though they may begin amicably, are likely to become more and more bitter,
until at last, in a fury, they break out into open war. There is also the risk of
war by accident or misinformation. Furthermore, there are di?culties caused
by the one-sided character of information as it reaches one side or the other
in any dispute. It is clear that peace cannot come to the world without serious
concessions, sometimes by one side, sometimes by the other, but generally
by both. These di?culties in the pursuit of peace require a di?erent tech-
nique from that of marches and demonstrations. The questions concerned are
complex, the only possible solutions are distasteful to one side or both, and
negotiators who discuss such questions will need to keep a ?rm hold of their
tempers if they are to succeed.
All this should be the work of Governments. But Governments will not
adequately do the necessary work unless they are pushed on by a body or
bodies which have an international character and are especially concerned
with a search for peaceful solutions. It is work of this kind that we hope to see
performed by the new Foundations, which I hereby recommend to you.
Of the two Foundations one is called The Atlantic Peace Foundation. Being
a Foundation for purposes of research in matters of war and peace, it has
been registered as a charity and is recognised as such by the British Inland
Revenue. Income Tax at the standard rate is, therefore, recoverable on any
subscription given to it under a seven-year contract, which means that such
subscriptions are increased by about sixty per cent. This Foundation works
in co-operation with the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation. The latter
implements the purposes of the Atlantic Peace Foundation. For this reason,
I shall refer to only a single Foundation in the rest of this discussion.
the foundation 655It may be said: ‘But such work as that is the work of the United Nations.’
I agree that it should be the work of the United Nations and I hope that, in
time, it will become so. But the United Nations has defects, some of them
remediable, others essential in a body which represents an organisation of
States. Of the former kind of defect, the most notable is the exclusion of
China; of the latter kind, the equality of States in the Assembly and the veto
power of certain States in the Security Council. For such reasons the United
Nations, alone, is not adequate to work for peace.
It is our hope that the Foundations which we have created will, in time,
prove adequate to deal with all obstacles to peace and to propose such solu-
tions of di?cult questions as may commend themselves to the common
sense of mankind. Perhaps this hope is too ambitious. Perhaps it will be
some other body with similar objects that will achieve the ?nal victory. But
however that may be, the work of our Foundation will have ministered to a
fortunate ending.
The problems which will have to be settled are two kinds. The ?rst kind is
that which concerns mankind as a whole. Of this the most important are two:
namely, disarmament and education. The second class of problems are those
concerning territorial adjustments, of which Germany is likely to prove the
most di?cult. Both kinds must be solved if peace is to be secure.
There have been congresses concerned with the subject of disarmament
ever since nuclear weapons came into existence. Immediately after the ending
of the Second World War, America o?ered to the world the Baruch Proposal.
This was intended to break the American monopoly of nuclear weapons and
to place them in the hands of an international body. Its intentions were
admirable, but Congress insisted upon the insertion of clauses which it was
known the Russians would not accept. Everything worked out as had been
expected. Stalin rejected the Baruch Proposal, and Russia proceeded to create
its own A-bomb and, then, its own H-bomb. The result was the Cold War, the
blockade of Berlin, and the creation by both sides of H-bombs which ?rst
suggested the danger to mankind in general. After Stalin’s death, a new
attempt at complete disarmament was made. Eisenhower and Khrushchev
met at Camp David. But warlike elements in the Pentagon continued their
work of spying, and the Russian destruction of U-2 put an end to the brief
attempt at friendship. Since that time, disarmament conferences have met
constantly, but always, until after the Cuban Crisis, with the determination on
both sides that no agreement should be reached. Since the Cuban Crisis there
has again been a more friendly atmosphere, but so far, without any tangible
result except the Test-Ban Treaty. This Treaty was valuable, also, as showing
that agreement is possible between East and West. The success of the negoti-
ations involved was largely due to Pugwash, an international association of
scientists concerned with problems of peace and war.
the autobiography of bertrand russell 656The present situation in regard to disarmament is that both America and
Russia have schemes for total nuclear disarmament, but their schemes di?er,
and no way has, so far, been discovered of bridging the di?erences. It should
be one of the most urgent tasks of the Foundation to devise some scheme of
disarmament to which both sides could agree. It is ominous, however, that
the Pentagon has again allowed one of its planes to be shot down by the
Russians over Communist territory.
If peace is ever to be secure, there will have to be great changes in educa-
tion. At present, children are taught to love their country to the exclusion of
other countries, and among their countrymen in history those whom they
are specially taught to admire are usually those who have shown most skill in
killing foreigners. An English child is taught to admire Nelson and Welling-
ton; a French child, to admire Napoleon; and a German child, Barbarossa.
These are not among those of the child’s countrymen who have done most
for the world. They are those who have served their country in ways that
must be forever closed if man is to survive. The conception of Man as one
family will have to be taught as carefully as the opposite is now taught. This
will not be an easy transition. It will be said that boys under such a regimen
will be soft and e?eminate. It will be said that they will lose the manly virtues
and will be destitute of courage. All this will be said by Christians in spite of
Christ’s teaching. But, dreadful as it may appear, boys brought up in the old
way will grow into quarrelsome men who will ?nd a world without war
unbearably tame. Only a new kind of education, inculcating a new set of
moral values, will make it possible to keep a peaceful world in existence.
There will, after all, be plenty of opportunity for adventure, even danger-
ous adventure. Boys can go to the Antarctic for their holidays, and young men
can go to the moon. There are many ways of showing courage without
having to kill other people, and it is such ways that should be encouraged.
In the teaching of history, there should be no undue emphasis upon one’s
own country. The history of wars should be a small part of what is taught.
Much the more important part should be concerned with progress in the arts
of civilisation. War should be treated as murder is treated. It should be
regarded with equal horror and with equal aversion. All this, I fear, may
not be pleasing to most present-day educationists. But, unless education is
changed in some such way, it is to be feared that men’s natural ferocity will,
sooner or later, break out.
But it is not only children who need education. It is needed, also by adults,
both ordinary men and women and those who are important in government.
Every technical advance in armaments has involved an increase in the size of
States. Gunpowder made modern states possible at the time of the Renaissance
by making castles obsolete. What castles were at that time, national States are
now, since weapons of mass destruction have made even the greatest States
the foundation 657liable to complete destruction. A new kind of outlook is, therefore, necessary.
Communities, hitherto, have survived, when they have survived, by a com-
bination of internal co-operation and external competition. The H-bomb has
made the latter out of date. World-wide co-operation is now a condition
of survivial. But world-wide co-operation, if it is to succeed, requires
co-operative feelings in individuals. It is di?cult to imagine a World Gov-
ernment succeeding if the various countries of which it is composed continue
to hate and suspect each other. To bring about more friendly feelings across
the boundaries of nations is, to begin with, a matter of adult education. It is
necessary to teach both individuals and Governments that as one family
mankind may prosper as never before, but as many competing families there
is no prospect before mankind except death. To teach this lesson will be a
large part of the educative work of the Foundation.
There are throughout the world a number of territorial questions, most of
which divide East from West. Some of the questions are very thorny and must
be settled before peace can be secure. Let us begin with Germany.
At Yalta it was decided that Germany should be divided into four parts:
American, English, French and Russian. A similar division was made of Berlin
within Germany. It was hoped that all would, in time, come to agree and
would submit to any conditions imposed by the victorious allies. Trouble,
however, soon arose. The city of Berlin was in the midst of the Russian zone
and no adequate provision had been made to secure access to the Western
sector of Berlin for the Western allies. Stalin took advantage of this situation in
1948 by the so-called ‘Berlin Blockade’ which forbade all access to West
Berlin by road or rail on the part of the Western allies. The Western allies
retorted by the ‘Air Lift’ which enabled them to supply West Berlin in spite of
the Russian blockade. Throughout the period of the Berlin blockade both
sides were strictly legal. Access to West Berlin by air had been guaranteed in
the peace settlement, and this the Russians never challenged. The whole
episode ended with a somewhat ambiguous and reluctant agreement on the
part of the Russians to allow free intercourse between West Berlin and West
Germany. This settlement, however, did not satisfy the West. It was obvious
that the Russians could at any moment occupy West Berlin and that the only
answer open to the West would be nuclear war. Somewhat similar consider-
ations applied, rather less forcibly, to the whole of Western Germany. In this
way, the problem of Germany became linked with the problem of nuclear
disarmament: if nuclear disarmament was accepted by the West without
adequate assurances as to disarmament in regard to conventional weapons,
then Germany’s defence against the East would become di?cult if not
impossible.
The German problem also exists in regard to Eastern Germany – and here
it represents new complexities. What had been the Eastern portion of the
the autobiography of bertrand russell 658German Reich was divided into two parts. The Eastern half was given to
Russia and Poland, while the Western half was given to a Communist regime
in East Germany. In the part given to Russia and Poland all Germans were
evicted. Old and young, men, women and children were ruthlessly sent in
over-crowded trains to Berlin, where they had to walk from the Eastern
terminus to the Western terminus in queues which were apt to take as much
as thirty-six hours. Many Germans died in the trains and many in the Berlin
queues, but for the survivors there was no legal remedy.
And how about the part of Germany which was assigned to the East
German Government? The East German Government was a Communist
Government, while the population was overwhelmingly anti-Communist.
The Government was established by the Russians and sustained by their
armed forces against insurrection. Eastern Germany became a prison, escape
from which, after the construction of the Berlin Wall, was only possible at
imminent risk of death.
It cannot be expected that Germany will tamely accept this situation. The
parts of the old German Reich which were given to Russia or Poland were, for
the most part, inhabited by Poles and must be regarded as justly lost to
Germany whatever may be thought of the hardships su?ered by excluded
Germans. But the position of the Germans in what is now the Eastern portion
of Germany is quite di?erent. Eastern Germany is virtually a territory con-
quered by the Russians and governed by them as they see ?t. This situation,
combined with the natural nationalistic sympathy felt by the West Germans,
is an unstable one. It depends upon military force and nothing else.
So far, we have been concerned with the German case, but the Nazis,
during their period in power, inspired in all non-Germans a deep-rooted fear
of German power. There is reason to dread that, if Germany were reunited,
there would be a repetition of the Nazi attempt to rule the world. This
apprehension is apparently not shared by the Governments of the West, who
have done everything in their power to strengthen West Germany and make it
again capable of another disastrous attempt at world dominion. It cannot be
said that this apprehension is unreasonable.
What can be done to secure a just and peaceful solution of this problem?
The West might suggest that Germany should be free and reunited and the
East might, conceivably, agree, if Germany were disarmed. But the Germans
would never agree to a punitive disarmament in?icted upon them alone.
Only general disarmament would make German disarmament acceptable to
the Germans. In this way, the question of Germany becomes entangled with
the problem of disarmament. It is di?cult to imagine any solution of the
German problem which would be acceptable both to Germans and to the rest
of the world, except reuni?cation combined with general disarmament.
The next most di?cult of territorial disputes is that between Israel and the
the foundation 659Arabs. Nasser has announced that it is his purpose to exterminate Israel and
that, within two years, he will be in possession of missiles for this purpose.
(Guardian, 16.3.64.) The Western world is sure to feel that this cannot be
allowed to happen, but most of Asia and, possibly, Russia would be prepared
to look on passively so long as the Arabs continued to be victorious. There
seems little hope of any accommodation between the two sides except as a
result of outside pressure. The ideal solution in such a case is a decision by
the United Nations which the countries concerned would be compelled to
adopt. I am not prepared to suggest publicly the terms of such a decision, but
only that it should come from the United Nations and be supported by the
major powers of East and West.
In general, when there is a dispute as to whether the Government of a
country should favour the East or the West, the proper course would be for
the United Nations to conduct a plebiscite in the country concerned and give
the Government to whichever side obtained a majority. This is a principle
which, at present, is not accepted by either side. Americans do not accept it in
South Vietnam, though they conceal the reason for their anti-Communist
activities by pretending that they are protecting the peasantry from the
inroads of the Vietcong. The attitude of the United States to Castro’s Govern-
ment in Cuba is very ambiguous. Large sections of American opinion hold
that throughout the Western Hemisphere no Government obnoxious to the
United States is to be tolerated. But whether these sections of opinion will
determine American action is as yet, doubtful. Russia is, in this respect,
equally to blame, having enforced Communist Governments in Hungary and
Eastern Germany against the wishes of the inhabitants. In all parts of the
world, self-determination by hither-to subject nations will become very
much easier if there is general disarmament.
The ultimate goal will be a world in which national armed forces are
limited to what is necessary for internal stability and in which the only forces
capable of acting outside national limits will be those of a reformed United
Nations. The approach to this ultimate solution must be piecemeal and must
involve a gradual increase in the authority of the United Nations or, possibly,
of some new international body which should have sole possession of the
major weapons of war. It is di?cult to see any other way in which mankind
can survive the invention of weapons of mass extinction.
Many of the reforms suggested above depend upon the authority of the
United Nations or of some new international body specially created for the
purpose. To avoid circumlocution I shall speak of the United Nations to cover
both those possibilities. If its powers are to be extended, this will have to be
done by means of education which is both neutral and international. Such
education will have to be carried out by an organisation which is, itself,
international and neutral. There are, at present, in various countries, national
the autobiography of bertrand russell 660associations working towards peace, but, so far as we are aware, the Founda-
tion with which we are concerned is the ?rst international association
aiming at the creation of a peaceful world. The other Foundations are limited
in scope – being either national or aimed towards dealing with only one or
two aspects or approaches to peace. We shall support them where we can, and
shall hope for their support in those areas of our work which impinge upon
theirs. We shall also endeavour to diminish the acerbity of international con-
troversy and induce Governments and important organs of public opinion to
preserve at least a minimum of courtesy in their criticism of opponents.
The Government of this Foundation will be in the hands of a small body of
Directors. This body is, as yet, incomplete, but should as soon as possible be
representative of all the interests concerned in the prevention of war. It is
supported by a body of Sponsors who approve of its general purposes, but,
for one reason or another, cannot take part in the day to day work. There is to
be a Board of Advisers, each having special knowledge in some one or more
?elds. Their specialised knowledge shall be drawn upon as it may be relevant.
The Headquarters of the Foundation will remain in London, which will also
house the International Secretariat. In the near future, it is intended to estab-
lish o?ces in various parts of the world. Probably the ?rst two, one in New
York and one in Beirut, will be established in the immediate future. Others
will follow as soon as suitable personnel can be recruited. This is, in many
parts of the world, a di?cult task. Many Governments, although they do not
venture publicly to advocate nuclear war, are opposed to any work against it
in their own territories, and many individuals, while genuinely desirous of
peace, shrink from such national sacri?ces as the Foundation’s general policy
may seem to make desirable. It is obvious that a general peace policy must
demand moderation everywhere, and many friends of peace, while admitting
the desirability of concessions by countries other than their own, are apt to
shrink from advocating necessary concessions by their own country. Willing-
ness for such concessions is a necessary quali?cation for membership of
the Secretariat and for the Head of any subsidiary o?ce. Each subsidiary
o?ce will have to collect information and ?rst-hand knowledge on all local
matters from both the ordinary population and the authorities. They will
have to assess this knowledge with a view to its importance in work towards
peace. And they will have to disseminate accurate knowledge and to educate
both authorities and the public in attitudes and actions desirable in work
towards peace. Each o?ce will also have the task of ?nding suitable workers
to support its own part of the general work and to collect money both for its
own and the general work. It should be part of the work of the subsidiary
o?ces to pass on information and advice so that the Central Secretariat can
draw up soundly based schemes for the settlement of disputes that stand a
good chance of being accepted by the disputants.
the foundation 661To accomplish these tasks will not be possible without a considerable
expenditure in secretarial help, in o?ces, in means of travel, in means of
publicising ?ndings and, ultimately, when and if funds permit, in establish-
ing a radio and newspaper of our own. Until such funds permit, the
exploration of possibilities and estimates of location, plant and personnel for
these needed means of publicity – in itself no mean task – must occupy the
Foundation.
It will be seen that the Foundation as we hope it may become must be a
gradual work. It cannot spring into being full-armoured like Athene. What
exists at present is only a small seed of what we hope may come to be.
We have a Head O?ce in London. We have a small Secretariat which is
international, neutral and energetic, but too small for the work that has to be
done. We have pamphlets and lea?ets stating our views on various topical
issues. These we supplement, when we can, by letters and articles in the Press.
But what can be done in this way is, as yet, very limited since most news-
papers are opposed to what must be done in this or that disturbed region if
peace is to be secured there. Nevertheless, even now, we have found that there
is much that we can accomplish. We can collect information, partly by means
of already published facts, and partly by travels in the course of which we visit
the Governments and learn their point of view. In the short ?ve months of its
existence, the Foundation has sent emissaries to various troubled spots and to
the Governments concerned. We have already an enormous correspondence,
partly with sympathisers in all parts of the world, and partly also, with Heads
of States. From all these we derive both information and advice. Partly, too,
our correspondence has been concerned with appeals for the liberation of
political prisoners and the amelioration of the lot of minorities in various
countries, East and West, South and North. In these last respects, our work has
already met with great and unexpected success. In recounting the success of
the Foundation during these ?rst ?ve months, however, we labour under the
handicap of being unable to be speci?c. Negotiations such as we are conduct-
ing, as will readily be understood, cannot be talked of, since to talk of them
would nullify their e?cacy.
As everybody who has ever attempted to create a large organisation will
understand, our chief e?ort during these early months has been concerned
with obtaining funds, and this must continue for a considerable time since
much of the work we wish to do involves very considerable expense. We are
opening accounts in various countries to pay for local expenditure. We have
done various things to raise money, such as a sale of paintings and sculpture
generously donated to us by their creators. We are sponsoring a ?lm. We have
hope of money from various theatrical performances. But these alone will not
su?ce, unless supplemented by gifts from individuals and organisations. It is
obvious that the more money we can collect the more nearly and adequately
the autobiography of bertrand russell 662we can carry out our aims. We are ?rmly convinced that the Foundation can
achieve the immense work it has undertaken provided su?cient funds
become available. We are working for a great cause – the preservation of Man.
In this work one might expect to have the support of every human being.
This, alas, is not yet the case. It is our hope that, in time, it will become so.
From and to Erich Fromm
Gonzalez Cosio No. 15
Mexico 12, D.F.
May 30th, 1962
Lord Bertrand Russell
care of Mrs Clara Urquhart
London, W.1
Dear Bertrand Russell
I know how frightfully busy you must be before the Moscow Conference,
but I also believe that you will understand it if I approach you for your advice
and help with regard to the fate of a man, Heinz Brandt, who was arrested last
June by the East German police in East Berlin, or Potsdam, and was sentenced
to thirteen years of hard labour (Zuchthaus) on the 10th of May at a secret
trial for espionage against the ???.
Brandt was a German communist before Hitler, for eleven years was in
Hitler’s prisons and concentration camps and severely tortured in the latter.
After the War he went to East Germany and was a journalist there for the
communist party. He got more and more into opposition with that party, and
eventually ?ed to West Germany where he took a job in Frankfort as a journal-
ist on the newspaper of the Metal Workers’ Union. He was sent last year by his
union to attend a union conference in West Berlin, and apparently was kid-
napped or lured into East Berlin by the East German police, since nobody who
knows him believes that he would have gone voluntarily to East Germany. The
remarkable thing about him is that, in spite of having turned against commun-
ism he did not do what so many others have done, to become a rabid spokes-
man against communism in West Germany. On the contrary, he was one of
the most passionate and ardent ?ghters against West German rearmament, for
peace and for an understanding with the Soviet Union. Although his union in
Frankfort is not only the biggest but also the most peace-minded union in
West Germany, his courageous stand made him enemies in many places and
yet he fought for his ideals without the slightest compromise.
I know that Brandt was left in a nervous condition from the tortures he
underwent in the Nazi camps, he has a wife and three young children, and
the sentence amounts to a life-long one or even a death sentence, considering
his present age of around 55 and his condition...
the foundation 663There was a great deal of protest and indignation going on since he was
arrested and again now after he was sentenced. Naturally his case has been
used for fanatical anti-communist propaganda by various circles. We, on the
other hand, have done all we could to prevent this kind of misuse, and we
have addressed ourselves in cables to Khrushchev and Ulbricht asking for
Brandt’s release. (These cables were signed by a number of American paci?sts
and leading peace workers and also by some from France (Claude Bourdet)
and Germany (Professor Abendroth).) After being sentenced, it seems that
the only hope for his liberation would lie in the fact that enough people, and
su?ciently in?uential ones from the Western Hemisphere, would approach
the Soviet people with the request to exert in?uence on the Ulbricht gov-
ernment to pardon Brandt and return him to his family in West Germany. I
thought myself that the coming Congress in Moscow would be a good
opportunity for such an attempt. I intend to go there as an observer. I cabled
Professor Bernal some time ago and asked him whether, if I went, I would
be free to bring up the Brandt case, and he cabled back that this was so.
Naturally, the success of this action depends on one fact: How many other
non-communists and Western peace people will support this step? I hope
very much that you could decide to lend your support also.
I enclose the declaration of the West German Socialistischer Deutscher
Studentenbund. Similar declarations have been signed by Professor W.
Abendroth, Professor H. J. Heydorn, H. Brakemeier and E. D?hne. (It may be
known to you that the Socialistischer Deutscher Studentenbund has been
expelled from the West German Democratic Party precisely because of its
stand against West German rearmament.)
I would have liked very much to talk with you before the Moscow
conference, about how one could best organise a step in favour of Brandt.
(I assume you will go to Moscow.) Would you be kind enough to drop me
a line how long you will be in London, and when you will be in Moscow, and
if you could see me for an hour to discuss this case either before you leave
or in Moscow?
Yours sincerely
Erich Fromm
Encl.
cc – Mrs Clara Urquhart
1 July 1962
Dear Erich Fromm
I wish to apologise to you most sincerely for leaving your letter of May
30th unanswered until now. I shall do anything you advise with respect to
Brandt. I have recently received two communications from Khrushchev and
can easily incorporate the question of Brandt in my reply.
