our Tribunal. It amused me considerably that many of these same critics
had shortly before this been among the staunchest supporters of the
Warren Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy.
2
Their new
found interest in impartiality did, however, give us the opportunity to
explain our own position. Clearly, we had all given considerable thought
to some of the evidence we were about to assess. Our minds were not
empty, but neither were they closed. I believed that the integrity of the
members of the Tribunal, the fact that they represented no state power
and the complete openness of the hearings would ensure the objectivity of
the proceedings. We also decided to accept possible evidence from any
source, so I wrote to President Johnson inviting him to attend the Tribunal.
Unfortunately, he was too busy planning the bombardment of the Vietnamese
to reply.
All this stir concerning the Tribunal naturally caused fresh interest in
the Foundation itself. The Atlantic Peace Foundation remained a registered
charity; the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation became a company limited by
guarantee, and has branches in several countries: Argentina, Australia and
New Zealand, France, India, Italy, Japan, the Philippines, and the United
States. In London it not only retained the small central o?ces o? the
Haymarket, which it had from its inception, but it provided a larger o?ce for
the War Crimes Tribunal. It also bought a larger freehold property into which
much of the work has been transferred. All this placed the work on a ?rmer
footing and prepared the way for further developments. For perhaps the ?rst
time, I was conscious of activity, centred on the Tribunal, involving world-
wide support.
In the late forties and early ?fties, I had been profoundly impressed by the
horror of Stalin’s dictatorship, which had led me to believe that there would
be no easy resolution of the cold war. I later came to see that for all his
the foundation 645ruthlessness, Stalin had been very conservative. I had assumed, like most
people in the West, that his tyranny was expansionist, but later evidence made
it clear that it was the West that had given him Eastern Europe as part of the
spoils of the Second World War, and that, for the most part, he had kept his
agreements with the West. After his death, I earnestly hoped that the world
would come to see the folly and danger of living permanently in the shadow
of nuclear weapons. If the contenders for world supremacy could be kept
apart, perhaps the neutral nations could introduce the voice of reason
into international a?airs. It was a small hope, for I overestimated the power of
the neutrals. Only rarely, as with Nehru in Korea did they manage to add
signi?cant weight to pressures against the cold war.
The neutrals continued to embody my outlook, in that I consider human
survival more important than ideology. But a new danger came to the fore. It
became obvious that Russia no longer entertained hope of world-empire, but
that this hope had now passed over to the United States. As my researches into
the origins and circumstances of the war in Vietnam showed, the United
States was embarking upon military adventures which increasingly replaced
war with Russia as the chief threat to the world. The fanaticism of America’s
anti-communism, combined with its constant search for markets and raw
materials, made it impossible for any serious neutral to regard America and
Russia as equally dangerous to the world. The essential unity of American
military, economic and cold war policies was increasingly revealed by the
sordidness and cruelty of the Vietnam war. For people in the West, this was
most di?cult to admit, and again I experienced the silence or opposition of
those who had come to accept my views of the previous decade. In the third
world, however, our support was very considerable. Cruelty has not gone
wholly unchallenged.
My views on the future are best expressed by Shelley in the following
poem:
O cease! must hate and death return?
Cease! must men kill and die?
Cease! drain not to its dregs the urn
Of bitter prophecy.
The world is weary of the past,
O might it die or rest at last!
Final stanza of ‘Hellas’ (478. 1096–1101).
the autobiography of bertrand russell 646LETTERS
On ‘The Free Man’s Worship’
27 July 1962
Dear Professor Hiltz
Thank you for your letter of June 27. As regards your 3 questions: (1)
I have continued to think ‘The Free Man’s Worship’ ‘?orid and rhetorical’
since somewhere about 1920; (2) This observation concerns only the style;
(3) I do not now regard ethical values as objective, as I did when I wrote the
essays. However, my outlook on the cosmos and on human life is substantially
unchanged.
Yours sincerely
Bertrand Russell
Thanks to Julian Huxley for his pamphlets: ‘Psychometabolism’; ‘Eugenics in
Evolutionary Perspective’; ‘Education and the Humanist Revolution’.
Plas Penrhyn
10 March, 1963
My Dear Julian
Thank you very much for sending me your three papers which I have read
with very great interest. I loved your paper about psychometabolism, explain-
ing why peacocks dance and women use lipstick, both of which had hitherto
been mysterious to me. I do not know enough about the matters of which
this paper treats to be able to o?er any criticism. You touch occasionally on
the mind-body problem as to which I have very de?nite views which are
acceptable to some physiologists but are rejected with scorn and contempt by
practically all philosophers, none of whom know either physics or physi-
ology. You might ?nd it worth your while to read a short essay of mine called
‘Mind and Matter’ in Portraits from Memory.
What you say about eugenics has my approval up to a certain point, but no
further. You seem to think that governments will be enlightened and that the
kind of human being they will wish to produce will be an improvement on
the haphazard work of nature. If a sperm-bank, such as you envisage, had
existed during the régime of Hitler, Hitler would have been the sire of
all babies born in his time in Germany. Exceptional merit is, and always
has been, disliked by Authority; and obviously Authority would control
the sperm-bank. Consequently, in the degree to which eugenics was e?-
cient, exceptional merit would disappear. I am entirely with you as to what
eugenics could achieve, but I disagree as to what it would achieve.
I have somewhat similar criticisms to make on what you say about educa-
tion. For example: you dismiss silly myths which make up orthodox religion,
the foundation 647and you do not mention that throughout the Western world nobody who
openly rejects them can be a schoolmaster. To take another point: educa-
tion has enormously facilitated total war. Owing to the fact that people can
read, while educators have been at pains to prevent them from thinking,
warlike ferocity is now much more easily spread than it was in former
times.
You seem to think that governments will be composed of wise and
enlightened persons who will have standards of value not unlike yours and
mine. This is against all the evidence. Pythagoras was an exile because
Policrates disliked him; Socrates was put to death; Aristotle had to ?y from
Athens as soon as Alexander died. In ancient Greece it was not hard to escape
from Greece. In the modern world it is much more di?cult; and that is one
reason why there are fewer great men than there were in Greece.
Best wishes to both of you from both of us.
Yrs. ever
B. R.
From Sir Julian Huxley
31 Pond Street
Hampstead, N.W.3
13th March, 1963
Dear Bertie
So many thanks for your fascinating letter. I can hear you chuckling about
peacocks and lipstick!
As regards the mind-body problem, I think it must be approached from the
evolutionary angle. We are all of us living ‘mind-body’ organisations, with a
long history behind us, and related to all other living organisations. To me
this implies that mind and body in some way constitute a single unity.
Of course you are right as to the dangers inherent in eugenic measures or
approved educational measures. On the other hand, one must do something!
My attitude is neither purely optimistic nor purely pessimistic – it is that we
and our present situation are far from perfect, but are capable of improve-
ment, and indeed are liable to deteriorate unless something is done. This is to
me the real point – that something must be done, though of course we must
try to see that it is, in principle, the right thing, and also must try to safeguard
it as far as possible from abuse.
Again, we must have an educational system of sorts – & I should have
thought we ought to try to improve it, in spite of possible dangers –
Juliette sends her best wishes,
Yours ever
Julian H.
the autobiography of bertrand russell 648To and from Alice Mary Hilton
Plas Penrhyn
9 June, 1963
Dear Miss Hilton
My warm thanks for your book on Logic, Computing Machines and Automation. I
have, so far, only had time to read parts of it, but what I have read has
interested me very much. In particular, I am grateful for the nice things you
say about Principia Mathematica and about me. The followers of G?del had
almost persuaded me that the twenty man-years spent on the Principia had
been wasted and that the book had better be forgotten. It is a comfort to
?nd that you do not take this view.
Yours sincerely
Bertrand Russell
405 East 63rd Street
New York 21, New York
July 2, 1963
Dear Lord Russell
Thank you very much for your kind letter about my book on Logic, Computing
Machines and Automation. It was very thoughtful of you to write to me and I can
hardly express my appreciation for your interest and your kindness. Although
I am aware of the fact that it doesn’t matter very much what I think of Principia
Mathematica, I am convinced that future generations of mathematicians will
rate it one of the two or three major contributions to science. I have the
feeling that the criticism stems from a lack of understanding rather than
anything else. I cannot claim that I understand this tremendous work fully but
I have been trying for several years now to learn enough so that I can at least
understand basic principles. I am quite certain no great mathematician
(which I am certainly not) could possibly have read the Principia and think that
‘the twenty man-years spent on the Principia had been wasted and that the
book had better be forgotten’. I am quite certain that it won’t be forgotten as
long as there is any civilisation that preserves the work of really great minds.
I mentioned to you in the past that I am planning to edit a series which is
tentatively called The Age of Cyberculture and which is to include books by
thinkers – scientists, philosophers, artists – who have a contribution to make
to the understanding of this era we are entering. It seems to me that humanity
has never been in so critical a period. Not only do we live in constant danger
of annihilation, but even if we do survive the danger of nuclear extinction,
we are standing on the threshold of an age which can become a paradise or
hell for humanity. I am enclosing a very brief outline of the series. Because
I believe so strongly that understanding and communication among the
educated and thinking human beings of this world are so important I am
the foundation 649presuming to ask you to write a contribution to this series. I am going further
than that. I would like to ask you to serve on the editorial board. I know that
you are a very busy man, and I am not asking this lightly. But I also know that
you make your voice heard and I believe very strongly that this series will
make a contribution and possibly have considerable impact to further the
understanding among people whose work is in di?erent disciplines and who
must cooperate and learn to understand one another. It is through the contri-
butors and the readers of this series that I hope that some impact will be
made upon the political decision makers of this society and through them
upon all of us who must realise our responsibility for choosing the right
decision makers.
It would give me personally the greatest pleasure to be allowed to work
with the greatest mind of this – and many other – century.
I would like you to know that your recording has just become available
in this country (‘Speaking Personally, Bertrand Russell’) and that we have
listened to it with great enjoyment and have spent several happy and most
wonderful evenings in the company of friends listening to your words.
Thank you again for all of your kindness.
Sincerely
Alice Mary Hilton
To John Paulos
2nd August, 1966
Dear Mr Paulos
Thank you very much for your letter.
My reason for rejecting Hegel and monism in general is my belief that the
dialectical argument against relations is wholly unsound. I think such a
statement as ‘A is west of B’ can be exactly true. You will ?nd that Bradley’s
arguments on this subject pre-suppose that every proposition must be of the
subject-predicate form. I think this the fundamental error of monism.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely
Bertrand Russell
To Marchesa Origo
19 January, 1966
Dear Marquesa
I have been reading your book on Leopardi with very great interest.
Although I have long been an admirer of his poetry, I knew nothing of his life
until I read your book. His life is appallingly tragic and most of the tragedy
was due to bad institutions.
I cannot agree with Santayana’s remark: ‘The misfortunes of Leopardi were
the autobiography of bertrand russell 650doubtless fortunate for his genius.’ I believe that in happier circumstances he
would have produced much more.
I do not know Italian at all well and have read most of his poetry in Italian;
as a result I have probably missed much by doing so. I am grateful to your
book for ?lling many gaps in my knowledge.
Yours sincerely
Bertrand Russell
To Mr Hayes
25.11.1963
Dear Mr Hayes
Thank you for your letter of November 18. The idea which has been put
about to the e?ect that I am more anti-American than anti-Russian is one
of ignorant hostile propaganda. It is true that I have criticised American
behaviour in Vietnam, but I have, at the same time, been vehemently protest-
ing against the treatment of Soviet Jews. When the Russians resumed Tests
I ?rst wrote to the Soviet Embassy to express a vehement protest & then
organised hostile demonstrations against the Soviet Government. I have
described the East German Government as a ‘military tyranny imposed by
alien armed force’. I have written articles in Soviet journals expressing
complete impartiality. The only matter in which I have been more favourable
to Russia than to America was the Cuban crisis because Khrushchev yielded
rather than embark upon a nuclear war. In any crisis involving the danger
of nuclear war, if one side yielded & the other did not, I should think
the side that yielded more deserving of praise than the other side, because
I think nuclear war the greatest misfortune that could befall the human
race.
In view of your letter, I am afraid I cannot write an article that would be
acceptable to you as I have always expressed in print my criticisms of Russia
as often & as emphatically as my criticisms of the West.
Yours sincerely
Bertrand Russell
From Arnold Toynbee
At 273 Santa Teresa
Stanford, Calif. 94305
United States
9 May, 1967
Dear Lord Russell
Your ninety-?fth birthday gives me, like countless other friends of yours
who will also be writing to you at this moment, a welcome opportunity of
expressing some of the feelings that I have for you all the time: ?rst of all, my
the foundation 651a?ection for you and Edith (I cannot think of either of you without thinking
of you both together), and then my admiration and my gratitude.
I met you ?rst, more than half a century ago, just after you had responded to
the almost superhuman demand that Plato makes on his fellow philosophers.
You had then stepped back out of the sunshine into the cave, to help your
fellow human beings who were still prisoners there. You had just come out of
prison in the literal sense (and this not for the last time). You had been put in
prison, that ?rst time, for having spoken in public against conscription.
It would have been possible for you to continue to devote yourself
exclusively to creative intellectual work, in which you had already made your
name by achievements of the highest distinction – work which, as we know,
gives you intense intellectual pleasure, and which at the same time bene?ts
the human race by increasing our knowledge and understanding of the
strange universe in which we ?nd ourselves. You could then have led a fairly
quiet life, and you would have been commended unanimously by all the
pundits. Of course, ever since then, you have continued to win laurels in this
?eld. But you care too much for your fellow human beings to be content
with your intellectual career alone, a splendid one though it is. You have had
the greatness of spirit to be unwilling to stay ‘above the battle’. Ever since,
you have been battling for the survival of civilisation, and latterly, since the
invention of the atomic weapon, for the survival of the human race.
I am grateful to you, most of all, for the encouragement and the hope that
you have been giving for so long, and are still giving as vigorously and as
fearlessly as ever, to your younger contemporaries in at least three successive
generations. As long as there are people who care, as you do, for mankind,
and who put their concern into action, the rest of us can ?nd, from the
example that you have set us, courage and con?dence to work, in your spirit,
for trying to give mankind the future that is its birthright, and for trying to
help it to save itself from self-destruction.
This is why Thursday, 18 May 1967, is an historic date for the hundreds of
millions of your contemporaries who are unaware of this, as well as for the
hundreds of thousands who do know what you stand for and what you strive
for. You have projected yourself, beyond yourself, into the history of the
extraordinary species of which you are so outstanding a representative. Every
living creature is self-centred by nature; yet every human living creature’s
mission in life is to transfer the centre of his concern from himself to the
ultimate reality, whatever this may be. That is the true ful?lment of a human
being’s destiny. You have achieved it. This is why I feel constant gratitude to
you and a?ection for you, and why 18 May, 1967, is a day of happiness and
hope for me, among your many friends.
Yours ever
Arnold Toynbee
the autobiography of bertrand russell 652From Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck, ???
Oswald House
Northgate
Beccles, Su?olk
1 May 64
My dear Lord Russell
I apologise for not having written earlier to thank you for your hospitality
and, for me, a most interesting and inspiring visit. I have read the paper you
gave me – ‘A New Approach to Peace’ which I found most impressive. There is
nothing in it with which I could not whole-heartedly agree and support.
I understand the relationship and functions of the Atlantic Peace Foundation
and the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation and I hope to be able to make a
small contribution to the expenses of the former.
If I can be of help in any other way, perhaps you or your Secretary will let
me know. It is an honour to have met you.
With best wishes and hopes for your success.
Yours sincerely
C. J. Auchinleck
From U Thant on the formation of the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation
Secretary General
It is good to know that it is proposed to start a Foundation in the name of
Lord Russell, to expand and continue his e?orts in the cause of peace.
Lord Russell was one of the ?rst to perceive the folly and danger of
unlimited accumulation of nuclear armaments. In the early years he conducted
practically a one-man crusade against this tendency and he now has a much
larger following. While there may be di?erences of views about the wisdom of
unilateral disarmament, and other similar ideas, I share the feeling of Lord
Russell that the unrestricted manufacture, testing, perfecting, and stock-piling
of nuclear armaments represent one of the greatest dangers to humanity and
one of the most serious threats to the survival of the human race.
I hope, therefore, that this e?ort to put on an institutional basis the crusade
for peace that Lord Russell has conducted for so long and with such dedication
will be crowned with success.
U Thant
???????? ?? ??? ???????? ??????? ????? ??????????
H.I.M. Haile Selassie Dr Max Born, Nobel Prize for
Physics
the foundation 653Prof. Linus Pauling, Nobel Lord Boyd Orr, ???,
Prize for Chemistry and Nobel Peace Prize
for Peace Pablo Casals, Puerto Rico, Cellist
Pres. Kenneth Kaunda Danilo Dolci, Sicily
Pres. Kwame Nkrumah Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth
Pres. Ayub Khan of the Belgians
Pres. Julius K. Nyerere Prime Minister Jawaharlal
Pres. Leopold Senghor Nehru
The Duke of Bedford Vanessa Redgrave, Actress
Dr Albert Schweitzer,
Lambarene, Nobel Peace Prize
February 1964
? ??? ???????? ?? ?????
by
???????? ???????
The nuclear age in which we have the misfortune to live is one which
imposes new ways of thought and action and a new character in international
relations. Ever since the creation of the H-bomb, it has been obvious to
thoughtful people that there is now a danger of the extermination of man-
kind if a nuclear war between two powerful nations or blocs of nations
should break out. Not only would such a war be a total disaster to human
hopes, but, so long as past policies persist, a nuclear war may break out at any
minute. This situation imposes upon those who desire the continuation of
our species a very di?cult duty. We have, ?rst, to persuade Governments and
populations of the disastrousness of nuclear war, and when that has been
achieved, we have to induce Governments to adopt such policies as will make
the preservation of peace a possibility.
Of these two tasks, the ?rst has been very largely accomplished. It has been
accomplished by a combination of methods of agitation: peace marches,
peace demonstrations, large public meetings, sit-downs, etc. These were
conducted in Britain by the ??? and the Committee of 100, and in other
countries by more or less similar bodies. They have testi?ed – and I am proud
that I was amongst them – that nuclear war would be a calamity for the
whole human race, and have pointed out its imminence and its dangers. They
have succeeded in making very widely known, even to Governments, the
dangers of nuclear war. But it is time for a new approach. The dangers must
not be forgotten but now the next step must be taken. Ways and means
of settling questions that might lead to nuclear war and other dangers to
the autobiography of bertrand russell 654mankind must be sought and made known, and mankind must be persuaded
to adopt these new and di?erent means towards securing peace.
The culmination, so far, of the con?ict between rival nuclear groups was
the Cuban crisis. In this crisis, America and Russia confronted each other
while the world waited for the destruction that seemed imminent. At the
last moment, the contest was avoided and it appeared that neither side was
willing to put an end to the human race because of disagreement as to the
politics of those who would otherwise be living in Cuba. This was a moment
of great importance. It showed that neither side considered it desirable to
obliterate the human race.
We may, therefore, take it that the Governments of the world are prepared
to avoid nuclear war. And it is not only Governments, but also vast sections,
probably a majority, of the populations of most civilised countries which
take this view.
The ?rst part of the work for peace has thus been achieved. But a more
di?cult task remains. If there is not to be war, we have to ?nd ways by which
war will be avoided. This is no easy matter. There are many disputes which,
