An Incident in The Netherlands

ahp4.005.3

Linus and Ava Helen Pauling were well known for their support of one another’s work; particularly so when it came to the topic of world peace. As with all activists, the Paulings often found themselves encountering both support and opposition to their ideals. One instance of opposition made headlines around the world and showed that fame was at times both sword and shield for the Paulings.

By the spring of 1964, much of Ava Helen’s work as an activist was channeled through her involvement with Women Strike for Peace (WSP), a network of female peace advocates from across the United States. That year, Ava became one of the primary organizers of a meeting that was to take place in The Hague, Netherlands. The WSP called women peace activists from around the world to meet in The Hague to protest against the transfer of nuclear weapons from the United States to other North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries.

At the time, it had been agreed that existing stockpiles of nuclear weapons should not be transferred between countries. The United States, however, was trying to make a case for the legal transfer of nuclear weapons to West Germany on the grounds that, when it came to international agreements, NATO allies functioned as a unit rather than as individual countries. Ava Helen and the WSP were successful in garnering the support and participation of women from every NATO country including, importantly, representation from West Germany.

Ava Helen and Linus’s plans to attend a peace conference in Mexico City just days before the WSP demonstration had made it unlikely that Ava would be present at the peace demonstration in The Hague. WSP members, however, urged Ava Helen to find a way to attend, and last minute arrangements did indeed make it possible for her to fly overseas for the meeting.  Once arrived, however, it was Ava Helen’s absence from the proceedings which changed the outcome of what had been planned as a silent protest.


bio6.008.513

Days before the demonstration was to begin, the Dutch government – without informing WSP – banned the women’s peace demonstration and began preventing participants from entering the country. Unaware of this turn of events, Ava Helen boarded a flight from Mexico City to Amsterdam on May 10th, where a copy of The Triple Revolution was found among her belongings. The presence of this pamphlet was evidence enough for immigration officials at Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport to recognize Ava as a participant in the demonstration.

The Triple Revolution was a memorandum, issued by the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, to which Linus Pauling had contributed. The document was addressed to President Lyndon B. Johnson and it rejected both the development of nuclear weapons and the move toward an economy dependent on machine-based labor. Published in pamphlet form, the document became an important component of WSP’s rhetoric, as it was applicable to issues of concern in both the United States as well as many other parts of the world. The Triple Revolution‘s notoriety as a radical proposal, however, placed its supporters in opposition to much of the leadership of the western world’s governments.

This is the context of what awaited Ava Helen when she arrived in Amsterdam. Having made the decision to ban the WSP demonstration, and cognizant of her role in its organization, the Dutch government made the decision to deny Ava Helen’s entry into the country.  Not long after landing she was promptly put on to a different flight, this time bound for Copenhagen, Denmark.


ahp3.003.10

By the time that Ava landed in Copenhagen, Linus Pauling had arrived at his home in Pasadena, where a call that he received at one o’clock in the morning alerted him to his wife’s situation in The Netherlands. In a personal note written at 1:15 AM on May 11th, Pauling expressed his frustration as well as his intent to notify the press about the incident. In a later note, he recalled the events of that day, condemning the incident as a “dictatorial action of oppression and prevention of free speech.”

Meanwhile, in Copenhagen, Ava Helen was met by news reporters who asked if she had mentioned to the Dutch immigration officials who she was and to whom she was married. To this Ava replied

I was certain they did not recognize my name or that of my husband and I felt that, as a matter of principle, I could not bribe officials by telling them I was the wife of a man who had won two Nobel Prizes.

Ava assured the journalists that the whole affair must have been a mistake and that the mishap would be taken care of. When a reporter contacted the Dutch embassy in Copenhagen, however, they found that Ava had been wrong: the Dutch government had in fact given orders to keep WSP members out of the country. The Danish press promptly published Ava’s story, which made news around the world.

When Linus called the Dutch embassy in Washington, D.C. he was told that the demonstration had been cancelled. Not knowing that the European media was already covering story, Pauling quickly made plans of his own for notifying the press. With journalistic efforts underway on two continents, questions began to arise concerning the legality and the implications for civil liberties of the Dutch government’s decision.

Back in the United States, members of Women Strike for Peace also flooded the Dutch embassy with questions regarding Ava’s denied entry and the suppression of their demonstration. These pressures ultimately compelled the Dutch government to retreat from its initial decision. That same day, the activist women who had made it into the country gathered in a silent demonstration outside of the Peace Palace in The Hague. Two days later, Ava entered The Netherlands and joined the women of WSP for their NATO meeting.


Ava Helen’s contretemps with Dutch immigration authorities stands as another example of the ways in which the Paulings’ fame both exposed and protected the two peace advocates. And while the Danish press had questioned why Ava didn’t use her last name to get into get into The Netherlands, it is clear that doing so was not necessary.

By the early 1960s, Ava Helen and Linus Pauling had become well-acquainted with the art of circulating their opinions through means of peaceful protest. As Ava wrote in a letter to Linus, had she used her name to enter the Netherlands, the meeting might not have taken place. Although initially anonymous, Ava’s role in the Women Strike for Peace demonstration and the attention that she received from the press, were crucial to the Dutch government’s decision to allow the meeting to take place and to making the demonstration news around the world.

Advertisements

The Triple Revolution

Letter from the Ad Hoc Committee appended to "The Triple Revolution" memorandum, March 22, 1964.

Letter from the Ad Hoc Committee appended to “The Triple Revolution” memorandum, March 22, 1964.

[Part 4 of 6 in a series examining Pauling’s association with the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions]

Linus Pauling’s connection with the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions (CSDI) began before he and his wife moved to Santa Barbara. While in Pasadena, Pauling joined a group of social activists that called itself “The Ad Hoc Committee on the Triple Revolution.” Working under the auspices of the CSDI, the Ad Hoc Committee worked together to draft a memorandum addressed to President Lyndon B. Johnson and titled “The Triple Revolution.”

The memorandum was in turn circulated to select individuals and ultimately signed by thirty-five men, a collection of academics, journalists and left activists.  Noteworthy among these signatories were James Boggs, an auto worker and author of Pages from a Negro Worker’s Notebook; Todd Gitlin, President of Students for a Democratic Society; retired Brigadier General Hugh B. Hester; Gerard Piel, publisher of Scientific American; Bayard Rustin of the War Resisters League; and socialist leader Norman Thomas.  Also included were Linus Pauling and W.H. “Ping” Ferry, vice-president of the CSDI.


Linus Pauling, 1964.

Linus Pauling, 1964.

Submitted in March 1964, “The Triple Revolution” opens with a letter to the president in which the Ad Hoc Committee states its concern that Americans and their leaders are “unaware of the magnitude and acceleration of the changes going on around them.” The letter was signed by each of the committee members and was later published in pamphlet form alongside the main text of the “The Triple Revolution” memorandum.

“The Triple Revolution” states that three main socio-economic revolutions were occurring during the 1960s: the Weaponry Revolution, the Cybernation Revolution, and a Human Rights Revolution comprising civil rights movements all around the world. The piece also suggests that all three revolutions were the result of technological development and changes in the economy.

The Weaponry Revolution speaks to one of Linus Pauling’s greatest hopes: the end of war as a means of conflict resolution. In proposing that a weaponry revolution was in place, the memorandum elaborates on the topics of nuclear warfare and disarmament. The pamphlet suggests – as Pauling had often done before – that the threat of such weapons should steer nations to end the use of war altogether in order to avoid the destruction of modern civilization. While acknowledging the degree of difficulty of this undertaking, “The Triple Revolution” nevertheless holds on to the idea of a “warless world,” stating that it is a need acknowledged by most people.

The memorandum also suggests that a Cybernation Revolution was underway, meaning that the use of machines was slowly changing the roles assumed by people in the economy and society. The Ad Hoc Committee was concerned that those without the wealth to purchase or develop machines would be left without the opportunity to earn a living, should the economy switch to a purely machine-based means of production.

The members of the committee also believed that the Cybernation Revolution would cause an unequal distribution of wealth which would eventually lead to an unsustainable national economy. And, indeed, one of the proposals put forth in “The Triple Revolution” is an equal distribution of wealth, carried out as a necessary action to prevent future economic instability. The memorandum encourages the development of an economic system that compensates those who do not own machines and do not have access to the means of production; a concept the document refers to as “the right to an income.” The Ad Hoc Committee believed that groups like African Americans in the early 1960s existed in a social and legal situation that prevented them from owning machines, limiting their opportunities for economic development.

Members of the Ad Hoc Committee believed that, by the 1960s, societies around the world needed to recognize the dignity of each individual. The group likewise believed that the civil rights movement in the United States was only a local manifestation of a world-wide trend to reform political systems such that individuals could not be excluded on account of their race. “The Triple Revolution” thus describes the civil rights movement in the United States existing as part of a broader Human Right Revolution in place at the time.

The document suggests that the U.S. government had the power to lead American society through the changes being ushered in by the triple revolution, primarily by decreasing the amount of resources and attention given to military endeavors and increasing the attention given to those who are at a social disadvantage. The pamphlet concludes by stating that failure to seek solutions to the issues that arise when human labor is replaced by machines would exacerbate social inequality and lead to “misery and chaos.” But so too did it remain hopeful that, given proper leadership, societies could overcome the challenges presented by the changes of the 1960s.


no-work

Louisville Courier-Journal, March 23, 1964.

In presenting “The Triple Revolution” to the federal government, the Ad Hoc Committee identified itself as a group of concerned citizens. And though the text made sure to include the government in its suggestions for the future, the document was considered by many to be radically anti-government, and by some to be anti-American. In particular, many who opposed the views presented in “The Triple Revolution” worried about its apparent lack of appreciation for the military, as indicated by the pamphlet’s recommendations that resources used for military efforts be limited.  Media pundits were also quick to disparage the idea of a guaranteed income and its implications of creeping socialism.

Two weeks after receiving the document, the White House issued a short response to “The Triple Revolution,” stating that the President had taken measures to address the problems identified in the memorandum. The letter is signed by Assistant Special Counsel to the President Lee C. White, who is remembered for having advised Presidents Kennedy and Johnson on civil rights strategies. For the most part, the response uses general statements and examples as evidence that President Johnson’s “War on Poverty” was considering the issues brought up by the memorandum. It is unclear whether Johnson ever read or even received the document personally.

Despite media opposition to the document and its quick dismissal by the government, other peace activists shared many of the views expressed in “The Triple Revolution.” One group, Women Strike for Peace – an organization in which Ava Helen Pauling was especially active – expressed many of the same views on world affairs when it organized a demonstration outside the Peace Palace at The Hague in 1964. Through their activism and intellectual product, the Ad Hoc Committee and Women Strike for Peace alike were issuing a demand that social inequalities be resolved both for the benefit of individual societies and also as a step toward international peace.

Mina Carson Interview, Part 2

Dr. Mina Carson.  Photo taken by her daughter, Lyn.

Dr. Mina Carson. Photo taken by her daughter, Lyn.

[Part 2 of 2 of our exclusive interview with Dr. Mina Carson, author of Ava Helen Pauling: Partner, Activist, Visionary.]

Pauling Blog: How would you describe Ava Helen’s style of activism? I know that Linda Richards used the word “swirled” in reference to it.

Mina Carson: Yeah, I think that’s right. Ava Helen really loved to have a big important correspondence and she was quite honest – I mean she was a good correspondent, she was quite honest in her letters and that’s where you get a lot of her personality, her style. She didn’t suffer fools – what she took to be fools – gladly and she didn’t mince words. At the same time, she was difficult with her kids and she was difficult with some people because she was pretty forceful, but she also liked to flirt and she liked to be nice and she liked to be considerate. So many, many people liked her very much and a number of young women took her as a mentor and model and really worshiped her and I think that’s fascinating.

But her style, she did do committee work for a while – actually off and on for her whole adult life – but it wasn’t her favorite thing to do. I think she liked to give speeches, I mean she developed that – she deprecated her own ability but I think that was just “oh I’m not so good at that…if you think I have something of worth to offer then I’m happy to make a speech.” But that’s really what she liked to do. And she loved to travel with Linus and she loved to travel period. She loved to be made much of – I mean who doesn’t? But she loved to be made much of, so that style of being able to travel around the world and connect her Australian friends with her Canadian friends and with her South American friends, that was her all the way through.

And when she was disgusted with the red baiting she saw in some American chapters of WILPF and the Women’s International League and some of the European chapters as well, and when Women Strike for Peace came along in the early ’60s, she didn’t jump ship, she was loyal to WILPF, she didn’t jump ship. But she immediately joined WSP as a number of her WILPF colleagues did, and that really suited her because it was a no holds barred “let’s do this action here, let’s kind of shock them a little, let’s show them that women in hats can really live on the dangerous side.” And she loved that. So she was very much a maker of connections rather than a person behind the scenes who liked to work on committees and start a project that would go on for years. Yeah, I really think that’s right.

PB: How about her style of feminism? It seems to have evolved over time.

MC: It did. And at the same time she ended up in the camp of liberal feminism really about the time that Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique. And of course she had a very strong critique of Betty Friedan, which was interesting. She felt that Friedan put down homemakers and homemaking, and of course Ava Helen had so much ego tied up in that identity that she rejected it. But at the same time she was what we call “liberal feminist” and she, for the most part, believed that women should be offered the same, or earn the same opportunities as men. And that she really didn’t like to look out into the world and see young women not taking opportunities – you know, not finishing college as she had not and not creating opportunities for themselves to have independence, financial independence and professional independence. From time to time, she loved to go back into the history of women through the world – not very carefully, but in broad strokes.

It’s interesting to try to figure out if she was an essentialist, believing that women are essentially different from men. She kind of skirted that. She was more of a functionalist in that she believed that women had filled certain roles because their societies has pressured them into doing that because they did it well, not because they were born to certain fates as people. It’s hard to sort out. She’s not a deep thinker – she’s an eager thinker, she’s a smart person – but she’s not really a philosopher. It’s fun to go through her papers. It’s fun to follow the threads of argument. I do not put her down. She makes better speeches than I do. But what I’m saying is that it doesn’t repay, really probing her philosophy, because that wasn’t her thing. She was more of a political activist, political thinker, than a philosopher.

Ava Helen in the 1950s.

Ava Helen in the 1950s.

PB: The title of the book is Ava Helen Pauling: Activist, Partner, Visionary. We’ve touched on the activist and partner piece of it, but I wonder if you could talk a little bit more about the visionary piece.

MC: She really could see, as did Linus. And I think she saw without the deep scientific insight that he had. She saw immediately that if we continued down the road, for example of atmospheric testing, that we would destroy the next generation’s Earth and, in many cases, lives. She felt passionately about the public health risks and the ecological risks of atmospheric testing and the nuclear race in general. She was infuriated by our dedication of such a huge percentage of public funds to the military. I’ve made the point – and it’s not a very profound point – that she and Linus were not pacifists per se. They certainly were interventionists in World War II, but they did not see another conflict that they believed that the United States should enter over the rest of their lives. And they were internationalists and they believed that human energies and human resources would go a lot more usefully into maintaining peace and building education and so on.

She left part of her money in her will to Sempervirens, a California Redwoods Foundation, and was very much involved as she had the energy to be in her last few years as she was ill, but very much involved in saving the wilds. It was a natural trajectory for her interests to move toward ecology and environmentalism and so she really was, in that sense, a visionary. And I think that, again, she had many allies. And it’s not that she had really a number of original thoughts, it’s that she could see the interconnections of all these issues and it was clear to her and it made her very impatient and very angry. And of course, a number of us can certainly understand that passion.

PB: Where do you think she was happiest? Do you think it was the ranch?

MC: I wonder. She loved the ranch and she loved the times that she and Linus – she remarked at one point that “I can’t believe we haven’t seen a single soul in a week, two weeks, and that has not happened since we were married.” But she thrived on human contact, so I think that she saw the ranch as he did, as a kind of blessed relief from the relentless social and political round that they had. But I suspect that she was happiest in the middle of an adoring crowd. I just suspect that in some cases, at least, that the celebratory moments were the times when she was happiest.

But it could well have been too, as she got older – and this is really important – that her grandkids remember her, Cheryl Pauling for example, remembers her as a wonderful grandmother. And Linda’s and Barclay’s kids too, sensitive to their uniqueness, sensitive to their needs, their desires, their needs as children. It’s so interesting. And Stephanie makes the same comment about her kids with Linus Jr. So I think that she did like the large family gatherings. There was often friction, because she had raised a bunch of strong-willed kids. So it can be difficult. At the same time, she wasn’t one to wilt under difficulty and conflict. She didn’t have a thin skin. So I think she liked being in a lot of different places, but probably not home alone with young children when she was a young woman.

Thanksgiving with Linda Pauling Kamb and her family, 1968.

Thanksgiving with Linda Pauling Kamb and her family, 1968.

PB: What were some surprises for you as you went through this process?

MC: I was really surprised about how active and open their sex life was in the 1920s. I mean, I was really just flabbergasted and really enjoyed Linus’ letters to her and really was taken aback. And that led me to search the secondary literature on college students’ sexuality in the 1920s. And I found that there is not a whole lot of literature. I tried a whole bunch of search terms and I really need to follow that up because I think that’s fascinating – you’d think that there would be much more research on that. And I’ve a couple of scholarly friends that I want to follow up on after the fact just because it’s fascinating. So that was a big surprise.

I think that I wasn’t surprised but I was interested to see how Linus matured as a parent. When his kids hit their 20s, all of a sudden he was very involved as a parent. And I think it was fun to see – it’s not surprising when you think about who he was. He was pretty laissez faire when the kids were small, but at the same time he didn’t really know what to do with them and he was pretty uninvolved with their day to day raising. Whereas when they became young adults he could talk with them. He had things to write to them about and he had money that they wanted and he had ways to control their lives in that way. So that was also interesting to watch the trajectory of his parenting over time.

And again, I wasn’t surprised but I was really deeply touched by his devotion to her and by his massive – I mean, he was shocked when she died. He was shocked at his own response. And he writes about his response and that was really interesting, that he writes some pieces for his kids about how he is doing. And he did this off and on throughout his life as if he were his own research subject. And he shocked himself “Oh my gosh, I have emotions and these are what they seem to be!”

Linus and Ava Helen at Deer Flat Ranch, 1977.

Linus and Ava Helen at Deer Flat Ranch, 1977.

PB: Is there something, a cache of materials or a specific document that you couldn’t find or that doesn’t exist that you really wish did exist or that you had found?

MC: Yes, several. I’m really sad that we do not have her love letters. I’m deeply sad about that because her personality kind of has to be reconstructed from the few letters that survived the mowing down of her correspondence by family members. And I so understand what they were doing, I so understand it, I just wish I had them. I wish we could have talked with Linda [Pauling Kamb]. She was so understandably tied up with Barclay’s recent death. And I was able to use the wonderful interviews that she did with Tom Hager, so I don’t feel like I was completely in the dark about her retrospective ideas about her family. To have those materials that Hager gathered was just really valuable. Yeah I wish I had more of her. We have so much of her personal correspondence as an adult and I just wish I had a little more.

…If I could go back in – I mean I’m very glad to have this project done and launched but if I could go back in, I did love casting it as a family history but I think in that sense I slighted some of the important points about women’s committee work that I could have made in the book. And I would be interested to see if reviewers find that a weak point. I think one of the strong points of the book is the history of the marriage and my attempt to connect that with some notion of 20th century marriages. But we’ll see about that too. But I think one weak point is not having done more with the importance of reinterpreting women’s committee work in the 20th century. So that’s a flaw.

PB: Well, the last question is what’s next up for you?

MC: I have no idea! I have like fourteen different interests. I really love the history of photography and I have a history of photography blog, so to beef that up is really, I have time for that now. And as I mentioned, I am really interested in what seems to be Lacanian in terms of this lack of research on college students lives in the 1920s and I’m really interested in that. I’m fascinated by the history of psychotherapy and haven’t yet written my grand book on that. So I think the short answer is I’m not sure. I need to decide really soon but I don’t know what I’m doing!

ahp-bio

Ava Helen Pauling: Partner, Activist, Visionary is available for purchase from the Oregon State University Press.

Dagmar Wilson and Women Strike for Peace

Dagmar Wilson. (Photo Credit: Washington Post)

In previous posts on the Pauling Blog, we’ve not only examined Linus Pauling’s role in stopping the atmospheric testing of nuclear bombs, but also the important part that Louise Reiss and the Baby Tooth Survey played. Today we will explore two more of the most crucial players in prompting the signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty: Dagmar Wilson and Women Strike for Peace.

Dagmar Searchinger was born in Manhattan on January 25, 1916. Her father worked as a foreign correspondent for CBS Radio and, as a result, much of her childhood was spent outside of the United States. In 1937 she graduated from the University of London’s Slade School of Fine Art, and shortly thereafter married Christopher Wilson. The couple had three daughters and Mrs. Wilson began a career as a children’s book illustrator.

In the 1960s, Wilson and her family were living in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, D. C.  One September afternoon in 1961, while reading the daily newspaper, she came across an article on Bertrand Russell‘s arrest for participating in an anti-nuclear demonstration in London. In a New York Times article dated November 22, 1961, Wilson recalled that Russell’s arrest “made me so mad I wanted to hire a jet and go over there and picket. Instead, I picked up the phone and called a few friends to see if they felt the same way I did.”  As it turns out, the friends did share Wilson’s opinion, and the group agreed that they should take action. As Wilson put it, “we decided it was up to the women because the men are trapped in the course of daily events.”

And so it was that, several discussions later, Women Strike for Peace (WSP) was created. The loosely organized movement wasted no time in becoming active, and ended up harnessing a large number of supporters very rapidly. On November 1, 1961, approximately 50,000 women marched in 60 U.S. cities to demand an end to atomic bomb testing. Wilson led the group of close to 1,500 that marched in Washington, D.C., and that same day received letters of support from First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy and from Nina Khrushchev, the wife of the Soviet Premier. President John F. Kennedy also took notice of the demonstration, and in a news conference held two months later, acknowledged WSP’s efforts.

WSP’s next major stand against bomb testing was very similar to Linus Pauling’s Nobel-worthy protest. The result of a major petition drive, WSP participants gathered over 50,000 signatures demanding a stop to nuclear testing, and in April 1962, Wilson and 51 other members traveled to Geneva where they presented the petition to the chairmen of a disarmament conference that was taking place between delegates from 17 countries. In August of the following year, Women Strike for Peace, Linus Pauling, and Louise Reiss were all elated to see their shared goal achieved, when the United States, the Soviet Union and Great Britain signed the Partial Test Ban Treaty, which banned all atmospheric testing of nuclear bombs.  A few months later, Pauling was announced as the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for 1962.

As it turns out, Women Strike for Peace also provided a connection between Wilson and the Pauling family. Ava Helen, for one, was an active member of the international branch of WSP and both Paulings spoke at WSP-sponsored events on a number of occasions. Beyond this, Linus Pauling also represented a rather influential figure in Dagmar Wilson’s life. In a letter to him written on January 4, 1962 – the first correspondence between the two that we have on record in Special Collections – she noted that “it was your steadfast stand before the Dodd Committee two years ago that made me resolve to take the stand I did. Perhaps others will see their way to follow suit in the future.”

In 1965 Pauling likewise lent his support when Wilson and two other members of Women Strike for Peace found themselves in a similar situation.  The three women were called to testify about their peace activities before a subcommittee of the House Un-American Activities Committee and were subsequently convicted of contempt of Congress on account of their refusal to testify in a closed door hearing. The next year, an appeals court overturned the decision, but the entire affair stood out as a stressful and traumatic chapter in Wilson’s life, as had been the case for Pauling in his similar battles with the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee in 1960.

Although the extant correspondence between the Paulings and Wilson is sparse, it is easy to see that their relationship extended well beyond their connection through Women Strike for Peace. In 1981 Wilson sent a birthday card to Linus Pauling, in which she wrote

Best wishes for many happy returns of your birthday. Fancy being eighty years old and still ahead of your times. Do you think that our world will survive long enough to catch up?!

Almost three weeks later, Pauling responded

It was good of you to write to me. Ava Helen and I had a fine time on our birthday – several parties. Our work on cancer and other diseases is going along well. I believe that the world will survive, but that it will be a close call, especially with Reagan in office.

The exchange not only provides an interesting look into the pair’s relationship, but also into the somewhat less-than-optimistic outlook on the world that these two long tenured and battle scarred peace advocates shared, at least at the dawn of the Reagan era.

Dagmar Wilson died on January 6, 2011 at the age of 94.