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 ofwar by accident or misinformation. Furthermore, there are di?culties causedby the one-sided character of information as it reaches one side or the otherin any dispute. It is clear that peace cannot come to the world without seriousconcessions, sometimes by one side, sometimes by the other, but generallyby both. These di?culties in the pursuit of peace require a di?erent tech-nique from that of marches and demonstrations. The questions concerned arecomplex, the only possible solutions are distasteful to one side or both, andnegotiators who discuss such questions will need to keep a ?rm hold of theirtempers if they are to succeed.All this should be the work of Governments. But Governments will notadequately do the necessary work unless they are pushed on by a body orbodies which have an international character and are especially concernedwith a search for peaceful solutions. It is work of this kind that we hope to seeperformed by the new Foundations, which I hereby recommend to you.Of the two Foundations one is called The Atlantic Peace Foundation. Beinga Foundation for purposes of research in matters of war and peace, it hasbeen registered as a charity and is recognised as such by the British InlandRevenue. Income Tax at the standard rate is, therefore, recoverable on anysubscription given to it under a seven-year contract, which means that suchsubscriptions are increased by about sixty per cent. This Foundation worksin co-operation with the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation. The latterimplements 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, intime, it will become so. But the United Nations has defects, some of themremediable, others essential in a body which represents an organisation ofStates. Of the former kind of defect, the most notable is the exclusion ofChina; of the latter kind, the equality of States in the Assembly and the vetopower of certain States in the Security Council. For such reasons the UnitedNations, 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 commonsense of mankind. Perhaps this hope is too ambitious. Perhaps it will besome other body with similar objects that will achieve the ?nal victory. Buthowever that may be, the work of our Foundation will have ministered to afortunate ending.The problems which will have to be settled are two kinds. The ?rst kind isthat which concerns mankind as a whole. Of this the most important are two:namely, disarmament and education. The second class of problems are thoseconcerning territorial adjustments, of which Germany is likely to prove themost di?cult. Both kinds must be solved if peace is to be secure.There have been congresses concerned with the subject of disarmamentever since nuclear weapons came into existence. Immediately after the endingof the Second World War, America o?ered to the world the Baruch Proposal.This was intended to break the American monopoly of nuclear weapons andto place them in the hands of an international body. Its intentions wereadmirable, but Congress insisted upon the insertion of clauses which it wasknown the Russians would not accept. Everything worked out as had beenexpected. Stalin rejected the Baruch Proposal, and Russia proceeded to createits own A-bomb and, then, its own H-bomb. The result was the Cold War, theblockade of Berlin, and the creation by both sides of H-bombs which ?rstsuggested the danger to mankind in general. After Stalin’s death, a newattempt at complete disarmament was made. Eisenhower and Khrushchevmet at Camp David. But warlike elements in the Pentagon continued theirwork of spying, and the Russian destruction of U-2 put an end to the briefattempt at friendship. Since that time, disarmament conferences have metconstantly, but always, until after the Cuban Crisis, with the determination onboth sides that no agreement should be reached. Since the Cuban Crisis therehas again been a more friendly atmosphere, but so far, without any tangibleresult except the Test-Ban Treaty. This Treaty was valuable, also, as showingthat agreement is possible between East and West. The success of the negoti-ations involved was largely due to Pugwash, an international association ofscientists concerned with problems of peace and war.the autobiography of bertrand russell 656The present situation in regard to disarmament is that both America andRussia 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 shouldbe one of the most urgent tasks of the Foundation to devise some scheme ofdisarmament to which both sides could agree. It is ominous, however, thatthe Pentagon has again allowed one of its planes to be shot down by theRussians 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 ofother countries, and among their countrymen in history those whom theyare specially taught to admire are usually those who have shown most skill inkilling 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 mostfor the world. They are those who have served their country in ways thatmust be forever closed if man is to survive. The conception of Man as onefamily will have to be taught as carefully as the opposite is now taught. Thiswill not be an easy transition. It will be said that boys under such a regimenwill be soft and e?eminate. It will be said that they will lose the manly virtuesand will be destitute of courage. All this will be said by Christians in spite ofChrist’s teaching. But, dreadful as it may appear, boys brought up in the oldway will grow into quarrelsome men who will ?nd a world without warunbearably tame. Only a new kind of education, inculcating a new set ofmoral 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 mencan go to the moon. There are many ways of showing courage withouthaving 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’sown 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 artsof civilisation. War should be treated as murder is treated. It should beregarded with equal horror and with equal aversion. All this, I fear, maynot be pleasing to most present-day educationists. But, unless education ischanged 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 ofStates. Gunpowder made modern states possible at the time of the Renaissanceby making castles obsolete. What castles were at that time, national States arenow, since weapons of mass destruction have made even the greatest Statesthe 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 hasmade the latter out of date. World-wide co-operation is now a conditionof survivial. But world-wide co-operation, if it is to succeed, requiresco-operative feelings in individuals. It is di?cult to imagine a World Gov-ernment succeeding if the various countries of which it is composed continueto hate and suspect each other. To bring about more friendly feelings acrossthe boundaries of nations is, to begin with, a matter of adult education. It isnecessary to teach both individuals and Governments that as one familymankind may prosper as never before, but as many competing families thereis no prospect before mankind except death. To teach this lesson will be alarge part of the educative work of the Foundation.There are throughout the world a number of territorial questions, most ofwhich divide East from West. Some of the questions are very thorny and mustbe 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 Berlinwithin Germany. It was hoped that all would, in time, come to agree andwould submit to any conditions imposed by the victorious allies. Trouble,however, soon arose. The city of Berlin was in the midst of the Russian zoneand no adequate provision had been made to secure access to the Westernsector of Berlin for the Western allies. Stalin took advantage of this situation in1948 by the so-called ‘Berlin Blockade’ which forbade all access to WestBerlin by road or rail on the part of the Western allies. The Western alliesretorted by the ‘Air Lift’ which enabled them to supply West Berlin in spite ofthe Russian blockade. Throughout the period of the Berlin blockade bothsides were strictly legal. Access to West Berlin by air had been guaranteed inthe peace settlement, and this the Russians never challenged. The wholeepisode ended with a somewhat ambiguous and reluctant agreement on thepart of the Russians to allow free intercourse between West Berlin and WestGermany. This settlement, however, did not satisfy the West. It was obviousthat the Russians could at any moment occupy West Berlin and that the onlyanswer open to the West would be nuclear war. Somewhat similar consider-ations applied, rather less forcibly, to the whole of Western Germany. In thisway, the problem of Germany became linked with the problem of nucleardisarmament: if nuclear disarmament was accepted by the West withoutadequate assurances as to disarmament in regard to conventional weapons,then Germany’s defence against the East would become di?cult if notimpossible.The German problem also exists in regard to Eastern Germany – and hereit represents new complexities. What had been the Eastern portion of thethe autobiography of bertrand russell 658German Reich was divided into two parts. The Eastern half was given toRussia and Poland, while the Western half was given to a Communist regimein East Germany. In the part given to Russia and Poland all Germans wereevicted. Old and young, men, women and children were ruthlessly sent inover-crowded trains to Berlin, where they had to walk from the Easternterminus to the Western terminus in queues which were apt to take as muchas thirty-six hours. Many Germans died in the trains and many in the Berlinqueues, but for the survivors there was no legal remedy.And how about the part of Germany which was assigned to the EastGerman Government? The East German Government was a CommunistGovernment, while the population was overwhelmingly anti-Communist.The Government was established by the Russians and sustained by theirarmed forces against insurrection. Eastern Germany became a prison, escapefrom which, after the construction of the Berlin Wall, was only possible atimminent risk of death.It cannot be expected that Germany will tamely accept this situation. Theparts of the old German Reich which were given to Russia or Poland were, forthe most part, inhabited by Poles and must be regarded as justly lost toGermany whatever may be thought of the hardships su?ered by excludedGermans. But the position of the Germans in what is now the Eastern portionof 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 fearof 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. Thisapprehension is apparently not shared by the Governments of the West, whohave done everything in their power to strengthen West Germany and make itagain capable of another disastrous attempt at world dominion. It cannot besaid 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 theEast might, conceivably, agree, if Germany were disarmed. But the Germanswould never agree to a punitive disarmament in?icted upon them alone.Only general disarmament would make German disarmament acceptable tothe Germans. In this way, the question of Germany becomes entangled withthe problem of disarmament. It is di?cult to imagine any solution of theGerman problem which would be acceptable both to Germans and to the restof the world, except reuni?cation combined with general disarmament.The next most di?cult of territorial disputes is that between Israel and thethe foundation 659Arabs. Nasser has announced that it is his purpose to exterminate Israel andthat, 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 beallowed to happen, but most of Asia and, possibly, Russia would be preparedto look on passively so long as the Arabs continued to be victorious. Thereseems little hope of any accommodation between the two sides except as aresult of outside pressure. The ideal solution in such a case is a decision bythe United Nations which the countries concerned would be compelled toadopt. I am not prepared to suggest publicly the terms of such a decision, butonly that it should come from the United Nations and be supported by themajor powers of East and West.In general, when there is a dispute as to whether the Government of acountry should favour the East or the West, the proper course would be forthe United Nations to conduct a plebiscite in the country concerned and givethe Government to whichever side obtained a majority. This is a principlewhich, at present, is not accepted by either side. Americans do not accept it inSouth Vietnam, though they conceal the reason for their anti-Communistactivities by pretending that they are protecting the peasantry from theinroads of the Vietcong. The attitude of the United States to Castro’s Govern-ment in Cuba is very ambiguous. Large sections of American opinion holdthat throughout the Western Hemisphere no Government obnoxious to theUnited States is to be tolerated. But whether these sections of opinion willdetermine American action is as yet, doubtful. Russia is, in this respect,equally to blame, having enforced Communist Governments in Hungary andEastern Germany against the wishes of the inhabitants. In all parts of theworld, self-determination by hither-to subject nations will become verymuch easier if there is general disarmament.The ultimate goal will be a world in which national armed forces arelimited to what is necessary for internal stability and in which the only forcescapable of acting outside national limits will be those of a reformed UnitedNations. The approach to this ultimate solution must be piecemeal and mustinvolve a gradual increase in the authority of the United Nations or, possibly,of some new international body which should have sole possession of themajor weapons of war. It is di?cult to see any other way in which mankindcan survive the invention of weapons of mass extinction.Many of the reforms suggested above depend upon the authority of theUnited Nations or of some new international body specially created for thepurpose. To avoid circumlocution I shall speak of the United Nations to coverboth those possibilities. If its powers are to be extended, this will have to bedone by means of education which is both neutral and international. Sucheducation will have to be carried out by an organisation which is, itself,international and neutral. There are, at present, in various countries, nationalthe 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 associationaiming at the creation of a peaceful world. The other Foundations are limitedin scope – being either national or aimed towards dealing with only one ortwo aspects or approaches to peace. We shall support them where we can, andshall hope for their support in those areas of our work which impinge upontheirs. We shall also endeavour to diminish the acerbity of international con-troversy and induce Governments and important organs of public opinion topreserve 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 ofDirectors. This body is, as yet, incomplete, but should as soon as possible berepresentative of all the interests concerned in the prevention of war. It issupported 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 tobe 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 alsohouse 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 NewYork and one in Beirut, will be established in the immediate future. Otherswill follow as soon as suitable personnel can be recruited. This is, in manyparts of the world, a di?cult task. Many Governments, although they do notventure publicly to advocate nuclear war, are opposed to any work against itin their own territories, and many individuals, while genuinely desirous ofpeace, shrink from such national sacri?ces as the Foundation’s general policymay seem to make desirable. It is obvious that a general peace policy mustdemand moderation everywhere, and many friends of peace, while admittingthe desirability of concessions by countries other than their own, are apt toshrink from advocating necessary concessions by their own country. Willing-ness for such concessions is a necessary quali?cation for membership ofthe Secretariat and for the Head of any subsidiary o?ce. Each subsidiaryo?ce will have to collect information and ?rst-hand knowledge on all localmatters from both the ordinary population and the authorities. They willhave to assess this knowledge with a view to its importance in work towardspeace. And they will have to disseminate accurate knowledge and to educateboth authorities and the public in attitudes and actions desirable in worktowards peace. Each o?ce will also have the task of ?nding suitable workersto support its own part of the general work and to collect money both for itsown and the general work. It should be part of the work of the subsidiaryo?ces to pass on information and advice so that the Central Secretariat candraw up soundly based schemes for the settlement of disputes that stand agood chance of being accepted by the disputants.the foundation 661To accomplish these tasks will not be possible without a considerableexpenditure in secretarial help, in o?ces, in means of travel, in means ofpublicising ?ndings and, ultimately, when and if funds permit, in establish-ing a radio and newspaper of our own. Until such funds permit, theexploration of possibilities and estimates of location, plant and personnel forthese needed means of publicity – in itself no mean task – must occupy theFoundation.It will be seen that the Foundation as we hope it may become must be agradual work. It cannot spring into being full-armoured like Athene. Whatexists 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 isinternational, neutral and energetic, but too small for the work that has to bedone. We have pamphlets and lea?ets stating our views on various topicalissues. 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 ifpeace is to be secured there. Nevertheless, even now, we have found that thereis much that we can accomplish. We can collect information, partly by meansof already published facts, and partly by travels in the course of which we visitthe Governments and learn their point of view. In the short ?ve months of itsexistence, the Foundation has sent emissaries to various troubled spots and tothe Governments concerned. We have already an enormous correspondence,partly with sympathisers in all parts of the world, and partly also, with Headsof States. From all these we derive both information and advice. Partly, too,our correspondence has been concerned with appeals for the liberation ofpolitical prisoners and the amelioration of the lot of minorities in variouscountries, East and West, South and North. In these last respects, our work hasalready met with great and unexpected success. In recounting the success ofthe Foundation during these ?rst ?ve months, however, we labour under thehandicap 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 themwould nullify their e?cacy.As everybody who has ever attempted to create a large organisation willunderstand, our chief e?ort during these early months has been concernedwith obtaining funds, and this must continue for a considerable time sincemuch of the work we wish to do involves very considerable expense. We areopening accounts in various countries to pay for local expenditure. We havedone various things to raise money, such as a sale of paintings and sculpturegenerously donated to us by their creators. We are sponsoring a ?lm. We havehope of money from various theatrical performances. But these alone will notsu?ce, unless supplemented by gifts from individuals and organisations. It isobvious that the more money we can collect the more nearly and adequatelythe autobiography of bertrand russell 662we can carry out our aims. We are ?rmly convinced that the Foundation canachieve the immense work it has undertaken provided su?cient fundsbecome 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 FrommGonzalez Cosio No. 15Mexico 12, D.F.May 30th, 1962Lord Bertrand Russellcare of Mrs Clara UrquhartLondon, W.1Dear Bertrand RussellI 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 adviceand help with regard to the fate of a man, Heinz Brandt, who was arrested lastJune by the East German police in East Berlin, or Potsdam, and was sentencedto thirteen years of hard labour (Zuchthaus) on the 10th of May at a secrettrial for espionage against the ???.Brandt was a German communist before Hitler, for eleven years was inHitler’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 thecommunist party. He got more and more into opposition with that party, andeventually ?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 hisunion 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 whoknows him believes that he would have gone voluntarily to East Germany. Theremarkable 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 ofthe most passionate and ardent ?ghters against West German rearmament, forpeace and for an understanding with the Soviet Union. Although his union inFrankfort is not only the biggest but also the most peace-minded union inWest Germany, his courageous stand made him enemies in many places andyet he fought for his ideals without the slightest compromise.I know that Brandt was left in a nervous condition from the tortures heunderwent in the Nazi camps, he has a wife and three young children, andthe sentence amounts to a life-long one or even a death sentence, consideringhis present age of around 55 and his condition...the foundation 663There was a great deal of protest and indignation going on since he wasarrested and again now after he was sentenced. Naturally his case has beenused for fanatical anti-communist propaganda by various circles. We, on theother hand, have done all we could to prevent this kind of misuse, and wehave addressed ourselves in cables to Khrushchev and Ulbricht asking forBrandt’s release. (These cables were signed by a number of American paci?stsand leading peace workers and also by some from France (Claude Bourdet)and Germany (Professor Abendroth).) After being sentenced, it seems thatthe only hope for his liberation would lie in the fact that enough people, andsu?ciently in?uential ones from the Western Hemisphere, would approachthe 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. Ithought myself that the coming Congress in Moscow would be a goodopportunity for such an attempt. I intend to go there as an observer. I cabledProfessor Bernal some time ago and asked him whether, if I went, I wouldbe 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 othernon-communists and Western peace people will support this step? I hopevery much that you could decide to lend your support also.I enclose the declaration of the West German Socialistischer DeutscherStudentenbund. Similar declarations have been signed by Professor W.Abendroth, Professor H. J. Heydorn, H. Brakemeier and E. D?hne. (It may beknown to you that the Socialistischer Deutscher Studentenbund has beenexpelled from the West German Democratic Party precisely because of itsstand against West German rearmament.)I would have liked very much to talk with you before the Moscowconference, 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 mea line how long you will be in London, and when you will be in Moscow, andif you could see me for an hour to discuss this case either before you leaveor in Moscow?Yours sincerelyErich FrommEncl.cc – Mrs Clara Urquhart1 July 1962Dear Erich FrommI wish to apologise to you most sincerely for leaving your letter of May30th unanswered until now. I shall do anything you advise with respect toBrandt. I have recently received two communications from Khrushchev andcan easily incorporate the question of Brandt in my reply.