REGULATION, OF ARMAMENTS


    In elaboration of the matter, Ambassador deKauffmann made the
  following points. He was confident that Professor Bohr did not enter-
  tain any hope that the Soviet Union would agree to a proposal of
  openness. Professor Bohr felt that a great advantage would accrue
  to the United States if it saw fit to make such a proposal even though
  it would be turned down by the Soviet Union because it would help
  to rally the liberal and intellectual forces of the world to the support
  of the United States. Ambassador deKauffmann was pleased to note
  that there had been no expression of disapproval in the United States
  of Professor Bohr's proposal. He hoped very much that, at minimum,
  the United States would continue to refrain from adverse criticism of
  the proposal. He recognized that there were many practical difficul-
  ties. He recalled that Professor Bohr's views on this matter had been
  known to the United States Government for some time and: that a
  great deal of thought had been given to it. He hoped that it might be
  possible for the United States at least to express itself in favor of an
  open world :.as an objective to be striven for. He felt that a statement
  to this effect, while not very concrete, would be very helpful.
  Mr. Hickerson stated that the Department was very glad to have
  this opportunity -to discuss the Bohr proposal and very much appre-
  ciated having the views of the Danish Government as presented by the
  Ambassador. He went on to say that Professor Bohr's views had been
  known for some period of time and that while we were of course in
  complete sympathy with the ideals expressed in the proposal, we fore-
  saw many practical difficulties in handling the proposal.
  Turning briefly to the Stockholm appeal,' Ambassador deKauff-
  mann pointed out that Professor Bohr had refused to sign it because he
  saw that it was at complete variance with his objective. The Com-
  munist press had attacked him vigorously for his unwillingness to
  sign while attempting to claim that his proposals and the Stockholm
  appeal sprang from the same motivations for world peace.
  The Danish Ambassador left with the Department copies of
  Professor Bohr's public reply to the request made on him to sign the
  Stockholm appeal as well as a copy of his statement to the press on
,the release of his open letter to the United Nations. Both are attached.2

  'The Stockholm Appeal of the World Peace Council, March 19, 1950, read
as
follows:
  "We demand the absolute banning of the atom weapon, arm of terror
and
mass extermination of populations.
  "We demand the establishment of strict international control to ensure
the
implementation of this banning measure.
  "We consider that any government which would be first to use the atom
weapon against any country whatsoever would be committing a crime against
humanity and should be dealt with as a war criminal.
  "We call on all men of good will throughout the world to sign this
Appeal."
  Documentation on the Stockholm Appeal is scheduled for pmblication in
volume Iv.
  2 Nihrreproduced.


77