einstein

Washington needed to try harder to enlist Moscow in an arms control plan, Einstein argued. Golden felt he was speaking “with almost childlike hope
for salvation and without appearing to have thought through the details of his solution.” He reported back to Marshall, “It was surprising, though
perhaps it should not have been, that, out of his métier of mathematics, he seemed naïve in the field of international politics. The man who
popularized the concept of a fourth dimension could think in only two of them in considerations of World Government.” 17
To the extent that Einstein was naïve, it was not because he had a benign view of human nature. Having lived in Germany in the first half of the
twentieth century, there was little chance of that. When the famed photographer Philippe Halsman, who had escaped the Nazis with Einstein’s help,
asked whether he thought there would ever be lasting peace, Einstein answered, “No, as long as there will be man, there will be war.” At that
moment Halsman clicked his shutter and captured Einstein’s sadly knowing eyes for what became a famous portrait (reproduced on page 487). 18
Einstein’s advocacy of an empowered world authority was based not on gooey sentiments but on this hardnosed assessment of human nature. “If
the idea of world government is not realistic,” he said in 1948, “then there is only one realistic view of our future: wholesale destruction of man by
man.” 19
Like some of his scientific breakthroughs, Einstein’s approach involved abandoning entrenched suppositions that others considered verities.
National sovereignty and military autonomy had been an underpinning of the world order for centuries, just as absolute time and absolute space
had been the underpinning of the cosmic order. To advocate transcending that approach was a radical idea, the product of a nonconformist thinker.
But like many of Einstein’s ideas that at first seemed so radical, it may have looked less so had it come to be accepted.
The world federalism that Einstein—and indeed many sober and established political leaders—advocated during the early years of America’s
atomic monopoly was not unthinkable. To the extent that he was naïve, it was because he put forth his idea in a simple fashion and did not consider
complex compromises. Physicists are not used to trimming or compromising their equations in order to get them accepted. Which is why they do
not make good politicians.
At the end of the 1940s, when it was becoming clear to him that the effort to control nuclear weaponry would fail, Einstein was asked what the
next war would look like.“I do not know how the Third World War will be fought,” he answered, “but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth—
rocks.” 20
Russia
Those who wanted international control of the bomb had one big issue to confront: how to deal with Russia. A growing number of Americans,
along with their elected leaders, came to view Moscow’s communists as dangerously expansionist and deceitful. The Russians, for their part, did
not seem all that eager for arms control or world governance either. They had deeply ingrained fears about their security, a desire for a bomb of
their own, and leaders who recoiled at any hint of outside meddling in their nation’s internal affairs.
There was a typical nonconformity in Einstein’s attitudes toward Russia. He did not swing as far as many others did toward glorifying the
Russians when they became allies during the war, nor did he swing as far toward demonizing them when the cold war began. But by the late 1940s,
this put him increasingly outside mainstream American sentiments.
He disliked communist authoritarianism, but he did not see it as an imminent danger to American liberty. The greater danger, he felt, was rising
hysteria about the supposed Red menace. When Norman Cousins, editor of the Saturday Review and the journalistic patron of America’s
internationalist intelligentsia, wrote a piece calling for international arms control, Einstein responded with a fan letter but added a caveat. “What I
object to in your article is that you not only fail to oppose the widespread hysterical fear in our country of Russian aggression but actually encourage
it,” he said. “All of us should ask ourselves which of the two countries is objectively more justified in fearing the aggressive intentions of the other.” 21
As for the repression inside Russia, Einstein tended to offer only mild condemnations diluted by excuses. “It is undeniable that a policy of severe
coercion exists in the political sphere,” he said in one talk. “This may, in part, be due to the need to break the power of the former ruling class and to
convert a politically inexperienced, culturally backward people into a nation well organized for productive work. I do not presume to pass judgment
in these difficult matters.” 22
Einstein consequently became the target of critics who saw him as a Soviet sympathizer. Mississippi Congressman John Rankin said that
Einstein’s world government plan was “simply carrying out the Communist line.” Speaking on the House floor, Rankin also denounced Einstein’s
science: “Ever since he published his book on relativity to try to convince the world that light had weight, he has capitalized on his reputation as a
scientist . . . and has been engaged in communistic activities.” 23
Einstein continued his long-running exchanges on Russia with Sidney Hook, the social philosopher who had once been a communist and then
become strongly anticommunist. These were not as exalted as his exchanges with Bohr, on either side, but they got as intense. “I am not blind to
the serious weakness of the Russian system of government,” Einstein replied to one of Hook’s missives. “But it has, on the other side, great merits
and it is difficult to decide whether it would have been possible for the Russians to survive by following softer methods.” 24
Hook took it upon himself to convince Einstein of the error of his ways and sent him long and rather frequent letters, most of which Einstein
ignored. On the occasions he did answer, Einstein generally agreed that Russia’s oppression was wrong, but he tended to balance such judgments
by adding that it was also somewhat understandable. As he juggled it in one 1950 response:
I do not approve of the interference by the Soviet government in intellectual and artistic matters. Such interference seems to me objectionable,
harmful, and even ridiculous. Regarding the centralization of political power and the limitations of the freedom of action for the individual, I think
that these restrictions should not exceed the limit demanded by security, stability, and the necessities resulting from a planned economy. An
outsider is hardly able to judge the facts and possibilities. In any case it cannot be doubted that the achievements of the Soviet regime are
considerable in the fields of education, public health, social welfare, and economics, and that the people as a whole have greatly gained by
these achievements. 25
Despite these qualified excuses for some of Moscow’s behavior, Einstein was not the Soviet supporter that some tried to paint him. He had
always rejected invitations to Moscow and rebuffed attempts by friends on the left to embrace him as a comrade. He denounced Moscow’s
repeated use of the veto at the United Nations and its resistance to the idea of world government, and he became even more critical when the
Soviets made it clear that they had no appetite for arms control.
This was evident when an official group of Russian scientists attacked Einstein in a 1947 Moscow newspaper article, “Dr. Einstein’s Mistaken
Notions.” His vision for a world government, they declared, was a plot by capitalists. “The proponents of a world super-state are asking us
voluntarily to surrender independence for the sake of world government, which is nothing but a flamboyant signboard for the supremacy of capitalist