vation was still at work. Only ‘selfless’nreason could ever entertain the thoughtnof self-extinction.”nActually, the problem is not the merenexistence of the bomb. If the wholenworld were run by a stable, democraticnworld government, who would worry ifnits forces commanded nuclear weapons?nEven short of that Utopia, there is plentynof evidence to suggest that the threat ofnnuclear war is a unique development intimatelynrelated to specific social and politicalncircumstances. Had the bombnbeen developed in a world where no totalitariannregimes existed—a world likenthe one that did exist before the yearn1914—there would have been no decisivenobstacle to arranging the internationalncontrol of nuclear energy. It is hardnto believe that the Entente and the CentralnPowers would not have droppedntheir rather minor differences had nuclearnweapons appeared in 1910—WorldnWar I was possible only because no onenrealized how terrible a nonnudear warnwould be. Alternatively, the bombnmight have been developed in a situationnwhere one nation already dominatednthe world and merely used it tonback up its existing domination. In fact,nthe horrible situation that has developednsince 1945 must be considered fantasticallynunlikely—i. e., the nation which firstndeveloped nuclear weapons not onlynfailed to press its unique advantage, butnfailed to prevent its worst enemy fromngaining them. One wonders whether anynother country would have behaved likenthat, and it is doubtful whether it can bencredited to reason of any sort.nPractically any regime other than a totalitariannone would have agreed to establishninternational control of atomicnenergy. This is no mere hypothesis: everyncountry in the world outside the Sovietnorbit diddigKt to the American plan fornthis in 1946. It is characteristic that Schellnignores this sole serious attempt madenafter 194 5 to deal with the nuclear threat.nIndeed, his only reference to the immediatenpostwar period is profoundly misleading;nhe comments that BertrandnRussell and Einstein “urged full globaln141nChronicles of Culturendisarmament but their advice was disregarded.”nBoth men in fact backednAmerica’s so-called Bamch plan. Russelln—strange as it may seem in view of hisnlater behavior—urged the U. S. to launchna preventive war against the Soviets ifnStalin did not agree to stop his aggressionsnand allow international control ofnatomic energy. Schell makes a few referencesnto the horrors of totalitarianism butnfails to recognize that it is a key elementnin the situation he deplores.nAll of the foregoing criticisms, however,ncould be ignored if Mr. Schell offerednus a single sensible suggestion ofnwhat we could do to get out of this situa­ntion. But there is nothing. He evennadmits that he has left to others then”awesome urgent tasks” of re-examiningnthe foundations of political thoughtnwhich he deems necessary, or of devisingnpractical steps. We are told that the salvationnof the world requires total nuclearndisarmament and the abolition of nationalnsovereignty; i.e., a world government.nHow to achieve those noble aims,nhowever, is left unsaid. Schell only tellsnus that he favors a freeze or reduction innarms and the mobilization of publicnopinion against nuclear weapons and innfavor of a nonviolent world. Schellnstresses that the world’s political leadersnIn the forthcoming issue of Chronicler nf Culture:nPolitics & Culturen”Itisawidespii.id btlid tlutwc (.an Icam ks^ms liom readin}; histornOf course, it is noi ofrtn .ud uhM 11 is ih.u wc un Jium. .uul liisninansnare divided as to what ilic ItsMins ol hisiorv r<.all> are I lie opinion of , •nmost seems to bt thai \e should read hisrorv in order to observe Jis -‘nironies. That is no general paiicrn no indiiauon of design, no finalntriumph or final diftat of ihe human spuit seems lo be registered (here, -nonly the frustrations of actors working ar in)ss-purposts and thenunintended consequcntes of policies omc set in morion The fan is thai in |nreading history, people get out of ir what the- put into 11 ” , ” ?^ ‘•nfrom “Speculations on a Tendentious Sci€rite”i -nb> John C. |C^i:tz7a .n/ *n”Throughout [lames] Thurbc r’s letters he neer mention”: culture ‘•nexplicitly. Ncv( rthcless, all that he cliaws and writes is condiU()nc Carson DalynOpinions Ai Views—Commendahics—In Focus •nPcrieptibles—Waste ol Money ^nThe American Proscenium—Stage —Screen—ArtnMusic—Correspondence—Liberal CulturenSocial Register—Journalism—Polemics & ExchangesnIn My Solitudennn