without any quali?cation that ‘there will be no war by accident’. I have notcome across one non-Government expert who has studied this subject whodoes not say the opposite. C. P. Snow, who has an exceptional right to speakwith authority, said in a recent article ‘Within at the most ten years, some ofthese bombs are going o?. I am saying this as responsibly as I can. That is acertainty.’ John B. Witchell, an engineer, who resigned his position as amember of Canada’s Atomic Research Board in protest against the Govern-ment’s nuclear armament policies, stated in a recent speech: ‘The demand forinstantaneous retaliation leads to a hair-trigger situation which rendersnuclear 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 tothem: ‘Let me say emphatically, positively, there can be no safeguard whichcan be considered adequate.’I could give many other quotations expressing the same view, andtrafalgar 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 inBritain and told the Canadians not to be worried by them. He said, ‘If ever thecall 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 thepast’. They will have to be rather quick about it, as his own Government hastold us that they will only have four minutes’ notice. At the end of the fourminutes they will be dead, whether in Her Majesty’s Forces or still among theneutralists. The ancient rhetorical language associated with war is so ingrainedthat Mr Macmillan is quite unable to realise its complete remoteness frommodern military facts.It is not only that the organs of publicity are slow to publish facts whichmilitate against o?cial policy. It is also that such facts are unpleasant and,therefore, most people soon forget them. What proportion of the inhabitantsof Britain know the o?cial report by the ?? Defence Minister of probablecasualties in a nuclear war with present armament? His o?cial guess was160 million in the ??, 200 million in the ???? and everybody in Britain andWestern Europe. He did not regard this as a reason for changing Americanpolicy. When one combines this estimate with the near certainty of a nuclearwar if present policies continue, it is obviously not unjust to say that theGovernment of Britain is favouring a course which, if persisted in, will leadto the death of every one of us. It may seem odd that a majority of the Britishpublic supports the policy leading to this dreadful disaster. I do not think thatBritish voters would continue to do so if the facts were brought to theirnotice so emphatically that they could no longer forget them. This is part ofour purpose and part of what makes spectacular action necessary.Most people in Britain are not aware of the attitude taken by armamentexperts in America to the British alliance and to the British desire to be anuclear Power. The most learned and detailed account of American policy inthese matters is Herman Kahn’s big book On Thermonuclear War.He is remarkably cold-blooded and makes careful arithmetical estimates ofprobable casualties. He believes that both America and Russia could more orless survive a nuclear war and achieve economic recovery in no very longtime. Apparently – though on this he is vague – they are both to set to work atonce on preparations for another nuclear war, and this sort of thing is to goon 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 Kahnwith great severity, not realising, apparently, that he is only expoundingo?cial American policy.There is, however, another aspect of his discussions which is of specialthe autobiography of bertrand russell 616interest to Britain. He holds that Britain as an ally adds nothing to the strengthof America. He argues at length that, if Russia were to attack Britain withoutattacking the United States, the United States would not intervene in spite ofobligations under ????. He shows no objection to British neutrality, andexplicitly regrets the lack of success for the suggestion that Britain shouldform a non-nuclear club of which it should be a member. Britons who areorthodox in armament policy do not seem to be aware of this Americanopinion. It hurts their national pride since it considers British military powernegligible and the protection of Britain during war totally impossible. Britishopponents of British neutralism all argue vehemently that the West would beweakened if Britain became neutral. But, apparently, this is not the opinion oforthodox American armament experts.It is not only unpleasant facts that the public ignores: it is also some factswhich ought to be found pleasant. Khrushchev has repeatedly o?ered com-plete disarmament by agreement combined with any degree of inspectionthat the West may desire. The West shrugs its shoulders and says ‘of course, heis not sincere’. This, however, is not the argument that really weighs withWestern Governments. Khrushchev proclaims his hope that Communists willconquer the world by peaceful propaganda. Western Governments fear thatthey cannot produce equally e?ective counter-propaganda. As Dulles said, inan unguarded moment, ‘We are losing this cold war, but we might win a hotone’. He did not explain what he meant by ‘winning’, but I suppose hemeant 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 entertainedby the Russians towards us as they have if entertained by us towards theRussians. The British Commonwealth has lately voted unanimously for uni-versal and complete disarmament. Since in this matter there is completeagreement with Khrushchev, while America is adverse, it might have beenthought that the vote of the British Commonwealth, including Britain, wouldlead to a rapprochement with the Soviet Government. Instead of this, how-ever, Kennedy and Macmillan have recently been tightening up the allianceand proposing agreements which would make British disarmament totallyimpossible. We cannot therefore take the British vote in the Commonwealthas 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, theremust not be wars, because any war is sure to become nuclear no matter whattreaties to the contrary may have been concluded. And if there is not to bewar, there must be machinery for settling disputes by negotiation. Thistrafalgar square 617will require an international authority which shall arbitrate disputes and besu?ciently powerful to compel obedience to its awards. None of this canpossibly come about while relations between East and West are as strained asthey are now, and while weapons of mass extermination keep the wholeworld in a state of nuclear terror. Before anything that seriously diminishesthe risk of nuclear war can be achieved, there will have to be a treaty betweenAmerica and Russia and China, and an agreement to ban – not only nuclearweapons – but also chemical and biological weapons. All this may seembeyond 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 abortivebecause only the two contesting blocs were represented in the negotiations,and each of them, from motives of prestige, felt unable to make the slightestconcession to the other. If there is ever to be a détente between Russia andAmerica, 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 memberof ????.These, as yet somewhat distant, vistas should, I think, be in our minds whilewe are engaged in what might seem an exclusively national campaign. We haveto remember that weapons of mass extermination, once invented, remain apotential threat even if none are actually in being. For this reason, we have toremember, further, that, unless war is completely eliminated, the human raceis doomed. To put an end to war, which has dominated human life for 6,000years, is no easy task. It is a heroic task, a task worthy of all the energies and allthe thought of every sane man throughout the world. I think this larger vistamay help in di?cult times to prevent discouragement and disillusion. I thinkthat our campaign is the best thing that Britons not in Government posts cando, though it is only a small part of what the world needs.Extempore comment added by Lord Russell to the foregoing speechAnd I would like to say in conclusion that what I suppose most of us feel moststrongly and what makes us willing to make sacri?ces for the cause is theextraordinary wickedness of these weapons of mass destruction. We used tothink that Hitler was wicked when he wanted to kill all the Jews, but Kennedyand Macmillan and others both in the East and in the West pursue policieswhich will probably lead to killing not only all the Jews but all the rest of ustoo. They are much more wicked than Hitler and this idea of weapons ofmass extermination is utterly and absolutely horrible and it is a thing whichno man with one spark of humanity can tolerate and I will not pretend toobey 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-violentway that seems likely to be fruitful, and I should exhort all of you to feel thethe 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 itis 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 publishedthroughout Britain and the world, usually without the preceding extemporeremarks and with no indication that they had been preceded by a carefullybuilt up speech giving the documentation necessary to support such aconclusion.]My Statement at Bow Street, September 12, 1961If the Court permits, I should like to make a short statement as to the reasonsfor my present course. This is my personal statement, but I hope that thosewho are accused of the same so-called crime will be in sympathy with what Ihave to say.It was only step by step and with great reluctance that we were driven tonon-violent civil disobedience.Ever since the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, Ihave been profoundly troubled by the danger of nuclear warfare. I began myattempt to warn people by entirely orthodox methods. I expressed my fears ina speech in the House of Lords three months after the bombs were droppedin Japan. I called together scientists of the highest eminence from all parts ofthe world and am now Chairman of their periodic meetings. They issue wiseand reasoned reports concerning nuclear warfare, its probable disastrousresults, and ways of preventing its occurrence. No newspaper notices thesereports 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 againstnuclear warfare, and television, with rare exceptions, is closed to us. In recentmonths one television company, and only one, o?ered me two minutes forgeneral platitudes, but when I said I should wish to speak on Berlin the o?erwas 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 toseek some way of saving our country and the world. No one can desire theslaughter of our families, friends, our compatriots and a majority of thehuman race in a contest in which there will be only vanquished and novictors. We feel it a profound and inescapable duty to make the facts knownand thereby save at least a thousand million human lives. We cannot escapethis duty by submitting to orders which, we are convinced, would not beissued if the likelihood and the horror of nuclear war were more generallyunderstood.trafalgar square 619Non-violent civil disobedience was forced upon us by the fact that it wasmore fully reported than other methods of making the facts known, and thatcaused 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 webelieve that this is the most e?ective way of working for the salvation of ourcountry and the world. If you condemn us you will be helping our cause, andtherefore humanity.While life remains to us we will not cease to do what lies in our power toavert 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 humanfeeling:FriendsAlong 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 insearch of prestige and by corrupt o?cial experts bent on retaining theirposts, tamely acquiesce in policies which are almost certain to end innuclear war.There are supposed to be two sides, each professing to stand for a greatcause. This is a delusion – Kennedy and Khrushchev, Adenauer and de Gaulle,Macmillan and Gaitskell, are pursuing a common aim: the ending of humanlife.You, your families, your friends and your countries are to be exterminatedby the common decision of a few brutal but powerful men. To please thesemen, all the private a?ections, all the public hopes, all that has been achievedin art, and knowledge and thought and all that might be achieved hereafter isto be wiped out forever.Our ruined lifeless planet will continue for countless ages to circleaimlessly round the sun unredeemed by the joys and loves, the occasionalwisdom and the power to create beauty which have given value to humanlife.It is for seeking to prevent this that we are in prison.Bertrand Russellthe autobiography of bertrand russell 620From Augustus JohnFryern Court,Fordingbridge, Hants.[postmarked 15 Feb. 1961]Dear Lord RussellYour message was brought to me while I was working in the studio (notthe one you knew but one further o?) by the gardener. I told him how toreply, 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 andwould like to go to prison if necessary. I didn’t want to parade my physicaldisabilities though I still have to follow the instructions of my doctor, who Ithink saved my life when I was in danger of coronary thrombosis. A verydistinguished medical authority who was consulted, took a very pessimisticview of my case, but my local doctor, undeterred, continued his treatmentand I feel sure, saved my life.All this I meant privately & am sure you understood, even if the gardenergarbled 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 sincerelyAugustus JohnP.S. This requires no answer.My speech in Trafalgar Square, October 29, 1961FriendsDuring the last decades there have been many people who have been loud incondemnation of the Germans for having permitted the growth of Nazi eviland atrocities in their country. ‘How,’ these people ask, ‘could the Germansallow themselves to remain unaware of the evil? Why did they not risk theircomfort, their livelihood, even their lives to combat it?’Now a more all-embracing danger threatens us all – the danger of nuclearwar. 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 ofthe facts concerning the policies that enable, and force, us to live in suchdanger. I am even prouder to be associated with those many among themwho, at whatever risk of discomfort and often of very real hardship, arewilling 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 havemade the e?ort to learn. It is a great happiness to me to welcome so manyof them here – I wish that I could say all of them, but some are still intrafalgar square 621prison. We none of us, however, can be entirely happy until our immediateaim has been achieved and the threat of nuclear war has become a thing ofthe past. Then such actions as we have taken and shall take will no longer benecessary.We all wish that there shall be no nuclear war, but I do not think that thecountry 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 allaware of Khrushchev’s resumption of tests and of his threat to explode a50 megaton bomb.We all deplore these provocative acts. But I think we are less aware of therapidly growing feeling in America in favour of a nuclear war in the very nearfuture. In America, the actions of Congress are very largely determined bylobbies representing this or that interest. The armament lobby, which repre-sents both the economic interests of armament ?rms and the warlike ardourof generals and admirals, is exceedingly powerful, and it is very doubtfulwhether the President will be able to stand out against the pressure which it isexerting. Its aims are set forth in a quite recent policy statement by the AirForce Association, which is the most terrifying document that I have everread. It begins by stating that preservation of the status quo is not adequate as anational goal. I quote: ‘Freedom must bury Communism or be buried byCommunism. Complete eradication of the Soviet system must be our nationalgoal, our obligation to all free people, our promise of hope to all who are notfree.’ It is a curious hope that is being promised, since it can only be realisedin heaven, for the only ‘promise’ that the West can hope to ful?l is thepromise to turn Eastern populations into corpses. The noble patriots whomake this pronouncement omit to mention that Western populations alsowill be exterminated.‘We are determined’, they say, ‘to back our words with action even at therisk of war. We seek not merely to preserve our freedoms, but to extendthem.’ 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 freedomscarcely distinguishable from this exists in Soviet Russia. The document that Iam 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 ageneral nuclear war’. This aim is, of course, impossible to realise, but, byusing their peculiar brand of ‘freedom’ to cause belief in lies, they hope topersuade a deliberately uninformed public opinion to join in their racetowards death. They are careful to promise us that H-bombs will not be theworst things they have to o?er. ‘Nuclear weapons’, they say, ‘are not the endof 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 endof the line in military systems’ development.’ They explain their meaning bysaying, ‘We must utilise ?? space technology as a prime factor in the inter-national power equation’. They lead up to a noble peroration: ‘Soviet aims areboth evil and implacable. The people (i.e. the American people) are willing towork toward, and ?ght for if necessary, the elimination of Communism fromthe world scene. Let the issue be joined.’This ferocious document, which amounts to a sentence of death on thehuman 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 cleverlyinstilled fear that disarmament would bring a new depression. This fear hasbeen instilled in spite of the fact that Americans have been assured in the WallStreet Journal that a new depression would not be brought about, that theconversion from armaments to manufactures for peace could be madewith little dislocation. Reputable economists in other countries supportthis Wall Street view. But the armament ?rms exploit patriotism and anti-communism as means of transferring the taxpayers’ money into their ownpockets. Ruthlessly, and probably consciously, they are leading the worldtowards disaster.Two days ago The Times published an article by its correspondent inWashington which began: ‘The United States has decided that any attempt byEast Germany to close the Friedrichstrasse crossing between West and EastBerlin will be met by force.’These facts about both America and Russia strengthen my belief that theaims that I have been advocating for some years, and upon which some of usare agreed, are right. I believe that Britain should become neutral, leaving???? – to which, in any case, she adds only negligible strength. I believe thispartly because I believe that Britain would be safer as a neutral, and without abomb of her own or the illusory ‘protection’ of the American bomb, andwithout bases for foreign troops; and, perhaps more important, I believe itbecause, if Britain were neutral, she could do more to help to achieve peace inthe world than she can do now. I do not believe that either America or Russiashould disarm unilaterally, because whichever did not do so ?rst wouldautomatically become ruler of the world. I believe that they should disarm asa result of negotiations and agreement to do so. In order to achieve thisagreement, I think that Britain might have a very important role to play, for Ibelieve that it can only be brought about if the neutrals form a sort ofbalancing committee to put forward and argue possible compromises. ThenBritain could pro?tably add her political experience to this committee. Inthe present state of a?airs she can do nothing to forward governmentalmovement towards peace. I should like to think that the example of Britaintrafalgar square 623unilaterally disarming and, untramelled, taking up the cudgels for peacewould persuade some other countries to disarm unilaterally. Then we shouldbe able to throw a heavy weight towards persuading America and Russia todisarm multilaterally.I have heard the criticism that we uphold only negative aims. I should liketo point out that the policy just outlined is quite positive. All our aims, themost immediate and the most distant, are positive – whether they happen tobe stated in negative terms or not.But to return –The British Government is less ruthless than the American, but shrinksfrom open opposition to American Jingoism. It is our hope that, before it istoo late, we may overcome this shrinking timidity. Our methods must bedominated by the knowledge that the time is short. We are censured asdisobeying orders by the very men who, in the Nuremberg Trials, punishedthe Germans for not disobeying orders. There are Committees of 100 startingup 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 alreadyestablished movements having similar aims, even by newly establishedCommittees of 100 in other countries, has been astounding. All these peoplethroughout the world must be encouraged. We must build up – and we mustdo it quickly – a great world-wide mass movement of people demanding theabandonment of nuclear weapons, the abandonment of war as a means ofsettling disputes. Although the time may be short, our movement is gainingstrength 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, thedanger of war became less immediate, and Russian policy became some-what milder.]??????????? ??? ? ????? ??: ????????? ?????????The Assembly should empower the Secretary General to appoint a smallcommittee consisting entirely of members of uncommitted nations whichshould be charged with the task of investigating matters in debate betweenEast and West as they arise, with a view to suggesting compromise solutionswhich both sides could accept without loss of face. These solutions should besuch 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 diminishfriction at danger points such as Berlin.the autobiography of bertrand russell 624This ‘Balancing Committee’ should publish the suggestions on whateverproblems it investigated and seek to rally to the support of these suggestions?rst neutral opinion and then, if possible, the opinion of Eastern and Westernnegotiators. The members of the ‘Balancing Committee’ should commandpublic respect in their several countries but should not be responsible to thenational governments of the states from which they come.The Committee should be small, since, otherwise, it will not reachdecisions 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 bedi?cult for either side to resist.Statement re: ???? ????????? ??? ?? ??? Not in the course of nature, but within a fewweeks, and not you alone, but your family, yourfriends, and all the inhabitants of Britain,together with many hundreds of millions ofinnocent people elsewhere.???? Because rich Americans dislike the Governmentthat Cubans prefer, and have used part of theirwealth to spread lies about it.???? ??? ??? ??? You can go out into the streets and into the mar-ket place, proclaiming: ‘Do not yield to ferociousand insane murderers. Do not imagine that it isyour duty to die when your Prime Minister and