without any quali?cation that ‘there will be no war by accident’. I have not
come across one non-Government expert who has studied this subject who
does not say the opposite. C. P. Snow, who has an exceptional right to speak
with authority, said in a recent article ‘Within at the most ten years, some of
these bombs are going o?. I am saying this as responsibly as I can. That is a
certainty.’ John B. Witchell, an engineer, who resigned his position as a
member of Canada’s Atomic Research Board in protest against the Govern-
ment’s nuclear armament policies, stated in a recent speech: ‘The demand for
instantaneous retaliation leads to a hair-trigger situation which renders
nuclear war a statistical certainty.’ He went on to say that those whom he calls
‘the o?cial liars’ will say that mistakes will be impossible. He replied to
them: ‘Let me say emphatically, positively, there can be no safeguard which
can be considered adequate.’
I could give many other quotations expressing the same view, and
trafalgar square 615none expressing the opposite view except from Government employees.
Mr Macmillan should know these facts, but evidently does not.
I will give another example of the Prime Minister’s cheerful ignorance:
speaking in Ottawa quite recently he alluded to the signs of neutralism in
Britain and told the Canadians not to be worried by them. He said, ‘If ever the
call comes to them, the young will go straight from the ranks of the neu-
tralists into the ranks of Her Majesty’s Forces, as they have so often done in the
past’. They will have to be rather quick about it, as his own Government has
told us that they will only have four minutes’ notice. At the end of the four
minutes they will be dead, whether in Her Majesty’s Forces or still among the
neutralists. The ancient rhetorical language associated with war is so ingrained
that Mr Macmillan is quite unable to realise its complete remoteness from
modern military facts.
It is not only that the organs of publicity are slow to publish facts which
militate against o?cial policy. It is also that such facts are unpleasant and,
therefore, most people soon forget them. What proportion of the inhabitants
of Britain know the o?cial report by the ?? Defence Minister of probable
casualties in a nuclear war with present armament? His o?cial guess was
160 million in the ??, 200 million in the ???? and everybody in Britain and
Western Europe. He did not regard this as a reason for changing American
policy. When one combines this estimate with the near certainty of a nuclear
war if present policies continue, it is obviously not unjust to say that the
Government of Britain is favouring a course which, if persisted in, will lead
to the death of every one of us. It may seem odd that a majority of the British
public supports the policy leading to this dreadful disaster. I do not think that
British voters would continue to do so if the facts were brought to their
notice so emphatically that they could no longer forget them. This is part of
our purpose and part of what makes spectacular action necessary.
Most people in Britain are not aware of the attitude taken by armament
experts in America to the British alliance and to the British desire to be a
nuclear Power. The most learned and detailed account of American policy in
these matters is Herman Kahn’s big book On Thermonuclear War.
He is remarkably cold-blooded and makes careful arithmetical estimates of
probable casualties. He believes that both America and Russia could more or
less survive a nuclear war and achieve economic recovery in no very long
time. Apparently – though on this he is vague – they are both to set to work at
once on preparations for another nuclear war, and this sort of thing is to go
on until not enough people are left alive for it to be possible to make a bomb.
All this has shocked liberal-minded Americans who have criticised Mr Kahn
with great severity, not realising, apparently, that he is only expounding
o?cial American policy.
There is, however, another aspect of his discussions which is of special
the autobiography of bertrand russell 616interest to Britain. He holds that Britain as an ally adds nothing to the strength
of America. He argues at length that, if Russia were to attack Britain without
attacking the United States, the United States would not intervene in spite of
obligations under ????. He shows no objection to British neutrality, and
explicitly regrets the lack of success for the suggestion that Britain should
form a non-nuclear club of which it should be a member. Britons who are
orthodox in armament policy do not seem to be aware of this American
opinion. It hurts their national pride since it considers British military power
negligible and the protection of Britain during war totally impossible. British
opponents of British neutralism all argue vehemently that the West would be
weakened if Britain became neutral. But, apparently, this is not the opinion of
orthodox American armament experts.
It is not only unpleasant facts that the public ignores: it is also some facts
which ought to be found pleasant. Khrushchev has repeatedly o?ered com-
plete disarmament by agreement combined with any degree of inspection
that the West may desire. The West shrugs its shoulders and says ‘of course, he
is not sincere’. This, however, is not the argument that really weighs with
Western Governments. Khrushchev proclaims his hope that Communists will
conquer the world by peaceful propaganda. Western Governments fear that
they cannot produce equally e?ective counter-propaganda. As Dulles said, in
an unguarded moment, ‘We are losing this cold war, but we might win a hot
one’. He did not explain what he meant by ‘winning’, but I suppose he
meant that, at the end, there might be 6 Americans and only 4 Russians.
Doubts as to sincerity have at least as much justi?cation if entertained
by the Russians towards us as they have if entertained by us towards the
Russians. The British Commonwealth has lately voted unanimously for uni-
versal and complete disarmament. Since in this matter there is complete
agreement with Khrushchev, while America is adverse, it might have been
thought that the vote of the British Commonwealth, including Britain, would
lead to a rapprochement with the Soviet Government. Instead of this, how-
ever, Kennedy and Macmillan have recently been tightening up the alliance
and proposing agreements which would make British disarmament totally
impossible. We cannot therefore take the British vote in the Commonwealth
as indicating the sincere wishes of the British Government.
I think that while we are engaged in campaigning for British unilateralism,
it is important to bear in mind the more distant objectives which give inter-
national meaning to our e?orts. Let us consider for a moment what inter-
national aims must form part of any attempt to put an end to nuclear war.
The ?rst thing to realise is that, if there are not to be nuclear wars, there
must not be wars, because any war is sure to become nuclear no matter what
treaties to the contrary may have been concluded. And if there is not to be
war, there must be machinery for settling disputes by negotiation. This
trafalgar square 617will require an international authority which shall arbitrate disputes and be
su?ciently powerful to compel obedience to its awards. None of this can
possibly come about while relations between East and West are as strained as
they are now, and while weapons of mass extermination keep the whole
world in a state of nuclear terror. Before anything that seriously diminishes
the risk of nuclear war can be achieved, there will have to be a treaty between
America and Russia and China, and an agreement to ban – not only nuclear
weapons – but also chemical and biological weapons. All this may seem
beyond the power of Britain to help or hinder. I do not think that it is.
Negotiations between East and West ever since 1945 have been abortive
because only the two contesting blocs were represented in the negotiations,
and each of them, from motives of prestige, felt unable to make the slightest
concession to the other. If there is ever to be a détente between Russia and
America, it will have to be brought about by the friendly mediation of neu-
trals. Britain, if neutral, could play an important part in this bene?cent work,
whereas Britain can do nothing in this direction while remaining a member
of ????.
These, as yet somewhat distant, vistas should, I think, be in our minds while
we are engaged in what might seem an exclusively national campaign. We have
to remember that weapons of mass extermination, once invented, remain a
potential threat even if none are actually in being. For this reason, we have to
remember, further, that, unless war is completely eliminated, the human race
is doomed. To put an end to war, which has dominated human life for 6,000
years, is no easy task. It is a heroic task, a task worthy of all the energies and all
the thought of every sane man throughout the world. I think this larger vista
may help in di?cult times to prevent discouragement and disillusion. I think
that our campaign is the best thing that Britons not in Government posts can
do, though it is only a small part of what the world needs.
Extempore comment added by Lord Russell to the foregoing speech
And I would like to say in conclusion that what I suppose most of us feel most
strongly and what makes us willing to make sacri?ces for the cause is the
extraordinary wickedness of these weapons of mass destruction. We used to
think that Hitler was wicked when he wanted to kill all the Jews, but Kennedy
and Macmillan and others both in the East and in the West pursue policies
which will probably lead to killing not only all the Jews but all the rest of us
too. They are much more wicked than Hitler and this idea of weapons of
mass extermination is utterly and absolutely horrible and it is a thing which
no man with one spark of humanity can tolerate and I will not pretend to
obey a government which is organising the massacre of the whole of man-
kind. I will do anything I can to oppose such Governments in any non-violent
way that seems likely to be fruitful, and I should exhort all of you to feel the
the autobiography of bertrand russell 618same way. We cannot obey these murderers. They are wicked and abomin-
able. They are the wickedest people that ever lived in the history of man and it
is our duty to do what we can.
[The last phrase of these extempore observations – ‘They are the wicked-
est people that ever lived’ – was taken up by the Press and published
throughout Britain and the world, usually without the preceding extempore
remarks and with no indication that they had been preceded by a carefully
built up speech giving the documentation necessary to support such a
conclusion.]
My Statement at Bow Street, September 12, 1961
If the Court permits, I should like to make a short statement as to the reasons
for my present course. This is my personal statement, but I hope that those
who are accused of the same so-called crime will be in sympathy with what I
have to say.
It was only step by step and with great reluctance that we were driven to
non-violent civil disobedience.
Ever since the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, I
have been profoundly troubled by the danger of nuclear warfare. I began my
attempt to warn people by entirely orthodox methods. I expressed my fears in
a speech in the House of Lords three months after the bombs were dropped
in Japan. I called together scientists of the highest eminence from all parts of
the world and am now Chairman of their periodic meetings. They issue wise
and reasoned reports concerning nuclear warfare, its probable disastrous
results, and ways of preventing its occurrence. No newspaper notices these
reports and they have no e?ect either on Governments or on public opinion.
The popular Press minimises and ridicules the e?ort of those working against
nuclear warfare, and television, with rare exceptions, is closed to us. In recent
months one television company, and only one, o?ered me two minutes for
general platitudes, but when I said I should wish to speak on Berlin the o?er
was withdrawn.
It has seemed to some of us that, in a country supposed to be a dem-
ocracy, the public should know the probable consequences of present Great-
Power policies in East and West. Patriotism and humanity alike urged us to
seek some way of saving our country and the world. No one can desire the
slaughter of our families, friends, our compatriots and a majority of the
human race in a contest in which there will be only vanquished and no
victors. We feel it a profound and inescapable duty to make the facts known
and thereby save at least a thousand million human lives. We cannot escape
this duty by submitting to orders which, we are convinced, would not be
issued if the likelihood and the horror of nuclear war were more generally
understood.
trafalgar square 619Non-violent civil disobedience was forced upon us by the fact that it was
more fully reported than other methods of making the facts known, and that
caused people to ask what had induced us to adopt such a course of action.
We who are here accused are prepared to su?er imprisonment because we
believe that this is the most e?ective way of working for the salvation of our
country and the world. If you condemn us you will be helping our cause, and
therefore humanity.
While life remains to us we will not cease to do what lies in our power to
avert the greatest calamity that has ever threatened mankind.
The text of a lea?et issued while I was in Brixton Prison
? ??????? ???? ???????? ???????
To all, in whatever country who are still capable of sane thinking or human
feeling:
Friends
Along with valued colleagues I am to be silenced for a time – perhaps for ever,
for who can tell how soon the great massacre will take place?
The populations of East and West, misled by stubborn governments in
search of prestige and by corrupt o?cial experts bent on retaining their
posts, tamely acquiesce in policies which are almost certain to end in
nuclear war.
There are supposed to be two sides, each professing to stand for a great
cause. This is a delusion – Kennedy and Khrushchev, Adenauer and de Gaulle,
Macmillan and Gaitskell, are pursuing a common aim: the ending of human
life.
You, your families, your friends and your countries are to be exterminated
by the common decision of a few brutal but powerful men. To please these
men, all the private a?ections, all the public hopes, all that has been achieved
in art, and knowledge and thought and all that might be achieved hereafter is
to be wiped out forever.
Our ruined lifeless planet will continue for countless ages to circle
aimlessly round the sun unredeemed by the joys and loves, the occasional
wisdom and the power to create beauty which have given value to human
life.
It is for seeking to prevent this that we are in prison.
Bertrand Russell
the autobiography of bertrand russell 620From Augustus John
Fryern Court,
Fordingbridge, Hants.
[postmarked 15 Feb. 1961]
Dear Lord Russell
Your message was brought to me while I was working in the studio (not
the one you knew but one further o?) by the gardener. I told him how to
reply, which he said he understood but I don’t know if he did so correctly.
All I wanted to say was that I believed in the object of the demonstration and
would like to go to prison if necessary. I didn’t want to parade my physical
disabilities though I still have to follow the instructions of my doctor, who I
think saved my life when I was in danger of coronary thrombosis. A very
distinguished medical authority who was consulted, took a very pessimistic
view of my case, but my local doctor, undeterred, continued his treatment
and I feel sure, saved my life.
All this I meant privately & am sure you understood, even if the gardener
garbled it when telephoning. I wish the greatest success for the demonstra-
tion on the 18th although I can only be with you in spirit.
Yours sincerely
Augustus John
P.S. This requires no answer.
My speech in Trafalgar Square, October 29, 1961
Friends
During the last decades there have been many people who have been loud in
condemnation of the Germans for having permitted the growth of Nazi evil
and atrocities in their country. ‘How,’ these people ask, ‘could the Germans
allow themselves to remain unaware of the evil? Why did they not risk their
comfort, their livelihood, even their lives to combat it?’
Now a more all-embracing danger threatens us all – the danger of nuclear
war. I am very proud that there is in this country a rapidly growing com-
pany of people who refuse to remain unaware of the danger, or ignorant of
the facts concerning the policies that enable, and force, us to live in such
danger. I am even prouder to be associated with those many among them
who, at whatever risk of discomfort and often of very real hardship, are
willing to take drastic action to uphold their belief. They have laid them-
selves open to the charges of being silly, being exhibitionist, being law-
breakers, being traitors. They have su?ered ostracism and imprisonment,
sometimes repeatedly, in order to call attention to the facts that they have
made the e?ort to learn. It is a great happiness to me to welcome so many
of them here – I wish that I could say all of them, but some are still in
trafalgar square 621prison. We none of us, however, can be entirely happy until our immediate
aim has been achieved and the threat of nuclear war has become a thing of
the past. Then such actions as we have taken and shall take will no longer be
necessary.
We all wish that there shall be no nuclear war, but I do not think that the
country realises, or even that many of us here present realise, the very con-
siderable likelihood of a nuclear war within the next few months. We are all
aware of Khrushchev’s resumption of tests and of his threat to explode a
50 megaton bomb.
We all deplore these provocative acts. But I think we are less aware of the
rapidly growing feeling in America in favour of a nuclear war in the very near
future. In America, the actions of Congress are very largely determined by
lobbies representing this or that interest. The armament lobby, which repre-
sents both the economic interests of armament ?rms and the warlike ardour
of generals and admirals, is exceedingly powerful, and it is very doubtful
whether the President will be able to stand out against the pressure which it is
exerting. Its aims are set forth in a quite recent policy statement by the Air
Force Association, which is the most terrifying document that I have ever
read. It begins by stating that preservation of the status quo is not adequate as a
national goal. I quote: ‘Freedom must bury Communism or be buried by
Communism. Complete eradication of the Soviet system must be our national
goal, our obligation to all free people, our promise of hope to all who are not
free.’ It is a curious hope that is being promised, since it can only be realised
in heaven, for the only ‘promise’ that the West can hope to ful?l is the
promise to turn Eastern populations into corpses. The noble patriots who
make this pronouncement omit to mention that Western populations also
will be exterminated.
‘We are determined’, they say, ‘to back our words with action even at the
risk of war. We seek not merely to preserve our freedoms, but to extend
them.’ The word ‘freedom’, which is a favourite word of Western war-
mongers, has to be understood in a somewhat peculiar sense. It means free-
dom for warmongers and prison for those who oppose them. A freedom
scarcely distinguishable from this exists in Soviet Russia. The document that I
am discussing says that we should employ bombs against Soviet aggression,
even if the aggression is non-nuclear and even if it consists only of in?ltra-
tion. We must have, it says, ‘ability to ?ght, win, and purposefully survive a
general nuclear war’. This aim is, of course, impossible to realise, but, by
using their peculiar brand of ‘freedom’ to cause belief in lies, they hope to
persuade a deliberately uninformed public opinion to join in their race
towards death. They are careful to promise us that H-bombs will not be the
worst things they have to o?er. ‘Nuclear weapons’, they say, ‘are not the end
of military development. There is no reason to believe that nuclear weapons,
the autobiography of bertrand russell 622no matter how much they may increase in number and ferocity, mark the end
of the line in military systems’ development.’ They explain their meaning by
saying, ‘We must utilise ?? space technology as a prime factor in the inter-
national power equation’. They lead up to a noble peroration: ‘Soviet aims are
both evil and implacable. The people (i.e. the American people) are willing to
work toward, and ?ght for if necessary, the elimination of Communism from
the world scene. Let the issue be joined.’
This ferocious document, which amounts to a sentence of death on the
human race, does not consist of the idle vapourings of acknowledged cranks.
On the contrary, it represents the enormous economic power of the arma-
ment industry, which is re-enforced in the public mind by the cleverly
instilled fear that disarmament would bring a new depression. This fear has
been instilled in spite of the fact that Americans have been assured in the Wall
Street Journal that a new depression would not be brought about, that the
conversion from armaments to manufactures for peace could be made
with little dislocation. Reputable economists in other countries support
this Wall Street view. But the armament ?rms exploit patriotism and anti-
communism as means of transferring the taxpayers’ money into their own
pockets. Ruthlessly, and probably consciously, they are leading the world
towards disaster.
Two days ago The Times published an article by its correspondent in
Washington which began: ‘The United States has decided that any attempt by
East Germany to close the Friedrichstrasse crossing between West and East
Berlin will be met by force.’
These facts about both America and Russia strengthen my belief that the
aims that I have been advocating for some years, and upon which some of us
are agreed, are right. I believe that Britain should become neutral, leaving
???? – to which, in any case, she adds only negligible strength. I believe this
partly because I believe that Britain would be safer as a neutral, and without a
bomb of her own or the illusory ‘protection’ of the American bomb, and
without bases for foreign troops; and, perhaps more important, I believe it
because, if Britain were neutral, she could do more to help to achieve peace in
the world than she can do now. I do not believe that either America or Russia
should disarm unilaterally, because whichever did not do so ?rst would
automatically become ruler of the world. I believe that they should disarm as
a result of negotiations and agreement to do so. In order to achieve this
agreement, I think that Britain might have a very important role to play, for I
believe that it can only be brought about if the neutrals form a sort of
balancing committee to put forward and argue possible compromises. Then
Britain could pro?tably add her political experience to this committee. In
the present state of a?airs she can do nothing to forward governmental
movement towards peace. I should like to think that the example of Britain
trafalgar square 623unilaterally disarming and, untramelled, taking up the cudgels for peace
would persuade some other countries to disarm unilaterally. Then we should
be able to throw a heavy weight towards persuading America and Russia to
disarm multilaterally.
I have heard the criticism that we uphold only negative aims. I should like
to point out that the policy just outlined is quite positive. All our aims, the
most immediate and the most distant, are positive – whether they happen to
be stated in negative terms or not.
But to return –
The British Government is less ruthless than the American, but shrinks
from open opposition to American Jingoism. It is our hope that, before it is
too late, we may overcome this shrinking timidity. Our methods must be
dominated by the knowledge that the time is short. We are censured as
disobeying orders by the very men who, in the Nuremberg Trials, punished
the Germans for not disobeying orders. There are Committees of 100 starting
up in various parts of this country. But not only here. Since September 17th,
the support given us from all parts of the world from individuals, by already
established movements having similar aims, even by newly established
Committees of 100 in other countries, has been astounding. All these people
throughout the world must be encouraged. We must build up – and we must
do it quickly – a great world-wide mass movement of people demanding the
abandonment of nuclear weapons, the abandonment of war as a means of
settling disputes. Although the time may be short, our movement is gaining
strength day by day. I repeat, and shall go on repeating:
We can win, and we must.
Note to above speech:
[After Khrushchev’s abandonment of violence in the Cuba crisis, the
danger of war became less immediate, and Russian policy became some-
what milder.]
??????????? ??? ? ????? ??: ????????? ?????????
The Assembly should empower the Secretary General to appoint a small
committee consisting entirely of members of uncommitted nations which
should be charged with the task of investigating matters in debate between
East and West as they arise, with a view to suggesting compromise solutions
which both sides could accept without loss of face. These solutions should be
such as to give no net advantage to either side since if they favoured one side,
the other would not accept them. They should also be such as to diminish
friction at danger points such as Berlin.
the autobiography of bertrand russell 624This ‘Balancing Committee’ should publish the suggestions on whatever
problems it investigated and seek to rally to the support of these suggestions
?rst neutral opinion and then, if possible, the opinion of Eastern and Western
negotiators. The members of the ‘Balancing Committee’ should command
public respect in their several countries but should not be responsible to the
national governments of the states from which they come.
The Committee should be small, since, otherwise, it will not reach
decisions until they are out of date. It may be hoped that in time the sugges-
tions of the ‘Balancing Committee’ would acquire moral authority and be
di?cult for either side to resist.
Statement re: ???? ??????
??? ??? ?? ??? Not in the course of nature, but within a few
weeks, and not you alone, but your family, your
friends, and all the inhabitants of Britain,
together with many hundreds of millions of
innocent people elsewhere.
???? Because rich Americans dislike the Government
that Cubans prefer, and have used part of their
wealth to spread lies about it.
???? ??? ??? ??? You can go out into the streets and into the mar-
ket place, proclaiming: ‘Do not yield to ferocious
and insane murderers. Do not imagine that it is
your duty to die when your Prime Minister and
