THE QUAKER PEACE TESTIMONY
AND THE
NOBEL PEACE PRIZE

Irwin Abrams
Antioch University

Presented at the International Conference:
"The Pacifist Impulse in Historical Perspective"
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO, May 1991

© 1991

When the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced on October 31, 1947, that the peace prize would go to the Friends Service Council of London (FSC) and the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) of Philadelphia, the Oslo Dagbladet told its readers that "the Quaker religion consists of relief work."1

What of the peace testimony? Were the Quakers given the prize simply for their good works"? This paper will seek to ascertain the part played by the Quaker peace testimony in the thinking of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, in the attitude of the Quakers toward the prize and their public interpretation of it and in public opinion. The research was mainly carried out at the Norwegian Nobel Institute in Oslo and the AFSC Archives in Philadelphia.2

The earliest Quaker nomination for which I found any record was in 1912, when a member of the Danish parliament proposed the Peace Committee of the Society of Friends in London. Then in 1923 and 1924 the Quakers were nominated by the well-known professor of international law, Walther Schücking, and members of the German interparliamentary group, apparently as a consequence of the large-scale Quaker post-war food relief program in Germany.3

The next nominations for the Quakers were in 1936, 1937, and 1938, and since in each of these years the Committee placed them on its short list, we can see what the Committee advisers reported.

In 1936 two members of the Norwegian parliament, Nils Lavik and Jakob Lothe, and a number of professors, including four from Vienna and one from the Netherlands, submitted nominations for "the Society of Friends." The Committee adviser in political economy and sociology, Wilhelm Keilhau, who had himself been active in the peace movement, prepared a scholarly six-page report that was very positive. Referring to the nominations, he wrote:

 

No reasons have been cited. The proposers probably thought it was unnecessary. For anyone who has participated actively in peace work knows that the Society of Friends can be seen in a way as the oldest peace organization in the world. It is actually somewhat surprising that the first proposal took until 1936 to be made [sic] especially as the Quakers have not made any particularly significant contributions in recent years. Actually, here we have a candidacy that can be supported as a century-long activity that could be brought forward at any time.

Keilhau went on to give the historical background of the Society and its humanitarian and peace activities, basing this on the standard work of the time by Margaret E. Hirst, which demonstrated how the peace testimony had always been an integral part of Quaker religious belief and practice. Keilhau pointed out, however, the practical problem of giving a prize to the Society of Friends, since there was no central organization of the international movement and it would hardly be possible to share it between the different yearly meetings. The best way would be to divide it between the FSC of London, representing the peace efforts of English and Irish Friends, and the AFSC. This had been the suggestion of Keilhau's Quaker friend Ole Olden, when Keilhau had written him a confidential letter asking to what "juridical person" (legal entity) a possible award could be given. But Keilhau questioned whether this would be appropriate, since it was the "Society of Friends" that had been nominated for the prize.4

This problem was resolved in 1937, when the longtime Committee member Bernhard Hannsen, a shipowner who had been associated with the peace cause for many years, specifically proposed the FSC and the AFSC, referring to the Keilhau report. The adviser's report this time was written by Ragnvald Moe, secretary of the Nobel Committee, who briefly updated Keilhau, emphasizing the philanthropic work of two Quaker committees. In 1938 Hannsen repeated his nomination, and the report by Professor Frede Castberg, adviser in international law, again stressed the humanitarian nature of Quaker activity while referring as well to the traditional peace position. This was currently evidenced in Quaker opposition to British rearmament, he said, noting that it was expressed in writing, not political agitation.5

The Committee made no awards during the war years, and in 1945 gave two prizes, for 1944 to the International Red Cross Committee and for 1945 to Cordell Hull. In 1946 the Committee divided the prize between two other Americans, the International YMCA official John Mott and Emily Greene Balch, the successor to Jane Addams as head of the Women's International League of Peace and Freedom. Balch's opposition to World War One had cost Balch her teaching position at Wellesley. Later she had joined the Society of Friends. In World War Two, however, with great anguish, she had decided to support the war effort to vanquish Hitlerism.6

On November 15, 1946, the very day after the announcement of the prize for Mott and Balch, Christian Oftedal, a member of the Nobel Committee who was a liberal editor, wrote to his Quaker friend Wilhelm Aarek, asking, for information about the Society of Friends in case of "a possible prize." Unaware of the Keilhau report, he asked whether it could go to "the head church?" 7

Aarek relayed the request to Friends House in London. There then ensued a number of Quaker committee meetings and exchanges of letters with the AFSC before Friends agreed that the FSC and the AFSC would be the appropriate recipients of a possible prize, just as Keilhau had recommended ten years before. 8

At one point the executive committee in London wrote Aarek that there was "hesitation at accepting the suggested prize if it should be offered," and there was question as to whether the Society of Friends "could rightly accept nomination for a prize for work undertaken under religious concern." 9

At the AFSC there was no such hesitation. The Board asked the staff to send the requested information to Oslo, but to make no special efforts to win the prize. It was not felt inappropriate to ask both Eleanor Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover to write to Oslo, and she wrote a good letter. Hoover was in touch with the AFSC about overseas relief at this time, but so far a copy of a letter from him to Oslo has not been located.10

The AFSC persuaded London Friends to give up their objections. Clarence Pickett, AFSC executive secretary, wrote that he agreed with them that "the Society of Friends is a religious body, and not a peace organization." But if its service agencies were to be recognized by the Nobel Committee as having made "a distinctive contribution to the ideals in the charter of the Nobel Peace Prize....should we categorically refuse in advance? We as Friends believe that we should appeal to that of God in every man. If the response is to recognize our way of life and peaceful spirit, we have some responsibility to let the Nobel Committee and the general public acknowledge their recognition." Such recognition, Pickett thought, could have the effect of winning others to Quaker ideals.11

Meanwhile, months earlier, before the February 1 deadline for submitting nominations, the two committees had already been nominated. It was probably Oftedal who inspired proposals from at least two eligible nominators, Erling Vikborg, a parliamentary deputy of the Christian Folk Party and an Oxford grouper, and Ole Olden, who could nominate in his capacity as a member of the council of the International Peace Bureau of Geneva. As a Quaker himself, Olden had some reservations, but remembering the earlier nomination and having heard that there would be others, he finally submitted his proposal for the FSC and the AFSC. Vikborg some months later told Myrtle Wright, the English Friend who had lived in Norway since the beginning of the occupation, that he had made the nomination after "he was given a wink by the Nobel Committee that they wished Friends to be proposed for the prize." The other nominators were the deputies Lavik and Lothe, who had proposed the Society of Friends in 1936. 12

The other nineteen nominees included former Soviet ambassador to Sweden Alexandra Kollontai, by herself, and also paired with Eleanor Roosevelt by nominators who wished to symbolize Soviet-American friendship, Governor Herbert H. Lehmann, who had directed the United Nations relief administration, and President Benes of Czechoslovakia. The strongest candidate was Mohandas K. Gandhi, who had won independence for India by the methods of nonviolence. The Nobel Committee has often been reproached for failing to recognize him, but as I have explained elsewhere, the timing was unfortunate. War was raging between India and Pakistan, the news reports about Gandhi's attitude were unclear, and most probably the Committee decided to postpone a decision. But in 1948 Gandhi was assassinated. 13

In any case, the Committee's decision for the Quakers was unanimous, so their representatives were told in Oslo. At that time the Committee announced its awards without giving its reasons, as it does today. But Chairman Gunnar Jahn, who was Director of the Bank of Norway, told the press that the Society of Friends had been selected because of its great humanitarian work. "This reason is so obvious," he said, "that further comment ought to be unnecessary."14 As we shall see, in his speech at the award ceremony later, he provided a good deal of thoughtful comment.

The old question about how to give the prize to the Society had come up once more. Committee member Hennan Smitt Ingerbretsen, a prominent Conservative deputy also influenced by the Oxford Group, told in a newspaper article how "when the Nobel Committee decided to give the prize to the Society of Friends, the Committee was presented with the difficulty that there was actually no authority that could receive the prize on behalf of the Society." So it was divided between the two committees.15

Myrtle Wright was later told by Oftedal that his interest was in, as she put it, the "wider aspect of our Society and our message." She later wrote "the more I hear about the motives of the Committee, the more I am clear that it is Quakers and Quakerism which they wish to recognise and not merely the work of any two committees."16

The news of the prize came as a complete surprise to the AFSC. The staff knew the organization was being considered, but they thought it was for 1948. Clarence Pickett recorded his reaction in his journal: "It is very humbling to have so much attention centered on the Society of Friends, and I hope it will give us a new sense of responsibility for the way in which we conduct our lives and our affairs, home and abroad, so that we may not to seriously disappoint those who long for another way of meeting the world than that of violence." 17

The statement to the press made by the AFSC Board included the lines, "Our humanitarian service is based on religion. It is inseparably connected with a refusal to sanction the method of war." Clarence Pickett did have the opportunity to give his Quaker message to the world when the Voice of America asked him to record a statement to be translated and broadcast to twenty-four countries, but while the choice of the Quakers was greeted with universal approval by the media, the emphasis was generally upon humanitarian service in the spirit of brotherly love, without explicit reference to the testimony against war.18

The press coverage was extensive. The AFSC public relations office noted: "Editorials in dozens of newspapers across the country, including all the major ones in New York and Philadelphia... feature stories all over the country... good Negro press coverage ... foreign press in the United States and European press .... " Commenting on all this, the public relations director wrote to a friend, "The winning of the Nobel Award certainly gives us an excellent news peg, and I want to take advantage of it as humbly as possible."19

In Philadelphia the editorial in the Inquirer commended the AFSC for working "incessantly to alleviate the horrors of war and its aftermath," but there was no specific mention of its efforts to prevent war. But the Evening Bulletin declared that the AFSC "has demonstrated that the ancient testimony against war is not a purely negative principle" and discussed its "healing missions."20

The New York Herald Tribune sent a feature writer to spend a day at the AFSC, and her story gave the best account of its current activities, but there was no reference to the peace testimony. On the other hand, the New York Times editorial declared that for 300 years the Friends had "practiced the principles of brotherly love. They will not fight or bear arms. They hate war, but they do not shun or quake before danger wherever acts of mercy are required..."21

The editorial in Collier's called the Friends "real peace workers," who had been at it ever since George Fox "laid down the principles that war is an egregious crime." It was placed next to a Cold War editorial advocating expelling American Communists to Russia. The Christian Century celebrated Quaker religious motivation, but did not explicitly refer to the peace testimony.22

Newsweek had a short article referring to the relief of suffering by the Quakers, but Time printed a photograph of "Friend Pickett" and quoted Fox's declaration that he "lived in the virtue of that life and power that took away the occasion of all wars," going on to say that the Society of Friends "has done its sober best to take away the occasion for war by refusing to bear arms." 23

In Norway almost all the editorials were favorable. Even the Dagbladet, which characterized Quaker religion as consisting of relief work, had kind words for the Friends but felt that the prize had been established for individuals who had made great contributions to peace and should not be given to organizations as a reward "for a warm heart, good relief work, and beautiful words." 24

The Labor Party newspaper Arbeiderblad had supported the candidacy of Kollontai but approved of the Quaker prize. It did state, "It is a sensitive question that Quakers from a religious viewpoint are opponents in principle to military service," but it pointed out that in World War One, Quakers had done significant civilian work and important work related to the war, and in World War Two, many Quakers had enlisted in the armed services. When Quakers refuse to bear arms, the editorial declared, they engage in humanitarian service and work for reconciliation.

Ursula Jorvald, a longtime peace activist, in commenting in the Oslo Dagbladet on this editorial, wrote that she was grateful that the Nobel Committee had overlooked this "'sensitive question" in its decision. She generally approved of the Quaker prize, but she did raise the question as to whether war relief humanized war and might actually make it more possible.25

Myrtle Wright reported that the conservative Aftenposten had carried an outspoken article attacking all pacifists, especially the Friends, "an attack that puts me in real fighting trim and shows that fortunately we are able to stir up a section of the population who ought to feel us as a danger if we are of any worth at all!" 26

In several articles there was mention that the Quakers did not take up arms but had served bravely as ambulance drivers and stretcher bearers on the battlefields. This had been the work of another Quaker organization, the Friends Ambulance Unit (FAU), which had been founded by English Friends in World War One, with no formal ties to the Society of Friends. In 1940 Oslo had served as a staging area for members of the FAU who served briefly on the Finnish front in the Winter War with the Soviet Union and then helped the Norwegians when Germany invaded. 27

After the War Norwegians knew of the Quaker workers helping with reconstruction in the scorched earth areas of Finnmark in northern Norway and perhaps had heard of the similar work they were doing in northern Finland. It was not surprising that the Norwegian press concentrated on the relief work. The Norwegian Quakers were a small group of about one hundred, and little was known about their religion, although a number of articles were published describing the Society of Friends. 28

Myrtle Wright felt that it was most important "to use the opportunity to drive home the deeper motives and experience which lie behind the outward activities." When she was interviewed about the prize, she tried to explain how "relief work is the positive side of the pacifistic philosophy of life." In her letters to London and Philadelphia, she urged the Quaker representatives coming to Oslo to accept the prizes to emphasize the religious basis of the Quaker work in their speeches. 29

These were Margaret Backhouse, who chaired the FSC, a former faculty member and warden of Westhill Training College in Birmingham, and Henry J. Cadbury, chairman of the AFSC and one of its founders in 1917, who was a biblical scholar and Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard University.

Before these representatives arrived, Myrtle Wright and the Norwegian Friend Sigrid Lund went to see August Schou, the secretary of the Nobel Committee who was making the arrangements for their hotel and for the customary banquet held on the evening of the award ceremony. They explained to Schou about the Quaker tradition of simplicity and asked whether this might be observed. He agreed to cancel the reservations he had made at the fashionable Hotel Bristol, so that Margaret Backhouse and Henry Cadbury could stay with the Lunds, but Myrtle Wright reported that "the idea of a dinner without wine was an impossible thought to him." They did not insist, recognizing that, as Myrtle Wright put it, "If we make ourselves too 'odd' we shall be classed with the pietistic and fundamentalist movements which could also give an entirely wrong picture of that for which we stand." 30

Margaret Wright and Henry Cadbury did attend the banquet in evening clothes, as was expected, but Henry wore a second-hand coat of tails borrowed from the AFSC clothing storeroom, which was destined to cross the Atlantic again with a shipment of used clothing and eventually to outfit a member of the Budapest symphony orchestra. The next morning, Henry Cadbury was to be seen sweeping the snow away from the Lunds' doorstep. 31

As for the award ceremony in the great hall of the University of Oslo, traditionally held on December 10th, Henry Cadbury was pleased to find it very simple, "no pomp and circumstance." The king and his retinue were there, along with foreign diplomats and Norwegian dignitaries, but the program consisted only of an opening orchestral number, Handel's "Samson" overture, the presentation speech by Chairman Jahn, his handing over of the scrolls and the medals to the two Quaker representatives, who made brief speeches of acceptance, and the concluding playing of the Norwegian national hymn. The king and crown prince then came forward to offer their congratulations and when they left the hall, the ceremony was over. 32

Jahn's speech was all that the Friends present could desire. Jahn surprised them by showing, as Henry Cadbury reported, "a very good comprehension of the history and characteristics of Quakerism." He had obviously put to good use all the materials the Quakers had sent and more. It should be said that Jahn was regarded very sympathetically by Norwegian peace activists, much more so than any of his successors as Committee chairman. 33

Jahn began by saying, "The Nobel Committee of the Norwegian Parliament has awarded this year's Peace Prize to the Quakers, represented by their two great relief organizations..." Jahn's phrasing seemed to confirm what his fellow members of the Committee, Ingerbretsen and Oftedal, had indicated, and what Myrtle Wright believed about the Committee's motives, that the prize was intended primarily for the Society of Friends, not the two committees.

Moreover, as Jahn traced the history of the Society, the peace testimony was an important theme of his speech. He told how George Fox and his followers were "opposed to all forms of violence. They believed that spiritual weapons would prevail in the long run - a belief born of inward experience." "The Quakers have always been opposed to violence in any form," Jahn declared, "and many considered their refusal to take part in wars the most important tenet of their religion. But it is not quite so simple." Jahn quoted the Declaration of 1660 and explained that "it goes much further than a refusal to take part in war. It leads to this: it is better to suffer injustice than to commit injustice. It is from within man himself that victory must in the end be gained."

Jahn told how the Quakers had taken part in founding the first peace society and subsequently had participated in all active peace movements as well as in other efforts for social justice. "Yet it is not this side of their activities - the active political side - which places the Quakers in a unique position. It is through silent assistance from the nameless to the nameless that they have worked to promote the fraternity between nations cited in the will of Alfred Nobel."

Jahn recounted examples of Quaker relief work, pointing out that it was not the extent of this work, but the spirit in which it was performed that was so important: "The Quakers have shown us that it is possible to translate into action what lies deep in the hearts of many: compassion for others and the desire to help them ... which, translated into deeds, must form the basis for lasting peace. For this reason alone the Quakers deserve to receive the Nobel Peace Prize today. But they have given us something more: they have shown us the strength to be derived from faith in the victory of the spirit over force."

In their acceptance speeches, Margaret Backhouse and Henry Cadbury made it clear that they were representing Quakers all over the world and that their work was made possible by the support of thousands who were not members of their small society. Margaret Backhouse emphasized that Quakers were very ordinary people and that "it was the strength given to the group" that had enabled them to maintain their testimonies for 300 years.

Henry Cadbury referred to the Quaker traditions of "renunciation of all war" and "practical pacifism." Margaret Backhouse explained that the Quaker protest against war springs from "'their basic faith in the potential of Christ-likeness in every man resulting in an attitude to life that makes peace a necessary and natural outcome ... Love is very infectious," she said, "and if Quakers have started the infection, they will rejoice."

Henry Cadbury stressed the role of the ordinary individual in another way:

If any should question the appropriateness of bestowing the peace prize upon a group rather than upon an outstanding individual we may say this: The common people of all nations want peace. In the presence of great impersonal forces they may feel individually helpless to promote it. You are saying to them here today that common folk, not statesmen, nor generals nor great men of affairs, but just simple plain men and women like the few thousand Quakers and their friends, if they devote themselves to resolute insistence on Goodwill in place of force, even-in the face of great disaster past or threatened, can do something to build a better, peaceful world. The future hope of peace lies with such personal sacrificial service. To this ideal humble persons everywhere may contribute.

Henry concluded by calling upon the Norwegians and other Europeans not to take sides with the United States or the Soviet Union, but to serve as a bridge of understanding between the two. For this he was later "severely entered" by the senior American diplomat in Oslo, whose major objective, after all, was to keep the Norwegians on the American side. 34

In their Nobel lectures two days later, both Quakers once again underlined the religious basis of Quaker work. Henry said that foreign relief efforts had been directed as a means of conciliation: "It is intended to illustrate the spirit that takes away the occasion of war."

He said that Quakers were so naive as to say, "If war is evil, then I do not take part in it." This means that in every war some Friends had suffered. William Penn summed it up briefly, "Not fighting, but suffering." "Not all can follow this course, not all Quakers every time follow this course. We recognize that there are times when resistance appears at first to be a real virtue, and then only those most deeply rooted in religious pacifism can resist by other than physical means." "I believe," he declared, "the greatest risk of war is in the minds of men who have an unrepentant and unchanging view of the justification of past wars."

He admitted that holding the Quaker position brought much searching of heart, especially with modern total war. Friends have had to consider whether their position means disloyalty to the state, "'and they have had to learn to distinguish loyalty to the policy of a government in power from loyalty to the true interests of a nation."

Quakers held that wars could mostly have been prevented, that few wars can be justified by their results, and that the moral distinction commonly claimed by both belligerents between defense and aggression was rarely objective or complete. Once war began, nobler standards tended to be degraded to match those of the enemy.

Quaker pacifism was not passive or negative, but led to efforts to prevent war and to the international service for which Quakers were known. "This international service is not mere humanitarianism; it is not merely mopping up, cleaning up the world after a war. It is a means of rehabilitation and is aimed at helping the spirit and giving hope that there can be a peaceful world." 35

Neither before or since in a Nobel prize lecture has the moral and practical case for religious pacifism -been presented so forthrightly. It took courage to do this before a Norwegian audience that had so recently been liberated by a force of arms, yet these were people whose spirit had never been broken by German power and whose nonviolent resistance to the German occupation had been effective in many ways.

Henry Cadbury had only five days in Oslo and then had to hurry back to Cambridge to resume the classes that Harvard University, by formal action of the President and Fellows, had permitted him to reschedule for a week. He brought with him the scroll, the gold medal, and a check for $20,251.36, AFSC's share of the prize, and a sheaf of clippings from the Oslo newspapers. At least their photographs, Henry Cadbury said, were not flattering. 36

How were the prize funds to be used? The AFSC had been negotiating with the Soviets hoping to be able to announce at the award ceremony that the money would be used for feeding children in orphanages in the Minsk area, but agreements were not reached. There has long been a misconception that the funds were used in the AFSC purchase of $25,000 worth of streptomyacin for the Soviet Union. This money had been contributed when the AFSC had made known its interest to use the Nobel funds to improve American-Soviet relations, but the Nobel funds were actually used for a number of peace projects, including a film, the expenses of the working party that published the pamphlet on the United States and the Soviet Union, and a Quaker mission to the Soviet Union in 1955. A small portion went to cover the expenses of Henry Cadbury's trip to Oslo to receive the prize. 37

A few days after the announcement of the award, Clarence Pickett wrote to all Friends meetings in the country, notifying them of the award and declaring that the AFSC "arose out of the religious life and concern of the Society of Friends," and that "the life and work of the whole Society has been recognized in this award."38

It was only partly understood in public opinion about the Quaker peace prize how the peace testimony and the relief work both proceeded from "the religious life and concern of the Society of Friends." The world prefers to honor the Quakers for their good works, but does not always consider work for peace to be among them. Despite all the kind words about Quakers when the prize was announced, it did not take very long for the AFSC's efforts for reconciliation with the Soviet Union during the Cold War to elicit what the Quaker poet Whittier once called "the public frown."

As we have seen, the intention of nominators and of the Nobel Committee in making its grant was to honor the Society of Friends as a whole, just as Clarence Pickett conceived of it, and not just its service organizations. The award was not given just for the relief work and certainly not for the peace testimony as such; although in the remarkable speech of the Committee chairman, there was full recognition that the relief work was as translation in deeds of the inner life of the Society and that the peace testimony was an integral part of the Quaker way of life.

What greater appreciation of Quaker peacemaking could there be than the lines of Norway's most famous poet, Arnulf Øverland, which Gunnar Jahn said had been of such help to Norwegians during the war, and which he quoted at the end of his speech as a salute to Quakers:

 

Only the unarmed
Can draw on sources eternal
To the Spirit alone will be the victory.

1. Dagbladet (Oslo). 1 Nov. 1947. Newsclippings Scrapbooks, Norwegian Nobel Institute, Oslo (hereafter cited as NNI Scrapbooks). This comment by the Dagbladet begins the short account of the Quaker prize in my book, The Nobel Peace Prize and the Laureates 3rd pr. (Boston: G.K.Hall, 1990), 148-150, with bibliography. This is much amplified in the present paper after further research. See also my article, "Clarence Pickett, the AFSC, and the Society of Friends," Friends Journal (April 1991), in press.

2. I am very grateful for the generous assistance of Anne C. Kjelling, Chief Librarian, Norwegian Nobel Institute, and Jack Sutters, AFSC Archivist.

3. Det Norske Stortings Nobel Komité, Redefjorelse for Nobels Fredspris, vols. 1-39 (Kristiana [Oslo] 1901 -1939), Archives of the Norwegian Nobel Committee (hereafter cited as NNC Archives). The references to the Quaker nominations are in vols. 12, 23, 24. These yearly volumes, printed only for the eyes of the Committee, include reports of the advisers on the nominees selected for special consideration. Unfortunately for this research, these reports and nomination materials are accessible only up to 1941, in accordance with the Nobel fifty-year rule.

4. Wilhelm Keilhau, "Vennenes Samfund (Kvekeme)," Redegi., vol.36:86-92; Margaret E. Hirst, The Quakers in Peace and War. An Account of Their Peace Principles and Practice (London: Swarthmore Press, 1923). Repr. with intro. By Edwin B. Bronner (New York & London, Garland, 1972); Ole Olden to Henry J. Cadbury, 7 Feb. 1948, AFSC Archives. Olden sent Cadbury, as an historian of the Society of Friends, this account of the origins of the Quaker prize. Most of the materials on the Nobel prize in the AFSC Archives are in two boxes filed under "General Administration 1947."

5. Ragnvald Moe, "American Friends 'Service Committee og Friends' Service Council," Redgj., vol.37: 73-74- Frede Casteberg, "American Friends Service Committee og, Friends Service Council," Redgj.,vol.38:36-37.

6. Abrams, Nobel Peace Prize, 142-146.

7. Christian Oftedal to Wilhelm Aarek, 15 Nov. 1946, Aarek Papers, in possession of Hans Eirik Aarek, Stavanger, Norway.

8. This correspondence is filed in the folder, "Proposal Friends Receive Prize," AFSC Archives.

9. Lewis Headley, Clerk, Meeting for Sufferings, to Wilhelm Aarek, 21 Jan. 1947; Stephen J. Thorne, Recording Clerk. Central Offices of the Society of Friends, to Clarence Pickett, 23 Jan. 1947; AFSC Archives.

10. Clarence Pickett's introduction to "Report on the Nobel Award 1947," an AFSC mimeographed collection of documents, including the speeches in Oslo and the report of Henry Cadbury, who represented the AFSC there; Pickett to Herbert Hoover, 22 July, to Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt, 18 Aug. 1947; Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt to Wilhelm Aarek, 23 Aug. 1947; Pickett reported to the AFSC staff that Hoover had written to Oslo (Ruth Smith's report of staff meeting, of 3 Nov. 1947), but there is no evidence in the Hoover papers at the Herbert Hoover Library in West Branch, Iowa, or the Hoover Institution at Stanford University that he did (Dwight M. Miller, Senior Archivist, Herbert Hoover Library, to Irwin Abrams, 17 Oct. 1990; Anne Van Camp, Archivist, Hoover Institution, to Irwin Abrams, 11 Oct. 1990). The AFSC materials are in the AFSC Archives; a copy of Mrs. Roosevelt's letter is also in the Aarek Papers. Pickett asked that the letters of support be sent to Aarek, wrongly assuming that he was a member of the Norwegian parliament; ordinarily such recommendations sent so late in the selection process would go directly to the Nobel Committee.

11. Clarence Pickett and Henry J. Cadbury to Stephen J. Thome, 14 April 1947; Pickett did not think that the prize should be given to the Society of Friends for its "definite pacifist testimony" because "our showing in the recent war had been so weak" (Pickett to Harry Silcock, 15 January 1947); AFSC Archives.

12. Henry Cadbury wrote in his diary in Oslo, "Mrs. Oftedal said that her husband had worked hard to get us the prize" (Oslo Notebook, 1947); Olden to Cadbury, 7 Feb. 1948; Myrtle Wright to Cadbury, 12 Jan. 1947; Myrtle Wright to Pickett, 9 Feb. 1947; (all above in AFSC Archives); Wilhelm Aarek to Erling Vikborg, 25 Jan. 1947; Aarek Papers; Geir Lundstad, Director, Norwegian Nobel Institute, to Irwin Abrams, 11 Oct. 1990.

13. Abrams, Nobel Peace Prize, 137.

14. Report by Henry J. Cadbury," in "Report on Nobel Award," AFSC Archives; Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, 1 Nov. 1947. The folder, "Magazine Articles and Publicity," in the AFSC Archives contains the U.S. newspaper clippings referred to in this paper.

15. Herman Smitt Ingerbretsen, "Vennes Samfun" (Religious Society of Friends), Morgenbladet, 1 Nov. 1947. NNI Scrapbooks. References to Norwegian press are to Oslo newspapers, unless otherwise indicated.

16. Myrtle Wright to Pickett, 9 Feb. 1948, AFSC Archives.

17. Clarence Pickett, "Journal," 31 Oct. 1947, AFSC Archives; Clarence Pickett, For More Than Bread (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1953), 305-306.

18. "Statement by Board of Directors of American Friends Service Committee, Nov. 5, 1947" in "Report on Nobel Award," AFSC Archives.

19. Memoranda, John Kavenaugh to AFSC Branch Offices, 6, 26 Nov. 1947; undated memorandum, "The following publications carried stories....", John Kavenaugh to David Hinshaw, 7 Nov. 1947; AFSC Archives.

20. "A Most Fitting, Award," Philadelphia Inquirer, 1 Nov. 1947; "Honor to the Friends," Philadelphia Evening, Bulletin, 31 Oct. 1947; AFSC Archives.

21. "Quakers Humble at Nobel Prize," by Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, New York Herald-Tribune, 9 Nov. 1947; "The Nobel Peace Award," New York Times, 2 Nov. 1947; AFSC Archives.

22. "Real Peace Workers Rewarded," Collier's, 20 Dec. 1947; Kavenaugh to Branch Offices, 26 Nov, 1947; "An Award Richly Deserved," Christian Century, 12 Nov. 1947; AFSC Archives.

23. Newsweek, 10 Nov. 1947; TIME, 10 Nov. 1947.

24. Dagbladet, 1 Nov. 1947; NNI Scrapbooks.

25.Arbeiderbladet, 1 Nov. 1947; Ursula Jorvald, "Tanker omkring, fredsprisen" (Thoughts about the peace prize); Dagbladet, 17 Nov. 1947; Myrtle Wright deplored that even such a friend of peace as Jorvald was ignorant of "our positive work for peace, removal of causes of strife and injustice," Wright to Cadbury, 18 Nov. 1947; AFSC Archives.

26. Charles B. Middlethon, "Pacifismen gjor forhandsarbeidet for nye undertrykkere" (Pacifism prepares ground for new oppressors), Aftenposten, 19 Nov. 1947, NNI Scrapbooks; Wright to Cadbury, 22 Nov. 1947, AFSC Archives.

27. A. Tegla Davies, Friends Ambulance Unit. The Story of the F.A.U. in the Second World War 1939-1946 (London: Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1947), 13-29; John Omerod Greenwood, Quaker Encounters 3 vols. (York, England: Sessions, 1975-1978), 1, Friends and Relief, 282-283. The FAU worked on battlefields in World War One and was revived in 1939 to undertake wartime medical work. Its members served in Europe, the Middle East, India, and China where their China Convoy worked under most dangerous conditions. AFSC workers joined the Convoy as soon as pacifists drafted during the war into Civilian Public Service were released, and in 1946 AFSC took over the responsibility for the renamed "Friends Service Unit (China)," while British Quakers headed the joint operations in India, where FSC and AFSC had both been involved.

28. In Finnmark AFSC workcampers joined the rebuilding efforts in which Norwegian and other Scandinavian Friends took part. In Finnish Lapland the AFSC organized the work camps. I visited these projects in the summer of 1946. Among the articles published about the Quakers were the following: Ingebretsen, "Venneness Samfunn"; Louise Bohr Nilsen, "Om 'Vennenes Samfunn' (Kvekerne), "Arbeiderbladet, 12-13 Nov. 1947, based on article by Rufus Jones; "Kvekerne pa valplassene uten vapen" ("Quakers on battlefields without weapons"), Kongsberg Dagblad 4 Nov. 1947; Theo Findahl, "Hos kvekerne i Philadelphia" (Among Quakers in Philadelphia), Aftonbladet, 22 Nov. 1947, by the paper's New York correspondent, who visited the headquarters; NNI Scrapbooks.

29. Wright to Pickett, 3 Nov. 1947, AFSC Archives; Morgenbladet, 1 Nov. 1947; NNI Scrapbooks.

30. Wright to Cadbury, 11 Nov. 1947; AFSC Archives.

31. Mary Hoxie Jones, "Henry Joel Cadbury," in Anna Brinton, ed., Then and Now. Quaker Essays Historical and Contemporary (Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1960), 52-53; Margaret Bacon, Let This Life Speak: The Legacy of Henry Cadbury (Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1987).

32 "Cadbury Report"; Program, Nobel Fredspris 1947, 10 Dec. 1947; Cadbury noted that the Warsaw Pact diplomats did not attend the ceremony in his Oslo Notebook; AFSC Archives.

33. Gunnar Jahn's speech of presentation is printed in Norwegian and French in Les Prix Nobel en 1947(Stockholm, Nobel Foundation, 1948), 58-69, and in English in "Report on Nobel Award" and in Frederick W. Haberman, ed., Nobel Lectures. Peace 3 vols. (Amsterdam, London & New York: Elsevier, 1972), 2:373-379; Cadbury, "Report", interview with Johanna Reutz Germoe, Nesbru, Norway, 23 Apr. 1983, a veteran champion of women's rights and peace, who praised Gunnar Jahn and told me his wife was a member of the Women's International League of Peace and Freedom.

34. The acceptance speeches by Backhouse and Cadbury are in Les Prix Nobel, 69-72; "Report on Nobel Award"; Cadbury, "The Nobel Peace Prize. A Personal Perspective," Friends Journal, 1 Apr. 1974, 202; Cadbury's remarks about Norway's not taking sides were reported in the New York Times, 11 Dec. 1947.

35. Backhouse's lecture, "The International Service of the Society of Friends," and Cadbury's, "Quakers and Peace," are in Les Prix Nobel, 237-248, "Report on Nobel Award," and Haberman, 2:380-387, 391-401.

36. Cadbury, "Report"; Bromley, "Quakers Humble," New York Herald-Tribune.

37. Memorandum, Stephen Cary to Regional Office Executive Secretaries, 30 Dec. 1960; AFSC Archives.

38. Pickett: "To all Friends Meetings throughout the United States," 7 Nov. 1947; AFSC Archives.


© American Friends Service Committee http://www.afsc.org/
Send comments or suggestions to:
e-mail: afscinfo@afsc.org Phone 215-241-7000 Fax: 215-241-7275
National Office: 1501 Cherry St., Philadelphia, PA 19102
Links are for information only, and do not imply AFSC endorsement.
The AFSC is a 501(c)3 organization and all contributions are tax deductible.

Last changed: May 14, 1997