Einstein in the U. S.

Navy

Stephen Brunauer

Clarkson College, Potsdam, N. Y. 13676

The figure of Albert Einstein has fas-

cinated his contemporaries; he was not
only the greatest scientist of our age, but
also the best-loved and most admired
man among all scientists. Because of his
stupendous contributions to science, one
of which resulted in the atomic age, his
name became known, through news-
papers, magazines, radio and television,
not only to the educated laymen, but also
to those who had less education than the
present audience; and even those who
know the name of no other scientist know
the name of Einstein.

Several biographies of Einstein were

published, which dealt with almost every
aspect of his life, but one aspect of his life
—in my opinion an important aspect—
was not discussed in any of them but one,

accurate information, namely, to me. At

the time Mr. Clark wrote his book, I was
a professor in the Department of Chemistry
at Clarkson College of Technology.

First I have to tell you the background

of how Einstein and I became acquainted.
At the time of Pearl Harbor, I was a re-
search chemist in the U. S. Department
of Agriculture. Soon after that, I applied
for a commission in the Navy. After a
long drawn-out fight with the Navy,
which included one rejection, I won the
fight, and received my commission as a
full lieutenant (equivalent to a captain
in the Army) on September 2, 1942.
After that it took more than a month until
I located a billet in the Bureau of Ord-
nance and was called in for active duty.

Mr. Clark, following Gamow’s book,

wrote about the “Division of High Ex-
plosives” in the Bureau of Ordnance,
but there was no such thing. The Bureau
had a “Research and Development Divi-
sion (Re),"" the ision had a section
called “Ammunition and Explosives
(Re2)", and the section had a subsec-
tion called “High Explosives and Propel-
lants (Re2c)."” I was assigned to Re2c.
It had two other reserve officers in it
when I joined, and we divided the work
among ourselves. One became head of
propellant research, I became head of
high explosives research, and the third,
who was a lieutenant j.g., became my
assistant and deputy. I was, on the basis
of my broad experience in the field, ex-
cellently qualified for my assignment. I
knew the names of two high explosives:
TNT and dynamite. With that knowl-
edge, I became head of high explosives
research and development for the world’s
largest Navy!

But I was young and learned fast;

furthermore, the staff kept on growing as.
the war progressed. I acquired two
groups of civilian scientists; one headed
by one of the speakers at this meeting,
Raymond J. Seeger; another of tonight's
speakers, Harry Polachek, was in this
group; the other group was headed by
Gregory Hartmann, who eventually be-
came Technical Director of the post-

permission to visit him in Princeton. The

gracious consent came by return mail.
The visit took place on May 16. After
the pleasant preliminaries, I asked Ein-
stein whether he would be willing to be-
come a consultant for the Navy in general,
and for me, in the field of high explo-
sives research, in particular. Einstein was
tremendously pleased about the offer,
and very happily gave his consent. He
felt very bad about being neglected. He
had not been approached by anyone to
do any war work since the United States
entered the war. He said to me, “People
think that I am interested only in theory,
and not in anything practical. This is not
true. I was working in the Patent Office
in Zurich, and I participated in the de-
velopment of many inventions. The gyro-
scope too.”’ I said, “That's fine. You are
hired.”” We both laughed, and agreed that
Einstein would talk the details over with
Dr. Frank Aydelotte, the Director of the
Institute for Advanced Study, where Ein-
stein was employed.

Already on the next day, both Einstein

and Aydelotte wrote separate letters to
me, and it is worth quoting both letters in
full. Both letters came on the stationery
of the Institute. The following was Ein-
stein’s letter:

May 17, 1943

Dear Lieutenant Brunauer:

T have your kind letter of May 13 and

have discussed with Dr. Aydelotte, Director
of the Institate for Advanced Study, the mat.
ter of my cooperation with the Research and
Development Division of the Navy. Dr.
Aydelotte approved heartily of my participat-
ing in your research operations. He and I both
feel that the individual contract would be most
suitable, and I agree fully with the arrange-
ments outlined in the enclosed letter from
Dr. Aydelotte.

I very much enjoyed your visit and look

forward with great satisfaction to this asso-
ciation with you in research on Navy prob-
Jems. I shall expect to receive from you in
due course the contract and information about
the work which you wish me to undertake, and
hope that I shall be able to make some use-
ful contribution.

In this connection, I should like to raise one

question: Would it in any way interfere with
my usefulness to the Navy if I should spend
a part of the summer in a cottage at Lake

sary, although Professor Einstein cannot tell at

this time whether or not he will need the
services of an assistant

take the liberty of writing to you simply to

say that the Institute for Advanced Study
cordially approves of this arrangement with
Professor Einstein and looks forward with
pride to having him undertake this service
for the Navy.

Believe me,

Yours very sincerely,

(signed) Frank Aydelotte, Director

This gracious letter shows that Dr.

Aydelotte was doubly happy about my of-
fer: for the sake of Einstein and for the
sake of himself and the Institute. The
most amusing part of the letter for us
today is the consultant fee of $25 per
day for the world’s greatest scientist.
It was a ridiculously small fee even at
that time. As to the assistant mentioned
in the letter, it was never needed because
no routine work was ever assigned to
Professor Einstein.

The originals of the two letters are in

the Navy or in the Archives, but I had
photocopies made of them, and had them
framed. This is the only thing I had on a
wall of my office, wherever I worked, and
one of the greatest joys in my life has been
that I was able to make Einstein happy.
‘And so I became, using some exaggera-
tion suggested by a friend, Einstein's
“boss” for three years.

The news of my successful visit spread

like wildfire in the Bureau of Ordnance.
Officers, from ensigns to admirals, came
to me with the question, “Is it true that
Professor Einstein is working for us?”
When they found out that it was true, it
settled the matter of the outcome of the
war in their minds. The U. S. Navy and
Einstein were an unbeatable combination.

Einstein's security clearance was ob-

tained very quickly, and the contract was
signed on May 31. Soon after that, I made
my second trip to Einstein, taking to him
for consideration one of the toughest
problems that puzzled us at that time. The
problem was whether the detonation of a
torpedo should be initiated in the front or
in the rear. The three most important

tened,” but made no contribution, and

this is false. Less important is the im-
plication that he was the only contact
with Einstein, He claimed that he visited
Einstein every two weeks, which is not
true; I visited Einstein about once in
two months and that was more fre-
quent than Gamow's visits. Raymond
Seeger and many others also utilized
Einstein's services.

I mention here two men. A young man,

who worked on torpedoes in the old
Naval Ordnance Laboratory, asked my
permission to consult Einstein about his
research, Naturally, I gave my permis-
sion. My co-workers and I considered
this young man very brilliant, but we did
not suspect that he would be the first man,
and to date the only one, to receive two.
Nobel Prizes in the same subject, phys-
ics. His name is John Bardeen. Another
man was Henry Eyring, who is one of the
greatest physical chemists of the country
and the world. Eyring was then a profes-
sor at Princeton University, but he had
never met Einstein. He and his brilliant
group of young coworkers worked on a
high explosives project for us. I intro-
duced Henry to Einstein, and our walk
in Einstein's garden became one of the
great experiences of Eyring’s life.

If I were asked to state what specific

contributions were made by Einstein to
our high explosives research, I would
have to say this. New and more effec-
tive high explosives were developed dur-
ing the war, and they were used by the
Navy and the Army (which then included
the Air Force) against Germany, Japan
and their allies. (I found out later that at
least the underwater explosives, possibly
others, were also used in the Korean and
the Vietnam War.) But these develop-
ments were the results of the efforts of
large groups of people, including Ein-
stein. It is impossible to assess the
contributions of the individuals within
the groups. The new developments re-
sulted from team work, and Einstein was
amember of the team—three of tonight's
speakers were members of the team. But
it is easy to assess the value of a dif-

tivity. On the empty page under the cover

he wrote in his beautiful, small, clear
letters only this much: A. Einstein, and
under it the year, 1945. I was disappointed
that he did not write more, but I attribute
it to his humility, to his great modesty.
C. P. Snow visited Einstein only once
in his life, in the summer of 1937. He
wrote a long essay about his visit. He
found Einstein a sad man and a pes-
simist. During the eight hours they spent
together, he heard Einstein's famous
laughter only once. Einstein had good
Teasons to be pessimistic then; that was
the time of the rapid rise of Hitler, and
the western powers did nothing about it.
But since Snow’s essay appeared twelve
years after Einstein's death, it created the
impression that Einstein was always like
that. This is not so. During my visits,
while the war lasted, Einstein was gay
and ebullient; in those visits he laughed
heartily and often. He had good reasons
for that too; we were on the way to
eradicating Hitler and his Nazi system,
and Eintein was—by his work in the
Navy—one of the eradicators.
Although Einstein's third and last con-
tract as “*Consultant for Research on Ex-
plosives” ran from July 1, 1945 (before
the end of the war) to June 30, 1946 (nine
months after the end of the war), there
was no need to consult him after the end
of the war. Hiroshima shook up many
people, and Einstein more than any-
one else. I visited him twice after the
war; last time in April 1946. Einstein’s
mood changed—he was worried about
the fate of mankind. I expressed the

and in that only very briefly and to some

extent misleadingly. This aspect is the
story of how Einstein, a lifelong pacifist,
helped during World War II to fight the
‘Nazis through his work for the U. S, Navy.

The best and most complete biography

of Einstein was written by Ronald W.
Clark, with the title Einstein, the Life
and Times, and it was published by the
World Publishing Company in 1971.
Clark devoted less than two pages in his
631-page book to Einstein's work for the
Navy Bureau of Ordnance, and even that
is partly erroneous, based on George
Gamow’'s book My World Line. This is
not Clark's fault; he wrote what scant
information he received, and apparently
no one referred him to the person who
could have given him both more and more

war Naval Ordnance Laboratory at

White Oak. I also had a few officers.
Besides the people directly under me, I
had very many other scientists working
for us indirectly. The great majority of
the civilian scientists doing war research
was organized into the National Defense
Research Committee (NDRC), which had
two divisions doing research on high ex-
plosives: Division 2, headed by Professor
E. Bright Wilson of Harvard University,
which worked on underwater explosives
in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, and
Division 8, headed by Professor George
Kistiakovsky, also of Harvard, which
worked on explosives in air in Bruceton,
Pennsylvania. This is a long introduction
to my meeting Einstein, but I believe it
was necessary to see the set-up to under-
stand better what I will say from this
point on.

The top people of the Army, Navy and

the two civilian divisions had occasional
joint conferences to discuss their re-
search on high explosives. At one such
conference, the name of Einstein was
mentioned by somebody. That gave me
an idea, asked the Army people whether
Einstein was working for them. The
answer was no. Then I asked the civilians
whether Binstein was working for them,
and the answer again was no. Why?

“Oh, he is a pacifist,” was the answer,

“furthermore, he is not interested in any-
thing practical. He is only interested in
working on his unified field theory.” I
was not satisfied with these answers.
Like those who gave the answers, I was
ignorant of the fact that Einstein had
changed his pacifist views publicly since
Hitler's ascension to power; nor did I
know that Einstein was interested in
practical things. The first biography of
Einstein, that of Philipp Frank, was to ap-
pear only four years later. Nevertheless,
[felt that Einstein could not be a pacifist
in a war with Hitler, nor did I believe that
he would be unwilling to contribute his ef-
forts to this war. So I decided that I would
try to get Einstein for the Navy.

Tn the second week of May, 1943, I

wrote a letter to Einstein. asking his
Saranac? I do not know whether it will be
possible for me to take a holiday away from
Princeton in any case, and certainly if my use-
fulness to the Navy would be increased by re-
maining in Princeton I should be most happy
to do so. If, however, it would be equally
convenient for you, I think I could probably
work to better advantage in the more agree-
able climate of Lake Saranac during the hot

months of summer.

Yours very sincerely,

(signed) A. Einstein

How clear from this letter is Einstein's

joy over the fact that he was finally drawn
into the war research! “‘I very much
enjoyed your visit and look forward with
great satisfaction to this association with
you in research on Navy problems."" I
think it is obvious that I enjoyed the
visit at least as much as he. This was
my first opportunity to meet the man
whom I considered one of the two great-
est scientists of all times (the other was
Newton). And how clearly the letter
shows Einstein's humility, asking the
permission of a simple Navy lieutenant
to spend the summer at Lake Saranac.
Tam sure that Einstein couldn't know at
that time that I was a scientist, my field
being very far from Einstein's interests.
He could have written simply that during
the summer he may be reached at Lake
Saranac, but no—he asked the permis-
sion of the Navy lieutenant. Naturally he
received it from me, but he didn’t use
it, He stayed at Princeton. The letter of
Dr. Aydelotte is also interesting and I
quote that also in full.
May 17, 1943
Dear Lieutenant Brunaver:

Professor Einstein has told me of his con-

versation with you and showed me your
gracious letter of May 13th suggesting arrange-
ments under which he may be of assistance to
the Navy for theoretical research on explo-
sives and explosions.

In talking over the matter with Professor

Einstein he and I have both come to the
conclusion that probably the best arrangement
‘would be for the Navy to make an individual
contract him on the basis of $25 per day,
Professor Einstein to let you know at intervals
the amount of time he has actually spent on
Navy problems. I think it is important to leave
in the arrangements for an assistant in case a
great deal of routine work should be neces-

characteristics of the shock wave pro-

duced in a detonation are the peak pres-
sure, the impulse or momentum of the
shock wave, which includes the duration
of the shock, and the energy released in
the explosion. If in a torpedo the detona-
tion of the high explosive is initiated at
the forward end, one obtains the highest
peak pressure. If the detonation is ini-
tiated in the rear end, one obtains the
highest momentum. The energy de-
veloped is the same, regardless where the
explosion is initiated. So the ques-
tion was which of the three main char-
acteristics causes the most damage. If it
is the peak pressure, the explosion should
be initiated at the front end of the tor-
pedo; if it is momentum, it should be
initiated at the rear end, and if it is the
energy, the location of the initiation does
not make any difference.

Einstein was thinking about the prob-

lem for about ten minutes, and finally
chose momentum and gave the reasons.
But a few days later I received a letter
from him telling me that he gave much
further thought to the matter, and changed
his conclusion. He decided that the
energy developed in the explosion was
the most important factor, and gave his
reasons. Very expensive experiments
performed much later showed that he was.
Tight. Of course this subject was highly
confidential during the war, but I hope
that now—thirty-five years later—it
is declassified.

This is a good example of the prob-

lems we took to Einstein, and this one
example should suffice. He always gave
very careful thought to the problems we
took to him and always came up with a
reasonable answer. | alluded to some mis-
leading statements in Clark’s excellent
book. These he took from George Gamow.
Gamow, a brilliant theoretical physicist,
was also one of my consultants during
the Second World War. According to
Gamow’s story, he was the Navy's liai-
son man with Einstein; he took the re-
search we did to Einstein, who listened
with interest and praised the work. The
implication is that Einstein only “‘lis-

ferent type of contribution of Einstein—

his contribution to morale. It was up-
lifting to know that “Einstein was one
of us."”

I learned from Clark's book that in

July 1943, i.e., soon after Einstein joined
the Navy, he wrote to his friend Bucky,
“So long as the war lasts and I work
for the Navy, I do not wish to begin any-
thing else.” But we were unable to
supply him with enough work to occupy
him full time. Whenever I visited him, I
found that the tall and long blackboard
in his study was filled from the left to
right end, and from top to bottom, with
long, complicated equations, written
with neat, small-sized symbols—ob-
viously work on the unified field theory.
Nor were my bimonthly or more or less
frequent visits spent on business alone.
After the business came the conversa-
tion. We talked about the progress of the
war, about interesting items in the news,
about history, philosophy, about per-
sonal experiences, and about a great
variety of other things. Einstein had a
wonderful sense of humor; he loved to
make witty remarks and tell humorous
anecdotes. He laughed heartily at his
own jokes and also at mine. His well-
known wisecrack, “Iam in the Navy, but
I was not required to get a Navy hair-
cut,"’ was born in one of our conversa-
tions. I am very sorry now that I did not
make detailed notes after each trip to
Einstein. But that was the busiest time of
my life; I worked seven days a week and
twelve hours or more every day, as
did many others. During three and a half
years, we had three days off, the three
Christmas days.

The great mathematician G. H. Hardy

called Einstein "good, gentle, and wise,””
and it would be difficult to find better ad-
jectives for him than these. But I would
add one more, “humble.” You could see
that in his letter to me, which I read to
you, but that is only one example. In all
my Visits, I received the impression of
a genuinely humble person. On one oc-
casion, he gave me one of his books as
a present. It was The Meaning of Rela-

deep gratitude of the Navy, the Bureau of

Ordnance, and especially of my own for
the privilege of working with him, and he
in turn thanked me for getting him into the
war research, which gave him great satis-
faction. When we said goodbye to each
other, I was deeply moved, and perhaps
he was moved too.

‘That was the last time I saw him. Our

paths diverged after that. Our aim was
the same: the prevention of a third world
war, but our paths were different. I
stayed in the Navy for four and a half
more years to build up a new organiza-
tion for high explosives research and
development. Einstein's path was com-
plete disarmament and the establishment
of a world government, and he exerted
all his energy, all his effort, and all his
influence to achieve those ideals. As we
know, he failed. I believe that Einstein
knew that his efforts were doomed to
failure; he was a prophet way ahead of
his time. But the ‘conscience of the
world,”’ as Einstein was called, could not
but fight to the end for what he believed,
however hopeless the fight was.

This is the story of Einstein in the Navy

in a nutshell. It is incomplete for two
reasons: I myself could have said more
if the time allotted to my talk had been
longer. What is more important, doubt-
less others could add their experiences to
mine. Some day a more complete story
will emerge about this important part of
Einstein's life. But even this short history
is far more complete than anything you
can find in print to date. Thank you for
your attention.