Einstein’s Views On Promoting World Peace
As
one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple way of
dealing with the superficial (i.e., administrative) aspect of the
problem: the setting up, by international consent, of a legislative and
judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations. Each
nation would undertake to abide by the orders issued by this legislative
body, to invoke its decision in every dispute, to accept its judgments
unreservedly and to carry out every measure the tribunal deems necessary
for the execution of its decrees…. Thus I am led to my first axiom: The
quest of international security involves the unconditional surrender by
every nation, in a certain measure, of its liberty of action–its
sovereignty that is to say–and it is clear beyond all doubt that no
other road can lead to such security….
Einstein, being a fairly intelligent fellow, well recognized the resistance against any group seeking to create such a tribunal. Thus, he stated in his letter:
The
craving for power which characterizes the governing class in every
nation is hostile to any limitation of the national sovereignty. This
political power hunger is often supported by the activities of another
group, whose aspirations are on purely mercenary, economic lines. I have
especially in mind that small but determined group, active in every
nation, composed of individuals who, indifferent to social
considerations and restraints, regard warfare, the manufacture and sale
of arms, simply as an occasion to advance their personal interests and
enlarge their personal authority….
Not having a ready solution to how to deal with this resistance, Einstein concluded his letter to Freud with the following words:
…[I]t would be of the greatest service to us all were you to present the problem of world peace in the light of your most recent discoveries, for such a presentation well might blaze the trail for new and fruitful modes of action.
Yours very sincerely,
Albert Einstein
Einstein addressed a letter in 1931, or
possibly 1932, to Freud, concerning an organization of intellectual
leaders that would work toward world peace. It reads in part:
After receiving Einstein’s letter, Freud agreed to participate in a public exchange of letters. Einstein’s first open letter to Freud said, in part,I greatly admire your passion to ascertain the truth–a passion that has come to dominate all else in your thinking. You have shown with irresistible lucidity how inseparably the aggressive and destructive instincts are bound up in the human psyche with those of love and the lust for life. At the same time, your convincing arguments make manifest your deep devotion to the great goal of the internal and external liberation of man from the evils of war. This was the profound hope of all those who have been revered as moral and spiritual leaders beyond the limits of their own time and country, from Jesus to Goethe and Kant. Is it not significant that such men have been universally recognized as leaders, even though their desire to affect the course of human affairs was quite ineffective?….Do you not share the feeling that a change could be brought about by a free association of men whose previous work and achievements offer a guarantee of their ability and integrity? Such a group of international scope, whose members would have to keep contact with each other through constant interchange of opinions, might gain a significant and wholesome moral influence on the solution of political problems if its own attitudes, backed by the signatures of its concurring members, were made public through the press.
Such an association would, of course, suffer from all the defects that have so often led to degeneration in learned societies; the danger that such a degeneration may develop is, unfortunately, ever present in view of the imperfections of human nature. However, and despite those dangers, should we not make at least an attempt to form such an association in spite of all dangers? It seems to me nothing less than an imperative duty!
Once such an association of intellectuals–men of real stature–has come into being, it might then make an energetic effort to enlist religious groups in the fight against war. The association would give moral power for action to many personalities whose good intentions are today paralyzed by an attitude of painful resignation.
As
one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple way of
dealing with the superficial (i.e., administrative) aspect of the
problem: the setting up, by international consent, of a legislative and
judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations. Each
nation would undertake to abide by the orders issued by this legislative
body, to invoke its decision in every dispute, to accept its judgments
unreservedly and to carry out every measure the tribunal deems necessary
for the execution of its decrees…. Thus I am led to my first axiom: The
quest of international security involves the unconditional surrender by
every nation, in a certain measure, of its liberty of action–its
sovereignty that is to say–and it is clear beyond all doubt that no
other road can lead to such security….Einstein, being a fairly intelligent fellow, well recognized the resistance against any group seeking to create such a tribunal. Thus, he stated in his letter:
The
craving for power which characterizes the governing class in every
nation is hostile to any limitation of the national sovereignty. This
political power hunger is often supported by the activities of another
group, whose aspirations are on purely mercenary, economic lines. I have
especially in mind that small but determined group, active in every
nation, composed of individuals who, indifferent to social
considerations and restraints, regard warfare, the manufacture and sale
of arms, simply as an occasion to advance their personal interests and
enlarge their personal authority….Not having a ready solution to how to deal with this resistance, Einstein concluded his letter to Freud with the following words:
…[I]t would be of the greatest service to us all were you to present the problem of world peace in the light of your most recent discoveries, for such a presentation well might blaze the trail for new and fruitful modes of action.
Yours very sincerely,
Albert Einstein
But
then he notes that he realizes that Einstein is not so much interested
in a lot of theorizing, but rather, in concrete steps that may be taken
to promote lasting world peace. The answer, he says, perhaps lies in
trying to figure out why he, Einstein, and some others developed into
human beings who are so much less likely than others to heed the drums
of war. Perhaps if we understand this, we can create the conditions for
others to reach a similar level of development. Thus, Freud wrote,
Because
every man has a right over his own life and war destroys lives that
were full of promise; it forces the individual into situations that
shame his manhood, obliging him to murder fellow men, against his will;
it ravages material amenities, the fruits of human toil, and much
besides. Moreover, wars, as now conducted, afford no scope for acts of
heroism according to the old ideals and, given the high perfection of
modern arms, war today would mean the sheer extermination of one of the
combatants, if not of both. This is so true, so obvious, that we can but
wonder why the conduct of war is not banned by general consent…. 
The
psychic changes which accompany this process of cultural change are
striking, and not to be gainsaid. They consist in the progressive
rejection of instinctive ends and a scaling down of instinctive
reactions. Sensations which delighted our forefathers have become
neutral or unbearable to us; and, if our ethical and aesthetic ideals
have undergone a change, the causes of this are ultimately organic. On
the psychological side two of the most important phenomena of culture
are, firstly, a strengthening of the intellect, which tends to master
our instinctive life, and, secondly, an introversion of the aggressive
impulse, with all its consequent benefits and perils. 
Now
war runs most emphatically counter to the psychic disposition imposed
on us by the growth of culture; we are therefore bound to resent war, to
find it utterly intolerable. With pacifists like us it is not merely an
intellectual and affective revulsion, but a constitutional intolerance,
an idiosyncrasy in its most drastic form. And it would seem that the
aesthetic ignominies of warfare play almost as large a part in this
repugnance as war’s atrocities.