Characteristics Of Early 20th Century Pacifism

In the modern era we recognize pacifism from its great figures on non-violent resistance. Ghandi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. stand as the most recognizable and prominent figures of the ideology. However, these figures do not provide a complete picture of pacifist thought. Pacifism has a long and distinguished history stretching from the origins of Christianity to the modern day. This review will evaluate and compare the ideological characteristics of early 20th century pacifism from two distinct angles: 1.) pacifism based on Judeo-Christian tradition, using Leo Tolstoy as an example; and 2.) pacifism as a secular belief, with a focus on the writings of intellectuals Bertrand Russel and Albert Einstein. While they share the same basic ideological

conclusions, the author’s offer different justifications for pacifism as a political ideology.
Pacifism as a political ideology saw a resurgence during the inter-war and post-war period (1920-1950) as a leftist reaction to the adaptation of far-right ideologies by states such as Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

The pro-military policies of these states provide an opposition to the pacifist view which advocates for disarmament. The Axis power’s defeat in WWII began a new age in geopolitics known as the Cold war. A nuclear arms race had begun between the Soviet Union and the U.S.A. each competing to become the next great superpower. This new potential for global destruction prompted a response from the pacifists of the day, exemplified by the “Russell-Einstein Manifesto” published in 1955. In this manifesto we see the combination of thought from two contemporary intellectuals and pacifists in Russell and Einstein. Bertrand Russell has been described as “the last great radical” due to his contributions to liberal and pacifist thought. He advocated for world government, disarmament and human equality. Einstein, in addition to being one of the most important scientific minds of his time, also was a life-long pacifist, adamantly expressing his anti-war, pro-humanist political views throughout his life. Both Einstein and Russell were heavily influenced by the realities of WW1 & 2 and the creation of atomic weapons, their views on which led to the collaboration in writing their pacifist

manifesto.
The article begins with an outline of the political realities which faced the world in 1955: WMD’s, communism vs. capitalism, threat of war. Remaining consistent with pacifist ideology, the author’s attempt a humanistic view of the world stating: “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.” It seems surprising, due to the rational nature of these thinkers, to think they truly believed the world to be on the brink of destruction. This reflects the mindset of not just pacifists, but a significant part of the global community during this era. It is easy, to the modern mind, to view nuclear destruction as a far-fetched reality. However, in 1955, with the cold war heating up and both the U.S. and the Soviet Union conducting extensive thermo-nuclear weapon development, it would seem quite plausible. Continuing on their humanistic worldview, the author’s provide a plea to the reader, asking people to put aside their differences and join together as a biological species. The next few paragraphs state the power of nuclear arm development to that point, describing the destructive powers of newly developed H-bombs. An ultimatum is now presented: “Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?” It is understood by these authors that mankind is unlikely to abolish war anytime soon, as it would impede national sovereignty and is against the nature of mankind. A solution by many contemporaries was to establish agreements not to use H-bombs- this is dismissed by Einstein and Russell, stating that in the event of war the agreements would prove to fail in a time of war because of the ambitions of victory. Instead, taking a more realist approach, they suggest he total renunciation of nuclear weapons as a part of an overall reduction of armaments. Though they agree that this wouldn’t provide an absolute solution, it provides certain important purposes: first the reduction of East vs West tensions, and lessen the fear of a pre-emptive strike on a city. Russell and Einstein, both stanch anti-militarists, view this type of agreement as a ‘first step” toward near-absolute military abolishment. Finally they arrive at a resolution, urging the government and public to resist the use of nuclear weapons for the survival of mankind, signed by prominent members of the scientific community. Overall, the pacifist ideas expressed in the “Russell-Einstein Manifesto” represent a humanistic style of pacifism, focusing on the removal of the dividing lines in society to create a global community, which will promote non-violence and lead to disarmament.
Another significant contribution to the pacifist ideology is the work of Leo Tolstoy, a Russian writer and philosopher. Tolstoy presents a more traditionalist brand of pacifism, using the teachings of Jesus Christ and his famous “Sermon on the Mount “as basis for his justification of pacifism. In “Nobel’s Bequest: A Letter to a Swedish Editor” he uses a Russian ethnic group, known as the Dukabhors, as an example of effective practice of the principles of pacifism. The Dukabhor society was highly influenced by Christianity and the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. This included his teachings on non-retaliation and non-violence, which echoed in their society, leading to the Dukabhor’s refusing conscription. It is for this that Tolstoy advocates to give the Dukabhor’s the Nobel peace prize. He also uses important historical pacifists, including Mennonites, Quakers, and early Christians . He also writes of the persecution of these peoples. Tolstoy’s commitment to Jesus’ teachings of peace helped shape his anti-military sentiments. However he also is another example of reactionary pacifist thought to the grim realities of war. Tolstoy critiques the leaders of nations, identifying them as hypocritical; preaching peace but practicing war. Tolstoy viewpoint on war is justified murder, a failure of Christianity-a religion which preaches the pacifist ideas of Jesus- to remain consistent with its ideological teachings. During his life Tolstoy would become greatly opposed to Christianity’s institutions while still remaining faithful to the pacifist word of Jesus. Tolstoy would later inspire notable pacifists such as Ghandi. Tolstoy’s reasoning for pacifism lies with his commitment to Jesus and his teachings of empathy, love and peace, a vision which Tolstoy wishes to apply to the real word. Tolstoy lived in a time where religion was still an overwhelming factor in society, his pacifist vision requires belief in the Judaeo-Christian tradition and the inspired words of Jesus, a fact which limits the accessibility of his ideology. It would require a resurgence not only in pacifist thought but the growth of religion as a whole.
Comparing these two works of writing we see many similarities.

To reiterate, while both author’s share common beliefs of anti-militarism, shared equity and human rights, it is the justifications for such beliefs that differ. There is a level of rationalism vs. traditionalism in this difference. Russell and Einstein hold their base for pacifist belief in focusing on the well-being of others and shared human experience. Tolstoy uses Jesus’ teachings of non-violence to arrive at the same conclusions as Russell. Both Author’s show concern over the human experience, Einstein and Russell plead for the future of humanity, while Tolstoy discusses the persecution of pacifist cultures throughout history. The concern for the human condition is a common feature of pacifist ideology, emphasizing the citizen over the state. They both speak of the destructive power of continued violent policies by nations and the mutual benefits, from a humanitarian perspective, of the adaptation of pacifist policies. This is a very idealistic view, and idealism is another important characteristic of pacifism, but in a practical sense goes against human nature. It is this view of human perfectibility that provides the biggest critic against pacifism. While the visions for the world to end all violence seem, at times, overly ambitious, it is because of the ideological influence provided by these pacifist minds that real action to disarm some WMD’s was taken, as well as the development of human rights, it is

these writers, and other similar minds that we ought to thank.

In conclusion, pacifism during the early 20th century appears as a reactionary ideology to the quickly growing rightest movements in Europe during this time. While their views, upon which their pacifist ideas are based, may differ the expression of non–violence, human rights and a positive global community remain consistent. Pacifism provides little concern, contrary to many ideologies, over state-organization or societal roles an instead creates a vision of a better world, whether that is achieved through nuclear disarmament or following the teachings of Jesus, the goal is constant. Some may ridicule the pacifist for being a “coward” for his refusal to fight, however some (myself included) believe it requires more strength and courage not to fight, a lesson which we must carry into an uncertain political future, one that is almost certainly full of risk and danger.