A/N: What is peace? Is it simply the absence of war or is it something more? I explore this idea in this essay from 2016.

Snail Archer (2016)

_@v

It has been estimated that for every one year of peace experienced by humanity, thirteen long years of war must be suffered[1]. It therefore seems paradoxical to think of these short years of peace as the catalyst driving history forward into new worlds of imagination. Yet a rudimentary analysis of war reveals that while technologies of war advance and the justifications of war may change, all recorded wars from the earliest territorial conflicts in Sumer to the most recent War on Terror share the same essential elements of being a violent method to resolve disputes[2]. What then is peace? An armistice in an unending war, as the Ancient Greek historian Thucydides said?[3] An antonym for war, with non-violent resolution to disputes? A cosmopolitan goal, the greater enlightenment of humanity?[4] Peace is not simply a moment between wars, nor a time of prosperity for all humanity; peace is transformative. In its practice it has often failed to meet many of its lofty goals, and it is not traditionally viewed has having succeeded often or in any lasting way, but the truth is that peacemaking is interwoven in the movements and moments that transform history. As practices of peacemaking progress, the human world is rarely the same before as it is after. These peace processes need not succeed, only for the idea to be there. Humans take the seed of a peaceful idea and from there imagine new worlds, which shape the direction of history. Three cases where peacemaking has awoken new imagined worlds are the Religious Society of Friends, the transnational feminists of the early 20th century, and the movement for nuclear disarmament throughout the Cold War. The pacifism of the Quakers shaped a unique world in Pennsylvania, while the transnational feminists tackled the thorny question of the true role of nation-states in peace and war, and the peaceful protests in the latter half of the 20th century were instrumental in the search for détente, nuclear disarmament, and finally the end of the Cold War. These practices of peacemaking are just a few exemplars of how history has been formed and transformed through not only times of peace, but the search for and active practice of peace throughout times of war and peace.

The Religious Society of Friends, or Quakers, forged their lasting pacifism from radical and violent roots, and took this pacifism across the Atlantic to the New World where it would form the basis of a state of peace with the Native Americans, namely the Delawares, that had heretofore never been imagined. A series of civil wars and political upheaval characterized England from 1642 civil war to the restoration of 1660, and it was in this context that George Fox began to preach to his first Quaker disciples[5]. They practiced radically disruptive religion as a form of protest to the wars[6], and under duress from the new King Charles II, who feared their influence, designed the Quaker Peace Testimony that outlined the pacifism that henceforth characterized their religion[7]. The Quaker Peace Testimony stated, “Our principle is, and our practices have always been, to seek peace and ensue it and to follow after righteousness and the knowledge of God.”[8] This declaration was signed by George Fox and other significant Quakers in 1661, and was a religious solution to a political problem. Although their new pacifism did save them from the new government, William Penn and other Quakers were no longer content to live in what they saw as a violent world, and so Penn utilized his inherited wealth to purchase large swaths of land in the New World[9]. The state of Pennsylvania was a holy experiment, founded in 1682, after extensive conversations and treaties between Penn and the native Delaware, based on Quaker principles of pacifism, were established[10]. Apart from the notorious Walking Purchase of 1737, Quaker treaties with the Delaware were likely the most fair and peaceful in the New World[11]. Although the Quakers’ imagined world of peace was thus successful in the most part with regards to the Delawares, marking it as a transformative moment in history, their pacifism would be tested and tested again in the New World, first the Paxton Boys in 1763, and later with the Revolutionary War of 1775-1783.

Quaker pacifism demonstrates the transformative nature of peace, not only through the dedication to pacifism that created a peaceful place for them and the Native Americans in Pennsylvania, but because their influence through money and politics allowed them to actively promote practices of peacemaking, with only two shortcomings: the Paxton Boys in 1763, and the Revolutionary War in 1775-1783. Quakers were a transatlantic people[12], and many English Quakers, such as Thomas Corbyn and the Barclay family, were immensely wealthy, trading extensively with Quakers in Pennsylvania, who were also often very rich[13]. This wealth helped give the Quakers considerable political clout in both nations, where they were frequently politically active. Beginning with George Fox in 1671, most Quakers renounced slavery in both the Old and New Worlds, with Quakers pioneering some of the earliest abolitionist movements and petitions[14]. Yet the Quakers were not always so successful in the political arena. The morning of December 14, 1763 saw dozens of men “equipped for murder”[15] set out to slaughter Native Americans on the basis of rumours of marauding Indians inspired by the actions of the Delaware during the Seven Years War (1756-1763), though these Native Americans were not Delaware[16]. Many Quakers took up arms to defend Native Americans as a result of this slaughter, feeling their duty to their fellow man was greater than their oath of pacifism, partly because the political sway held by many Quakers was waning, and the Proprietary government of Pennsylvania had ruled in favour of the Paxton Boys[17]. Quakers had maintained a position of dominance in government until 1756[18], when petitions were drawn up denouncing Quaker pacifism[19], and yet the Quakers only really began to resign from government when the Governor of Pennsylvania declared war on the Delaware in that same year[20]. Even after this tense period, Quakers continued to have a significant influence on politics until the Revolutionary War. During the buildup to the Revolutionary War, Quakers faced a choice between pacifism and nationalism as the American colonies began to resent British rule[21]. Quaker influence had always relied on their wealth more than their numbers, and though they supported strongly protests such as the one against the Stamp Act in 1765[22], they began to withdraw from the Revolution as soon as it switched from economic coercion to violence, and this perceived lack of patriotism led to many Quakers being exiled to Virginia in 1777-1778[23]. Despite these trials and later ones, again often based on distrust of Quakers refusal to participate in acts of violence, the Religious Society of Friends has maintained one of the longest lasting peace societies in history and been a catalyst for the imagining of new worlds of peace.

Pacifism however was not the realm solely of the Quakers; it is instead a common and enduring practice of peacemaking, which was central to the transnational feminist movement for peace in the early 20th century, who believed the disease of war was caused by nation-states. The Kantian philosophical idea that a constitutional republic would naturally be less bellicose than other forms of government was an Enlightenment ideal, brought about by the seemingly endless warring in Europe[24]. This philosophy was illustrative of the rise of the citizen-soldier and the nation-state, which truly blossomed during the Atlantic Revolutions, which unfortunately turned into bloodier and more atrocious conflicts than those past[25]. According to the transnational pacifists of the early twentieth century, despite advances in peacemaking such as the Hague Convention, which created a set of rules of conduct for war, war had become almost a religion to some and widely seen as inevitable, where under it everything became noble and beautiful, and the glory of the nation-state justified the war[26]. The nation-state had thus become a super-personality in international relations, which acted in abstraction from the stated interests of the people[27]. Insistence on state sovereignty therefore was the principal cause of the evils of war[28]. These views were widely held by transnational feminist pacifists in the early 20th century, and when the First World War broke out in 1914, they immediately began to strive for a peaceful resolution. They would imagine a world without nation-states and thus without war, and refused to rely on inadequate peacemaking practices such as collective security or treaties to prevent a future reoccurrence of the First World War.

Treaties had long been central to peacemaking, if not pacifism, and the clash between these two practices of peacemaking formed part of the basis of the transnational feminist pacifist movement of the early 20th century. An early key peace treaty was the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which signalled a new horizontal form of peacemaking and is widely considered to have established the modern principle of state sovereignty, despite there being no clear mention of such in either of the two treaties[29]. Such a treaty was again agreed upon at Versailles in 1918, to the despair of many who felt the treaty would resolve none of the issues that had resulted in the First World War[30]. The idea taken up by transnational feminist pacifists was that women had a vital transnational role to play, as they were widely disregarded by their own nation-states and therefore felt little nationalism[31], and they could bring a balance and transnational perspective to the peacemaking processes[32]. The work of organisations such as the Women’s international League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), and transnational feminists such as Jane Addams and Virginia Woolf has often been disregarded[33]. Yet they imagined a world free of war and strove to achieve it by arguing for a complete and radical reform in international relations[34]. Woolf viewed war as masculine, and that the need for the profession, excitement and manly outlet of war made war a necessity[35]. Addams, who famously led the Hague Congress since 1915, travelled to each belligerent nation of World War One and met with the leaders to convince them to seek peace, which they all politely refused, as did President Woodrow Wilson when Addams met with him to plead for American neutral mediation[36]. Even Wilson’s League of Nations would not suffice for peace in the view of the transnational feminists, who believed a pacifistic approach to international relations would be far superior to the collective security of the League, which would involve extensive commitments between nation-states, and be corrupted by nation-states only acting in their own national interest[37]. The transnational feminist pacifists of the early 20th century had imagined a peaceful world free of the shackles of nation-states, though their warnings were not headed and history repeated in the form of World War II.

Transnational movements for peace were not limited to the early 20th century and conventional warfare; one of the strongest peace movements over the course of the 20th century was the transnational call for nuclear disarmament and the end of the Cold War. The Cold War had grown very hot, not only with numerous conventional proxy wars, but with the seemingly unstoppable nuclear testing and build-up during the arms race. Following closely on the coattails of the United States’ use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 were thirty years of nuclear testing in the Pacific and on the Pacific Islanders, especially in the Marshall Islands[38]. This violence towards the people of the Marshall Islands surely seemed incidental to the American government, who felt they had bigger concerns fighting Communism, as between 1945-1963 the US and USSR conducted over 550 nuclear tests worldwide[39]. Throughout the 1950s, the Eisenhower administration in America had been using the practice of brinksmanship and nuclear deterrence to fight the Soviet Union despite the obvious moral paradox of nuclear deterrence as a form of peace when the only possible result of nuclear war is Mutually Assured Destruction[40]. This practice was discontinued by President Kennedy after the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, as he sought détente with the Soviet Union[41]. Yet the call for disarmament was not top-down, as from as early as 1942, scientists began to petition the American government to never use the nuclear bomb, feeling it was impossible to have peace in the world when sovereign nation-states had such weapons in the possession of their armies[42]. This activism was taken up once more by a transnational conglomeration of peoples, and not just scientists, in the 1950s, as nuclear testing increased dramatically[43]. The two most important activist organisations were SANE in the US and CND in Britain, both of whom had significant public support, though CND argued for unilateral disarmament and SANE wanted an end to nuclear testing[44]. SANE co-chairman Norman Cousins met with Kennedy and Khrushchev in 1963 to settle mutually acceptable terms for a total ban on nuclear tests, which resulted in the Limited Test Ban Treaty[45]. This early success did not quell the transnational movement for disarmament, which was so strong because it felt pacifism was need here to prevent the total destruction of the Earth[46].

The transnational call for disarmament grew over the course of the next twenty years, and the end result imagined by activists and by the general public who were becoming increasingly involved, was nuclear disarmament but also an end to the Cold War, and through this search for peace history was indeed transformed as one of the longest wars in history, the Cold War, came to a close in the early 1990s. Japan was an early leader in the movement for disarmament, in part because of the World War II bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and in part because of the spread of nuclear contamination from Bikini Atoll[47]. This movement was taken aboard by Europe extensively in the 1970s and 80s, as NATO and Soviet placements of new intermediate range nuclear missiles resulted in one of the largest peace movement in history, with millions marching in protest of the arms race[48]. The 1970s-80s also heralded the nuclear freeze campaign, as fear of nuclear war rose dramatically due to the arms race, and the campaign found immense public support transnationally[49]. Feminists once again were extensively involved, with one of the most important groups in the movement being the women’s peace camp at Greenham Common in Britain[50]. Although NATO and Soviet governments initially refused to acquiesce to public opinion, the peaceful world imagined by these transnational activists of a world without nuclear armaments or the Cold War was eventually taken up, as the Reagan administration took on the zero option plan, calling for the removal of all intermediate range nuclear missiles in Europe, and Gorbachev petitioned the Reagan administration for a peaceful resolution to the Cold War and nuclear disarmament[51]. Gorbachev’s halt of Soviet nuclear testing in 1985, inspired by President Kennedy’s willingness to end nuclear testing two decades earlier, placed enormous pressure on the Reagan administration to reciprocate.[52] Despite minor hitches including Reagan’s reluctance to pair the disarmament of space with nuclear disarmament, the Cold War ended in the early 1990s for a number of reasons, including the increasingly amicable talks between Reagan and Gorbachev and the burden of military spending that had all but bankrupted the USSR[53]. The public fervour and desire for peace on a transnational scale played an inarguably substantial role in the end of the Cold War and the reduction of nuclear tensions, by creating a favourable environment for peace.

Practices of peace have had a long and rich history, one which is all too frequently overlooked in favour of framing history through the easy lens of war. Through pacifism, treaties, conventions, protests and policy, seekers of peace have imagined new worlds free of violence or suffering or war and have strived to realise these imaginings. It is in this journey that history is made, remade, and transformed. Transnational pacifism is among the strongest and most enduring practices of peacemaking, notably used by the Religious Society of Friends to imagine a peaceful and liberal coexistence with the Native Americans in Pennsylvania; by the transnational feminists of the early 20th century who imagined a world free of the burdens of nation-statehood and the war it causes; and by the many peoples of the world who organised into a transnational movement that spanned the latter half of the 20th century who imagined a world free of the threat of nuclear war. Many have imagined new worlds through peace, and though few have seen the realisation of these worlds, more will continue to imagine new worlds and in doing so, shape the course of history for the future.

Bibliography

Primary

Dickinson, G. Lowes. The Choice Before Us. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1917.

Kant, Immanuel. “Cosmopolitan Rights, Human Progress, and Perpetual Peace.” In The Ethics of War: Classic and Contemporary Readings, edited by Gregory M. Reichberg, Henrik Syse, and Endre Begby. Malden: Blackwell, 2006, pp. 518-31.

Rathbone, Eleanor F. War Can Be Averted: The Achievability of Collective Security. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1938.

Religious Society of Friends. “A Declaration.” In Peace/MIR: an anthology of historic alternatives to war, edited by Charles Chatfield and Ruzanna Ilukhina, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1994, pp: 41-44.

The Marquis of Lothan. Pacifism is not enough: nor patriotism either. London: Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1935.

Woolf, Virginia. Three Guineas. Harcourt Inc., 1938.

Secondary

Ashworth, L. M. “Feminism, War and the Prospects for Peace.” International Feminist Journal of Politics, 13, no. 1 (2011): pp. 25-43.

Bronner, E. “The Quakers and Non-Violence in Pennsylvania.” Pennsylvania History 35, no. 1 (1968): 1-22.

Cortright, David. Peace: A History of Movements and Ideas. Indiana: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Crabtree, S. ““A beautiful and practical lesson of jurisprudence”: the transatlantic Quaker ministry in an age of revolution.” Radical History Review 99 (2007): 51-79.

Croxton, D. “The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and the Origins of Sovereignty.” The International History Review, 21, no. 3 (1999): pp. 569-591.

Dyer, Phillip. “‘It Still Makes me Shudder’: Memories of Massacres and Atrocities during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars.” War in History 16 (2009): pp. 381-405.

Engels, J. “’Equipped for Murder’: The Paxton Boys and ‘the Spirit of Killing all Indians’ in Pennsylvania, 1763-1764.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 8, no. 3 (2005): 355-381.

Evangelista, Matthew. Unarmed Forces: The Transnational Movement to End the Cold War. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 1999.

Harper, Steven C. “Making History: Documenting the 1737 Walking Purchase.” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies 77, no. 2 (2010): 217-233.

Hershey, Larry Brent. “Peace through conversation: William Penn, Israel Pemberton and the shaping of Quaker-Indian relations, 1681-1757.” MA (Master of Arts) thesis, University of Iowa, 2008.

Lutzer, Michael A. “Jane Addams: Peacetime Heroine, Wartime Heretic.” In Peace Heroes in Twentieth Century America, edited by Charles DeBenedetti, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986, pp. 28-55.

Moore, Rosemary. “Seventeenth-century Context and Quaker Beginnings.” In The Oxford Handbook of Quaker Studies, edited by Stephen W. Angell and Ben Pink Dandelion, Online: Oxford University Press, 2013, pp.1-19.

Nussbaum, Martha. “Kant and Cosmopolitanism.” In Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal, edited by James Bohman and Matthias Lutz-Bachmann. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1997, pp. 25-58.

Oaks, R. F. “Philadelphians in Exile: The Problem of Loyalty during the American Revolution.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 96, no. 3 (1972): pp. 298-319, 321-325.

Quester, George H. “The necessary moral hypocrisy of the slide into mutually assured destruction.” In Nuclear Deterrence and Moral Restraint, edited by Henry Shue, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, pp. 227-270.

Saul, David. The Encyclopaedia of War: From Ancient Egypt to Iraq. London: Dorling Kindersley, 2015.

Sluga, Glenda. “Female and National Self-Determination: A Gender Re-reading of ‘The Apogee of Nationalism’ ” Nations and Nationalism 6, no. 4 (2000): 495-521.

Vellacott, Jo. “A Place for Pacifism and Transnationalism in Feminist Theory: The Early Work of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom.” Women’s History Review 2, no. 1 (1993): 23-56.

Walvin, James. The Quakers: Money and Morals. London: John Murray Publishers, 1997.

“The Peloponnesian War Summary of Battles and Betrayals: Athens’ Last Stand.” Classical Wisdom Weekly. https://classicalwisdom.com/category/peloponnesian-war/

---

[1] David Saul, The Encyclopaedia of War: From Ancient Egypt to Iraq (London: Dorling Kindersley, 2015), p. 8.

[2] Ibid, p. 12.

[3] “The Peloponnesian War Summary of Battles and Betrayals: Athens’ Last Stand,” Classical Wisdom Weekly, available from https://classicalwisdom.com/category/peloponnesian-war/

[4] Nussbaum, Martha, “Kant and Cosmopolitanism,” In Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal, ed. James Bohman and Matthias Lutz-Bachmann (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1997), p. 46.

[5] James Walvin, The Quakers: Money and Morals (London: John Murray Publishers, 1997), p. 11.

[6] Rosemary Moore, “Seventeenth-century Context and Quaker Beginnings,” In The Oxford Handbook of Quaker Studies, ed. Stephen W. Angell and Ben Pink Dandelion (Online: Oxford University Press, 2013), p.2.

[7] Rosemary Moore, “Seventeenth-century Context and Quaker Beginnings,” In The Oxford Handbook of Quaker Studies, ed. Stephen W. Angell and Ben Pink Dandelion (Online: Oxford University Press, 2013), p.17-19; Religious Society of Friends, “A Declaration,” In Peace/MIR: an anthology of historic alternatives to war, ed. Charles Chatfield and Ruzanna Ilukhina (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1994), p: 41.

[8] Religious Society of Friends, “A Declaration,” In Peace/MIR: an anthology of historic alternatives to war, ed. Charles Chatfield and Ruzanna Ilukhina (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1994), p: 41.

[9] S. C. Harper, “Making History: Documenting the 1737 Walking Purchase,” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies 77, no. 2 (2010): p. 219; Larry Brent Hershey, “Peace through conversation: William Penn, Israel Pemberton and the shaping of Quaker-Indian relations, 1681-1757” (MA (Master of Arts) thesis, University of Iowa, 2008), p. 3.

[10] Larry Brent Hershey, “Peace through conversation: William Penn, Israel Pemberton and the shaping of Quaker-Indian relations, 1681-1757” (MA (Master of Arts) thesis, University of Iowa, 2008), p. 2; E. Bronner, “The Quakers and Non-Violence in Pennsylvania,” Pennsylvania History 35, no. 1 (1968): p. 3.

[11] S. C. Harper, “Making History: Documenting the 1737 Walking Purchase,” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies 77, no. 2 (2010): p. 228.

[12] S. Crabtree, ““A beautiful and practical lesson of jurisprudence”: the transatlantic Quaker ministry in an age of revolution,” Radical History Review 99 (2007): p. 53.

[13] James Walvin, The Quakers: Money and Morals (London: John Murray Publishers, 1997), p. 83-86.

[14] Ibid, p. 126-127.

[15] J. Engels, “’Equipped for Murder’: The Paxton Boys and ‘the Spirit of Killing all Indians’ in Pennsylvania, 1763-1764,” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 8, no. 3 (2005): p. 354.

[16] Ibid, p. 354-357.

[17] Ibid, p. 354, 358.

[18] E. Bronner, “The Quakers and Non-Violence in Pennsylvania,” Pennsylvania History 35, no. 1 (1968): p. 3.

[19] Ibid, p. 16.

[20] Ibid, p. 17.

[21] R. F. Oaks, “Philadelphians in Exile: The Problem of Loyalty during the American Revolution,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 96, no. 3 (1972): p. 299.

[22] Ibid, p. 299.

[23] R. F. Oaks, “Philadelphians in Exile: The Problem of Loyalty during the American Revolution,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 96, no. 3 (1972): p. 298; S. Crabtree, ““A beautiful and practical lesson of jurisprudence”: the transatlantic Quaker ministry in an age of revolution,” Radical History Review 99 (2007): p. 58.

[24] Immanuel Kant, “Cosmopolitan Rights, Human Progress, and Perpetual Peace,” In The Ethics of War: Classic and Contemporary Readings, ed. Gregory M. Reichberg, Henrik Syse, and Endre Begby (Malden: Blackwell, 2006), p. 519.

[25] Phillip Dyer, “‘It Still Makes me Shudder’: Memories of Massacres and Atrocities during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars,” War in History 16 (2009): p. 383.

[26] G. Lowes Dickinson, The Choice Before Us (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1917), p. 73.

[27] Ibid, p. 85-86.

[28] The Marquis of Lothan, Pacifism is not enough: nor patriotism either (London: Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1935), p. 35.

[29] David Saul, The Encyclopaedia of War: From Ancient Egypt to Iraq (London: Dorling Kindersley, 2015), p. 406; D. Croxton, “The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and the Origins of Sovereignty,” The International History Review, 21, no. 3 (1999): p. 591.

[30] Eleanor F. Rathbone, War Can Be Averted: The Achievability of Collective Security (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1938), p. 133.

[31] G. Sluga, “Female and National Self-Determination: A Gender Re-reading of ‘The Apogee of Nationalism’,” Nations and Nationalism 6, no. 4 (2000): p. 496.

[32] J. Vellacott, “A Place for Pacifism and Transnationalism in Feminist Theory: The Early Work of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom,” Women’s History Review 2, no. 1 (1993): p. 32.

[33] J. Vellacott, “A Place for Pacifism and Transnationalism in Feminist Theory: The Early Work of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom,” Women’s History Review 2, no. 1 (1993): p. 49; L. M Ashworth, “Feminism, War and the Prospects for Peace,” International Feminist Journal of Politics 13, no. 1 (2011): p. 26.

[34] G. Lowes Dickinson, The Choice Before Us (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1917), p. VIII.

[35] L. M Ashworth, “Feminism, War and the Prospects for Peace,” International Feminist Journal of Politics 13, no. 1 (2011): p. 29; Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas (Harcourt Inc., 1938), p. 2.

[36] L. M Ashworth, “Feminism, War and the Prospects for Peace,” International Feminist Journal of Politics 13, no. 1 (2011): p. 27; Michael A. Lutzer, “Jane Addams: Peacetime Heroine, Wartime Heretic,” In Peace Heroes in Twentieth Century America, ed. Charles DeBenedetti (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), p. 30.

[37] Eleanor F. Rathbone, War Can Be Averted: The Achievability of Collective Security (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1938), p. 132-133.

[38] David Cortright, Peace: A History of Movements and Ideas (Indiana: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 127.

[39] Ibid, p. 133.

[40] George H. Quester, “The necessary moral hypocrisy of the slide into mutually assured destruction,” In Nuclear Deterrence and Moral Restraint, ed. Henry Shue (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 227; John Lewis Gaddis, Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of American National Security Policy during the Cold War (New York, Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 212.

[41] John Lewis Gaddis, Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of American National Security Policy during the Cold War (New York, Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 212.

[42] David Cortright, Peace: A History of Movements and Ideas (Indiana: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 128-129; Matthew Evangelista, Unarmed Forces: The Transnational Movement to End the Cold War (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999), p. 67.

[43] David Cortright, Peace: A History of Movements and Ideas (Indiana: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 133.

[44] Ibid, p. 134-136.

[45] David Cortright, Peace: A History of Movements and Ideas (Indiana: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 137; Matthew Evangelista, Unarmed Forces: The Transnational Movement to End the Cold War (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999), p. 46.

[46] David Cortright, Peace: A History of Movements and Ideas (Indiana: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p.126.

[47] Ibid, p. 138.

[48] Ibid, p. 147.

[49] Ibid, p. 141.

[50] Ibid, p. 147.

[51] Ibid, p. 148-150.

[52] Ibid, p. 153.

[53] Matthew Evangelista, Unarmed Forces: The Transnational Movement to End the Cold War (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999), p. 252-254, 262.