The Einstein/Suzuki/Russell connection is more two pairs, related, only by time and culture. Dr. Suzuki knew Einstein when the violin pedagogue studied in Germany prior to the development of his method, which was brought to the US in 1950. Einstein and Russell worked together, and signed the following resolution (See Pugwash):
"In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them." ..which was signed by the following individuals:
Max Born
Perry W. Bridgman
Albert Einstein
Leopold Infeld
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Herman J. Muller
Linus Pauling
Cecil F. Powell
Joseph Rotblat
Bertrand Russell
Hideki Yukawa
Some of Russell's books are currently out of print. His Understanding History and Other Essays is a good example. Russell can be found, however, on sale on Ebay (where people probably don't know what they have), and accessible through interlibrary loan. I have found that most people don't know who Russell is, though he is probably one of the most eminent thinkers of the 20th century whose writings are completely relevent to the present. You can even see that by the titles. I highly recommend him.
Russell was imprisoned a couple of times for his political beliefs. At one point he was protesting the war in Viet Nam on the steps of Parliament, and he was so old and feeble at that time, he had to be carried to jail on a blanket. My favorite Russell story is when he was imprisoned again, and in filling out some paperwork, the jailor asked him what his religion was--to which Russell replied, "agnostic." The jailor remarked that, whatever the name, it was all the same god. Russell said this kept him amused for nearly a week.
Postscript: I must say that after reading Monk's two volume biography, my views about Russell changed radically, if temporarily. Monk portrays Russell in a negative light, focusing on the sensational aspects of Russell's personal life. But to quote a review by Tanweer Akram, the book is full of unfair "speculations and innuendoes" and serves "the objectives of conservative revisionism." My admiration for Russell remains intact. One thing I discovered, however, is that my "favorite Russell book," Understanding History, is, in fact, a sort of pot-boiler which he wrote to make money, and is by no means an admired or admirable work, according to Monk. Still, the literary quality of Russell's works remains compelling; see, for example, the following:
A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.
It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.
Life is nothing but a competition to be the criminal rather than the victim.
Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so.
No one gossips about other people's secret virtues.
Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons.
So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.
The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
There is no nonsense so errant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action.
This is one of those views which are so absolutely absurd that only very learned men could possibly adopt them.
Men who are unhappy, like men who sleep badly, are always proud of the fact.
One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important.
Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths.
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day.
We have, in fact, two kinds of morality side by side: one which we preach but do not practice, and another which we practice but seldom preach.
It is obvious that 'obscenity' is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the Courts, it means 'anything that shocks the magistrate.'
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
Related page: 
