Stockholm appeal

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Stockholm Appeal of March 19, 1950 was a call to outlaw the atomic bomb and specifically to condemn the first use of nuclear weapons. It came from the Standing Committee of the World Congress of Fighters for Peace (later the World Peace Council ), an organization of communist and pacifist intellectuals that was supported by the Soviet Union and the major communist parties . The appeal was decided at the Stockholm meeting of this body and was therefore given its common name. Frédéric Joliot-Curie , Chairman of the Committee's Presidium, Nobel Prize Winner in Chemistry 1935, High Commissioner of the French Commissariat à l'énergie Atomique (CEA) and member of the French Communist Party , signed the first.

This was the starting shot for a worldwide, very intensive signature campaign in the following months. According to the World Peace Council, over 500 million people signed the Stockholm Appeal; four fifths of the signatures, however, came from the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China and these dependent states. But there was also considerable mobilization in some western countries, particularly in France and Italy. The hardly verifiable figures of the World Peace Council have been relativized in many cases, but there is agreement that the appeal achieved a very high global publicity and was supported far beyond the support of the communist parties. At the same time, supporters and signatories of the appeal had to reckon with pressure from state, church and other actors in many countries. During the Cold War , the appeal was seen by many as a communist attempt at infiltration under the guise of the popular peace theme.

Soviet postage stamp from 1951 with the full text of the appeal. The red flag says: For peace!

The text

The appeal was made in French on the last day of the Stockholm Standing Committee, March 19, 1950. Joliot-Curie built the text into his speech, Pierre Cot , international lawyer, French minister of aviation in the 1930s and MP for the Savoie in the French National Assembly , introduced it to the delegates. In the official German translation it reads:

“We demand an absolute ban on nuclear weapons as a weapon of terror and the mass destruction of the population.
We demand the establishment of strict international controls to ensure the implementation of the ban.
We believe that the first government to use nuclear weapons against any country is committing a crime against humanity and should be treated as a war criminal.
We call on all people of the world who are of good will to sign this appeal. "

The subject: the atomic bomb

The text showed some features that were characteristic of the unusually strong reception. At first it was very short with four sentences: “It was probably the shortest [text] that we ever accepted,” recalled Ilja Ehrenburg , who was also a member of the Presidium, in his memoir. This brevity, which made it very suitable for a call to be distributed millions of times, was made possible by concentrating on a single topic: the atomic bomb.

The appeal not only renounces a condemnation of the war, even the word “peace” is not mentioned in the text - quite in contrast to other calls by the World Peace Council. Peace had already established itself as a cipher for the Soviet side in the discourses of the Cold War, while freedom stood for the West and especially the USA; The text as such did not address these stereotypes - however, they were strongly emphasized in reception. He did not demand an opinion on the developing bloc confrontation, nor any opposition to war in principle, but only a commitment against nuclear armament.

This topic was very topical. Just six weeks before the start of Congress, on January 31, 1950, the American President Harry S. Truman had publicly announced his program for the development of the hydrogen bomb . After the Soviet Union broke its atomic bomb monopoly in 1949, the USA continued to focus on nuclear armament. Some atomic physicists who were involved in the development of the American bomb and who still held important positions in American nuclear research criticized this decision heavily, including Robert Oppenheimer , Robert Bacher , Enrico Fermi and Isidor Isaac Rabi . Albert Einstein declared on February 13, 1950 that the disappearance of life from the earth would now become a technical possibility. The Stockholm appeal was ultimately aimed at intervening in these disputes. At that time, Frédéric Joliot-Curie was still High Commissioner of the French Atomic Energy Commission and was thus able to weigh in on his professional reputation and international scientific relationships.

The requirements

The “demands” formulated in the first two sentences refer to the first resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on January 24, 1946. The content was the establishment of an atomic energy commission, which should deal with the "elimination of nuclear weapons and all other major weapons that can be used for mass destruction from national armaments". Not only the term weapon of mass destruction , but also the term “control” goes back directly to this resolution.

As part of this UN commission, the USA presented the Baruch Plan in June 1946 . In it, they offered to hand over all nuclear weapons to a newly created international authority - but only after it had received the right to unannounced inspection of all nuclear facilities in all states and - to the exclusion of the right of veto  - to "automatically punish" states that violate the treaty. The Soviet Union had rejected this plan mainly for two reasons: it feared that it would lead to the perpetuation of the American nuclear monopoly, since American know-how would be preserved, but under these conditions the Soviet Union would have no chance of developing nuclear weapons itself; In addition, due to its isolation in the United Nations , it would have had little chance of influencing this authority. The counter-proposals of the Soviet Union presented by Andrej Gromyko resulted in a reversal of the order: first an international convention on the “prohibition of nuclear weapons” along with the destruction of the arsenals, then inspections by a UN authority to control the ban. No agreement was reached, so that the negotiations reached a dead end and were finally postponed indefinitely.

The Stockholm appeal, in rather general, vague formulations, took up not only the unanimously adopted resolution text of the UN, but also the Soviet negotiating position. In particular, the formula of the “ban on nuclear weapons”, but also the sequence of the two demands, was in line with the Soviet point of view. Of course, the text of the appeal did not specify either the heavily controversial question of control measures or individual implementation steps. In keeping with its character as a short appeal addressed to the world, he left these points open.

The condemnation of the nuclear first strike

The third and longest sentence of the appeal, which was not in the form of a demand, but as a political-moral judgment (in the original: “nous considérons”), provided more explosive material. The condemnation of a nuclear first strike was clearly directed against the USA, the only power that had already used atomic weapons , was capable of nuclear warfare and had already developed a series of plans during the American atomic bomb monopoly, which in the event of war had nuclear attacks against numerous larger cities provided by the Soviet Union. American military strategy was based on a large conventional superiority of the Soviet Union in Europe, which should be countered with nuclear weapons in the event of a Soviet attack. The appeal thus condemned a strategy of NATO , founded the previous year (April 1949) , which continued to apply long after 1950 - even in December 1998, years after the end of the Soviet Union, the then German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer did not get through with his proposal To remove the first use of nuclear weapons from the NATO strategy.

On this point, too, the Stockholm appeal referred to a mutual agreement from the immediate post-war period, namely the London Statute of August 8, 1945, the basis of the Nuremberg Trials . In particular, the concept of crimes against humanity was defined there for the first time; a new definition had also been found in London for the offense of war crimes . The text of the appeal brought the initial use of nuclear weapons close to the crimes of the National Socialist German Reich negotiated in Nuremberg.

Here the limitation of the appeal to the ban on the atomic bomb had a particularly clear effect, because he did not comment on a conceivable attack with conventional weapons. This became acute a few months later in the Korean War : In August 1950, the American member of the Presidium of the Standing Committee, O. John Rogge , called for a corresponding amendment to the appeal; he was unsuccessful and was later not elected to the new World Peace Council. The reactions from the western side were violent: The American Committee for Un-American Activities spoke of a “national suicide”, which the appeal required of the USA. It should be noted, however, that the Stockholm appeal did not justify conventional war; he limited himself to branding the unleashing of nuclear war.

Addressees and activities

The first three sentences of the appeal were addressed to supranational institutions. On the other hand, the final sentence, which envisaged a very broad support base, was quite different. With an allusion to a verse from the Gospel of Luke , which also appears in the text of the Catholic Mass (cf. Lk 2.14 EU , even more similar in the Mass text: “et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis”, ie: “and peace on Earth the people of good will ”) and should therefore have sounded very familiar especially in Christian circles, the appeal was aimed at all people of“ good will ”, that is, far beyond the communist parties and the labor movement .

The act to which the appeal prompted this large worldwide audience was to sign or collect such signatures. This was by no means a given. In the previous six months, the French Communist Party and the Journal des Cominform , among others, had massively called for “practical actions”, particularly strikes by dockers and railroad workers against American arms transports, but also the refusal of scientists to take part in the development of nuclear weapons. Such actions were also celebrated at the Stockholm meeting of the Standing Committee, for example by Louis Saillant , General Secretary of the World Trade Union Confederation , as “the best form of peace propaganda ever”. But in the Stockholm appeal itself, these forms of action were no longer mentioned, even though this was requested during the course of the conference. According to Rüdiger Schlaga, this was mainly due to Ilja Ehrenburg's activities, who demanded that we concentrate exclusively on the ban on the atomic bomb.

From a historical distance, the text of the Stockholm Appeal has been described several times as "relatively innocuous", even as "completely apolitical" ("parfaitement apolitique"). The restriction to a strictly legal and “comparatively banal” form of action first made mass approval possible, but at the same time meant that the appeal was reduced to a confession. He refrained from specifying ways to implement and implement the requirements - beyond the signature performance and collection. For example, the American Peace Committee was able to equip its advertising leaflets with the drawing of a writing hand and the headline “Your hand can stop atomic war - Sign for peace!”.

The name

The appeal originally had no headline and was given different names. The American Peace Committee gave it the title "World Peace Appeal", in other cases the ceremonial name "Call of the Standing Committee of the World Congress of Fighters for Peace" was chosen (for example on a Soviet postage stamp ). Soon, however, the abbreviation "Stockholm Appeal" became popular, which had the advantage of neutrality: the already heavily used word peace was not necessary, and naming it after the capital of a neutral state was in favor of reaching a very broad audience. to which one could not make ideological claims from the start.

Tage Erlander , the Swedish Social Democratic Prime Minister, was not taken with it. Die ZEIT quoted him as saying that Sweden was "uncomfortable to know that communist propaganda was misusing the name" of its capital. Such lines of thought apparently also played a role in the decision of the British government to prevent the First World Peace Congress, which was scheduled for November 1950, first for London and then for Sheffield : one of the aims was to avoid a “London appeal”.

The sponsor: The Standing Committee

The Standing Committee, the bearer of the appeal, was set up by the World Congress of Fighters for Peace , which met from April 20 to 25, 1949 in Paris and Prague. It should prepare another congress and hold regular meetings up to that point. The 1949 congress brought together three currents, although they were not independent of one another: the World Congress of Intellectuals in Defense of Peace , which was initiated by the Communist Polish Workers' Party ; the Combattants de la Liberté , a French organization led by Yves Farge that wanted to carry on the aims and ideals of the Resistance in the post-war period; and last but not least, the activities of the communist parties coordinated in the Communist Information Office (Cominform).

The roots of the "fighters for peace"

The World Congress of Intellectuals in Defense of Peace , which took place in Wrocław in August 1948 , was conceived by Jerzy Borejsza , the director of the Polish publishing cooperative, as a bridge between the intellectuals in East and West and as an "atomic bomb for peace". In addition to numerous delegates from the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and Western Communist parties, a number of prominent non-communists were also invited and attended, including Julian Huxley , Director General of UNESCO , who also belonged to the Presidium of the Congress, the English historian Alan JP Taylor , and the French philosopher Julien Benda and the Swiss writer Max Frisch . An aggressive speech by the Soviet writer Alexander Alexandrovich Fadeev , who was not opposed by a Communist speaker, almost broke the event. Fadeev attacked not only the USA in the sharpest tones, but above all prominent Western writers, especially those of the left-wing camp, whom he accused of cultural disintegration and objective encouragement of warfare; he compared " Henry Miller , Eliot , Malraux and the rest of the Sartres " with "jackals" and "hyenas". Only through hectic activity behind the scenes could a reasonably tolerable conclusion of the conference with a toned down declaration be achieved. An “International Liaison Committee” was also appointed. Together with the International Women's Democratic Federation, it called for the Paris Congress of “Fighters for Peace”.

The Combattants des la liberté (freedom fighters) came into being on February 22, 1948 on the initiative of two Resistance activists: the non-party ex- socialist Yves Farge , who had been Minister for Supply in 1946, and the communist Charles Tillon . This rallying movement of resistance fighters against the German occupation of France quickly spread over the whole country and was able to hold a national congress ( Assises nationales ) with 12,000 delegates and 6,000 sympathizers in Paris on November 27, 1948 . One of their most important topics was the fight against any involvement in a Western military alliance, including collecting signatures for a "letter to President Truman" formulated by Farge (April 1949, according to Farge with a million signatures) and a "peace referendum" (2nd October 1949, nearly 6.9 million votes). The successive name change of the movement, first to Combattants de la liberté et la paix (fighters for freedom and peace), then to Combattants de la paix et la liberté (fighters for peace and freedom) and finally to Mouvement de la paix (peace movement), indicated an increasing turn to peace congress plans and the growing influence of communist members; The Combattants eventually became co-organizers of the Paris World Congress of Fighters for Peace , which took the popular front concept of its successful and mass-effective Assises nationales of 1948 as a model.

The communist parties coordinated in the Cominform founded in 1947 had initially set other priorities under the dominant influence of the CPSU representative Andrei Alexandrovich Zhdanov , namely the fight against the Marshall Plan , which determined the parties' policy until 1948. Although Zhdanov had given his approval to the Wrocław Congress in 1948, Fadeev's speech, which followed Zhdanov's two-camp theory , was in no way conducive to the peace issue. Since the end of 1948 and especially in 1949, however, a clear reorientation was discernible. In January 1949 the Politburo of the CPSU envisaged a world congress for peace in Paris organized by “democratic organizations”. In March 1949 the policy of confrontation during the strikes against the Marshall Plan was publicly rejected, and the communist parties of France and Italy criticized themselves . Instead, the Kominform Journal announced in April that the main task of all communist parties was to win over people “of all social classes and all religious convictions” to combat the danger of war. The consequence of this focus was that the large communist parties, with their enormous membership resources, grew in importance in the peace initiatives.

The “World Congress of Fighters for Peace” and its Standing Committee

On April 20, 1949, 1,784 delegates from 72 countries met in the Salle Pleyel in Paris for the World Congress of Fighters for Peace. A number of delegates, especially those from Eastern Europe, did not receive an entry permit from the French state, so that a parallel congress of the rejected took place in Prague. President of the congress was Frédéric Joliot-Curie, and Pablo Picasso had designed a dove of peace as a congress emblem. In Paris, unlike in Wrocław in 1948, the big names of the independents were absent; the congress was much more shaped by communist delegates. But prominent non-communists also took part in important functions in the congress, for example the head of the American delegation, the black civil rights activist WEB Du Bois , the American lawyer O. John Rogge, Pierre Cot and Yves Farge, the French priest Jean Boulier , the British Labor - Politician Konni Zilliacus and the Italian socialist Pietro Nenni . In terms of numbers, the participants from Italy and France clearly outweighed the participants (together almost 1,300 people).

The anti-American and pro-Soviet tenor of the course of the congress was unmistakable, but the tone was more moderate than in Wrocław. The final declaration, adopted after some controversy, spoke out in favor of the United Nations Charter , a ban on nuclear weapons, national independence and free trade between East and West, against new military pacts (particularly NATO) and against the rearmament of West Germany and Japan. The establishment of national peace committees and the establishment of the standing committee was also decided.

The Standing Committee was made up of 133 people from 49 countries and two representatives from international organizations (a student organization and a journalist organization). It had a twelve-person presidium and a secretariat in Paris. The Presidium was chaired by Joliot-Curie, and General Secretary by the French communist Jean Lafitte . Prominent members of the committee included the natural scientists Irène Joliot-Curie (Nobel Prize winner together with her husband Frédéric) and John Desmond Bernal ; the humanities scholars WEB Du Bois, György Lukács , Jan Mukařovský and André Bonnard (a Swiss Graecist ); the lawyer O. John Rogge; the artists Pablo Picasso and Renato Guttuso ; the writers Louis Aragon , Ilja Ehrenburg, Anna Seghers , Jorge Amado , Pablo Neruda , Martin Andersen Nexø and Alexander Fadejew, known from Wrocław; Churchmen Jean Boulier, Arthur Wheelock Moulton (Bishop of the American Episcopal Church ), Hewlett Johnson (known as the "Red Dean of Canterbury ") and Metropolitan Nikolai of Krutizy and Kolomna ; the politicians Pierre Cot, Yves Farge, Konni Zilliacus, Pietro Nenni, Otto Nuschke , José Giral Pereira and Lázaro Cárdenas del Río .

A number of committee members had worked in the French Resistance and thereby built a reputation. This applies to the two Joliot-Curies, Farge and Cot, but also to Emmanuel d'Astier de la Vigerie and Alexander Abusch . The choice of Lyubov Kosmodemyanskaya , the mother of the famous Soviet partisan soy Kosmodemyanskaya should be done for similar reasons. Du Bois and singer Paul Robeson were known as members of the American civil rights movement . In addition, there were functionaries from communist parties and from mass organizations , especially of the trade union type, as well as some names that were merely provided with the professional title “worker”, “farmer” or “miner worker”.

The activities of the committee

The first meeting of the Standing Committee took place in Rome from October 27 to 31, 1949. The central theme was the expulsion of the Yugoslav Peace Committee called for by the Communists. A year earlier, the Cominform had already excluded the Yugoslav Communist League because it did not want to submit to the course set in Moscow; now the Standing Committee should follow suit. Some members did not want to support this decision and therefore did not even travel (such as Aragon, Farge, Saillant, Boulier and Irène Joliot-Curie), but the committee members present in Rome unanimously decreed the exclusion of the Yugoslavs, the Frédéric Joliot-Curie with National Socialists Established tendencies in this country. Subsequently, Zilliacus, Rogge and the French Resistance fighter Jean Cassou criticized this decision; Rogge tried to bring about a revision in August 1950, but unsuccessfully. The Yugoslavs did not allow themselves to be prevented from founding a new peace committee of their own, which, alongside the United States, now attacked Stalin's policy as just as dangerous for world peace.

At the same meeting, the committee passed an appeal to the elected representatives of the people of all countries in the world to oblige the governments to negotiate solutions, disarmament, "outlawing and destroying nuclear weapons" and to support a peace pact between the great powers within the framework of the United Nations. It later put together prominent delegations to present this appeal to parliaments. This did not succeed in the USA because the twelve-person delegation led by Picasso was refused entry visas. The Dutch delegation was even arrested, interrogated and deported to their home countries. In Italy and France, on the other hand, the delegates were heard by the praesidia of the parliaments without any more than “general formulations” being said. The Supreme Soviet received the delegates in a festive setting and joined the roll call. On this occasion, of course, Rogge also presented to the Soviet parliament on his own initiative a peace plan that provided for general disarmament and rigid controls; it is not known what became of this initiative, it is unlikely to have been taken up.

The Stockholm meeting of the committee was originally scheduled for April 1950, but was brought forward by a month because of Truman's announcement that he would advance the development of the hydrogen bomb. The approximately 150 participants met in the basement of a Stockholm restaurant. Here the Stockholm appeal was presented by Frédéric Joliot-Curie and Pierre Cot, discussed by the committee members and finally published. Joliot-Curie was the first to sign, then all the other participants in the conference.

The origin of the Stockholm Appeal

The final version of the Stockholm Appeal may not have been written until the Stockholm Conference, but the text has a history. On December 2, 1949, an intergroup introduced a motion to the French National Assembly calling on the French government to propose an international convention to the United Nations. This should "declare those guilty of a crime against humanity who first use nuclear weapons in the event of an outbreak of hostilities". The appeal to the London Statute (“crimes against humanity”) and the condemnation of the initial use of nuclear weapons, two central components of the later appeal, can already be found here. The intergroup consisted of prominent members of Christian Democratic ( Mouvement républicain populaire ), Gaullist, radical socialist and other groups; it did not contain a member of the communist faction. A few weeks later, on January 4, 1950, the Combattants pour la paix et la liberté , Action , published a “manifesto” that took up this petition, which was unsuccessful in the National Assembly. Here the ban on the atomic bomb and weapons of mass destruction by the United Nations has already been called for in very similar terms as in the final appeal text.

Two weeks later, on January 17, 1950, the Politburo of the CPSU in Moscow discussed future peace policy. Here an appeal to be signed a million times was resolved, which partly corresponds to the Stockholm appeal down to the linguistic detail, but with some notable differences: the reference to the “crimes against humanity” was missing, as was the final sentence with its appeal to “all good people Willing". This decision was preceded by a visit by the President of the Standing Committee, Frédéric Joliot-Curie, to Moscow (in November 1949), the exact course of which is unknown.

Different conclusions are drawn from this history. So goes Yves Santa Maria on the assumption that there was hardly room for own initiatives for the National Peace Committee and the text largely abbilde the "atomic re-centering" of Soviet foreign policy. Michel Pinault, on the other hand, advocates the thesis that the appeal essentially originated in various French circles on the left and accordingly reflects a mixture of Christian, humanist, socialist and communist influences that were only subsequently approved by Moscow.

Directed communist? reviews

The influence of the communist parties in the Standing Committee was undoubtedly great. However, there is controversy over the question of the direction in which the communists' influence worked and to what extent all committee activities, including the Stockholm Appeal, were communist.

state of research

The only comprehensive account of the Stockholm Appeal and the subsequent worldwide signature campaign can be found in the first volume of Lawrence S. Wittner's large English-language trilogy on the history of the peace movements after the Second World War ( The Struggle Against the Bomb . Volume 1: One World or None , there especially chapters 10 to 13 on “the communist-led campaign”). There are no special studies exclusively on the Stockholm Appeal from recent times. Of course, various studies on the national peace movements of the forties and fifties offer some insights on this topic, albeit often on the margins. They were carried out and published primarily in the context of the Working Group on Historical Peace Research and the Peace History Society . An organizational history of the World Peace Council by Rüdiger Schlaga goes into more detail on the political motives for the Stockholm appeal. Studies on the post-war history of the national communist parties and the pacifist, especially left-wing Christian organizations, as well as biographical literature on the protagonists of the appeal ( Frédéric Joliot-Curie , WEB Du Bois) offer further material. The genesis of the text is illuminated in more detail in a controversy between Michel Pinault, the biographer of Joliot-Curie, and the French communism researcher Yves Santamaria.

literature

  • Lawrence S. Wittner: One World or None. A history of the world nuclear disarmament movement through 1953 . Stanford University Press, Stanford 1993, ISBN 0-8047-2141-6
  • Rüdiger Schlaga: The Communists in the Peace Movement - Unsuccessful? The policy of the World Peace Council in relation to the foreign policy of the Soviet Union and independent peace movements in the West (1950–1975). Lit, Münster 1991, ISBN 3-89473-084-6
  • Günter Wernicke: The Communist-Led World Peace Council and the Western Peace Movements. The Fetters of Bipolarity and Some Attempts to Break Them in the Fifties and Early Sixties. In: Peace and Change . Volume 23, 1998, No. 3, pp. 265-311.
  • Robbie Lieberman: "Does that make peace a bad word?" American Responses to the Communist Peace Offensive, 1949-1950. In: Peace and Change . Volume 17, 1992, No. 2, pp. 198-228.
  • Sabine Rousseau: Les Mouvements de Paix en France depuis 1945. Un Objet de Recherche en Construction. In: Benjamin Ziemann (Ed.): Peace Movements in Western Europe, Japan and the USA since 1945. Historical Reviews and Theoretical Perspectives . Bulletin of the Institute for Social Movements. Research and Research Reports No. 32/2004. Pp. 49-66.
  • Dimitrios Tsakiris: State Repression against Peace Movements in Greece, 1950-1967. In: Benjamin Ziemann (Ed.): Peace Movements in Western Europe, Japan and the USA during the Cold War. Klartext, Essen 2007, pp. 147–164.
  • Michel Pinault: Frédéric Joliot-Curie . Editions Odile Jacob, Paris 2000, ISBN 2-7381-0812-1
  • Raphaël Spina: Yves Farge (1899–1953) and the first years of the French Peace Movement . From the committed citizen to the fellow traveler, a biographical approach. Paper presented at: Peace Movements in the Cold War and Beyond: An International Conference London School of Economics, 1. – 2. February 2008. Online
  • Phillip Deery: A "Divided Soul"? The Cold War Odyssey of O. John Rogge . In: Cold War History . Volume 6, No. 2, 2006, pp. 177-204.

Source texts

  • German Peace Council (Ed.): World Peace Movement . Resolutions and Documents 1949–1955 . Berlin, no year (1955).
  • Committee on Un-American Activities, US House of Representatives (Ed.): Report on the Communist "Peace" Offensive. A Campaign To Disarm and Defeat the United States . Washington, DC, April 1, 1951.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Wittner 1993, p. 384 (footnote 34).
  2. ↑ Pinault 2000, p. 456.
  3. ↑ According to the source volume of the German Peace Council in the GDR published in 1955 , which at the time of the appeal was still operating as the “German Committee of Fighters for Peace”.
  4. ^ Ilja Ehrenburg: People years of life. Book 6. Volk und Welt, Berlin 1978, p. 411.
  5. ↑ For examples see Schlaga 1991.
  6. ↑ See Lieberman 1992 passim and especially EP Thompson : Beyond the Cold War. Pantheon, New York 1982, esp. P. 158 ff.
  7. ↑ Cf. on these reviews Pinault, p. 455, and Wittner 1993, p. 257ff.
  8. ↑ See the wording of this first United Nations resolution in English: Establishment of a Commission to Deal with the Problems Raised by the Discovery of Atomic Energy .
  9. ↑ Wittner 1993, p. 253.
  10. ↑ See Wittner 1993, p. 251 ff. Or also z. B. Stanford Arms Control Group (ed. By Cit D. Blacker and Gloria Duffy): International Arms Control. Issues and Agreements . Stanford University Press, Stanford 1984, pp. 97f.
  11. ↑ See e.g. B. Bernd Stöver: The Cold War. History of a Radical Age 1947–1991 . Beck, Munich 2007, pp. 162f.
  12. ↑ See e.g. B. Ernst-Otto Czempiel: Clever power. Foreign Policy for the 21st Century. Beck, Munich 1999, p. 208.
  13. ↑ See Deery 2006, pp. 184 and 192.
  14. ↑ Lieberman 1992, p. 212, citing the committee's interim report dated July 13, 1950 entitled The Communist "Peace Petition" Campaign .
  15. ↑ Schlaga 1991, p. 64ff.
  16. ↑ Wittner 1993, p. 199; Philippe Buto: Une expérience: trois analyzes croisées de deux affiches de la guerre froide . Regard d'un historien: les communistes et la paix. In: Matériaux pour l'histoire de notre temps . Volume 21, 1991, Nos. 21-22, pp. 98-102; here: p. 100.
  17. ↑ Schlaga 1991, p. 69.
  18. ↑ Reproduction of the leaflet in Abby J. Kinchy: African Americans in the Atomic Age. Postwar perspectives on Race and the Bomb, 1945-1967. In: Technology and Culture . Volume 50, April 2009, pp. 291-315, here: p. 300.
  19. ↑ See Engdahl-Tygesen: Red Peace Dove . In: Die ZEIT . No. 31/1950.
  20. ↑ See Phillip Deery: The Dove Flies East . Whitehall, Warsaw and the 1950 world peace congress. In: Australian journal of politics and history . Volume 48, 2002, No. 4, pp. 449-468.
  21. ↑ Quoted from Schlaga 1991, p. 49.
  22. ↑ On the Wrocław Congress: Wittner 1993, pp. 175–177; Schlaga 1991, pp. 41-50; see. also in detail: Jozef Laptos: Le pacifisme apprivoisé: le Congrès mondial de'intellectuels poir la Défense de la Paix à Wroclaw in 1948 . In: Maurice Vaisse (ed.): Le Pacifisme en Europe des années 1920 aux années 1950 . Bruylant, Brussels 1993, ISBN 2-8027-0849-X , pp. 325-338.
  23. ↑ See Spina 2008; Rousseau 2004; Wittner 1993, pp. 191f .; Schlaga 1991, p. 51f.
  24. ↑ Pinault 2000, p. 437.
  25. ↑ Quoted from Schlaga 1991, p. 53.
  26. ↑ See Schlaga 1991, pp. 44-54; Spina 2008; Rousseau 2004.
  27. ↑ All figures from Schlaga 1991, p. 57f., Which refers to a report in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung of April 21, 1949.
  28. ↑ See Wittner 1993, p. 178f.
  29. ↑ See Schlaga 1991, pp. 55f.
  30. ↑ Schlaga 1991, p. 56f.
  31. ↑ Schlaga 1991, p. 57.
  32. ↑ Committee on Un-American Activities 1951, pp. 112-116.
  33. ↑ Pinault 2000, p. 445, who quotes Joliot-Curie as follows: The Yugoslav government “abuses part of its people by using dangerous national sentiments and making the people believe that they are working to build socialism when in fact they are can slide rapidly in the direction of a form of national socialism ” .
  34. ↑ See Deery 2006, pp. 184-185
  35. ↑ See Schlaga 1991, pp. 59-62; Pinault 2000, p. 445; Wittner 1993, p. 239.
  36. ↑ Lieberman 1992, p. 208.
  37. ↑ Schlaga 1991, p. 64.
  38. ↑ See Deery 2006, p. 183.
  39. ↑ See Pinault 2000, pp. 455ff.
  40. ↑ Pinault 2000, pp. 448-449.
  41. ↑ Pinault 2000, p. 450.
  42. ↑ In summary: Rousseau 2004, p. 53f.