668
PAl~
TISAN REVIEW
stood nothing about politics, and that to the Americans strength alone
counted. Frustrated in his efforts, Sakharov decided to wage his battle
politically but still within the system. It was his frustrating inability to
influence Soviet nuclear policy, particularly on the matter of testing, that
led him, according
to
his own words, to develop a feeling "of impo–
tence and fright."
In 1973 came the breaking point, when after much agony, Sakharov
decided that it was impossible to work within the system and that he had
to go public and chall enge Soviet policy. Other factors contributed: ac–
cording to his memoirs, he began to read about the history of Stalinism.
This literature had a great influence on him, because he came to realize
that the reason he was frustrated in his effort to stop nuclear testing and
the arms race had to do with the systemic flaws of the regime, rather
than with the incomprehension or ill will of its current leaders. This re–
alization led him to acknowledge the importance of human rights , the
importance of law, the importance of Russia becoming part of the
world.
Going public did him no good, either. He was immediately criti–
cized by the Soviet media and soon fell into its disfavor. When a
Swedish correspondent, to whom he told his story for the first time for
the benefit of the West, asked him why he engaged in such futile
endeavors, Sakharov responded, "Well, there is a need to create ideals
even when you can't see any path by which to achieve them. If there are
no ideals, there can be no hope, and then one would be completely in
the dark ." He adhered to this view in spite of the prevailing opinion in
the West that we had to be "realistic" in dealing with Moscow, proving
that sometimes idealism is the highest form of realism.
The amazing thing about Sakharov is, as I mentioned before, that
both he and all his principal supporters were scientists: Valerii Chalidze,
Iurii Orlov, and Andre Tverdokhlebov, all three physicists; Kronid Li–
ubarskii, an astrophysicist; and Sergei Kovalev, a biologist. This is unique,
certainly in the history of Russia; the fight had always been waged by
those we call intellectuals and not scientists. When one thinks about this
puzzle, several explanations come to mind. An obvious one is that scien–
tists enjoyed under the Communists privileges that writers did not. Writ–
ers were considered by the regime
to
be expendable, and if they did
challenged the system, they wou ld be immediately arrested, whereas
Sakharov was immune for a long time, and only when he persisted was
he punished. Furthermore, a powerful factor is that scientists in the So–
viet Union, even under Stalin, were permitted to think rationally and to
deal with rules of evidence the way their coll eagues did in the West.
There was a Soviet literature different from ours, but there was no So-
