What Albert Einstein Said at the End of World War II. Predicting a Third World War and Exchanging Letters with Freud.
Albert Einstein , the most famous physicist and scientist of the twentieth century , is known for having developed the Theory of Relativity and for having revolutionized science. The Nobel Prize winner is also famous for his opposition to war and for his commitment to peace . Einstein was a convinced supporter of pacifism and believed that war was destructive and did not solve humanity’s problems. For the scientist, conflicts between nations had to be resolved through dialogue, diplomacy and international cooperation. During his life, Albert Einstein was actively committed to promoting peace and civil rights. He participated in various pacifist initiatives and spoke out against the use of atomic energy for war purposes.
The physicist, at the end of the Second World War , worried about the fate of humanity in relation to the war, stated: ” I do not know with what weapons the Third World War will be fought, but the Fourth World War will be fought with sticks and stones .” Einstein’s words referred to the use of war technologies so advanced that they could lead to a Third World War with such destructive power that it would set us back decades.
Why the War? Letters Between Einstein and Freud
In the 1930s, an initiative of the Permanent Committee of Letters and Arts of the League of Nations proposed to various intellectuals of the time to discuss, through an exchange of letters, various useful topics. It is in this context that Einstein asked Freud , an expert on the human psyche, for a contribution on the question of war and how to prevent it.
The scientist was interested in understanding the psychological roots of war and was looking for a broader approach to address the issue. The correspondence between the two was published in Paris in 1933. Einstein, at the beginning of the letter, asks the father of psychoanalysis: “ Is there a way to free men from the fatality of war? ”.
For Freud, war is part of human nature and it is difficult to suppress the aggressive inclinations of men. The psychoanalyst suggests resorting to the antagonist of this drive, namely eros, understood as solidarity and emotional union, but also suggests adequately training figures in charge of guiding others and capable of subduing those irrational drives of the masses to reason.
