refrain from going to war because they feel certain of defeat. This happened with many of the smaller neutrals overrun by Germany during the war that is now ended.

         “The only hope of stable peace, in my opinion, is an immense and obvious preponderance of force on one side in any possible dispute. Can this be secured by means of the atomic bomb?

“Sooner or later, almost inevitably, there will be war. I am not suggesting that either side will be right in going to war. On the contrary, I should hold that, as soon as both sides possess atomic bombs, either side would be more rational if it made complete surrender to the other than if it resisted even the most extreme demands. But rationality is not to be expected in human affairs.

         “So far, this might seem like an argument for immediate war against Russia, but this conclusion could only be reached by omitting important factors. In the absence of a morally valid casus belli, neither the Americans nor the British would be willing, at the end of a long and exhausting war, to plunge at once into another for which they would see no necessity. The attempt was made last time, but failed, and it would fail again.

         “The Western democracies, however, would be justified in using their temporary strength to build up a system such as might prevent future wars. Let us first think abstractly what such a system would have to be.

“The only way in which democracy can be introduced in a previously undemocratic country is by foreign conquest. This has been shown to be true throughout Asia and the continent of Europe.
        It is therefore a mistake for believers in democracy to hold the principle that one Power should not interfere in the internal affairs of another: it should interfere to the extent of establishing and maintaining democracy, but otherwise only where the preservation of peace is involved.

         “I see only one hope of the preservation of civilization and that is a vigorous and more or less imperialistic policy in the United States during the few years' respite before other Powers possess atomic bombs.

         “The first thing is a vigorous and militant championship of democracy in all regions outside the Russian sphere of influence. This should apply, in the first instance, to Western Europe, including Spain, where Franco should no longer be tolerated. It should apply to Italy and to Greece, where genuine freedom of election should be insisted upon. Washington should make sure that everything possible is being done towards the liberation of India and the liberalizing of Chiang Kai-shek's authoritarian régime. Wherever possible, Americans should insist upon elections free from terrorism and on an honest register.

         “The industrial uses of atomic energy are likely to diminish enormously the amount of labour required for subsistence, and to increase greatly the general level of economic well-being. There need be no more poverty anywhere, and no more overwork.

         “If we are to escape collective disaster, we must learn a new kind of political thinking: we must come to understand that quarrels between great nations are a worse evil than any tyranny or misgovernment.
(“How to Avoid the Atomic War”, 1945; 61, 24: 323, 323, 323, 323, 324, 324–5, 325, 325, 326, 326, 328, 328)  

         “The time has come when it is urgently necessary for British Socialists to make up their minds on the subject of the Soviet Government.
(“Letter on Appeasing Russia”, 1945; 62, 24: 331)  

         “Throughout Western Europe there is one problem which is more urgent than any other, and that is the problem of food during the coming winter.

“Where there was acquiescence [in Nazi Germany], we must remember that the penalty for resistance was torture, and perhaps death, not only for the resister, but for his family. Which of us would willingly condemn our children to the horrors of Buchenwald?

         “In India, Muslims and Hindus seem incapable of coming to terms; it seems not unlikely that, if free, they would prefer civil war to a rational compromise.

         “In almost every part of the world hatred is blinding people to their true interests, making them more willing to perpetuate strife than to cooperate in making good the destruction caused by the war.
        Over this unheeding world of mad hatreds hangs the black cloud of the atomic bomb.

         “It is impossible to say at what point the Americans will abandon appeasement; the only thing fairly certain is that it will not be until Russia has a good store of atomic bombs, for until then excessive demands will be avoided.
        The war will begin with the total destruction of Britain, to prevent America from using it as a base, but it will quickly go on to the destruction of the rest of the globe.

         “If the politicians of the United States were men of vision and imagination they could seize the brief period of their monopoly of the atomic bomb to inaugurate a new era. They could found a confederation, open to every Power on certain terms.
        The terms should be: abolition of every national army, navy, and air force, and creation of a new force owing loyalty to the Confederation and taking the oath to it; internationalizing (as between the members of the Confederation) of all stocks of uranium and of all plant for the manufacture of atomic bombs; joint defence of every member of the Confederation against external aggression and internal attempts at illegal minority dictatorship; and agreement to abide by a joint foreign policy determined by consultation.

         “The spirit that swept the Labour Party into power in this country was a new spirit, a spirit that wished to have done with war and destruction and hatred and imperialism and oppression, to substitute amity and cooperation for enmity and competition, to help the destitute, whether at home or abroad, even at the cost of considerable personal sacrifice.
(“Peace or Atomization?”, 1945; 63, 24: 333, 333, 334, 334, 334–5, 335, 336)  

         “America has at this moment, and for a few years to come, an opportunity such as has never hitherto come to any nation throughout the whole history of the world. If the opportunity is used to the full, the peace of the world will be secure for a very long time; if not, it is likely that, during the lifetime of the present generation, all large cities in every part of the world will be wiped out, and the organization upon which civilized life has come to depend will be destroyed.

“Before many years have passed, every considerable country will be in a position to launch a surprise attack, in the style of Pearl Harbour, on any other country at any moment. And the measure of the damage to be expected must not be judged by the two bombs dropped on the Japanese: it is pretty certain that the destructiveness of atomic bombs will increase enormously as a result of further research and experimentation.

“Whatever measures are to be taken to prevent another world war must be taken during the brief period of American supremacy, and must be enforced by a vigorous use of that supremacy, which should be used, not to secure special advantages for the United States, but to compel the world to adopt a system making great wars improbable.

“I make, however, one exception to the condemnation of wars in the near future: a powerful group of nations, engaged in establishing an international military government of the world, may be compelled to resort to war if it finds somewhere an opposition which cannot be peacefully overcome, but which can be defeated without a completely exhausting struggle. Even in this case a war will not be justified unless the international government to be established is to have certain merits. I should, for my part, prefer all the chaos and destruction of a war conducted by means of the atomic bomb to the universal domination of a government having the evil characteristics of the Nazis. I think a world government supremely important, and I do not expect to see it established without an element of compulsion. But I should think too high a price was being paid if the world government had not that degree of respect for freedom and kindliness that has been characteristic of the Western democracies.

“I would rather see the United States conquer the whole world and rule it by force than see a prolongation of the present multiplicity of independent Great Powers. But I think the United States could use its preponderance more effectively by a policy less illiberal than that of conquest.

“There might be a period of hesitation followed by acquiescence, but if the U.S.S.R. did not give way and join the Confederation after there had been time for mature consideration, the conditions for a justifiable war, which I enumerated a moment ago, would all be fulfilled. A casus belli would not be difficult to find.

“What is perhaps possible is something less desirable and less effective, but still capable of making world wars less probable. The United States might retain for the present its monopoly of the atomic bomb, but undertake to protect against aggression any Powers willing to enter into an alliance with it and to abstain from manufacturing their own atomic bombs. In this way, without any surrender of sovereignty, the United States could become the leader in a bloc which would be jointly irresistible.
(“What America Could Do with the Atomic Bomb”, 1945; 64, 24: 341, 341, 342, 342–3, 343, 344, 344)  

         “No country in the world has a greater interest than our own in averting a great war involving the use of atomic bombs. In such a war, even if we attempted neutrality, our neutrality would not be respected.

         “In view of American public opinion and the attitude of the American Government it is clear that no policy has a chance of being adopted unless it is in line with American nationalism. Is there any such policy which will diminish the likelihood of an atomic war?

“And perhaps in time public opinion in America and Russia might so develop that the block could be transformed into a genuine international government in which Russia would participate as the equal of America. This is the more probable since Russia could have no chance of waging successful war against such an alliance. If, however, Russia decided to risk war, her defeat might still leave civilization intact in the less populous regions of the western hemisphere even if Russia had atomic bombs. If the war came soon the damage would be much less than if it came later.

“It seems that the problem will not be solved by reason, but only by force or the threat of force.
(“Britain and the Atomic Bomb”, 1945; 65, 24: 351, 351–2, 352, 352 )  

“Then there is another point which was raised by Professor Oliphant, and that is that it will be not very difficult to spray a countryside with radio-active products which will kill every living thing throughout a wide area, not only human beings but every insect, every sort of thing that lives.

“As I go about the streets and see St. Paul's, the British Museum, the Houses of Parliament and the other monuments of our civilization, in my mind's eye I see a nightmare vision of those buildings as heaps of rubble with corpses all round them.

“Neither we nor America must seek any advantage for ourselves, but if we are to give the secret to the Russians it must be on the basis that they are willing to cooperate.

         “We must, I think, hope—and I do not think this is a chimerical hope—that the Russian Government can be made to see that the utilization of this means of warfare would mean destruction to themselves as well as to everybody else.

“I think they might be perhaps better able to persuade the Russians than those of us who are more in the game; they could, at any rate, confer with Russian scientists and perhaps get an entry that way towards genuine cooperation.
(“The International Situation”, 1945; 66, 24: 355, 356, 356, 357, 357)  

“If Great Britain were the target, it is probable that this hope would be realized, for Great Britain is peculiarly vulnerable to atomic attack, owing to the smallness of its area and the density of its population.

         “Let us consider for a moment what will be involved in the meantime in safeguarding atomic bombs and rockets. ... Sooner or later, nerves will give way, and the explosion will occur.

“It [the international authority] must have a large army of inspectors who must have the right to enter any factory without notice; any attempt to interfere with them or to obstruct their work must be treated as a casus belli.

“An alliance could be formed, consisting in the first place of all North and South America, the British Commonwealth, France, Belgium, Holland, Scandinavia, and Spain (after dealing with Franco). This alliance should proclaim certain inter- national purposes, and declare its willingness to be joined by any Power that subscribed to those purposes. There should be both military and economic inducements to join the alliance: military, in that the alliance as a whole would undertake the defence of all its members; economic, in a lower tariff for trade within the alliance than for trade with countries outside it, and also in advantages as regards loans and access to raw materials. There should be a gradual increase in the closeness of the alliance, and a continually greater amalgamation of military resources. Every possible effort should be made to induce Russia to become a member of the alliance. In this way international government might grow up grad- ually.

“The political world is complex, and understanding nuclei is no help in understanding diplomacy.

“The only possible way, in my opinion, is by a mixture of cajolery and threat, making it plain to the Soviet authorities that refusal will entail disaster, while acceptance will not.

“If the atomic bomb shocks the nations into acquiescence in a system making great wars impossible, it will have been one of the greatest boons ever conferred by science.

         “In dealing with the Soviet Government, what is most needed is definiteness.

“If Russia acquiesced willingly, all would be well. If not, it would be necessary to bring pressure to bear, even to the extent of risking war, for in that case it is pretty certain that Russia would agree. If Russia does not agree to join in forming an international government, there will be war sooner or later; it is therefore wise to use any degree of pressure that may be necessary. But pressure should not be applied until every possible conciliatory approach has been tried and has failed. I have little doubt that such a policy, vigorously pursued, would in the end secure Russian acquiescence.
(“The Atomic Bomb and the Prevention of War”, 1946; 67, 24: 361, 361–2, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 367)  

         “If the coming years are to be more than a breathing space before mutual suicide, the implications of the new situation created by the atomic bomb must be grasped, not only by the governments of the Great Powers, but by ordinary citizens.

         “Even for those who start with a favourable bias, cooperation with Russia is made almost impossible by the régime of secrecy, tyranny, and trickery, in the service of an imperialism quite as aggressive as that of Tsarist times. In Poland, Rumania, Azerbajan and Port Arthur, Russian domination has been secured by devious methods.

         “The American belief in democratic capitalism is as fanatical and as ideologically imperialistic as the belief of the Soviet Government in the Russian system.

“We should do wisely if we were to suggest that all colonial possessions of European Powers should, when not yet suitable for independence, be placed under an international authority, presumably the United Nations. In this way we should remove a cause of strife and greatly enhance our moral prestige.

         “If such a campaign is to succeed, it requires three things: a definite programme, an organization, and the enthusiasm of a great moral crusade.
(“How I Would Win the Peace”, 1946; 68, 24: 369, 370, 370, 371 , 371)  

“I am fully persuaded that nothing short of an imminent threat of war during the next few years will persuade Stalin to allow the human race to go on existing.

“These should be urgently invited to join [an international body controlling the A-bomb], under threat of war. If they refused, the war, if it came in the next few years, could be won, at the cost of destroying most of the population of Western Europe (including Great Britain), but not the entire human race. But I think it highly probable that at the last moment Russia would acquiesce.
(Pax Sovietica vs. Pax Americana, 1947; 69, 24: 374, 374)   

“These two substances [uranium and thorium] will largely replace oil as sources of dispute in power politics.

“Fear of the horrors of war, so far from promoting peace, as some optimists have imagined ever since Nobel invented dynamite, would promote hatred of possibly hostile nations, and generate the states of mind that lead to war. Sooner or later, the tension would become unbearable, and war would break out.

“If the war is prolonged, and if, as is possible, radio-active sprays kill all forms of life throughout considerable areas, while bacteriological warfare spreads pestilence, there may be a complete destruction of modern industrial technique, a catastrophic loss of population, and a reversion to small-scale local agriculture, without commerce, in the regions which have had the good fortune to escape the poisoning of their soil. This sort of disintegration happened when the Roman Empire fell, and may happen again.

“Shall we discourage science, close down the institutions in which it is pursued, and burn the books in which its discoveries are recorded? Such a course would be repugnant, not only to our lust for power, but also to our sense of human destiny. To live and die, like the brutes, without thought, without reflection on the universe, without any attempt to unravel its secrets, is treachery to our capacities and renunciation of what is best in humanity.

         “In spite of these possible advantages, however, such a solution [the supremacy of one nation via war] will be felt by almost everybody to be profoundly unsatisfactory.

         “It seems to be agreed that, to begin with, the most that can possibly be practicable is an international authority for dealing with atomic energy. The Lilienthal and Baruch reports, the latter presented to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, give the suggestions of the American Government on this problem.

         “The difficulty in securing acceptance of this scheme arises, of course, over inspection. The history of the years since 1914 has shown that governments are willing to enter into all sorts of agreements, provided there is no way of making sure that they observe them.

“Undoubtedly a moment of goodwill is necessary, but it is necessary in order to establish legal and military agreements which will outlast any transient emotion.

“There will be an end of the nightmare fears which have oppressed the human spirit in continually increasing measure since 1914, and which have led to systems of calculated cruelty unsurpassed in the previous history of the species. The pessimism of our gloomy era will vanish like snow in the sunshine of spring, and under the inspiration of returning joy a great renaissance will spread throughout the world.
(“The Outlook for Mankind”, 1947; 70, 24: 377, 377, 378, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383–4)  

“Nothing that has happened during the last ten years has caused me to modify any of the main theses of the book; some of them, indeed, have been considerably strengthened by the invention of the atomic bomb. There is, however, one respect in which I was in error. I assumed that, if the Nazis were defeated, the United States would acquire world supremacy, whereas, in fact, power is divided between that country and Russia, so that the main outlines of the third world war are already visible.

“The problem of avoiding both the alternatives, that of anarchy and that of despotism, is no doubt only soluble in part, but I believe that the kind of considerations that I have outlined in this book may, if present to the minds of rulers, do something to help in bringing about the best solution that is politically feasible.
(“Preface to the German Translation of Power, 1947; 71, 24: 386, 387)  

“It seemed to me that Mr. Gromyko was trying to make the most of certain concessions, although he was aware throughout that the concessions he was making were not such as would serve the purpose we have in view, and that he would make concessions only if he knew they would not do any good.

“I entirely agree that controlling atomic energy alone is not enough, and that ulti- mately we must have an international authority which can prevent war. But it is a step, and the machinery that is required in the one case is similar to the machinery needed in the other.

“But if all that fails, as I am inclined to think it will, and Russia, for example, still continues to object to any adequate or sufficient inspection, what are we then to do? Are we to do what I think would have to be done in that case—namely, to try to organize all the nations of the world which are in favour of international control into a somewhat tight alliance, giving them all the advantages that America at present possesses, and trying then to frighten Russia into joining that association, with all the privileges it would entail? Or are we to go on, leaving Russia outside, with the certainty that if we do so an atomic war will result?

“I cannot here and now find out the attitude of the American Government, but one does see that they seem to be drifting very fast towards an attitude which will lead towards coercion.

“In the absence of that [agreement], I think the question will arise as to what degree of coercion it would be right and proper to apply [to the U.S.S.R.].
(“ Atomic Energy Control”, 1947; 72, 24: 389, 390, 390, 390, 391)  

“We may, I think, assume that all great cities and all important industrial regions on each side would be quickly destroyed. Western Europe could find no safety in neutrality. It may be presumed that the Western part of the Continent would be occupied by Russian troops and Great Britain by American troops; therefore America would bomb the Continent and Russia would bomb Great Britain.

         “Atom bombs, which have captured popular imagination, are perhaps not the worst that is to be feared. There is every likelihood of bacteriological warfare, and of such a poisoning of the soil as shall make agriculture impossible. Destruction by such methods might be permanent.

“There are the quarrels of Jews and Arabs in Palestine, of Hindus and Muslims in India, of Chiang Kai-Shek and the Communists in China; there is the question as to who shall have the oil of Persia, and as to what shall be done with Korea.

“It should be no part of the policy of those who want international government to prohibit the manufacture of atomic bombs, or of whatever deadly successors they may have; such weapons should exist, but in the hands of the international authority, not of single nations. The more deadly are the weapons monopolized by the international authority, the more obvious will be its capacity to enforce its will, and the less will be the likelihood of resistance to its decrees.

“There should be no interference with national policy in such matters as language, religion, or education, nor should there be any attempt to favour one kind of eco- nomic system rather than another.

“It is unwise to advocate a form of virtue which, by its pacifism, makes those who adopt it impotent. If the whole Western world adopted the views of Tolstoy, that would only encourage Stalin in schemes of conquest, which, in the course of their execution, would cause the Western world to abandon its pacifism. Of this sort of thing we had experience in Munich and its sequel.

“But the temptation to abuse power would be very strong, and the probability is that there would be considerable tyranny. Perhaps, however, this would be gradually softened, as was the rule of Rome over the provinces.

“Mr. Gromyko considered that inspection by an international authority would be an intolerable indignity, unless it were conducted under two limitations: first, that no plant should be inspected unless it was avowedly concerned with atomic energy, and then only after due notice; second, that no action against violations should be taken except through the Security Council, on which the violators (if a Great Power) would have a veto. These two conditions reduce inspection to a farce, and are tantamount to outright rejection.

“If the whole world, outside Russia and her satellites, were to insist upon international control of atomic energy, to the point of being willing to go to war on this issue, it is highly probable that the Russian government would give way. If it did not, then, if the issue were forced within the next year or two, only one side would have atomic bombs, and the war might be so short as not to involve utter ruin.

         “The argument that I have been developing is as simple and as unescapable as a mathematical demonstration. I will summarize it in the following propositions:
(“International Government”, 1947; 73, 24: 395, 396, 396, 396, 397, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401)  

         “In the movement to bring atomic energy under international control, America has shown an initiative which is specially honourable in view of America's temporary monopoly. The Lilienthal and Baruch reports were admirable and deserving of the support of all sane people. The reception given them, however, was not encouraging. The Russians suspected a trick. But, trick or no trick, the Soviet Government felt that the idea of unchecked international inspection was intolerable, and yet it is, of course, entirely obvious that apart from inspection any scheme of international control is utterly futile.

         “However reluctantly, I have been driven to the conclusion that the Soviet Government foresees within a few years a situation in which it could win an atomic war. We may therefore expect its policy, if the West permits, to be one of temporizing until that time comes, while refusing steadfastly to agree to any plan which would make an atomic war impossible.

         “On the question of the international control of atomic energy, the public opinion of the world is opposed to the action of the Soviet Government. I think that America should take the lead in organizing a Grand Alliance of all those powers that are willing to consent to some such scheme as that set forth in the Lilienthal report.
        This alliance would, I am convinced, quickly come to embrace the whole world except Russia and her satellites. It should then be possible to bring such pressure to bear upon Russia as would compel her to agree to the measure of international control that all other nations had accepted.

         “In spite of these limitations, I think the international control of atomic energy is an enormously important first step. It would, in the first place, show that an interna- tional organization concerned with war is possible, and would train a body of men possessing the knowledge and experience required for any kind of international government.
(“Survival in the Atomic Age / Still Time for Good Sense”, 1947;74b, 24: Einstein's marked passages A, B, C–E, F)  

“Wars are not prevented by the realization that they will cause a lot of destruction; on the contrary, this increases mutual fear, mutual suspicion, mutual hatred, and therefore the likelihood of war and everything that makes the prospect of war more terrifying makes war more probable, so that there is no reason to think that a knowledge of the destruction that could be worked by atomic bombs will make anyone less likely to go to war.

“It has been the practice in the past to make people's flesh creep with the prospects of the next war, but the experts have not taken part much in this process, whereas now, I find that the men who know most about what atomic warfare may achieve are those who hold out the blackest picture of its possibilities.

“It would have to have an executive and judiciary; there would have to be no possibility of committing crimes against the international government. In dealing with the war criminals it would have been a great advantage if such a court had existed.

         “What I should wish to see done if I had the power to influence nations would be the very close alliance of those nations that believe in international government and international prevention of war; the United States and our own country, in fact the British Empire, could be the nucleus of such an alliance. I think one could probably get quite a number of nations to join in. One should aim at making the alliance as close as possible. ... I should like to see as soon as possible as close a union as possible of those countries who think it worth while to avoid atomic war. I think you could get so powerful an alliance that you could turn to Russia and say, 'It is open to you to join this alliance if you will agree to its terms; if you will not join we shall go to war with you.' I am inclined to think that Russia would acquiesce; if not, provided this is done soon, the world might survive the resulting war and emerge with a single government such as the world needs.

“Then there is the Russian blindness. I think the Russians because they did not invent the atomic bomb are inclined to minimize it. I do not think that Stalin himself realizes its importance. Anyone who tried to tell him about its importance would be liquidated. It is not the custom for dictators to welcome unpleasant news. It is extremely probable that Stalin knows very little about things and he is kept in ignorance of how important the atomic bomb is, so the Russians go on playing the old diplomatic game which is out of date and they do not know how serious the situation is.

“And to establish a world government the first step, in view of the attitude of the Russians at the present time, indeed, I think the only way, is to form an alliance in favour of international government of as many nations as possible and when it is formed present any recalcitrant nation with an ultimatum.
(“The International Bearings of Atomic Warfare”, 1947; 75, 24: 419, 419–20, 421, 423–4, 424, 424–5, )  

         “Before the end of the present century, unless something quite unforeseeable occurs, one of three possibilities will have been realized.

“With vastly more powerful means of utilizing atomic energy than those now available, it is thought by many sober men of science that radio-active clouds, drifting round the world, may disintegrate living tissue everywhere.

“Or—and I think this is the most hopeful of the issues that are in any degree probable—by an alliance of the nations that desire an international government, becoming, in the end, so strong that Russia would no longer dare to stand out. This might conceivably be achieved without another world war, but it would require courageous and imaginative statesmanship in a number of countries.

“I think we should admit that a world government will have to be imposed by force.

         “If things are allowed to drift, it is obvious that the bickering between Russia and the Western democracies will continue until Russia has a considerable store of atomic bombs, and that when that time comes there will be an atomic war.

“I am sure that force, or the threat of force, will be necessary. I hope the threat of force may suffice, but, if not, actual force should be employed.

“My reason for siding with America is that there is in that country more respect than in Russia for the things that I value in a civilized way of life. The things I have in mind are such as: freedom of thought, freedom of inquiry, freedom of discussion, and humane feeling. What a victory of Russia would mean is easily to be seen in Poland.

“The first step—and it is one which is now not very difficult—is to persuade the United States and the British Commonwealth of the absolute necessity for a military unification of the world. The governments of the English-speaking nations should then offer to all other nations the option of entering into a firm Alliance, involving a pooling of military resources and mutual defence against aggression. In the case of hesitant nations, such as Italy, great inducements, economic and military, should be held out to produce their cooperation.

But whether Russia would yield when threatened with war is a question as to which I do not venture an opinion.

There is hope that law, rather than private force, may come to govern the relations of nations within the present century. If this hope is not realized we face utter disaster; if it is realized, the world will be far better than at any previous period in the history of man.
(“The Future of Mankind”, 1947; 76, 24: 431, 431, 432, 432, 433, 433, 434, 436, 436, 437)  

X

(“TITLE”, 194; 64, 24: )  

X

(“TITLE”, 194; 64, 24: )  

X

(“TITLE”, 194; 64, 24: )  

X

(“TITLE”, 194; 64, 24: )  

X

(“TITLE”, 194; 64, 24: )  

X

(“TITLE”, 194; 64, 24: )  

X

(“TITLE”, 194; 64, 24: )  

X

(“TITLE”, 194; 64, 24: )  

X

(“TITLE”, 194; 64, 24: )  


* Bertrand Russell Research Centre * Faculty of Humanities * Bertrand Russell Archives * McMaster University


The text for this page was prepared at McMaster University.
Page maintained by K. Blackwell. Last updated 19 Feb. 2014.
Russell Keyword: alembics