Progress, Coexistence, and Intellectual Freedom: Monthly Review

I. Introduction
Progress, Coexistence, and Intellectual Freedom is an essay by Soviet physicist Andrei D. Sakharov. His essay includes topics that are in need of better attention such as the use or production of nuclear weaponry, "geohygiene", overpopulation, communist dictators and so on. His perspectives and possible solutions on these typical, yet difficult-to-deal-with topics seem to form a base for situations we now face today. Accompanying Sakharov's essay is an introduction, afterword, and notes by Harrison E. Salisbury which provides the reader some nice background information and clarification in order to comprehend the essay better.

II. What was the author's purpose(s) in writing this book, and how can you tell? How well was this purpose achieved?
I believe Sakharov's purpose was to formally pose current situations that took place in the late 60s and approach them with various solutions. He also wanted to prevent any future conflicts and strengthen the bond between the two superpowers of that time, the United States and the Soviet Union. Sakharov also informs us of the tragedies dogmatic leaders and groups have brought upon (such as Nazism, fascism, communism..). Sakharov begins his essay with "The Threat of Nuclear War" where he explains anti-ballistic missiles are a key factor to a possible nuclear war. He was also highly aware of nuclear proliferation and of course, disapproves it. He believed usage of nuclear energy should be used for the greater good in the least harmful way possible. One key purpose Sakharov has and repeatedly mentions is the threat to intellectual freedom. He believes that things such as war, poverty, and terror threatens "freedom of the personality and the meaning of life". Censorship, lack of education, and bureaucratic governments also restrict intellectual freedom. Without that freedom, universal cooperation cannot be achieved.

You can easily see his purposes since this is an essay and he formally approaches each topic separated by chapters. Sakharov's purpose, I cannot say was the easiest to comprehend, but was put in the simplest way to understand. I'd have to say he has achieved one of the greatest informative essays.

III. What are the strengths of this book, in your opinion?
One great strength Sakharov has in his essay is his ability to prove or support his points beautifully with quotes or situations he has witnessed. Upon exposing the ridiculous and horrifying policies of dictatorships, Sakharov brought up an excellent and humorous example that I have included in my first letter.

[...]by exposing wheat seeds to cold, he contended, a strain more resistant to cold might be developed.
His theories were taken up by Trofim D. Lysenko, who eventually won Stalin's support and appointed a "dictator of the sciences". Under his wing, classical theories and teaches have been poisoned with his senseless crap and many intellectuals were sent to gulag or the execution wall with the help of Stalin and his secret police.

This just purely shows how ignorant and stubborn totalitarian governments are and if anyone were to object, they would be condemned or severely punished. This kind of support just makes each thesis compelling and convincing.
Sakharov also alters his perspective when laying out opinions on situations which gives the reader flexibility and their ability to participate for which opinion they prefer. Another great aspect of Sakharov's essay was the division of two main theses: Dangers and The Basis for Hope. He starts off with the pessimistic yet real view of our world and what is going on, but then ends it with a series of solutions to these misfortunes. This kind of structure gives the reader hope as the title states, and determination.

IV. Find out about the author. How did they end up writing this particular book? Is the author's true life reflected in the book in any way(s)?
Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov was a Soviet nuclear physicist who was notably known as the "Father of the Soviet H-bomb". Other than being an excellent physicist at the time, he was also known to be a human rights activist and dissident. A major point in Sakharov's turn to activism was a secret letter to the Soviet leadership concerning issues of anti-ballistic missile defense with the U.S. and that the government should trust the Americans. The government simply ignored his letter and refused to publish a manuscript which he included.

The views of the author were formed in the milieu of the scientific and scientific-technological intelligentsia, which manifests much anxiety over the principles and specific aspects of foreign and domestic policy and over the future of mankind. [...] In this essay, advanced for discussion, the author has set himself the goal to present, with the greatest conviction and frankness, two theses that are supported by many people in the world. The theses related to the destruction threatened by the division of mankind and the need for intellectual freedom. - Harrison E. Salisbury

Sakharov completed Reflections on Progress, Coexistence, and Intellectual Freedom in May, 1968. It was shared among the samizdat then published outside of the Soviet Union. From there, he was banned from military research. He then formed the Moscow Human Rights Committee along with two others in 1970. Sakharov was under increasing pressure of the Soviet government to the point where he was unable to leave the Soviet Union to gather his Nobel Peace Prize in 1975. On January 22, 1980, he was arrested and put into internal exile in Gorky. During his time there, he was put under surveillance. He was released back to Moscow in 1986.

V. Conclusion
Despite the fact that this book is a bit outdated, it provided me a basic knowledge of the troubles our world has faced during the time of the Soviet Union. Even today, some of those problems are what we would consider typical and constant. Sakharov's ability to summarize numerous events, issues, possible solutions, and alter his perspective to compose this essay astounds and inspires me greatly. I will admit this was a difficult read with a mix of great vocabulary and names of many brilliant minds that I just simply do not recognize, but I enjoyed the enlightenment and will definitely read this again in the near future.