Einstein (31 page)

But in spite of all these doubts and scruples, Einstein saw many reasons in favor of Zionism. He saw in it the only active movement among the Jews that appeared capable of arousing
in them the sense of dignity, the absence of which he deplored so much. He did not much care to have this educational process put into effect by an emphasis on nationalism, yet he felt that the Jewish psyche, and in particular that of the German Jews, was in such a pathological state that he recommended every educational means that tended to alleviate and remedy this situation.

He therefore decided in 1921 to appear publicly as a supporter of Zionism. He was well aware that this action would produce an astounding impression within German Jewry, since almost all the Jews in Germany who were active in public life as scholars and writers considered the Zionist movement as a mortal enemy of the development that they sought — the gradual complete assimilation of the Jews among their fellow citizens. When a man like Einstein, certainly the greatest of the Jewish scientists in Germany and a man of world reputation, stepped forth in this manner and thwarted their efforts, it was obvious that by many German Jews his action would be regarded as a “stab in the back.” But Einstein was not the man to be afraid of any such reaction. He even felt that this antagonism was already the beginning of the educational process at which he was aiming. Also, since Einstein had taken upon himself to say so much that other people did not dare express, self-expression became easier and inhibitions were abated.

Thenceforth Einstein has been regarded by many people as a “black sheep” among the German scholars of Jewish origin. Attempts were made to explain his conduct on the basis of all sorts of causes, such as his misunderstanding of the German character, his wife, the propaganda of skillful journalists, or even his being, allegedly, a “Russian draft-dodger.” They did not realize that Einstein was utilizing the credit he had obtained through his scientific achievements to educate the Jewish community.

Einstein’s participation in the work of the Zionists, however, was due not only to the primary aim of this movement, but as well to a secondary plan that struck a responsive chord in his innermost being. This was the plan to establish a Jewish university in Jerusalem.

It had always been very painful for Einstein to see many Jewish youths who wished to acquire a higher education prevented from doing so on account of the discrimination against them. Most universities in eastern Europe were averse to admitting a large number of Jewish students. In central Europe,
again, this attitude prevailed against the admission of Jewish students barred from the eastern universities. To Einstein it appeared as a special form of brutality — indeed, a paradoxical brutality — that just these people who had always had a special respect and love for intellectual pursuits should be thwarted in their ambitions. Although the Jewish students were often among the most interested and industrious, every admission of an Eastern Jew to a Germanic university was regarded as a special act of tolerance. Thus even the few fortunate ones who were admitted were not fully regarded by the others as fellow students and friends, and they never felt really at ease. The same prejudice was also felt by quite a few Jewish teachers. For this reason Einstein felt that it was necessary to found a university that would belong to the Jews and where students and professors would be free of the tension that arises through constant contact with an unfriendly environment.

It was through this plan for a university that Einstein came into contact with Chaim Weizmann, the recognized leader of the Zionist movement Like Einstein, Weizmann was a scientist, but he was more interested in the application of science to technical problems. He was a professor of chemistry at the University of Manchester in England, and his work in the war research had been of great service to the British government during the World War. As a result he had become associated with influential English circles and had thus been able to propagate the Zionist plan. Einstein certainly intended to collaborate with the party led by Weizmann for a definite purpose, and the plan for the establishment of a university in Jerusalem rendered this collaboration easier. Weizmann himself characterized the aims of the university in a far-sighted way that Einstein must also have found sympathetic. He said: “The Hebrew University should further self-expression and shall play a part as interpreter between the Eastern and Western world.”

From his childhood Einstein had been terribly depressed at the sight of people being trained to become automatons, whether they were soldiers marching through the streets or students learning Latin at the gymnasium Aversion to mechanical drill was combined in him with an extreme abhorrence
of all violence, and he saw in war the culmination of all that was hateful — mechanized brutality.

Einstein placed this aversion above and apart from any political conviction. On one occasion, speaking to a group of Americans who visited him in Berlin in 1920, he said:

“My pacifism is an instinctive feeling, a feeling that possesses me because the murder of men is disgusting. My attitude is not derived from any intellectual theory but is based on my deepest antipathy to every kind of cruelty and hatred. I might go on to rationalize this reaction, but that would really be
a posteriori
thinking.”

Because Einstein’s attitude to war was based on general human grounds rather than on political ones, it was very difficult for him to work together with institutions that also considered themselves to be working for world peace. In 1922 Einstein was appointed to the “Commission pour la Coopération Intellectuelle” of the League of Nations. The purpose of this body was to make intellectuals acquainted with the aims of the League and to induce them to use their knowledge and talents for the achievement of these aims. The commission never got beyond certain vague beginnings. At first, however, Einstein believed that he ought not to refuse to co-operate, and in his letter of acceptance he wrote as follows: “Even though I must admit that I am not at all clear as to the character of the work to be done by the commission, I consider it my duty to obey its summons since nobody in these times should refuse assistance to efforts toward the realization of international co-operation.”

But after one year Einstein recognized that the League did not prevent the use of force by great powers and sought only for means to induce weak nations to submit without resistance to the demands of the strong ones.

Consequently he resigned from the commission, giving the following reason for his action: “I have become convinced that the League possesses neither the strength nor the good will necessary to accomplish its task. As a convinced pacifist it does not seem well to me to have any relation whatever with the League.”

In a letter to a pacifistic magazine he presented an even sharper formulation of this step:

“I did so because the activities of the League of Nations had convinced me that there appeared to be no action, no matter how brutal, committed by the present power groups against which the League could take a stand. I withdrew because the League of Nations, as it
functions at present, not only does not embody the ideal of an international organization, but actually discredits such an ideal.”

The correctness of his judgment was shown already in the fall of that year (1923) when in the conflict between Greece and Italy the League endeavored only to make Greece, the weaker party, yield. It did not wish to hurt the feelings of Italy, which was then celebrating the honeymoon of Fascism.

Soon, however, Einstein realized that the matter had another aspect. He noticed that his resignation from the commission was greeted with glee by the German nationalist groups. Thereupon, as on so many other occasions, he reflected that even though one sees many mistakes in a movement, yet it is not right to refuse to support it if its essential principle is a good one. In 1924 he therefore rejoined the commission. On the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the League (1930) he expressed the essence of his opinion as follows: “I am rarely enthusiastic about what the League has done or has not done, but I am always thankful that it exists.” He always emphasized, however, that without the collaboration of the United States the League would never become a factor for international justice.

Einstein always thought that scientists have a special part to play in advancing the cause of international understanding. The nature of their work is not restricted by national boundaries as is the case, for instance, with history and economics, and their judgments of merit tend to be objective. It is therefore particularly easy for scientists of different countries to find a common ground. As he once put it:

“The representatives of the natural sciences are inclined, by the universal character of the subject dealt with and by the necessity of internationally organized co-operation, toward an international mentality predisposing them to favor pacifistic objectives.… The tradition of science as a force in cultural training would open a much more comprehensive view before the mind and would be a powerful influence — because its outlook is world-wide — in drawing men a little way from senseless nationalism. You cannot drive out nationalism unless you put something in its place. And science gives this wide something which men could hang on to.”

Here Einstein also saw a task for the Jewish people. For centuries the Jews had formed such a small minority among their neighbors that they had been unable to defend themselves by physical force. They had shown how in the face of physical violence it is possible to survive by intellectual means. In an address at a Jewish meeting in Berlin in 1929 Einstein said:

“Jewry has proved that the intellect is the best weapon in history. Oppressed by violence, Jewry has mocked her enemies by rejecting war and at the same time has taught peace.… It is the duty of us Jews to put at the disposal of the world our several-thousand-years-old sorrowful experience and, true to the ethical traditions of our forefathers, become soldiers in the fight for peace, united with the noblest elements in all cultural and religious circles.”

Einstein’s attitude to pacifism must always be kept in mind if one wants to understand his political position. As the problem of social reorganization became more and more complicated and it was no longer certain which groups represented progress toward this goal, Einstein refused definitely to link the fight against war with the cause of socialism. The American Socialist leader Norman Thomas once asked him whether he did not consider the realization of a socialist society a necessary prerequisite to guarantee general peace. Einstein replied:

“It is easier to win over people to pacifism than to socialism. Social and economic problems have become much more difficult today, and it is necessary that men and women reach the point where they believe in pacific solutions. Then you can expect them to approach economic and political problems in a spirit of co-operation. I would say that we should not work for socialism first, but for pacifism.”

Just as Einstein was aware that social problems cannot be solved by a simple declaration of faith in socialism, but that very complicated and often antithetical interests must be reconciled, so he had likewise long been cognizant of the paradox in the ideal of democracy. The people should rule, yet freedom can never be realized by means of a formula, but only if the system is headed by men worthy of the confidence placed in them. Democracy necessarily leads to the formation of parties; but mechanical party rule often leads in turn to the suppression of oppositional groups. Thus he wrote in 1930:

“My political ideal is democracy.… However, well do I know that in order to attain any definite goal it is imperative that
one
person should do the thinking and commanding and carry most of the responsibility. But those who are led should not be driven, and they should be allowed to choose their leader. It seems to me that the distinctions separating the social classes are false; in the last analysis they rest on force. I am convinced that degeneracy follows every autocratic system of violence, for violence inevitably attracts moral inferiors. Time has proved that illustrious tyrants are succeeded by scoundrels.”

Einstein never considered the essence of democracy to be the observance of certain formal rules; it lay chiefly, rather, in the absence of any spirit of violence directed against certain sections of the nation. Even before Germany became a dictatorship, he had already recognized the shady sides of this system, as well as those of the still prevailing formal democracy. He once said:

“For this reason I have always been passionately opposed to such regimes as exist in Russia and Italy today. The thing that has discredited the European forms of democracy is not the basic theory of democracy itself, which some say is at fault, but the instability of our political leadership, as well as the impersonal character of party alignments.”

At that time Einstein already regarded the American system of government as a form of democracy superior to the German or even the French republic. It was based not so much on parliamentary deliberations and votes as on the leadership of an elected president. “I believe,” Einstein told an American journal in 1930, “that you in the United States have hit upon the right idea. You choose a president for a reasonable length of time and give him enough power to acquit himself properly of his responsibilities.”

Similarly, during the discussions over Roosevelt’s third term Einstein was unable to agree with the view that the number of terms to which a president is elected is important for democracy, because he felt that the spirit in which the president exercised the powers of his office was much more significant.

But while the question of democracy or socialism always seemed complicated to him and incapable of solution by a formula, yet at that time the problem of his attitude to military service and war still seemed simple because his aversion was not based on any political convictions.