of himself. For unless thoroughly bestialised, no man could possibly give out
such sounds from his mouth.
When, or if, you ever entertain shame and self-disgust (and I pray it may
at home and abroad 565be soon), I suggest that you gather and destroy every sound-record of your
voice: you owe that reparation at least.
God help you.
Yours truly
H. McHaigh
From and to H. N. Brailsford
37 Belsize Park Gardens
London
N.W.3
19 May 1952
My Dear Russell
You have been overwhelmed, I’m sure, with congratulations, and yet I
would like to add mine, for few can have come from friends who knew you
in the last century. I recall vividly our ?rst meeting at the Courtneys during
the Boer War. I welcome this birthday because it gives me a happy occasion to
thank you for all I have gained from your writings. Best of all in these days
were the courage and optimism of your recent broadcasts.
Evamaria joins me in sending you, with our gratitude, our warmest
greetings.
Yours ever
Noel Brailsford
[undated] May 1952
My dear Brailsford
Thank you for your letter of May 19. I owe much to you. Your review of
my Social Reconstruction encouraged me more than any other at a time when I
very much needed encouragement. I caused fury in Cambridge by quoting
from your War of Steel and Gold a passage showing how much parsons and such
were making out of armaments. The fury was of a sort of which I was glad to
cause. I am very glad you have liked my recent broadcasts. Please convey my
thanks to Mrs Brailsford as well as to yourself.
Yours ever
Bertrand Russell
From Ernest Jones, the psycho-analyst
The Plat
Elsted, Nr. Midhurst, Sx.
February 20, 1955
Dear Bertrand Russell
What pleasure you have given to a host of people by your characteristically
courageous, forthright and penetrating observations in today’s Observer. You
the autobiography of bertrand russell 566and W. K. Cli?ord greatly resemble each other in these attributes. I wonder
how much the study of mathematics conduced to them in both of you. Your
concluding paragraph might be a paraphrase of the concluding one in his
Lectures and Essays, a copy of which I enclose in case you have mislaid his book.
Many of his Essays could very well be reprinted to-day. It is sad to think that
the eighty years since he wrote them have shown such little progress in the
apprehension of the clear principles he enunciated.
By the way, he quotes elsewhere Coleridge’s pungent aphorism: ‘He who
begins by loving Christianity better than Truth, will proceed by loving his
own sect or Church better than Christiantiy, and end in loving himself better
than all.’
Yours very sincerely
Ernest Jones
The Plat
Elsted, Nr. Midhurst. Sx.
April 25, 1955
Dear Bertrand Russell
In your luminous essay on Einstein in the Observer there is one sentence
which I am a little inclined to question: it is about his being surprisingly
indi?erent to empirical con?rmations. The following is a quotation from a
letter he wrote to Freud in April 1936:
‘Bis vor Kurzem war mir nur die spekulative Kraft Ihrer Gedankeng?nge sowie der gewaltige
Ein?uss auf die Weltanschauung der Gegenwart klar geworden, ohne mir über den Wahrheitswert
Ihrer Theorien klar werden zu k?nnen. In letzter Zeit aber hatte ich Gelegenheit von einigen an sich
geringfügigen F?llen zu h?ren, die jegliche abweichende Auslegung (von der Verdr?ngungslehre
abweichend) ausschliessen. Dies empfand ich als beglückend; denn es ist stets beglückend, wenn eine
grosse und sch?ne Idee sich als in der Wirklichkeit zutre?end erweist.’
3
I had taken the concluding sentence to be based on his own experience,
such as the 1919 bending of light, etc.
If a subscription or the use of my name could make any contribution to the
magni?cent campaign you inaugurated in Rome pray command me.
Yours sincerely
Ernest Jones
at home and abroad 567Miss Graves was a deeply religious lady who surprised me by her tolerance. I ?rst came in contact
with her over Chinese a?airs. Afterwards she was chie?y concerned with Latin America.
From Anna Melissa Graves
921 Jahncke Ave.
Covington, Louisiana
USA
February 24, 1957
Dear Lord Russell
I have not heard from Victor Haya de la Torre, that is I have not had a letter,
but he sent me an account of himself which appeared in The Observer, and from
that account or ‘interview’ he had evidently made the pilgrimage to see you. I
am glad for I am sure that seeing you and meeting you was – or should have
been – of real bene?t to him. I hope you did not think the time you gave him
wasted.
In this ‘interview’ he said you were so ‘true’ and ‘hopeful’. He does not
need the example of optimism, having always been a believer in a better time
coming; but most Latin Americans – perhaps all politicians of every land need
the example of anyone to whom Truth means as much as it does to you. I am
very glad he recognised that ?rst of all in you.
I wonder if you remember I asked you if you could to return his letter to
me, asking me to ask you to receive him. It was enclosed in my second note
to you and you answered the ?rst note. It would be very natural if you
thought the second note did not need an answer; but if you have not des-
troyed or mislaid Victor’s letter I should be grateful if you could return it; but
if it is lost that would not be at all a serious matter.
I should also be grateful if you told me your impression of him. I think I
am going to Los Angeles, California, to live with Anna Louise Strong. I think I
can do more for the Negroes here after having lived here than I could if
I stayed. If one does what one longs to do, one often gets them into trouble.
I think the condition here is worse than it is (or rather worse than it was
when Reginald Reynolds wrote his book) worse here than in South Africa, of
course not worse than in Kenya, but in South Africa the non-Africans (British
and Boers) who wish to treat the Africans justly seem freer to – seemed freer
to – work for justice than one is here. Eastland is very determined to call all
who are working for justice to the Negroes – ‘Communists’, ‘Agents of
Moscow’. But it is not the Eastlands who are so dangerous, it is the cultured
charming ‘White-Southerners’. They could end all the injustice, but then
they would not be themselves if they did. They can’t open their eyes, because
they don’t dare.
Very sincerely yours, and gratefully for giving time to Victor
Anna Melissa Graves
the autobiography of bertrand russell 568From Clement Davies
31 Evelyn Mansions
Carlisle Place
London S.W.1
[Dec. 24, 54]
My dear Bertrand Russell
May I be allowed to say ‘thank you’ for your splendid Broadcast speech last
night. I say my ‘thank you’ most sincerely. What memories you stirred!! and
how my thoughts went speeding along with yours at a super-sonic rate. Yes,
we have accomplished much that I longed to see done 50 and more years
ago – and how one battled in those days against great odds, while, today,
those very opponents not only are on our side but actually are so enthusiastic
about the reforms that they claim they originated them.
The remembrance of those days and the changes that have been brought
about and secured, hearten me with regard to the International Situation. The
odds against your and my ideals and against adopting Reason instead of Force
as the arbiter in human di?erences are so apparently strong that our struggles
might seem hopeless. But here again, we shall see and see soon a great change
and if our experience in home a?airs is repeated in International a?airs, then
those who today oppose us and reject our remedies, will not only accept
the remedies but claim that they and they alone were responsible for them
and that they brought to su?ering humanity the Peace which all men &
women desire.
Well; I hope I am right, and I shall cheer them loud and long, just as I today
cheer my opponents who long ago said they would not lick stamps.
Again my most grateful thanks. With our united warmest regards & wishes
to you both
Very sincerely yours
Clement Davies
31 Evelyn Mansions
Carlisle Place
London, S.W.1
Sept. 19, 55
My dear Bertrand Russell
You have tempted me into reminiscence by recalling your excursion into
the political arena against the redoubtable Joe Chamberlain and his raging
tearing propaganda in favour of tari?s and ultra nationalism.
My ?rst e?ort was also against the formidable Joe. It was in November
1899 and I was of the very ripe experienced age of 15. I went on the platform
at a Tory meeting to denounce the South African War – my oratory was not
allowed to last long in spite of a strenuous e?ort, and I returned home with
at home and abroad 569black eyes (two) and a bloody nose. It was not so much an anti-war e?ort as a
Defence of the Boers. Little did I dream that they would misuse the Freedom
which we wanted them to have and which we restored to them in 1906 – to
the disadvantage of the Black and Coloured Africans.
With warmest regards & best wishes from us to you both
Ever yours sincerely
Clement Davies
????? ??????????
by
??? ???? ???????
at
Caxton Hall, Westminster
on
Saturday, 9th July, 1955
Professor J. ???????: Ladies and gentlemen, this conference was called by
Lord Bertrand Russell in order to make public a statement signed by a num-
ber of scientists on the signi?cance of nuclear warfare. I hope that each of you
received a copy of the statement. I am going to call on Lord Russell to give
you a short summary of this statement and afterwards it will be open to you
to ask questions relating to this topic. Lord Russell.
Earl ???????: Ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of this conference is to
bring to your notice, and through you to the notice of the world, a statement
signed by eight of the most eminent scientists in the ?eld cognate to nuclear
warfare, about the perils that are involved in nuclear warfare and the absolute
necessity therefore of avoiding war.
I will just read you a brief abstract here which I think you already have:
‘The accompanying statement, which has been signed by some of the most
eminent scienti?c authorities in di?erent parts of the world, deals with the
perils of a nuclear war. It makes it clear that neither side can hope for victory
in such a war, and that there is a very real danger of the extermination of the
human race by dust and rain from radio-active clouds. It suggests that neither
the public nor the governments of the world are adequately aware of the
danger. It points out that an agreed prohibition of nuclear weapons, while it
might be useful in lessening tension, would not a?ord a solution, since such
weapons would certainly be manufactured and used in a great war in spite of
previous agreements to the contrary. The only hope for mankind is the avoid-
ance of war. To call for a way of thinking which shall make such avoidance
possible is the purpose of this statement.
The ?rst move came as a collaboration between Einstein and myself.
Einstein’s signature was given in the last week of his life. Since his death I
the autobiography of bertrand russell 570have approached men of scienti?c competence both in the East and in the
West, for political disagreements should not in?uence men of science in
estimating what is probable, but some of those approached have not yet
replied. I am bringing the warning pronounced by the signatories to the
notice of all the powerful Governments of the world in the earnest hope that
they may agree to allow their citizens to survive.’
Now I should like to say just a little about the genesis of this statement. I
think it was an outcome of a broadcast which I gave on the 23rd December
last year on the ??? on the perils of nuclear war. I had appreciative letters
from various people, among others from Professor Joliot-Curie, the eminent
French man of science, and I was particularly pleased at getting an apprecia-
tive letter from him because of his being a noted Communist.
I thought that one of the purposes that I had in view was to build a bridge
between people of opposing political opinions. That is to say, to unite men of
science on a statement of facts which would leave out all talk of what people
thought in the matter of politics. I wrote to Einstein suggesting that eminent
men of science should do something dramatic about nuclear war, and I got a
reply from him saying that he agreed with every word. I therefore drew up a
draft, after consultation with a certain number of people, which I sent to
Einstein and he – being already not in very good health – suggested, I quote
his own phrase, that I ‘should regard myself as dictator of the enterprise’
because I think chie?y his health was not equal to doing it. When I sent him
the draft he replied, ‘I am gladly willing to sign your excellent statement’. I
received this letter on the very day of his death and after I had received news
of his death, so that this was I suppose about the very last public act of his life.
The aims of drawing up the statement were to keep to what men of science
as such can pronounce upon, to avoid politics and thus to get signatures
both from the Right and from the Left. Science ought to be impartial, and I
thought that one could get a body of agreement among men of di?ering
politics on the importance of avoiding nuclear war, and I think that in that
respect this document is fairly successful.
There are, apart from myself, eight signatories
4
of the document. All eight
are exceedingly eminent in the scienti?c world. Most of them are nuclear
physicists, some in a ?eld which is very important in this connection, geneti-
cists, and men who know about mutations caused by radiation, a very
important subject which arises when you are considering nuclear warfare.
But they were chosen solely and only for their scienti?c eminence and with
no other view.
I applied to eighteen, I think, altogether and of these, half, or nearly half,
eight
5
in fact, agreed. Some I have not yet heard from for various reasons. In
particular, I applied to the most eminent of Chinese physicists, Dr Le Szi
Kuang, and I have not yet had his answer. None of the answers I have received
at home and abroad 571were unsympathetic. Those who did not sign had various good reasons, for
instance, that they had o?cial positions or were engaged in some o?cial
work which made it di?cult, but nobody either of Right or of the Left
replied in a manner that was unsympathetic.
I had one signature from Professor Infeld of the University of Warsaw, who
was joint author with Einstein of two books. I had not a signature, but a very
sympathetic letter, from Skobeltsyn of Moscow. Professor Joliot-Curie was, in
the ?rst-place, son-in-law of the discoverer of radium, but he does not
depend on that for his fame, he is a Nobel prizewinner. He is the sixth of the
eight who has got the Nobel Prize for work of scienti?c character; and the
other two I think probably will get the Nobel Prize before very long! That is
the order of eminence of these men.
Mr Joliot-Curie made two reservations, one of which was of some impor-
tance, the other not so important. I spoke of the necessity for limitations of
sovereignty and he wants it added that these limitations are to be agreed by all
and in the interests of all, and that is a statement which I entirely agreed to.
Then there is another reservation that he made. I say, ‘Shall we put an end to
the human race: or shall mankind renounce war?’ and he wants to say, ‘Shall
mankind renounce war as a means of settling di?erences between states?’
With these limitations he agreed to sign the document.
Professor Muller also made a very small reservation that seemed only to be
explaining what I had meant.
I will say just a few words about these men, some of whom possibly are
not so well known in the journalistic world as they are in the scienti?c world.
They consist of two British scientists, two Americans – Einstein himself,
whom I do not reckon among Americans, because Einstein’s nationality is
somewhat universal – one Pole, one Frenchman and one Japanese. Professor
Rotblat I am very happy to have here. He is, as you know, Director of Research
in Nuclear Physics in Liverpool.
6
He did a very interesting piece of what you
might almost call detective work about the Bikini bomb. Those of you who
are old enough may possibly remember that in 1945 people were quite
shocked by the atom bomb. Well that seems now ancient history if you think
of the atom bomb as something like bows and arrows.
We advanced from that to the H-bomb which was very much worse than
the atom bomb and then it turned out, at ?rst I think through the detective
work of Professor Rotblat and afterwards by the admission of the American
authorities, that the bomb exploded at Bikini was very much worse than an
H-bomb. The H-bomb now is ancient history. You have a twofold trigger
arrangement. You have ?rst uranium 235 to set o? the hydrogen. Then you
have the hydrogen to set o? uranium 238, of which there are vast slag heaps
discarded in producing uranium 235. Now we use uranium 238 for the
purpose, it is very much cheaper to make, the bombs are very much more
the autobiography of bertrand russell 572destructive when they are made, and so you see science advances rapidly. So
far the Bikini bomb is the latest thing, but we cannot tell where we are going
to come to.
I think that this statement, as I conceive it, is only a ?rst step. It will be
necessary to go on to get the men of science to make authoritative pro-
nouncements on the facts and I think that should be followed by an Inter-
national Congress of men of science from all scienti?c countries at which the
signatories would, I hope, propose some such resolution as I have suggested
at the end of this statement. I think resolutions with something of those
terms could be suggested at the various national congresses that take place in
due time. I think that the men of science should make the public and the
governments of the world aware of the facts by means of a widespread
popular campaign. You know it is a very di?cult thing to get men of science
to embark on popular campaigns; they are not used to that sort of thing and it
does not come readily to them, but it is their duty, I think, at this time to
make the public aware of things; they have to persuade the world to avoid
war, at ?rst by whatever expedients may suggest themselves, but ultimately by
some international machinery that shall make the avoidance of war not a
matter of day-to-day expedients but of world organisation. I think they
should emphasise that science, which has come to have a rather sinister
meaning in the minds of the general public, I think, if once this question of
war were out of the way, would be capable of conferring the most enormous
bene?ts upon mankind and making the world a very much happier place
than it has ever been before. I think they should emphasise that as well as the
dangers that arise through war.
I am here to answer questions, and I should be very happy to do my best to
answer any questions that any of you may wish to ask.
at home and abroad 57316
TRAFALGAR SQUARE
During the ?rst ?ve months of 1957 I made a great many broadcasts for the
???. Almost the last of these was an interview between Alan Wood and
myself and a representative of the ??? in connection with Alan’s publication
of his biography of me. Alan was bitterly disappointed by this interview. His
experience of broadcasting was less than mine and so he was considerably
surprised when the lady who represented the ??? asked us questions which
she had not asked at our rehearsal, indeed which concerned subjects such as
my private life. We were both somewhat disconcerted by her questions.
However, the book itself had a good reception in spite of being rather tepidly
advertised. It seems to me to be an excellent piece of work.
I very much hope that Alan was happy in the reviews given to the book. We
launched it pleasantly among some of my old friends and relations at a small
party at Millbank on my birthday. This was almost the last time that I saw
Alan. He fell very ill shortly after this and died in October. A little over two
months later, his wife, Mary, died. It was a heart-breaking loss. They were
young and happy and clever and able, and full of plans for their future and
that of their two small sons. Their loss to me was incalculable. I not only was
very fond of them, but had come to depend upon their knowledge of every-
thing to do with me and their sympathetic understanding, and I greatly
enjoyed their companionship.
It must be said that there were limitations to Alan’s understanding of the
matters discussed in my books. This showed particularly in regard to political
matters. I regarded him as rather conservative, and he regarded me as more
radical than I was or am. When I argued that everybody ought to have a vote,
he thought that I was maintaining that all men are equal in ability. I only
disabused him of this belief by pointing out that I had supported eugenics,which is concerned with di?erences in natural ability. Such disagreements,
however, never marred our friendship, and never intruded in purely philo-
sophical conversations.
These sad happenings and the fact that my wife fell ill of a bad heart attack
in early June dislocated and slowed up our activities for some months. I got
through little that could be of any conceivable public interest for some time.
By November, however, my concern with international a?airs had boiled up. I
felt that I must again do something to urge at least a modicum of common
sense to break into the policies of the two Great Powers, Russia and America.
They seemed to be blindly, but with determination, careering down a not
very primrose-strewn path to destruction, a destruction that might – probably
would – engulf us all. I wrote an open letter, to President Eisenhower and
Premier Khrushchev, addressing them as ‘Most Potent Sirs’. In it I tried to
make clear the fact that the things which they held in common were far more
numerous and far more important than their di?erences, and that they had
much more to gain than to lose by co-operation. I believed then, as I still
believe, in the necessity of co-operation between nations as the sole method
of avoiding war; and avoidance of war is the only means of avoiding disaster.
This, of course, involves rather disagreeable concessions by all nations. A
decade later, Russia seemed to have recognised the need of co-operation –
except, possibly, in relations to her co-Marxist State, China. The United States
continued to confound co-operation with domination. But, in 1958, I had
hope, though slight hope, of both Great Powers coming to their senses, and
in this letter I tried to lay my case before them.
Almost at once a reply came from Premier Khrushchev. No answer came
from President Eisenhower. Two months later John Foster Dulles replied for
him. This reply stung Premier Khrushchev into writing to me again answer-
ing various points made by Mr Dulles. All these letters appeared in the New
Statesman. They were soon published in book form with an introduction by
that paper’s editor, Kingsley Martin, and a ?nal reply from me to Mr Dulles
and Mr Khrushchev. The letters speak for themselves and my ?nal reply gives
my point of view on them. The righteously adamantine surface of Mr Dulles’s
mind as shown in his letter ?lled me with greater foreboding than did the
fulminations and, sometimes, contradictions of Mr Khrushchev. The latter
seemed to me to show some underlying understanding of alternatives and
realities; the former, none.
During that autumn, George Kennan had been giving the Reith Lectures
over the ??? and saying some excellent things drawn with acumen from his
wide and ?rst-hand knowledge of American and Russian policies. Early in
December a group of us met with Kingsley Martin at his invitation to
talk things over. As far as I remember it was at this meeting that the ?rst
glimmerings ?ickered of what was to become the Campaign for Nuclear
trafalgar square 575Disarmament. A meeting of the sponsors of the National Council for the
Abolition of Nuclear Weapons Tests was held at the house of Canon John
Collins in Amen Court and the ??? was formally started early in January,
1958. The o?cers were to be: Canon Collins, the Chairman; Mrs Peggy Du?,
the Secretary; and myself, the President. An Executive Committee was formed
comprising some of those leaders already established in anti-nuclear move-
ments and a certain number of other interested notables. There had been for
some time various associations working to overcome the dangers with which
the international scene was fraught. The ??? proposed to take them all in –
or at least almost all.
The ??? was publicly launched at a large meeting at the Central Hall,
Westminster, on February 17, 1958. So many people attended this meeting
that there had to be over?ow meetings. It seems now to many people as if the
??? has been part of the national scene from the beginning of time, and it
has lost its lustre and energy through familiarity. But in its early days its
information and reasoning were not only sincere but were fresh and com-
