The Russell-Einstein Manifesto, 1955

This reflection was written as part of the Invisible University for Ukraine’s Open educational materials project (fall 2024). Students of three IUFU courses — (Re)thinking “Soviet”: Modern Ukrainian Identity and the Legacy of Communism  (course director Olena Palko, University of Basel), Sexuality and Decoloniality (course director Nadiia Chushak, Kyiv-Mohyla Academy), and War, Peace, and the Politics of Uncertainty (course director Tetiana Zemliakova, European University Institute) — were asked to write short reflections on the sources from their course syllabus with a brief source analysis and suggestions about how they can be used in other educational backgrounds. The project was funded by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).

Invisible University for Ukraine (IUFU) is a certificate program for Ukrainian undergraduate and graduate students, whether residing in Ukraine or in refuge, whose studies have been affected by the war. IUFU has run since the spring of 2022 and was an immediate reaction to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its consequences for the Ukrainian education system.

A sobering truth, which nevertheless must be confronted, is that nuclear weapons threaten not just “humanity” in an abstract sense but every living creature on Earth and all future generations. The manifesto was issued on July 9, 1955, by Bertrand Russell, during a time when the Cold War and the arms race were escalating. It was signed by 11 eminent scientists, including Albert Einstein. Shortly thereafter, in 1957, the manifesto was publicly presented at the First Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs.

To understand the context, it is important to highlight the contributions of the authors. Bertrand Russell, whose name is listed first in the title, was a British philosopher, essayist, and intellectual who authored most of the text. Beyond his scientific contributions to mathematics and logic, Russell was a social critic who significantly influenced contemporary discussions on ethics, politics, religion, and education. Notably, in 1948, he controversially suggested that if war with the Soviet Union were inevitable, it would be morally preferable for the United States to use atomic weapons quickly before the USSR developed its own. However, following Soviet nuclear tests, Russell declared his opposition to nuclear weapons and advocated for complete disarmament. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, he actively promoted the total abolition of nuclear arms and campaigned against the Vietnam War.

Albert Einstein was also a fervent opponent of nuclear weapons. However, though indirectly, he contributed to their creation and the launch of the Manhattan Project. In 1939, he co-authored a letter to President Roosevelt warning about possible German nuclear weapons research and urging the United States to start its own atomic energy program. However, Einstein did not participate directly in the Manhattan Project. After World War II, he worked on nuclear arms control issues. Later, he expressed regret for signing the letter to Roosevelt, stating that he would not have done so if he had known that the Third Reich’s nuclear weapons development would ultimately fail. Einstein signed the Manifesto shortly before his death.

The Manifesto reflects on the “Bikini tests,” a series of 23 nuclear detonations conducted by the US on Bikini Atoll between 1946 and 1958. This program included the first test of a thermonuclear bomb, which was 2,500 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. However, the most devastating aspect was not the blast itself, which some might consider a relatively painless death, but the radioactive fallout and rain, which could inflict unbearable suffering and agony on thousands of people. To this day, scientists can only speculate about the full impact of such a powerful weapon on the planet.

Even in 1955, when the so-called “war to end all wars” was still fresh in collective memory, it was evident that humanity would face many more armed conflicts. The authors acknowledged the intrinsic link between the right to wage war and state sovereignty and called for at least an agreement to ban the H-bomb. Otherwise, the next war could indeed be the last—but not in the way anyone would hope.

The Russell-Einstein Manifesto exemplifies the growing anxiety in the 1950s over the possibility of mutual annihilation. Members of the intellectual elite often called for disarmament and reconciliation with the socialist bloc. For example, in the same year, 1955, the first World Conference Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs was held in Hiroshima. Efforts to promote international collaboration on atomic materials were also made under the auspices of the United Nations, spearheaded by Dwight Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” initiative. In 1963, the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom signed the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. However, despite these efforts to resolve humanity’s tense and precarious condition during the Cold War, there were several moments, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Able Archer incident, when the world came dangerously close to disaster.

The Russel-Einstein Manifesto

In the tragic situation which confronts humanity, we feel that scientists should assemble in conference to appraise the perils that have arisen as a result of the development of weapons of mass destruction, and to discuss a resolution in the spirit of the appended draft.

We are speaking on this occasion, not as members of this or that nation, continent, or creed, but as human beings, members of the species Man, whose continued existence is in doubt. The world is full of conflicts; and, overshadowing all minor conflicts, the titanic struggle between Communism and anti-Communism.

Almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings about one or more of these issues; but we want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings and consider yourselves only as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire.

We shall try to say no single word which should appeal to one group rather than to another. All, equally, are in peril, and, if the peril is understood, there is hope that they may collectively avert it.

We have to learn to think in a new way. We have to learn to ask ourselves, not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, for there no longer are such steps; the question we have to ask ourselves is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all parties?

The general public, and even many men in positions of authority, have not realized what would be involved in a war with nuclear bombs. The general public still thinks in terms of the obliteration of cities. It is understood that the new bombs are more powerful than the old, and that, while one A-bomb could obliterate Hiroshima, one H-bomb could obliterate the largest cities, such as London, New York, and Moscow.

No doubt, in an H-bomb war, great cities would be obliterated. But this is one of the minor disasters that would have to be faced. If everybody in London, New York, and Moscow were exterminated, the world might, in the course of a few centuries, recover from the blow. But we now know, especially since the Bikini test, that nuclear bombs can gradually spread destruction over a very much wider area than had been supposed.

It is stated on very good authority that a bomb can now be manufactured which will be 2,500 times as powerful as that which destroyed Hiroshima. Such a bomb, if exploded near the ground or under water, sends radio-active particles into the upper air. They sink gradually and reach the surface of the earth in the form of a deadly dust or rain. It was this dust which infected the Japanese fishermen and their catch of fish. No one knows how widely such lethal radio-active particles might be diffused, but the best authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with H-bombs might possibly put an end to the human race. It is feared that if many H-bombs are used there will be universal death, sudden only for a minority, but for the majority a slow torture of disease and disintegration.

Many warnings have been uttered by eminent men of science and by authorities in military strategy. None of them will say that the worst results are certain. What they do say is that these results are possible, and no one can be sure that they will not be realized. We have not yet found that the views of experts on this question depend in any degree upon their politics or prejudices. They depend only, so far as our researches have revealed, upon the extent of the particular expert’s knowledge. We have found that the men who know most are the most gloomy.

Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.

The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty. But what perhaps impedes understanding of the situation more than anything else is that the term “mankind” feels vague and abstract. People scarcely realize in imagination that the danger is to themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and not only to a dimly apprehended humanity. They can scarcely bring themselves to grasp that they, individually, and those whom they love are in imminent danger of perishing agonizingly. And so they hope that perhaps war may be allowed to continue provided modern weapons are prohibited.

This hope is illusory. Whatever agreements not to use H-bombs had been reached in time of peace, they would no longer be considered binding in time of war, and both sides would set to work to manufacture H-bombs as soon as war broke out, for, if one side manufactured the bombs and the other did not, the side that manufactured them would inevitably be victorious.

Although an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons as part of a general reduction of armaments would not afford an ultimate solution, it would serve certain important purposes. First, any agreement between East and West is to the good in so far as it tends to diminish tension. Second, the abolition of thermo-nuclear weapons, if each side believed that the other had carried it out sincerely, would lessen the fear of a sudden attack in the style of Pearl Harbour, which at present keeps both sides in a state of nervous apprehension. We should, therefore, welcome such an agreement though only as a first step.

Most of us are not neutral in feeling, but, as human beings, we have to remember that, if the issues between East and West are to be decided in any manner that can give any possible satisfaction to anybody, whether Communist or anti-Communist, whether Asian or European or American, whether White or Black, then these issues must not be decided by war. We should wish this to be understood, both in the East and in the West.

There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.

Resolution:

We invite this Congress, and through it the scientists of the world and the general public, to subscribe to the following resolution:

“In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them.”

Max Born
Percy W. Bridgman
Albert Einstein
Leopold Infeld
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Herman J. Muller
Linus Pauling
Cecil F. Powell
Joseph Rotblat
Bertrand Russell
Hideki Yukawa 

We are speaking . . . not as members of this or that nation . . . but as human beings, members of that species Man, whose continued existence is in doubt. The world is full of conflicts; and, overshadowing all minor conflicts, the titanic struggle between Communism and anti-Communism. . . . We have to learn to think in a new way. We have to learn to ask ourselves, not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, for there no longer are such steps; the question we have to ask . . . is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all parties? . . . No doubt in an H-bomb war great cities would be obliterated. But this is one of the minor disasters that would have to be faced. If everybody in London, New York, and Moscow were exterminated the world might, in . . . a few centuries, recover from the blow. But we now know . . . that nuclear bombs can spread destruction over a very much wider area than had been supposed. . . . Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful, and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? . . . The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty. But what perhaps impedes understanding of the situation more than anything else is that the term “mankind” feels vague and abstract. People scarcely realize . . . that the danger is to themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and not only to a dimly apprehended humanity. . . . And so they hope that perhaps war may be allowed to continue provided modern weapons are prohibited. This hope is illusory. Whatever agreements not to use H-bombs had been reached in time of peace, they would no longer be considered binding in time of war, and both sides would set to work to manufacture H-bombs as soon as war broke out, for, if one side manufactured the bombs and the other did not, the side that manufactured them would inevitably be victorious. Most of us are not neutral in feeling, but . . . if the issues between East and West are to be decided in any manner that can give any possible satisfaction to anybody . . . then these issues must not be decided by war . . . There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? . . . If you [choose peace], the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.

Resolution: 

“In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them.”

Author of the reflection: Veronika Sheptukhovska, IUFU Student

Reviewing and editing: Tetiana Zemliakova

Source: “The Russel-Einstein Manifesto, 9 July 1955,” in The Cold War Through Documents: A Global History, ed. Edward H. Judge, John W. Langdon (Rowman and Littleeld, 2018), 110–111.