first dentist visit age 2

Second Opinion

A Child's First Dental Visit Fact Sheet

When should your child first see a dentist? You can take your child at a younger age, but experts recommend taking him or her within 6 months of the first tooth coming in (erupting), or by about 12 months at the latest.

At this time, the dentist can give you information on:

Baby bottle tooth decay

Infant feeding practices

Mouth cleaning

Pacifier habits

Finger-sucking habits

Prepare your child

If possible, schedule morning appointments so young children are alert and fresh.

Prepare a preschooler or older child for the visit by giving him or her a general idea of what to expect. Explain why it is important to go to the dentist. Build excitement and understanding.

Prepare yourself

Discuss your questions and concerns with the dentist. Remember that your feeling toward dental visits can be quite different from your child's. Be honest with your view of the dentist. If you have dental anxieties, be careful not to relate those fears or dislikes to your child. Parents need to give moral support by staying calm while in the dental exam room. Children can pick up parents' anxieties and become anxious themselves.

Prepare the dentist

At the first visit, give the dentist your child's complete health history. For a restoration visit, such as getting a cavity filled, tell the dentist if your child tends to be stubborn, defiant, anxious, or fearful in other situations.

Watch how your child reacts. Many parents are able to guess how their child will respond and should tell the dentist. Certain behaviors may be linked to your child's age:

10 to 24 months. Some securely attached children may get upset when taken from their parents for an exam.

2 to 3 years. A securely attached child may be able to cope with a brief separation from parents. In a 2-year-old, "no" may be a common response.

3 years. Three-year-olds may not be OK being apart from a parent when having a dental procedure such as getting a cavity filled. This is because most 3-year-olds are not socially mature enough to separate from parents.

4 years. Most children should be able to sit in another room from parents for exams and treatment procedures.

The first visit

Your child's first dental visit is to help your child feel comfortable with the dentist. The first dental visit is recommended by 12 months of age, or within 6 months of the first tooth coming in. The first visit often lasts 30 to 45 minutes. Depending on your child's age, the visit may include a full exam of the teeth, jaws, bite, gums, and oral tissues to check growth and development. If needed, your child may also have a gentle cleaning. This includes polishing teeth and removing any plaque, tartar, and stains. The dentist may show you and your child proper home cleaning such as flossing, and advise you on the need for fluoride. Baby teeth fall out, so X-rays aren’t often done. But your child's dentist may recommend X-rays to diagnose decay, depending on your child's age. X-rays are also used to see if the root of a jammed baby tooth may be affecting an adult tooth. In general, it is best that young children not have dental X-rays unless absolutely needed.

The second visit

Just like adults, children should see the dentist every 6 months. Some dentists may schedule visits more often, such as every 3 months. This can build comfort and confidence in the child. More frequent visits can also help keep an eye on a development problem.

Protect your children's teeth at home

Here are some tips to protect your children's teeth:

Before teeth come in, clean gums with a clean, damp cloth.

Start brushing with a small, soft-bristled toothbrush and a very small amount of toothpaste (the size of a grain of rice) when your child's first tooth appears. Use a pea-sized dab of fluoridated toothpaste after 3 years of age. This is when the child is old enough to spit out the toothpaste after brushing.

Prevent baby bottle tooth decay. Don't give children a bottle of milk, juice, or sweetened liquid at bedtime or when put down to nap.

Limit the time your child has a bottle. Your child should empty a bottle in 5 to 6 minutes or less.

Help your child brush his or her own teeth until age 7 or 8. Have the child watch you brush, and follow the same brushing pattern to reduce missed spots.

Limit foods and treats that increase tooth decay. This includes hard or sticky candies, fruit leather, and sweetened drinks and juice. Offer fruit rather than juice. The fiber in fruit tends to scrape the teeth clean. Juice just exposes the teeth to sugar.

Pediatric Cardiology
Our Services
Chiari Malformation Center at Stanford Medicine Children's Health

When Should Baby Visit the Dentist for the First Time?

Medical review policy, latest update:, when to schedule baby's first dental visit, how to choose a dentist for your child, read this next, what happens at baby's first dentist visit, tips to make your child’s dentist visit easier, how often to visit the dentist.

Based on how your toddler’s teeth look, your dentist will let you know when to make the next visit. Most experts recommend that toddlers see the dentist about every six months — as long as there are no major problems. So don’t forget to schedule your child’s second appointment on your way out the door!

What to Expect the First Year , 3rd Edition, Heidi Murkoff. What to Expect the Second Year , Heidi Murkoff. WhatToExpect.com, Toddler Dental Care , March 2019. WhatToExpect.com, Is Your Toddler Teething? , April 2020. WhatToExpect.com, Preventing Cavities and Keeping Baby's Teeth Healthy , April 2020. WhatToExpect.com, Brushing Baby's Teeth , July 2020. American Academy of Pediatrics, Baby's First Tooth: 7 Facts Parents Should Know , November 2020. American Academy of Pediatrics, Good Oral Health Starts Early , November 2020 American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, Frequently Asked Questions , 2021. American Dental Association, Taking Care of Your Child’s Smile , May 2014.

Go to Your Baby's Age

Trending on what to expect, the covid-19 vaccine for infants, toddlers and young children, how to create a night shift system when you have a newborn, ⚠️ you can't see this cool content because you have ad block enabled., when do babies start laughing, baby-led weaning, what happens in the ‘4th trimester’ (and is it a real thing).

Trying to Conceive
Signs & Symptoms
Pregnancy Tests
Fertility Testing
Fertility Treatment
Weeks & Trimesters
Staying Healthy
Preparing for Baby
Complications & Concerns
Pregnancy Loss
Breastfeeding
School-Aged Kids
Raising Kids
Personal Stories
Everyday Wellness
Safety & First Aid
Immunizations
Food & Nutrition
Active Play
Pregnancy Products
Nursery & Sleep Products
Nursing & Feeding Products
Clothing & Accessories
Toys & Gifts
Ovulation Calculator
Pregnancy Due Date Calculator
How to Talk About Postpartum Depression
Editorial Process
Meet Our Review Board

How to Prepare Your Child for Their First Dental Visit

Verywell / Madelyn Goodnight

What to Expect

Choosing a dentist.

Getting Ready For The Visit

Preparing as a Parent

One of the most frequently asked questions I get as a Pediatric Dentist is, “When should I bring my baby in for their first dental visit?”

The Academy of Pediatric Dentistry recommends that a child should visit the dentist when the first tooth appears or no later than their first birthday. While it may sound early, starting at that age will start your baby on a path for great oral health and prevent a number of dental problems that can occur during childhood.

The first visit gives parents a chance to become educated on how to properly care for their child's teeth and gives children a chance to become comfortable with the dental environment at an early age.

At the first visit, the dentist will examine your baby's mouth to make sure everything is growing and developing properly and will check for dental caries, tongue ties, and any signs of injuries.

The dentist will typically tell you everything you need to know to keep your child's teeth healthy including:

What kind of toothpaste and toothbrush to use
Brushing and flossing techniques
How to relieve teething discomfort
Which foods and drinks cause cavities
Answers to questions about pacifier use and thumb-sucking.

The examination and cleaning itself can take just a few minutes, but most of the time is spent on making the child feel comfortable and educating the parents. You should not expect the overall visit to take a long time.

The first step is finding a Pediatric Dentist for your child. Pediatric Dentists have two to three additional years of training after dental school during which they extensively study child development, behavior management of patients from infancy to adolescence, and how best to work with special needs children.

Most Pediatric Dentists will aim to provide a fun environment with toys, stickers, TVs, games, yummy flavored toothpaste, and staff that enjoy working with children. When children are having fun, they gain trust in the dentist and staff, and will often enjoy their visits and look forward to their next appointment.

Where to Find a Dentist

To find a Pediatric Dentist in your area, you can Google nearby pediatric dentists, talk to other parents you know for recommendations, and ask your child's pediatrician or your own dentist. If you have dental insurance, you can search for a Pediatric Dentist through your list of participating providers.

Getting Ready For Your Child's Visit

When you have decided on an office, call them to schedule a visit. Young children tend to do their best in the morning when they are fresh and full of energy. Avoid scheduling appointments late in the day or close to nap times when children can be groggy or cranky.

You can inquire if it is possible for you and your child to come to the office for a tour and to meet the doctor before the actual day of the checkup. If your child has any special needs, discuss it with the staff member that schedules your appointment. The dentist will often want a little extra time scheduled for this.

If there is something in particular that keeps your child calm and happy (a song they like to hear, a video they like to watch or simply a color they like), let the dentist know so they can try to incorporate that into the visit.

Mental Preparation

Once you have an appointment scheduled, start preparing your child for the visit. Children learn best when they are having fun. You can practice giving their stuffed animal a checkup with a toy mirror.

Your child can bring that same stuffed animal to the dental visit to get a check-up by the dentist. Read books to them. I recommend:

Show Me Your Smile! A Visit to the Dentist (Dora the Explorer)
Dentist Trip (Peppa Pig)
Elmo Visits the Dentist by P.J. Shaw

You can also watch one of the many YouTube videos about going to the dentist, such as Daniel Tiger's .

Put Them At Ease

When talking to your child about their upcoming trip to the dentist, you can assure them that there are no shots at this visit and that the dentist will simply examine and brush their teeth and talk to them about how to keep their teeth healthy.

Let them know that the dentist will show them all of the tools and explain all of the procedures before starting. You can also plan a treat (not candy or junk food) such as a trip to the park or toy store should they need a little extra motivation.

Anticipating Follow Up Visits

Once you've completed your first visit, it's time to start preparing your child for their second visit! Discuss the visit with your child and remind them of the positive things that happened such as:

There were no shots
Nothing hurt
The toothpaste tasted great
The toothbrush tickled
The dentist counted all of your teeth and now we know how many teeth you have
You got prizes and a new toothbrush at the end
Next time we go there, we'll get these fun prizes all over again!

To prepare yourself, come on time, if possible a few minutes earlier to fill out any registration and consent forms that may be needed. Many offices have their registration forms on their website so you can fill them out in advance.

Give your dentist a complete health history of your child. If your child is taking any medications, have a list of the medications and dosages. Have your child's pediatrician's contact information available.

If you have any particular questions that you want the dentist to address, write them down so you don't forget to ask them if the dentist doesn't bring those topics up.

It is also important to have reasonable expectations of your child. During the visit, some children may open their mouths willingly and enjoy the experience, while some will not, just as some do not enjoy getting haircuts or wearing seatbelts. Luckily, with preparation and sticking to a regular recall schedule (typically every six months), the visits will get easier and more enjoyable each time.

Many children that may start out fearful or anxious can become patients that love going to the dentist once they've been a few times.

By Rashmi Ambewadikar, DDS Rashmi Ambewadikar, DDS is a pediatric dentist practicing in Queens, New York and is the owner of Astoria Smiles Pediatric Dentistry.

My member dashboard
Edit your profile
Change your password
My dentist dashboard

Your child’s first dental visit

A child’s first visit to the dentist is an exciting milestone. But it’s also an important appointment that can help set them on a lifelong path toward good oral health.

The right time to schedule a first visit is within six months of their first tooth coming in, or no later than their first birthday. This timing is crucial because it’s important to:

Learn how to help your child avoid cavities and reduce health risks.

Find out who to call if there is an emergency.

Get to know your child’s dentist.

In the long run, you’ll also save money by learning how to take care of your child’s oral health and reducing the risk of more serious or expensive issues.

Getting your child ready

In advance of the visit, give them an idea of what to expect:

Go over what will happen at the appointment (more on that below). And be sure not to pass on any personal fear you may have of dentists to your child. Give them every opportunity to enjoy their first visit.

Explain why it’s important to go to the dentist and how it keeps them healthy.

Take time to answer any questions they may have.

Try to schedule a morning appointment when your child is likely to be more awake and attentive.

The day of the visit, go over what to expect one more time. Don’t share any negative experiences that you or other family members may have had with the dentist – instead, remain calm and positive! Your child will likely mirror the feelings you express about the appointment.

It can help to bring a comfort item or quiet game so they can have a little fun while they wait. It’s also an option to plan a positive reward for after the appointment.

What will happen during the visit?

During the routine exam, the dentist will check your child for cavities and review overall growth and development. The dentist will also demonstrate how to properly brush and floss your child’s teeth at home to make sure you’re as effective as possible in removing the plaque bacteria from all tooth surfaces.

To help you continue to care for your child’s oral health, you and your dentist will also:

Discuss food, drinks, and habits that can cause cavities and healthy alternatives

Review the vital role fluoride plays in strengthening tooth enamel and protecting your child’s smile

Be given helpful information for preventing accidents as your child grows

Why is it important to practice good oral health care from an early age? Because untreated oral health issues will continue to worsen over time – and more than half of children ages 6 to 8 have had a cavity in at least one baby tooth. 1

By taking your child to the dentist, you’re pointing them toward the path of good oral health. Prepare a little in advance to make sure it’s a great appointment!

1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Find-a-Dentist

Your Baby's First Dental Visit

Your baby is hitting new milestones every day, and his or her first dental visit is another one to include in the baby book!

Your child’s first dental visit should take place after that first tooth appears , but no later than the first birthday. Why so early? As soon as your baby has teeth , he or she can get cavities. Being proactive about your child’s dental health today can help keep his or her smile healthy for life. (Need a dentist? Use our Find-A-Dentist tool to find one in your area.)

How to Prepare

Moms and dads can prepare, too. When making the appointment, it can’t hurt to ask for any necessary patient forms ahead of time. It may be quicker and easier for you to fill them out at home instead of at the office on the day of your visit.

Make a list of questions, as well. If your child is teething , sucking his or her thumb or using a pacifier too much, your dentist can offer some advice.

What to Expect During the Visit

If your child cries a little or wiggles during the exam, don’t worry. It’s normal, and your dental team understands this is a new experience for your child!

Tips for a Great Visit

Don’t schedule an appointment during naptime. Instead, pick a time your child is usually well-rested and cooperative.
Make sure your child has had a light meal and brushes their teeth before their appointment so they won’t be hungry during their visit.
Save snacks for after the visit so they aren’t on your child’s teeth during the exam.
Think of the appointment as a happy and fun experience. If your child becomes upset during the visit, work with your dentist to calm your child. You’re on the same team!

What To Expect At Your Child's First Dentist Visit

The ADA and pediatricians recommend that every child see a dentist by the time their first tooth comes in or when they turn 1 year old (whichever comes first.) Since most dental problems are preventable, these early visits can help your baby or toddler get a jump-start on having healthy teeth for life. Knowing what to plan for with kids’ dental care can help you minimize any anxiety or nervousness so that future checkups are as easy as possible.

Risk Of An Untreated Rotten Baby Tooth

When baby teeth have issues, fixing them isn’t as simple as just pulling the tooth so that the new one can grow in. Your baby or toddler needs that primary tooth to act as a space saver for the adult tooth that’s growing in underneath. Otherwise, it can lead to serious issues like orthodontic complications or even speech impediments.

Untreated tooth decay in rotten baby teeth actually sets your child’s permanent teeth up for unnecessary infection. Since decay and bacteria can spread to the developing teeth underneath, delaying dental care can lead to serious complications.

Kids dental care with a family or pediatric dentist will revolve around preventative strategies and early intervention, to avoid rotten baby teeth and unnecessary side effects. In most cases, the best treatment is to fill the cavity with a small filling as soon as it ruptures through the enamel (because baby teeth can decay at extremely fast rates!)

When Should Your Child First Visit The Dentist?

Don’t wait until there’s a toothache before you schedule your child’s first dental visit. In fact, a baby’s first dental appointment needs to happen before their first birthday or when their first tooth comes in. Your family or pediatric dentist will want to evaluate for things like:

oral development
tongue ties

And as teeth start coming in, they’ll also screen for:

baby bottle tooth decay
impacted teeth
overbites and underbites
thumb and finger sucking
speech problems

Since most of these conditions are best handled as early as possible, seeing your family or pediatric dentist by the recommended age of 1 will help you ensure that your baby or toddler has the best chances at a future healthy smile. Even though those teeth will eventually fall out and get replaced with permanent adult teeth, some of them will need to last well until when your child is in junior high.

What Happens At My Baby/Child’s Cleaning Appointment?

Once your baby’s 1-year old dental checkup is over, you’ll want to plan on scheduling regular six-month checkups just like the rest of your family members. Since every child is different when it comes to what they’re comfortable with or able to sit through, your family or pediatric dentist will play it by ear when it comes to their first cleaning.

It can help to bring your toddler or young child in to watch your own cleaning (or a sibling’s) as long as you have another adult there to help hold them. This experience can minimize any fear or anxiety related to their first dental cleanings .

For the most part, a toddler’s first dental cleaning will be when they’re around 2 or 3 years old. Again, this depends on the child. The dentist or hygienist will likely ease into the cleaning by “counting” your child’s teeth, using a special polishing tool (“electric toothbrush”), scaling off plaque (“using a toothpick”) and then applying fluoride (“vitamins”) to ward off cavities.

Depending on how cooperative your toddler or child is, your dentist will eventually start taking yearly checkup X-rays to screen for cavities and impacted teeth. This could be as early as 2-3 years old or as late as age 5.

Overview Of Your Childs First Dental Appointment

It’s super important for you to bring your baby or toddler to the dentist every six months for checkups. Preventative visits help you avoid common dental problems and eliminate the risk of associating the dentist’s office with pain (which can happen if you wait until your child as a toothache or other dental problem.)

Baby’s first dental visit needs to be scheduled by the time their first tooth pops through or by their first birthday (whichever one happens first). Ask your family dentist if they see children or if it’s ok for your toddler to watch during your next checkup. The more familiar they are with the checkup and teeth cleaning experience, the better chances there are that your child won’t be as nervous when it’s time for their own visit.

Make your inbox smile!

5 Ways To Remove Coffee Stains on Your Teeth

Coffee teeth stains are a bad side effect of drinking coffee. The natural pores of our tooth enamel allow stain buildup to accumulate over time.

Dental Anxiety (Dentophobia) & How To Overcome It

Dentophobia is an intense fear or anxiety related to dental care or visiting the dentist. Severe dental anxiety that it can lead to very poor dental health.

Flossing with a permanent retainer can be challenging since there is a small wire that’s cemented to the tongue-side of your bottom front teeth.

Chipped Tooth or Tartar Breaking Off Teeth?

Did you experience a break or chip in your tooth, or was it tartar? Tartar breaking off can leave a 'hole,' making it hard to distinguish from a broken tooth.

Gum bumps vary in severity and cause, from infections to minor injuries.

There are two main types of mouthwashes within each brand: (1) fluorides and (2) antiseptics.

What Is the Right Age for A Child’s First Dental Visit?

Why Visit the Dentist by Age 1

There are several key reasons the AAPD recommends children see a dentist by age 1:

To Assess Oral Health Risks

A dentist can examine the child for any oral health issues and assess their risk of future dental problems. Early assessment allows the dentist to identify potential problems and take preventive measures before extensive treatment is required.

To Initiate Preventive Care

The first visit focuses on prevention education for parents and preventive treatments like fluoride varnish for the child. Preventive care from an early age protects teeth and reduces the child’s risk of dental disease.

To Establish a Dental Home

A dental home provides comprehensive, patient-centered oral care in a familiar setting. Starting dental visits early allows a continuous relationship between patient, parents, and dental team. This ongoing care is key for good oral health.

To Prevent Early Childhood Caries

Early childhood caries (ECC), a severe form of tooth decay in infants and toddlers, remains highly prevalent. ECC causes pain, difficulty eating and speaking, and other problems. Early dental visits provide education to prevent ECC before it starts.

The Importance of Primary Teeth

Many parents believe primary teeth are unimportant since they fall out. However, primary teeth play key roles in a child’s development:

Allow proper chewing and nutrition
Enable clear speech development
Maintain space for permanent teeth
Support facial and jaw development

Primary teeth also forecast the health of permanent teeth. Decay or other problems in primary teeth indicate a child is at high risk for more dental issues.

Benefits of an Early First Visit

Starting dental care by age 1 provides both short- and long-term benefits:

Familiarizes Child with Dentist

An early first visit in a positive environment builds comfort with the dentist and dental procedures before extensive treatment is needed. This sets the stage for good experiences later.

Reduces Fear and Anxiety

Children who first see a dentist for pain or procedures often develop dental fear and anxiety that carries into adulthood. An early visit focuses on education, not treatment, preventing negative associations.

Saves Money and Time

Preventive care is far less expensive than restorative treatment. Early prevention also reduces the extent of treatment needed, saving time and cost over a lifetime.

Improves Oral and Overall Health

Good oral health prevents pain, speech problems, poor nutrition, and lost school days. It also reduces risk of oral infections spreading to the rest of the body.

How to Prepare Your Child for the First Visit

Parents play a key role in making their child’s first dental visit successful. Consider these tips:

Remain Positive

Children pick up on parental anxiety. Discuss the visit positively focusing on how the dentist will count their teeth, take pictures, etc. Never use the dentist as a threat.

Read Children’s Books

Read books like “Going to the Dentist” to familiarize your child with what will happen at the visit. Positively reinforce seeing the dentist.

Avoid Negative Language

Avoid terms like “shot,” “drill,” or “pull” that evoke fear. Use child-friendly language like “sleepy juice” for anesthesia or “tickle your teeth” for cleaning.

Answer Questions

Encourage your child to ask questions and answer them honestly but with reassurance. Clarify any misconceptions about pain.

Bring a Friend

Let your child bring a stuffed animal or blanket for comfort. This sense of security helps them remain calm.

Schedule Appropriately

Schedule the first visit for a time when your child is usually well-rested and cooperative. Avoid nap time or when they are hungry.

What to Expect at the First Visit

The first dental visit focuses on education, prevention, and building a relationship between your child, you, and the dentist. Treatment is not typically provided unless an urgent need arises. Expect activities like:

Getting a routine exam of teeth, gums, jaw, and oral tissues
Having teeth counted and checked for problems like spots or plaque
Receiving a fluoride treatment to strengthen enamel
Getting shown how to properly brush and floss
Learning about foods that cause cavities and other dental problems
Having any questions answered by the dentist
Meeting dental staff like hygienists who help take care of teeth

The visit will likely last 30-45 minutes. The dentist will also explain when your child should return for their next visit and how often to schedule appointments going forward.

Tips to Make the Visit Successful

You can help make sure your child’s first dental visit is a positive experience:

Stay calm and positive yourself during the visit
Use the waiting room time to prepare your child for what will happen
Offer praise and encouragement for good behavior
Follow the dentist’s guidance on managing any anxiety or fear
Never scold or punish your child for any misbehavior during the visit
Keep distractions like electronics at a minimum
Follow up with a fun activity after the appointment as a reward

Establishing a Dental Home

The first dental visit lays the groundwork for a lifetime of good oral health. Finding the right dentist for your child allows you to establish a dental home for comprehensive, individualized care. When choosing a dentist:

Look for one with experience treating very young patients
Consider convenience factors like location, hours, insurance
Schedule a meet-and-greet visit to evaluate the office environment and staff approach
Explain your child’s specific needs and preferences
Make sure you and your child feel comfortable with the dentist you choose

Starting dental visits by age 1 gets your child off on the right foot for a lifetime of excellent oral health. While it may seem soon, the benefits are well worth this important early preventive care. With preparation and a child-friendly dentist, you can ensure your child’s first visit sets them up for a positive relationship with dentistry into the future.

You may have missed

When is the Right Age for Kids to Get Braces?

Brushing Technique in Children with Special Health Care Needs

Signs of Teething in Babies

Role of Fluoride in the Prevention of Dental Caries in Children

Brushing Techniques for Kids By Age: How to Brush Kids’ Teeth

What Is the Right Age for A Child’s First Dental Visit

Breathe Easy for Spring

A Child's First Dental Visit Fact Sheet

When should your child first see a dentist? You can take your child at a younger age, but experts recommend taking your child within 6 months of the first tooth coming in (erupting), or by about 12 months at the latest.

At this time, the dentist can give you information on:

Baby bottle tooth decay

Infant feeding practices

Mouth cleaning

Pacifier habits

Finger-sucking habits

Prepare your child

If possible, schedule morning appointments so young children are alert and fresh.

Prepare a preschooler or older child for the visit by giving them a general idea of what to expect. You can tell them about the exam room, the instruments they might see, the face masks the dentist and hygienist may wear, and the bright exam light. Explain why it is important to go to the dentist. Build excitement and understanding.

Prepare yourself

Prepare the dentist

If you don't know the dentist, interview the person first to see if they sound right for your child's needs and personality. At the first visit, give the dentist your child's complete health history. For a restoration visit, such as getting a cavity filled, tell the dentist if your child tends to be stubborn, defiant, anxious, or fearful in other situations. Ask the dentist how they handle such behavior. If you aren't comfortable with the answer, find another dentist.

Watch how your child reacts. Many parents are able to guess how their child will respond and should tell the dentist. Certain behaviors may be linked to your child's age:

10 to 24 months. Some securely attached children may get upset when taken from their parents for an exam.

2 to 3 years. A securely attached child may be able to cope with a brief separation from parents. In a 2-year-old, "no" may be a common response.

3 years. Three-year-olds may not be OK being apart from a parent when having a dental procedure, such as getting a cavity filled. This is because most 3-year-olds are not socially mature enough to separate from parents.

4 years. Most children should be able to sit in another room from parents for exams and treatment procedures.

The first visit

Your child's first dental visit is to help your child feel comfortable with the dentist. The first dental visit is recommended by 12 months of age, or within 6 months of the first tooth coming in. The first visit often lasts 30 to 45 minutes. Depending on your child's age, the visit may include a full exam of the teeth, jaws, bite, gums, and oral tissues to check growth and development. If needed, your child may also have a gentle cleaning. This includes polishing teeth and removing any plaque, tartar, and stains. The dentist may show you and your child correct home cleaning, such as flossing, and advise you on the need for fluoride. Baby teeth fall out, so X-rays aren’t often done. But your child's dentist may recommend X-rays to diagnose decay, depending on your child's age. X-rays are also used to see if the root of a jammed baby tooth may be affecting an adult tooth. In general, it is best that young children not have dental X-rays unless absolutely needed.

The second visit

Protect your children's teeth at home

Here are some tips to protect your children's teeth:

Before teeth come in, clean gums with a clean, damp cloth.

Start brushing with a small, soft-bristled toothbrush and a very small amount of fluoride toothpaste (the size of a grain of rice) when your child's first tooth appears. Use a pea-sized dab of fluoridated toothpaste after 3 years of age. Children should spit after brushing. Encourage them not to swallow extra toothpaste.

Prevent baby bottle tooth decay. Only put breastmilk or formula in bottles. Don't give children a bottle of juice, soft drinks, or sweetened liquid.

Limit the time your child has a bottle. Children should finish bottles before going to sleep.

Encourage your child to use a cup around their first birthday.

Help your child brush their teeth until age 7 or 8. Have the child watch you brush and follow the same brushing pattern to reduce missed spots.

Pediatric Diseases and Conditions

Adolescent Problems of the Teeth and Mouth
Common Dental Problems and Concerns
Infant Problems of the Teeth and Mouth
Preschool and School-Aged Problems of the Teeth and Mouth
Toddler Problems of the Teeth and Mouth
Health Screening Guidelines for Children from Birth to Age 2
Health Screening Guidelines, Ages 2 to 18

Advanced Search >

Delayed start to dentist visits: Parents need provider prompt

Visiting the dentist at an early age is an essential part of children’s health care. At early dental visits, the dentist will look for signs of decay on baby teeth and make sure parents understand how to care for their child’s teeth. The age at which children start dental visits varies. The C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health asked parents of children age 0-5 years about their beliefs and experiences about when to start dental visits.

Nearly half of parents (45%) said their child’s doctor or a dentist suggested an age to start dental visits. Parents with higher income and education, and those with private dental insurance, were more likely to report a doctor or dentist suggestion about when to start dental visits.

Among parents who said their child’s doctor or a dentist suggested an age to start dental visits, 47% believed children should have their first dentist visit when they are 1 year or younger; 47% said children should start when 2 or 3 years old. Only 6% of parents who received a doctor or dentist suggestion said children should start dentist visits at 4 years or older.

Over half of parents (55%) did not get their information about when to start dentist visits from their child’s doctor or a dentist. Instead, these parents relied on advice from family and friends (14%), their own experience starting dental care (13%) or other sources.

Among parents who were not prompted by a doctor or dentist, only 35% believed dentist visits should start at when children are 1 year or younger, while 48% said they should start at 2-3 years of age. However, 1 in 6 (17%) believed that children should delay their first dentist visit until 4 years or older.

Over half of parents (60%) reported their child has had a dental visit; for 85% of this group, the child’s age at their first visit matched the parents’ belief about when to start dental visits. Most parents (79%) felt the dentist visit was worthwhile.

Among the 40% of parents whose child has not had a dental visit, common reasons for not going to the dentist were that the child is not old enough to go to the dentist (42%), the child’s teeth are healthy (25%), and the child would be scared of the dentist (15%).

What age should kids start dentist visits?

Among parents of children age 0-5:

Over half of parents did not receive guidance from their child's doctor or a dentist about when to start dentist visits.
Professional guidance was more common among parents with higher income, education, and private dental insurance.
1 in 6 parents who did not receive guidance from health care providers believed children should delay dentist visits until age 4 years or older.

Implications

Early dentist visits are a key time to educate parents on developing good oral health habits, including correct brushing techniques, the importance of limiting sugary drinks, and the need to avoid putting children to bed with a bottle. Dental visits also are important for the detection and treatment of early childhood caries (dental decay in baby teeth), and the application of fluoride varnish to the baby teeth to prevent future decay. For this reason, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Dental Association (ADA) both recommend starting dental visits around age 1, when baby teeth emerge.

As shown in this Mott Poll, parental beliefs about when to start dentist visits are not always consistent with national recommendations. About half feel that waiting until 2 or 3 years of age is sufficient; some believe children can delay the start of dentist visits until 4 years or older.

The risk of delaying dentist visits is early signs of tooth decay may not be noticeable. In this poll, one quarter of parents who had delayed dental visits said their child’s teeth are healthy. However, it is unlikely that a parent could detect early tooth decay. By the time decay becomes obvious due to discoloration, the problem likely has become substantial. Prompt dental treatment at the first sign of decay can prevent more significant dental problems. Therefore, having regular dentist visits throughout early childhood increases the likelihood that decay will be identified and treated before major problems develop.

Parents’ lack of awareness of the recommended age to begin dental visits is understandable. Recommendations have changed over the years, so parents who rely on their own experience, or advice from family members, may be hearing outdated advice.

Additionally, parents get much less guidance on when their child should go to the dentist compared to the doctor. Healthcare guidance for parents of young children is often focused on a set schedule of well-child visits with medical providers. Often, the child’s first visit is scheduled before leaving the hospital, and the timing of subsequent visits is communicated clearly. In contrast, there is little discussion about dental visits; over half of parents in this poll do not recall getting information from their child’s doctor or a dentist about when to start dental care. This lack of guidance results in many parents delaying the start of dental visits past the recommended age.

This Mott Poll also shows that provider recommendations for early dental care are not received equally by all parents. Higher-income, more educated, and privately insured parents report receiving guidance from a health care provider on when to start dentist visits more frequently than parents who are low-income, less educated, and on Medicaid. This pattern is particularly problematic because low-income children have elevated rates of early childhood caries and would benefit from early dental care.

Providers who care for at-risk populations should take time to explain and emphasize the importance of dental visits. If health care providers don’t raise the topic, parents should ask their child’s doctor or their own dentist about when to start dentist visits, and how to keep their child’s teeth strong and healthy.

Data Source & Methods

This report presents findings from a nationally representative household survey conducted exclusively by GfK Custom Research, LLC (GfK), for C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital. The survey was administered in November 2017 to a randomly selected, stratified group of parents age 18 and older (n=2,005). Adults were selected from GfK’s web-enabled KnowledgePanel® that closely resembles the U.S. population. The sample was subsequently weighted to reflect population figures from the Census Bureau. The survey completion rate was 60% among panel members contacted to participate. This report is based on responses from 790 parents who had at least one child 0-5 years. The margin of error is ±3 to 6 percentage points.

Findings from the C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health do not represent the opinions of the University of Michigan. The University of Michigan reserves all rights over this material.

Clark SJ, Schultz SL, Singer DC, Gebremariam A, Freed GL. Delayed start to dentist visits: Parents need provider prompt. C.S. Mott Children's Hospital National Poll on Children's Health, University of Michigan. Vol 31, Issue 2, February 2018. Available at: https://mottpoll.org/reports/delayed-start-dentist-visits-parents-need-provider-prompt .

Pandemic-posed challenges to children's oral health

Many young children off to a poor start with dental health

For 12 million uninsured children, high barriers to dental care

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Int J Clin Pediatr Dent
v.15(4); Jul-Aug 2022

First Dental Visit: Age Reasons Oral Health Status and Dental Treatment Needs among Children Aged 1 Month to 14 Years

Neha padung.

1-3 Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, School of Dental Sciences, Sharda University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India

Sukhdeep Singh

Neha awasthi.

The aim of this study was to see the age and also the reasons for the child's first dental visit and to assess the oral health status and treatment desires.

Materials and methods

The study involved 133 children aged between 1 month and 14 years, who reported to the department of pediatric and preventive dentistry. All parents/legal guardians of the study participants gave written consent for participation in the study. Information on the child's age and reason for the dental visit were collected from a questionnaire given to parents. The children's dental condition was assessed by decayed, missing, and filled teeth (dmft) and DMFT values.

Statistical analysis used

Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21 and categorical data were compared by using Chi-square test. The level of significance was set at 0.05.

Age of the child for first dental visit was male: 85.7% at 9 years and female: 75.00% at 4 years. Majority of children who visited the dentist were age 7 years. The most common chief complaint about the primary visit was caries, and the second was tooth pain.

Children report for the primary dental visit most commonly solely after 7 years and for complaints like caries and tooth pain. Children make their first dental visit too late (usually at the age of 7 years) in reference to medical recommendations (between 6 and 12 months of life). More of restoration was the treatment of need by 47.00%. The results of this study indicate unhealthy oral health creating their first dental visit and low health awareness of parents and guardians.

How to cite this article

Padung N. First Dental Visit: Age Reasons Oral Health Status and Dental Treatment Needs among Children Aged 1 Month to 14 Years. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2022;15(4):394-397.

I ntroduction

Dental caries is one of the most common chronic diseases affecting children in developing countries. Early childhood caries, or tooth decay in children younger than 6 years, is the most common chronic disease among children. 1 - 3 Early childhood caries prevalence increases and leads to psychosocial, functional, and growing problems among children. Early childhood tooth decay is preventable and largely reversible in its early stages through self-care, use of professional services, and exposure to community interventions such as water ﬂuoridation. During dental visits, children can receive an assessment for disease risk, early detection and treatment services, preventive care such as ﬂuoride therapy, and anticipatory guidance. To ensure exposure to prevention early in life, professional organizations recommend that children have a dental home by 12 months of age. 4 One of the reasons for unsatisfactory dental health among the youngest population is the delay in the first visit of the child to the dentist. The American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD) and the American Dental Association (ADA) recommends that the child's first visit to the dentist should take place within 6 months of eruption of the first primary tooth and no later than at the age of 12 months (AAPD, 2014; ADA, 2000), 5 , 6 while other sources suggest 12–18 months as the optimal time for the first visit (Adamowicz-Klepalska, 2009; Marcinkowska et al., 2013). 7 , 8 Argentine researchers Furze and Basso indicate that the first dental visit of a preventive character should take place in the fourth month of intrauterine life. During this visit, the expectant mother receives information about caries, its infectivity, is instructed that the mother is the main source of transmittable Streptococcus mutans , and is advised on how to provide oral care to the child and possible preventive procedures. The aim of this visit is to stimulate the interest of the pregnant woman in her own health but also in the health of her unborn child (Furze and Basso). 9 The information offered to parents at the first visit could inspire greater interest in the child's dental health and could accordingly mitigate the course of caries. The child's first dental visit has a significant impact on shaping a positive attitude and tolerance towards further treatments and helps to develop trust in the dentist. Thus, exposing children to the dental setting at a very early age can diminish their dental anxiety, whereas early dental education may improve the parent's self-efficacy in managing the oral health of their children. 10 The ADA recognizes the patient's chief complaint as an essential component for the delivery of competent and quality oral health care. It serves as a source of information for both the care provider and the patient. Hence, the main aim of this study was to know the average age at which parents first seek dental care for their children and also to find out the common reasons for seeking dental care at the first visit to the School of Dental Sciences, Sharda University, Uttar Pradesh, India. 11

M aterials and M ethods

The research protocol obtained approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee, Ref. No. SU/SMS&R/76-A/2019/142 on 18 th October 2019. The study group consisted of 133 children who had their first dental visit. All subjects were patients and parents reporting to the outpatient department in the department of pediatrics and preventive dentistry. Sample selection of children in the age group of 1 month to 14 years, reporting to the department of pediatrics and preventive dentistry. Informed consent was obtained from parents. Data on the child's age and reason for the dental visit were collected by interviewing the parents; a clinical pro forma was designed to record data. The state of oral health and dental treatment needs were assessed based on clinical examination using mouth mirror and a dental probe. The reasons for their visit were divided into the following five categories:

Prophylactic examination,
Tooth pain,
Tooth decay,
Injury to tooth and associated structures,

Data were analyzed using SPSS version 21. Categorical data were compared by using Chi-square test. Continuous data were tested for normality by using Shapiro–Wilk test. Parametric tests of significance (independent t -test and one-way analysis of variance) were used for inferential statistics. Else, the nonparametric tests (Kruskal–Wallis test and Mann–Whitney U test) were used. The level of significance was set at 0.05.

A total of 134 children visited the department of pediatric and preventive dentistry for the first time between November 2019 and January 2020. Records of 133 children were utilized, of which 77 were male (mean 8.32 ± 3.147) and 56 were female (mean 8.02 ± 3.446) p -value shows 0.595, NS ( Table 1 ).

Mean age association between sex

Table 2 shows the mean DMF(T) among males (0.41 ± 1.122) was high as compared to females (0.41 ± 1.385) p -value shows 0.998 NS, the decayed, missing, filled surface [DMF(S)] among males (0.72 ± 1.933) was high as compared to females (0.77 ± 2.565) p -value shows 0.898 NS, DMF(T) among males (mean 2.37 ± 3.080) was high as compared to females (mean 2.13 ± 3.015) p -value 0.645 NS, DMF(S) among males (mean 5.06 ± 6.493) was high as compared to females (mean 4.20 ± 6.493) p -value 0.477 NS.

Oral health status

Majority of children who visited the dentist were of age 7 years ( Fig. 1 ). Most common chief complaint for their visit was tooth decay (male 43.60% and female 33.90%) ( Fig. 2 ). The predominant reason for the child's first dental visit was caries, the need for treatment was restoration with 47.00%, followed by pulp therapy 29.90% and extraction 21.60% ( Fig. 3 ). The youngest patient who required treatment due to caries-related complications was a boy aged 2 years, visiting the dentist due to toothache.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijcpd-15-394-g001.jpg

Mean age at first dental visit

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijcpd-15-394-g002.jpg

Reason for the first dental visit

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijcpd-15-394-g003.jpg

Prevalence of need for various treatments

D iscussion

The child oral health care ought to be seen because the foundation on which a lifetime of preventive education and dental care are often built so as to help assure the best oral health into childhood. Oral examination, anticipatory guidance together with preventive education, and acceptable therapeutic intervention for the child will enhance the chance for a lifetime of freedom from preventable oral unwellness, emphasized in education regarding the importance of oral health for general health and adequate dietary and healthful habits, moreover as basic info concerning dental caries, so as to encourage the parents to stick to a program. 12 The longer a child's initial dental visit is delayed, more the chances he or she is to develop serious dental issues that might doubtless deteriorate rapidly in the absence of correct care and treatment. Unobserved and untreated dental caries will result in infection and moderate to severe pain, which may actively prevent children from eating, sleeping, and enjoying daily activities, additionally ultimately resulting in high-priced dental treatment and, in some cases, early loss of teeth. These consequences might have an effect on children's overall health and development. Given these problems, the investigation of early dental visitation is warranted. 13

Most of the kids within the current study visited dental clinics for the primary time at the age of 7 years. These results were not in accordance with the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and AAPD tips. The mean age of kids visiting the dental workplace was more than the age suggested by the AAP, and therefore the AAPD, and this influences the dearth of information of parents about the age of the primary dental visit. The foremost common reasons for the primary dental visit were the presence of decayed teeth and dental pain perception. Only 2.60% of males and 4.40% females of children had visited the dentist for dental check-ups. Asymptomatic dental clinic attendance was not common in this report. This could provide evidence that parents are neither aware nor conscious of oral health prevention for their children. Very similar findings were presented by Wilk-Sieczak et al., who reported that 63% of children made their first dental visit due to the need for treatment (tooth decay and pain). 14 Daou et al. reported the reason for the first consultation; the most common was the presence of decayed teeth (50.9%) and dental pain perception (29.5%). 4 Yahya et al., Soxman, and Masiga in their respective studies suggested that the most common reason for the child's first dental visit was dental caries and its related complications. 15 - 17 Some study shows different reasons; Olatosi et al. reported the most common reason for visiting the dental clinic was dental pain (33.1%). 10 Ramakrishnan and Dharsini, in this retrospective study, the maximum number of children who reported their first dental visit was between 13 and 17 years (46%). The most common chief complaint for the visit was pain (47%) and the second common complaint was malocclusion (20%). 11

Results from the present study and other previous studies clearly suggest that universally, there are still no established practices for parents/caregivers to take their infants to visit the dentist at the recommended age. 12 Indian researchers reported an older age range for the child's first dental visit: Nino et al. indicated that children visit the dentist for the first time at age 7, 18 while a retrospective study by Meera et al. found that 59% of children have their first visit at the age of 6–12 years, and only 8.52% by the age of 3 years. 19 Studies carried out in Bulgaria by Mileva and Kondeva revealed that the greatest number of children making their first dental visit was 3–6 years old (51.9%), and the smallest number were those younger than 1 year (1.73%). 20

Ghimire et al. reported that in Nepal, most children making their first dental visit were 7–11 years old (52.7%), and only 7% were younger than 3 years. 21 Studies by Murshid found that in Saudi Arabia, most children visit the dentist at the age of 3–5 years (52.9%) and less often at the age under 3 years (32.2%). 22

In order to enhance oral health among children, it is essential that oral health-related education and education for motivating the parents of young children are provided throughout each dental visit. This additionally concerns pregnant women, who have been found to be a lot willing to follow all kinds of counsel throughout this period. 23 Cooperation in early childhood dental caries interference is additionally expected of non-dental medical employees (including pediatricians, general practitioners, and nurses). They should encourage their patients to schedule the primary dental visit for the child within 6 months of the eruption of the first tooth, and also make sure visits take place regularly. 24

Limitation of this study is that few children were included (smaller sample size). It is counseled that in children below the age of 6 years, brushing with fluoridated dentifrice should be supervised so as to stop general systemic. Regarding the preventive program, most of the children need pit and fissure sealant application. However, the practicability of pit and fissure sealants in the Indian state of affairs is questionable. However, on a priority basis for selected clusters of school children, pit and fissure sealant application can be taken as preventive measures. An honest protocol for dental and oral care should be necessary, and skilled dental follow-up should be integrated into the medical follow-up.

C onclusion

Within the limitations of the study, children report for the first dental visit most commonly only after 7 years, and for complaints such as tooth decay and tooth pain. Children make their first dental visit too late in relation to medical recommendations (between 6 and 12 months of life). Parents sought dental care for their children, mainly for curative reasons, and the most predominant reason for the first dental visit was dental caries. The results of this study indicate that bad oral health, making their first dental visit too late, and low health awareness of parents and guardians.

Source of support: Nil

Conflict of interest: None

R eferences

Home
/ Our doctrine
/ Principles of National Restoration
/ Holy Russia
/ Vladimir Soloviev, prophet of Russia's conversion

VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV prophet of Russia’s conversion

Vladimir Soloviev, à l'âge de vingt ans.

T HE conversion of Russia will not be the work of man, no matter how gifted he may be, but that of the Immaculate Heart of the Virgin Mary, the Mediatrix of all graces, because this is God’s wish, which he revealed to the world in 1917. The life and works of Vladimir Soloviev are a perfect illustration of this truth of Fatima. He whom our Father regards as « the greatest Russian genius of the 19th century », was in his own way a prophet of the “ conversion ” of his beloved Country, announcing the necessity of her returning to the bosom of the Roman Church. « Rome or chaos », such was his catchphrase, Rome whose anagram is not a matter of chance, but a providential sign, a definition: ROMA , AMOR . Led by this incomparable guide, we would like « to anticipate in our thoughts, our hearts and our prayers this consecration, this long-awaited conversion, which must mark the beginning of a time of sacred peace throughout the world, the beginning of the universal reign of the Most Blessed and Immaculate Heart of Mary, and through Her, of God’s Kingdom » (English CRC, December 1982, p. 23).

A PERSONAL CONVERSION

Through the example of his life, Soloviev recalls the indispensable means of this immense work: self-renunciation, personal and collective sacrifice, in Russian the podwig , the only way in which the Church, nations, saints and heroes can become the instruments of God’s designs. If he managed to surpass his master Dostoyevsky by his « truly universal Catholicism and far superior mystical vision », this was not without without a conversion of mind and heart on his part.

Our Father summarises the principal stages of his life as follows: « Born of an honourable Muscovite family, of part Kievian ancestry, Vladimir Soloviev began, in a world where only Germany counted, by being a victim of all the poisons of the West. He himself relates how he was a zealous materialist at the age of thirteen, had read Renan’s Life of Jesus at fifteen, and had become an evolutionist and therefore (!) an atheist and a nihilist at eighteen, in « It was Spinoza and then Schopenhauer who pulled him out of this bottomless void. Whereupon in 1872 a mysterious encounter with “  Wisdom  ” suddenly shook him out of the scientific naturalism in which he had been vegetating and made him aware, as he says, of invisible Beauty, the “  Sophia tou théou  ”, the daughter of God. He thus became the fervent witness of Wisdom’s indwelling in the world and of Her desire for total incarnation and universal queenship. His quest for wisdom, scientific, aesthetic and mystical, had commenced. He was nineteen years old. The quest would never end for this new style Russian pilgrim ; it would be of an unparalleled fruitfulness despite its touching brevity. He died of exhaustion in 1900, at the age ! » (English CRC, December 1982, p. 35)

We will limit ourselves in this article to his prophetic insights on the Union of the Churches. In his Lessons on Theandry (1878) – he was then twenty-five ! – our philosopher applies himself to contemplating the Wisdom of God at work in history, perfectly incarnated in Jesus and His virginal Mother, as well as in the Church as she awaits her eschatological transfiguration. The most serious sin, throughout this history, has been that of schism. Who is responsible for this vast Vladimir Soloviev began by throwing all responsibility for it on the Catholic Church, so much so that he provided the inspiration for Dostoyevsky’s famous “ myth of the Grand Inquisitor ” in The Brothers Karamazov . But, at the beginning of the 1880’s, through studying the question more closely, he understood that the sin of schism was in fact that of the East. This was a stroke of genius on his part for which our Father commends him greatly:

« I must beg pardon of my master Msgr. Jean Rupp, of Solzhenitsyn, Volkoff and so many others, but it seems obvious to to me, as it did to Soloviev in the end, that the schism of Moscow in setting itself up as the third Rome was the beginning of all the ills suffered by these admirable Christian peoples of European Russia . And I must say so because this rupture still weighs heavily on the world of today and because it is precisely of this rupture that Our Lady of Fatima speaks when She foretells “  the conversion of Russia  ”. (English CRC, December 1982, p. 24)

Let us follow Soloviev in his commendable mystical conversion which has opened up a path of light for his people, allowing a spring of grace and mercy to gush forth.

AN EVANGELICAL DISCOURSE

In 1881, Soloviev published a long article, still very antipapist, entitled Spiritual power in Russia . There the pope was presented as Antichrist institutionalised ! Our theorist placed all his hope in the regenerative mission of Holy Russia and in the Tsar who was to be her « divine figure, religious guide and animating wisdom ». But were the Russian people still capable of accomplishing such One particular event was to shake Soloviev’s patriotic faith. On March 1, 1881, Alexander II was assassinated by revolutionaries. A few days later, Soloviev gave a Discourse in which he recommended that his successor, Alexander III, show mercy to the regicides. Certainly not as a matter of weakness or abdication before the Revolution, even less out of the spirit of non-violence that a certain Tolstoy was already preaching, but « as an example of Russian piety », that famous podwig « which lies at the heart of the Russian people’s evangelical soul, of which the tsar is the living icon ». Alas, Soloviev was not understood... This was a painful stage in his life, the first step he had taken beyond his master Dostoyevsky.

The following year, he published another article entitled “  Schism in the Russian people and society  ”. Delving deep into the past, he accused Metropolitan Nikon of having broken, at the time of Peter the Great, the communion, the Sobornost , so beloved of the Russian people, by excommunicating Raskol, the fierce guardian of traditional popular religion... Ever since then, the Orthodox hierarchy, enslaved to the imperial power, had proved powerless to govern and sanctify Orthodoxy. It was nothing now but a shrunken, secularized “ local Church ” which, if it were to be restored and revived, would need to open itself up to “ the universal Church ”.

In the spring of 1882, Soloviev was powerfully affected by an unusual dream. In his dream he met a high-ranking Catholic ecclesiastic and entreated him to give him his blessing. The priest refused, so Soloviev insisted, declaring, « The separation of the Churches is the most disastrous thing possible. » Finally, the ecclesiastic agreed to give him his blessing.

This premonitory dream was to awaken in Vladimir Soloviev a burning desire for reconciliation with Catholicism, and to stimulate him to write a series of articles to be published every month in his friend Aksakov’s slavophile newspaper Rouss and then to be collected together in a work with the resonant title: The Great Controversy and Christian Politics . One particular maxim constantly reappeared under the Russian writer’s pen:

« FIRST AND FOREMOST WE MUST WORK TO RESTORE THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH, AND TO MAKE THE FIRE OF LOVE BURN IN THE HEART OF CHRIST’S SPOUSE . »

By an irony of fate, the term “ Controversy ”, which for Soloviev referred to the conflict between Rome and the East, was going to give place to a bitter controversy between himself and his Orthodox and slavophile friends.

A MARVELLOUS AND ADORABLE WISDOM

T HE world’s beauty appeared to Soloviev as a living figure, a real existence, changing and yet immortal. He saw her and held her as the queen of his spiritual universe under her venerable name of Sancta Sophia . At the end of his life, in 1898, he celebrated the Three Encounters he had had with this Beauty which for him was Wisdom.

“ Three times in his life he had been overwhelmed by the radiant visit of Wisdom who appeared to him in the form of an absolutely heavenly female being, dazzling him and enlightening him profoundly. Not without reason certain authors think that all his religious and even philosophical works derive from this illumination. ”

And let us immediately point out, in order to acclimatize the Western reader who is highly likely to be disconcerted by these accounts, that trustworthy interpreters of Soloviev have attributed a marian character to these visions. For them, the whole of the Philosopher’s work derives from the AVE MARIA GRATIA PLENA . “ It is a marvellous perspective ”, adds Msgr. Rupp. “ Wisdom is closely allied to the Immaculate who is its seat. ” ( Le message ecclésial de Soloviev , p. 340)...

What I am going to say next will perhaps surprise my reader. Nothing is more biblical than this vision, and I am astonished at the astonishment of theologians and their impatient criticisms. This Sophia was already well known, hymned and even boldly adored by the scribes of the Old Testament under this very name of Wisdom. Far from being “ pantheist ”, this idea, this vision touches the essence of created beings, and is clearly poles apart from the Platonic idea and far more profound than Aristotle’s substance; it lies at the very heart of being, there where nothing exists except relationship to God, the term of a will and a wisdom that are infinite, there where exists a pure reflection, a fragment of the image of God’s beauty.

George de Nantes , A mysticism for our time , French CRC no. 133, p. 7.

THE GREAT CONTROVERSY

In January 1883, he fired the opening shots with an open letter to Aksakov: « As I reflected on the means of curing this interior disease (of Christianity), I became convinced that the origin of all these evils lies in the general weakening of the earthly organisation of the visible Church, following her division into two disunited parts. » He demonstrated that, in order to establish herself on earth and to endure throughout history, the Christian religion had need of a higher authority, and he explained that it was therefore essential to restore « the union of all Christian and ecclesiastical forces under the standard and under the power of one central ecclesiastical authority ».

On February 19, Soloviev gave a talk in homage to his master Dostoyevsky. It was almost a panegyric of the Roman Church ! He declared his ardent hope for the reconciliation of the two Churches, for the two parts of the universal Church which should never have been separated and whose centre lay in... Rome . As a result of this speech, he saw himself banned from speaking in public. The newspapers made no mention of his speech. For the first time, and it would not be the last, Soloviev was the victim of the censure of Constantin Petrowitch Pobiedonostev, Russia’s Grand Inquisitor and the Tsar’s adviser on religious matters. Pobiedonostev championed a sacral conception of political power, akin to that of the French legitimists of the time, but he was fiercely Orthodox, and any opening towards the Catholic religion was pitilessly censured.

Soloviev responded to this censure with a smile. So his speech had been described as « infantile chattering » ? « If we are not converted », he said to his friends, « and become like little children again, we will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. » He went on: « When I was a pretentious little boy [teaching German philosophy: Kant, Hegel, Fichte, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche], people listened with great respect to my “ truly infantile ” prattling. And now it is fitting that the only way I can attain the perfection of humility is by everyone ! »

At the same time, he wrote to Aksakov: « It is necessary to defend Catholicism against the false accusations being brought against it... Consequently, in advocating a reconciliation with Catholicism, I assume that Catholicism is not in principle erroneous, for one cannot be reconciled with error . » Now there we have a true ecumenism ! The life of Soloviev, writes our Father, « was ».

To the charge of “ papism ” levelled against him, Soloviev responded in March 1883 with an admirable profession of faith, already Catholic:

« It seems to to me that you concentrate only on “ papism ” whereas I focus first and foremost on the great, holy and eternal Rome, a fundamental and integral part of the universal Church. I believe in this Rome, I bow before it, I love it with all my heart, and with all the strength of my soul I desire its rehabilitation for the unity and integrality of the universal Church. And may I be accursed as a parricide should I ever utter one word of condemnation against the Holy Church of Rome . »

THE REALISATION OF THE DREAM

In May 1883, on the occasion of the coronation of the Emperor Alexander III, the Moscow press complained that too many concessions were being made to restore diplomatic relations with the Vatican broken in 1866, but Soloviev protested: such an agreement was necessary, were it only to improve relations with the Catholics of Poland. The Pope was represented at the ceremony by his special envoy Msgr. Vincenzo Vanutelli. Had not Alexander III written to Leo XIII shortly beforehand: « Never has unity between all Churches and all States been so necessary, in order to realise the wish expressed by Your Holiness of seeing the peoples abandoning the disastrous errors responsible for the social malaise and returning to the holy laws of the Gospel... »

A few days after the ceremony, Soloviev was crossing Moscow in a hired car. Suddenly, he recognized the route he had followed in his dream the previous year. Soon he came to a stop in front of a house from which a Catholic prelate was just leaving: it was Msgr. Vanutelli in person... There was the same hesitation of this latter to give his blessing to a schismatic, and the same entreaties of Soloviev, who finally !

In the summer of 1883, our author wrote two articles on The Catholic Question . According to Soloviev, it was for Russia to take the first step towards the Catholic Church. Imagine !

His articles were not of the sort to leave his readers indifferent. On the Orthodox side, there was an increasing irritation, while on the Catholic side, surprise soon gave way to enthusiasm. The news crossed the borders, spreading to Poland and even to Croatia, where Msgr. Strossmayer was finally seeing his desires realised. The jurisdiction of his diocese of Djakovo extended into Bosnia and Serbia, that is into Orthodox territory. Endowed with a superior intelligence and animated by great apostolic zeal, this Croatian bishop keenly felt the need for a true, intelligent and benevolent ecumenism. He wrote in 1883 to one of his friends, Father Martynov:

« In my opinion, the principal task of the Catholic Church and of the Holy See this century is to draw as closely as possible to the Slav nation, principally the Russian nation . By winning it over to the divine unity of the Catholic Church, we would at the same time win over everyone in the world who still possess a positive faith. »

Bishop Strossmayer and the cathedral of Djakovo

IN THE RADIANCE OF THE IMMACULATE

In the summer of 1883, Soloviev wrote five long letters to a Russian Uniate priest on the subject of The Immaculate Conception of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary . At the same time he translated Petrarch’s “ Praise and prayer to the Most Blessed Virgin ”, wherein he contemplated Her “ clothed in the Sun, crowned with stars... Her glance radiating infinity ! ” It is highly significant that Soloviev was simultaneously attracted by the mystery of the Catholic Church and the mystery of the Immaculate Virgin. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was the first Catholic dogma which he embraced, and his favourite painting was the Immaculate Conception by Murillo.

In The Foundations of the Spiritual Life (1884), he exalted the « All Holy and Immaculate » Virgin Mary. In Russia and the Church Universal (1889), he would praise Pope Pius IX for having quoted, in support of his dogmatic definition, the Old Testament texts referring to Wisdom, the “  Sophia  ” of his personal intuitions:

« If, by the substantial Wisdom of God, we were exclusively meant to understand the Person of Jesus Christ, how could we apply to the Blessed Virgin all those texts in the Wisdom books which speak of this Wisdom ? However, this application, which has existed from the very earliest times in the offices of both the Latin and Greek Churches, has today received doctrinal confirmation in the bull of Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception of the Most Blessed Virgin. » (quoted by Msgr. Rupp, Le message ecclésial de Soloviev, p. 338)

In September 1883, when the sixth chapter of The Great Controversy was published, a rumour spread through Moscow that Soloviev had “ passed over ” to Catholicism, but there was no truth in it. Moreover, curious though this may seem to us, he was not looking “ to pass over to Catholicism ”, but only to open Orthodoxy up to the universality of the Roman Church.

His seventh and final chapter aroused a lively debate, one that is ever topical. The question turned on the attitude of the Byzantine Greeks in conflict with the Crusaders of the West. Soloviev wrote: « On the day that Constantinople fell, seeing the Turkish armies poised to attack, the final spontaneously expressed cry of the Greeks was, “ Better Islamic slavery than any agreement with the Latins. ” I do not mention this as a reproach to the unfortunate Greeks. If, in this cry of implacable hatred, there was nothing Christian, then neither has there been anything especially Christian in all the formal and artificial attempts to reunite the Churches… »

Aksakov, his Orthodox pride deeply irritated by this remark, retorted: « What does he mean, nothing Christian ? May the Greeks be blessed a hundred times over for having preferred a foreign yoke and bodily torture to the abandonment of the purity of their faith in Christ and for having thus preserved us from the distortions of papism at the precise moment [ the beginning of the 13th century ! ] when it had reached the height of its deformity. May they win eternal glory for this ! »

Nonetheless, Soloviev continued his search for truth, surmounting every obstacle. His article “  Nine Questions to Father Ivantsov-Platonov  ” published in December 1883, created a deep stir even in the West. Here he put nine questions to his former master in Orthodoxy on those points of controversy which set the Church of the East against the Church of Rome. Here is the setting:

« How is it that the countries of the East are separated from the Roman Church ? Did the latter proclaim an heretical proposition ? One would be hard pushed to maintain this, for the addition of the Filioque to the Creed, which is put forward to justify the separation, does not have the character of a heresy. Furthermore, it is absurd to say that the Roman Church is in a state of schism with regard to the Eastern Churches. Thus, the latter’s separation from the former has no basis. Let us acknowledge this and, putting aside all human viewpoints, let us work towards Unity or rather let us work so that Unity, which already has a virtual existence, may become a reality. »

THE THREAD OF AN ANCIENT TRADITION

During 1884, the Russian philosopher studied Catholic dogmatics. He read the works of Perrone, the theologian of Gregory XVI and Pius IX, as well as the texts of the Councils. He was particularly interested in Popes Gregory VII and Innocent III, whom he read in the original text.

At the same time he had a great enthusiasm for the Croatian priest George Krijanich who « had come from Zagreb to Moscow in the 17th century to spread the ideal of the Holy Kingdom of God, Roman Catholic and panslavic, gathering together under the sceptre of the tsars and the crook of the Pope all the Slav peoples who would thereby be freed and protected from the twofold burden pressing them on both sides like a vice, the Germanic powers and the Turks. Thus the Croats would work to free themselves from Austrian control and at the same time they would assist the Serbs, their Orthodox brothers, to shake off Moslem domination.

« To realise this grand design, capable at one blow of powerfully advancing the Kingdom of God on earth, Krijanich came to Moscow and preached on the subject of Russia’s reconciliation with Rome . This should not be difficult, he said, because the Russians had only fallen into schism through ignorance and not through heresy or malice. He himself was already preaching that everyone should recognise their own individual faults, be they unconscious or involuntary, and the need for expiation. God’s blessings would follow as a result, immense and eternal blessings. Sergius Mikhailovich Soloviev, our great man’s father, a historian and the author of a monumental history of Russia, admired Krijanich as “ the first of the Slavophiles ” and also, in his eyes, “ the most paradoxical ”, so alien did Catholicism then appear to the Russian consciousness. » (English CRC, December 1982, p. 32)

Soloviev intended to prove the contrary. And it was just at this time that he entered into friendly relations with the Croatian Bishop Strossmayer, thereby resuming the thread of an ancient tradition, one which was apparently marginal but which in reality was pregnant with a splendid future. Early in December 1885, Soloviev for the first time received a letter from the Croatian bishop. He replied to him on December 8, “  the blessed Day of the Immaculate Conception of the Most Blessed Virgin  ”:

« On the reunion of the Churches », he wrote, « depends the fate of Russia, the Slavs and the whole world. We Russian Orthodox, and indeed the whole of the East, are incapable of achieving anything before we have expiated the ecclesiastical sin of schism and rendered papal authority its due . » And he ended with these words: « My heart burns with joy at the thought that I have a guide like you. May God long preserve your precious leadership for the good of the Church and the Slav people. » In his pastoral letter of January 1886, the bishop of Djakovo quoted large extracts from this letter.

Encouraged by such support, in 1886 Soloviev undertook a study on Dogmatic development and the question of the reunion of the Churches , which provoked the fury of Orthodoxy. However, at a conference given at the ecclesiastical Academy of Saint Petersburg, Soloviev attempted to justify himself: « I can assure you that I will never pass over to Latinism. » He thereby sought to register his attachment to the Eastern rite. No question for him of adopting the Latin rite ! After that, he set out on a journey to Europe.

FIRST STAY IN ZAGREB (1886)

At the beginning of July, he was the guest of the honourable Canon Racki, President of the Yugoslav Academy of Zagreb, founded by Msgr. Strossmayer, and a personal friend of the latter. Every morning the Orthodox Soloviev assisted at the Catholic Mass with great enthusiasm. He made the sign of the cross in the Catholic manner, but prayed in the Greek manner, crossing his arms on his chest. He willingly admitted to his host – and this was not due to any desire to please on his part – that Croatian Catholics, like the Ukrainians, were more religious than his Orthodox compatriots !

Following an article published in the Croatian journal Katolicki List , Soloviev for the first time encountered opposition from a Catholic priest.

During his stay in Zagreb, he also published a letter in the Russian newspaper Novoie Vremia , wherein he refuted the widespread opinion in Russia that the Croats were the instruments of the Austro-Hungarian government’s attempt to Latinize the Eastern Slavs.

In August, he joined Msgr. Strossmayer in the Styrian Alps, and spent ten marvellous days with him. These two minds were truly made to get along. The mutual admiration they felt for one another reinforced their spiritual friendship. But Soloviev continued to receive Holy Communion at the hands of the Orthodox priest of the Serb parish of Zagreb... Rising above the inevitable criticisms, he then wrote a letter to Msgr. Strossmayer, summarising their initial conversations:

« The reunion of the Churches would be advantageous to both sides . Rome would gain a devout people enthusiastic for the religious idea, she would gain a faithful and powerful defender. Russia for her part, she who through the will of God holds in her hands the destinies of the East, would not only rid herself of the involuntary sin of schism but, what is more, she would thereby become free to fulfil her great universal mission of uniting around herself all the Slav nations and of founding a new and truly Christian civilisation, a civilisation uniting the characteristics of the one truth and of religious liberty in the supreme principle of charity, encompassing everything in its unity and distributing to everyone the plenitude of the one unique good. »

Such was his transcription of the well known Catholic principle: « In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas : unity in essentials, liberty in matters of doubt, and in all things charity . Such must be the Charter of Catholic ecumenism under the crook of the one Shepherd. From the start of this crisis, such has been the invitation we have made to our bishops and to our brothers. Today, it is also the will of the Holy Father », wrote our Father in his editorial for September 1978, dedicated to John Paul I, another Saint Pius X without knowing it (English CRC no. 102, p. 6).

When he informed his friends of Soloviev’s letter, Msgr. Strossmayer presented its author as « a candid and truly holy soul ».

Msgr. Strossmayer and Soloviev had agreed to meet again in Rome for the jubilee pilgrimage of 1888. The Croatian bishop decided to pave the way in Rome by writing to Leo XIII’s Secretary of State, Cardinal Rampolla. He presented his Russian friend as « toto corde et animo catholicus ». The Pope at first took a personal interest in the affair: « Here is a sheep », he said, « who will soon be clearing the gate of the sheepfold. » But curiously, there was to be no follow-up. It seems that Leo XIII failed to appreciate Soloviev’s genius... However, things were different in France, where an unassuming and ardent rural parish priest latched on to everything that his apostolic zeal could extract from the lightning advances made by the Russian thinker ( see inset , p. 19).

Soloviev returned to Russia at the beginning of October 1886, rather discouraged by the criticisms directed against him on all sides: there were the Orthodox, some of whom had accused him of bringing Orthodoxy into disrepute abroad... and certain Catholics, like Fr. Guettée in France, a modernist priest with little to commend him, whom he had met in Paris in 1876 and who had recently published an article of rare violence against him !

THE “ RETURN OF THE DISSIDENTS ”

June 18, 1887: a young Capuchin, Leopold Mandic, from Herzeg Novi in Bosnia, under the jurisdiction of Msgr. Strossmayer, and studying at the friary in Padua, heard the voice of God inviting him to pray for and promote the return of the Orthodox to the bosom of the one Church of Christ. « The goal of my life , he would later say, must be the return of the Eastern dissidents to Catholic unity; I must therefore employ all my energies, as far as my littleness allows, to co-operate in such a task through the sacrifice of my life . » Fifty years later, he would still remember this grace: « June 18, for the record: 1887-1937. Today, I offered the Holy Sacrifice for the Eastern dissidents, for their return to Catholic unity . » Thus the Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate united, in this one same “ ecumenical ” work, the ardent heart of a young Capuchin destined for the altars, the apostolic wisdom of a bishop and the brilliant intuitions of a great thinker.

In January 1887, from the Monastery of Saint Sergius where he had celebrated Christmas, Soloviev wrote an article in which he provided philosophic justification for the three Catholic dogmas which the Orthodox reject, namely the Filioque, the Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility . Here is a « basis for working towards the reunion of the Churches », he explained. A few months later, he published in Zagreb (on account of the censure directed against him in Russia) his book The History and Future of Theocracy .

There he retraced the vast movement of history towards the establishment of the Kingdom of God. Universal Theocracy, the successor of Jewish Theocracy, cannot be conceived, he explained, without an integrally Christian politics, and he concluded with a splendid anthem to Christ Pantocrator receiving from His Father all power on earth and in Heaven and acting through His emissaries, the Apostles and their successors. Soloviev always believed in the privileged vocation of Russia within the Catholic community of Christian nations, even if he stigmatized what he called “ the sin of Russia ”, which was to oppress and hate all those it dominated, in particular Polish Catholics, Greek Uniates, Ruthenians and Jews !

Like a true prophet, he was vigorous in preaching repentance to his people . In order that they might be faithful to their vocation within the great Slav family, Soloviev asked them to give up their inordinate ambitions, to return to a truer and more Christian conception of their destiny, and to accomplish this within the only international organization which could direct its course, Catholicism, that is to say Roman universalism.

« One of my theses is that the cause of the Reunion of the Churches in Russia demands a podwig (sacrifice) even heavier to bear than that which, already demanding great self-denial, was needed to ensure Russia’s receptivity to Western culture, an event truly disagreeable to the national sentiment of our ancestors .

« Well ! this sacrifice consists in drawing closer to Rome and it must be attained at all costs. In this lies the remedy for the Russian sin . »

It goes without saying that Soloviev earned himself new enemies with his book. It cost him great personal suffering, but he could not fail the Truth, which he contemplated with ever greater clarity... What greatness of soul this universal genius possessed !

SAINT VLADIMIR AND THE CHRISTIAN STATE

1888 marked the ninth centenary of the baptism of Saint Vladimir, the first prince of Kiev, whose kingdom after his conversion became « the model of Christian States, with evangelical morals », writes our Father (English CRC, December 1982, p. 23). Soloviev used the occasion to give a conference in Moscow, where he reaffirmed that Russia’s destiny was to turn towards Rome, as King Vladimir had ! However, having hardened itself in its schism, the Muscovite hierarchy was no longer animated by the spirit of St. Vladimir. Hence the fury of the Orthodox hierarchs !

At the same time, Msgr. Strossmayer had gone to Rome for the Jubilee. In vain did he wait for Soloviev there. The latter, fearing perhaps that he had made a definitive break with the Orthodox world which he dreamed on the contrary of winning for the Union, had given up the idea of making this journey. It must also be said that Vatican diplomacy hardly inspired more confidence in him. Leo XIII was revealing himself less and less slavophile, reserving his favours for the Germany of old Bismarck and the young William II ! Msgr. Strossmayer lamented this in a letter to Fr. Martynov: « The Pope is acting against the Slavs. The Roman prelates are like people insane and think only of temporal power ! »

What a difference between Leo XIII and his successor, St. Pius X, who was, in the words of Msgr. Rupp and our Father, the greatest slavophile pope of our times !

Early in May 1888, Soloviev was on a visit to Paris. To explain his thinking to the French public, he gave a conference on the Russian Idea , « the true national idea eternally fixed in the design of God », who longs to spread His light over the whole world. However, Soloviev remained lucid about his own Church: « If the unity of the universal Church founded by Christ only exists among us in a latent state, it is because the official institution represented by our ecclesiastical government and our theological school is not a living part of the universal Church. »

In passing, he described the destruction of the Greek-Uniate Church by the Orthodox as a « veritable national sin weighing on Russia and paralysing her moral strength ». That is still the case today...

In July, Kiev celebrated the feast of the baptism of St. Vladimir. From Zagreb Msgr. Strossmayer sent a telegram in which he exalted Russia’s future role in the manner of his friend Soloviev. Scandal ! His remarks were universally reported by the press. Cardinal Rampolla informed the Croatian bishop that Leo XIII was seriously displeased ! The bishop of Djakovo also earned himself the bitter reproaches of Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria, which is more understandable given the rivalry existing between the two Empires.

In the summer of 1887, Soloviev published in the Universe , the newspaper of Louis Veuillot, three articles on St. Vladimir and the Christian State which caused a great stir. Then he journeyed to Croatia where he remained for one whole month with Msgr. Strossmayer. This meeting was rather sad, for the two friends were increasingly aware that their attempt to reunite the Churches would not succeed, at least in their lifetime.

It was in Djakovo that Soloviev finished the immense prologue to his magisterial book, Russia and the Church Universal , in which one can already glimpse signs of the discouragement that would overwhelm the thinker in the latter part of his life. We know from Fatima that the work of the conversion of Russia, something humanly impossible, has been entrusted to the Immaculate Heart of Mary who has a particular love for this Nation such as to inspire jealousy in others. But this only makes it all the more extraordinary that our prophet should have traced out the course of this conversion, like a true Precursor !

« RUSSIA AND THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL »

Soloviev does not hesitate to delve deep, extremely deep, into the past. To realise its designs in the world, divine Wisdom wished to become incarnate, and the Verb to take flesh like our own. As that was not enough, He also wished to unite to Himself a social and historical body, one that could reach the universality of mankind and communicate to all men His own divine Life. In this magnificent perspective, Soloviev compares the formation of that Body through which God wishes to be united with humanity to that effected in the womb of the Virgin Mary at the time of the Incarnation, and to that which operates every day in the Eucharistic mystery... What was needed for this work was a solid foundation, a Rock:

« This bedrock has been found », he writes, « it is Rome. It is only on the Rock [of Peter and his successors] that the Church is founded. This is not an opinion, it is an imposing historical reality . »

It is also an evangelical truth: « You are Peter, and on this Rock I will build my Church . » Here Soloviev addresses the Protestants who seek to outbid each other in their attacks against the Primacy of Peter by quoting Jesus’ own words to His Apostle when he was obstructing the Master’s path: « Get behind me, Satan ! » Soloviev’s response once again shows the clarity of his intelligence and his perfect knowledge of Catholic dogma:

« There is only one way of harmonising these texts which the inspired Evangelist did not juxtapose without reason. Simon Peter, as supreme pastor and doctor of the universal Church , assisted by God and speaking for all, is, in this capacity, the unshakeable foundation of the House of God and the holder of the keys of the heavenly Kingdom. The same Simon Peter, as a private person, speaking and acting through his own natural forces and an understanding that is purely human , can say and do things that are unworthy, scandalous and even satanic. But personal defects and sins are passing, whereas the social function of the ecclesiastical monarch is permanent. “ Satan ” and the scandal have disappeared, but Peter has remained. »

Soloviev’s doctrine agrees with that of Vatican Council I and with that of our Father who, at the same time as he makes us venerate Peter’s magisterium, magnificently illustrated by Blessed Pius IX, St. Pius X and John Paul I, accuses John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II of being instruments of “ Satan ” for the ruin of the Church.

However, Christ wished that it should be around Peter that the unity of faith and charity should be formed: « Since the unity of the faith does not presently exist in the totality of believers, seeing that not all of them are unanimous in matters of religion, it must lie in the legal authority of a single head, an authority assured by divine assistance and the trust of all the faithful . This is the ROCK on which Christ founded His Church and against which the gates of hell will never prevail. »

Why did this ROCK settle in Rome, and not in Jerusalem, Constantinople or Moscow ? Here we have a further brilliant response from Soloviev: historically Rome represented the order, civilization and terrestrial Empire that would best allow the Church to become the universal spiritual Empire desired by Christ. In a mystical view of the history of Salvation – we would say divine “ orthodromy ” – Soloviev shows how God, wishing to extend salvation to the whole world, decided one day that His Kingdom should leave Israel for Rome, so that the capital of the pagan Empire should become “ the conjoint instrument ” of His designs:

« The universal monarchy was to stay put; the centre of unity was not to move. But central power itself, its character, its source and its sanction were to be renewed... Instead of an Empire of Might, there was to be a Church of Love. » One thinks of Constantine’s conversion and his imposition throughout the Roman Empire of laws favouring Christianity, and of Theodosius declaring the Christian religion the religion of State. What decisive support for the Gospel ! The remarkable Roman civilization, already the heir of Greece, was put at the service of the Cross of Christ !

Soloviev had some wonderful expressions to describe this, as for example the following: « Jesus unthroned Caesar... By unthroning the false and impious absolutism of the pagan Caesars, Jesus confirmed and immortalised the universal monarchy of Rome and gave it its true theocratic foundation . »

« Let us not think », comments our Father, « that our theosophist loses his way in a contemplation of evangelical love and freedom. Fully aware of the frailty and shortcomings of humanity, he declares that it is essential, for its effective salvation, that supreme divine power be joined to the firmest social structure, to the virile principle , and not as formerly to the female principle of a virginal flesh for the Incarnation. This firm principle is the imperial monarchical institution which is Rome and Caesar. Converted, elevated and unabolished, the Power of Rome continues in the Pope for the service of the universal community.

« It is only this divino-human pontifical paternity that is capable of forming the basis of the universal fraternity of the peoples, not only through its spiritual influence but also through its authority and its supranational organization. In this monarchy, sacred but popular, the Pope, the Universal Emperor, clearly remains the servant of the servants of God and is, for that very reason, the sovereign Head of the Nations. Opposed to any kind of papolatry, antagonistic to all the encroachments of papism, and quite capable of denouncing such a Pope as Satan, Soloviev raised an imperishable monument to the glory of Rome and pointed out – him, a member of the Orthodox Church – the path of the world’s salvation, which lay in one place only, in the universal Christian order of a restored Roman Catholic Church ... » (French CRC no. 131, July 1978, p. 6)

In his lifetime, Soloviev ran up against a wall of hostility and incomprehension: « I am not so naive », he said, « to seek to convince minds whose private interests are greater than their desire for religious truth. In presenting the general evidence for the permanent primacy of Peter as the basis of the universal Church, I have simply wanted to assist those who are opposed to this truth, not because of their interests and passions, but merely because of their unwitting errors and hereditary prejudices. »

The final period of his life might seem to some like a decline and a renunciation of his prophetic insights, but our Father writes: « Soloviev was too great a mind to be discouraged or to modify his ideas in accordance with the fluctuations of his worldly success. What is certainly true is that his bitter experiences gave him a better knowledge of the Evil that was at work in the world, throwing up formidable obstacles to God’s designs and going so far as to erect a kind of caricature of them. This he denounced as the power of the Antichrist, the Prince of this world, announced in the Scriptures. » (French CRC no. 132, August 1978, p. 12)

At the beginning of the 1890’s, relations between Soloviev and the Orthodox Church deteriorated. « Given the papaphobia reigning among us , he wrote to a friend, sometimes revealing its underhand character and at other times its stupidity, and always in any event unchristian, I considered and I continue to consider that it is necessary to draw people’s attention to the Rock of the Church laid by Christ Himself and to its positive significance . »

As he persisted in his criticisms, even going so far as to compare the Greco-Russian Church with « the Synagogue », the Orthodox hierarchy, in the person of Pobiedonostev, the Holy Synod’s prosecutor, employed the ultimate weapon at its disposal: it deprived him of the sacraments. One day in 1894, being seriously ill, Soloviev asked to receive the sacraments. His Orthodox confessor refused to give him absolution unless he renounced his Catholic views. Soloviev refused to yield, preferring to forego confession and Holy Communion.

AN AUTHENTIC CONVERSION

The moment had come. On February 18, 1896, he went to see Fr. Nicholas Alexeyevich Tolstoy, a Catholic priest of the Eastern rite exercising his ministry in Moscow. This priest, a former officer, owed him his vocation, his formation (Soloviev having been his teacher) and his conversion to Catholicism. That February 18 was the feast day of Pope St. Leo so dear to Soloviev. Before Mass, he read on his knees the Tridentine symbol of the faith containing the Filioque and a formula declaring that the Church of Rome must be regarded as the head of all the particular Churches. Then he received the Body of Christ at the hands of the Catholic priest.

On the following day, Fr. Tolstoy was denounced and arrested. He managed to escape and to reach Rome first, then France. It was only in 1910 that he would give an account in the Universe of the authentic conversion of Soloviev, and in 1917 that the two witnesses present at the scene would confirm the celebrated Russian’s profession of the Catholic faith. Nevertheless, this conversion was disputed not only by the Orthodox but also by Catholics imbued with a false ecumenism like Msgr. d’Herbigny of sinister memory. But in this matter the facts are indubitable. His entry into the Catholic Church did not, however, in Soloviev’s mind, exclude him from what he called « the true and authentic Eastern or Greco-Russian Church ». Never did he embrace the Latin rite. After the exile of Fr. Tolstoy, as there were no longer any Catholic priests in Moscow apart from those belonging to the Latin rite, Soloviev decided to refrain from receiving the sacraments...

In 1897, a census of the whole of Russia was carried out in which a question was asked about religion. « I am both Catholic and Orthodox; let the police work that out ! » Soloviev answered.

« Self-important people from Rome and Moscow declared themselves scandalized », writes our Father. « The hour had not yet come for the podwig , for self-renunciation and reconciliation in truth and justice ( pravda ), and for the restoration of the wholly divine unity of communion in love ( sobornost ). Msgr. Rupp thinks that we achieved it with Vatican II. Alas, no ! I hope for and expect it to come with Vatican III... but only after the trial, after conversion and expiation... and after Our Lady’s humble requests have been met. » (English CRC, December 1982, p. 36)

UNDER THE SIGN OF MARY

« This glow from Heaven emanates from Mary, And vain remains the attraction of the serpent’s venom. »

On July 17, 1900, sensing death approaching, Soloviev sent for a priest. He was most insistent about this: « Will it be morning soon ? When will the priest come ? » The next day, he made his confession and received Holy Communion at the hands of an Orthodox priest. He died peacefully a few days later, on July 31, « in the communion of Russian Orthodoxy to which he had ever been faithful, without however disowning the Catholicism of his heart, assured by the example of the Fathers of Russian Christianity, Saints Cyril and Methodius, Saint Vladimir, and so many strastoterptsi , innocents who had suffered the passion , and startsi , slavophiles and romanophiles at the same time, without schism or constraint, in the love of Holy Church and Holy Russia, the Kingdom of God to come ! »

But all this is too beautiful for us not to revisit it, so our Father has decided that we will study in more depth the work of this great Russian thinker, in three parts to appear in subsequent editions of Resurrection , Deo volente:

The vocation of Russia in the designs of God and the concert of the Christian nations: up to and including Putin ?

The Immaculate Virgin Mary , throne of Wisdom, essential beauty of the created world, our ultimate recourse !

The Antichrist unmasked by Soloviev . This was the last service the “ inspired prophet ” rendered to his beloved Russia: that of putting her on her guard against the seductions of the Antichrist. In Rome, at the same time, St. Pius X was also announcing his advent in his encyclical E supremi Apostolatus of October 4, 1903: « The Antichrist is present among us. The Evil shaking the world should not affright us, it will only last a short while. What must fall will fall, and the Church will be reborn from the trial, assisted by her Saviour and ready for extraordinary developments. »

Brother Thomas of Our Lady of Perpetual Help He is risen ! n° 8, August 2001, pp. 13-22

Reference */?>

Holy Russia
Vladimir Soloviev, prophet of Russia's conversion
The Immaculate Conception and the Divine Sophia
Soloviev (Vladimir)
Our founder
The 150 Points of the Phalange
Catholic Counter-Reformation Analyses
Preparing the Catholic Renaissance
Principles of National Restoration
New publications on the CRC website
Archives HE IS RISEN!
Books of Accusation
Make a donation
CCR Glossary
VOD website
Nederlandstalige site
Articoli in italiano
Artículos en español
Artigos em Português

Detection of the First Soviet Nuclear Test, September 1949

Photo from Peter Curan’s film "Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie

Joe-1, 29 August 1949. Photo from Peter Kuran’s film "Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie," as displayed on nuclearweaponsarchive.org, and used with permission of Peter Kuran.

Newly Declassified Documents Trace Beginnings of Superpower Nuclear Arms Race

Soviet Atomic Project Posed Major Challenge to U.S. Intelligence

Records Expand Knowledge of the Role of German Scientists in Advancing the Soviet Nuclear Program

Washington, D.C., September 9, 2019 – Seventy years ago, on 9 September 1949, Director of Central Intelligence Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter handed President Harry Truman a carefully worded report of “an abnormal radio-active contamination" in the Northern Pacific that greatly exceeded normal levels in the atmosphere. While uncertain as to the cause, the DCI’s first hypothesis was “An atomic explosion on the continent of Asia.” This proved to be accurate – it was the first Soviet test of a nuclear device.

Moscow’s success in building a nuclear bomb was a monumental development made all the more alarming for U.S. strategists by the fact that it occurred one-to-four years sooner than analysts had expected. The White House chose to preempt possible Kremlin triumphalism by announcing the finding to the world on 23 September 1949, a move that evidently came as a shock to the Soviets who had no idea the U.S. had the capability to isolate and identify the signs of a nuclear blast.

Hillenkoetter’s memo, never before published, is at the core of a new posting today by the National Security Archive offering previously classified information and context surrounding the U.S. discovery of the landmark Soviet test. The documents are an update to an earlier Archive compilation and focus on the state of U.S. intelligence about the Soviet nuclear program before and after the test. They help address lingering questions about the unexpected abilities of U.S. nuclear detection technology but also about the disturbing failure to predict the Soviet atomic breakthrough more accurately.

_____________________________________________

Seventy years ago, on 9 September 1949, Director of Central Intelligence Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter handed to President Harry Truman a report that “samples of air masses” collected in the Northern Pacific included evidence of “abnormal radioactive contamination.” According to the report, published for the first time today by the National Security Archive, the intelligence community was not sure whether the contamination was evidence of a Soviet nuclear test or a nuclear accident or something else altogether, but by 21 September it advised Truman that the Soviet Union had staged a nuclear test. Two days later, on 23 September 1949 , Truman made headlines with an announcement that the Soviet Union had tested a nuclear device several weeks earlier.

The White House did not explain how the United States had detected the test, which had occurred on 29 August 1949 at Semipalatinsk, in northeastern Kazakhstan. What made the detection possible was that an Air Weather Service plane controlled by the secret U.S. Air Force organization, Air Force Office of Atomic Energy/1 [AFOAT/1], had collected radiological debris produced by the test and that an Air Force contractor confirmed that the material was from an atomic test.

Today’s publication on the detection of “Joe I”, as U.S. intelligence analysts dubbed it, is an update of a National Security Archive posting published ten years ago. [1] That posting drew on previously unpublished declassified material, documenting how the U.S. Air Force and other organizations collaborated to detect a nuclear event that intelligence analysts had not expected for another year or longer. This update includes recently declassified information on the intelligence picture prior to and after Joe 1, including:

An intelligence report from 1948 on East German production of calcium metal of such high purity that intelligence analysts believed “beyond any shadow of a doubt” that it was “intended for an atomic energy project.” Calcium metal helped produce the uranium reactor fuel that generated plutonium for Moscow’s first bomb.
A State Department memorandum from July 1949 reporting the existence of “evidence indicating that a chemical extraction plant [with] the earmarks of a plutonium extraction plant has been completed in the USSR,” but no evidence of a nuclear reactor.
A CIA report from 1957 on the role of German scientists at a Soviet factory that produced uranium metal (used for reactor fuel) of sufficient purity that they “may have advanced the Soviet atomic energy program by about 6 months.”

Detecting Joe 1

The White House announcement on 23 September may have stunned Stalin and the Soviet Politburo; they did not know that the U.S. had a surveillance system geared to detect the tell-tale signs of nuclear activities and they wanted to avoid giving Washington an incentive to accelerate its own nuclear weapons activities. [2] The Soviet test was also a jolt to U.S. intelligence analysts who had estimated that Moscow was unlikely to have the bomb before mid-1953, although they had deemed mid-1950 as a possibility. A few weeks after the test, CIA Director Roscoe Hillenkoetter argued that "I don't think we were taken by surprise" because of an error of only a "few months," but not all of his Congressional overseers accepted that.

How did the Truman administration discover Moscow’s secret? Why had U.S. intelligence been so mistaken?

A few days after the Soviet test, on 3 September 1949, a WB-29 ["W" for weather reconnaissance] operated by the Air Force's Weather Service undertook a routine flight from Misawa Air Force Base (Japan) to Eilson Air Force Base (Alaska) on behalf of the secretive Air Force Office of Atomic Energy-1 [AFOAT-1] [later renamed the Air Force Technical Applications Center, or AFTAC ]. The plane carried special filters designed to pick up the radiological debris that an atmospheric atomic test would inevitably create. So far none of the flights in the Northern Pacific had picked up such debris, but after this flight returned to Eilson and a huge Geiger counter checked the filters, the technicians detected radioactive traces. This was the 112th alert of the Atomic Energy Detection System (the previous 111 had been caused by natural occurrences, such as earthquakes).

After a complex chain of events, involving additional flights to collect more air samples, consultations among U.S. government scientists, consultants, and contractors, including radiological analysis by the AFOAT/1 contractor, Tracerlab, and consultations with the British government, the U.S. intelligence community concluded that Moscow had indeed conducted a nuclear test. The test data was codenamed “Vermont.” On 23 September 1949, the White House announced that "We have evidence that within recent weeks an atomic explosion occurred in the U.S.S.R." [3]

That the U.S. government had a system for spotting overseas nuclear activities was a deep secret. During and after World War II, the possibility of detecting radioactive particles and emissions (as well as seismic and acoustic signals) became the subject of protracted research and development work, including the collection of radioactive samples from U.S. atomic tests. In September 1947, Army Chief of Staff Dwight D. Eisenhower assigned the Army Air Force, not yet an independent service, with responsibility for establishing an Atomic Energy Detection System (AEDS). Later that year, the Air Force created what would later become known as AFOAT-1, with responsibility for the surveillance program. AFOAT/1 began to operate an "Interim Surveillance Research Net" that was functional by the spring of 1949. A more comprehensive surveillance system integrating radiochemical, seismic, acoustic, and other methods was not yet in place. [4]

Atomic Energy Commissioner Lewis Strauss sought detection capabilities to avoid an "atomic Pearl Harbor," but U.S. intelligence analysts did not see a Soviet test as a near-term likelihood. Thus, estimates during the years before Joe-1 projected mid-1953 as "the most probable date," although conceding that mid-1950 was also possible. No one in U.S. intelligence realized how quickly the Soviets were moving ahead, or that intelligence gathered by Soviet spies in the U.S. and the United Kingdom would save Moscow a year or two in building its own bomb. [5]

Tight security measures in the Soviet Union made it difficult to produce accurate estimates, but British and U.S. intelligence had collected information that had implications not fully considered by analysts Especially relevant was intelligence on the production in an East German factory of metallic calcium, integral for the production of the uranium metal used to fuel Soviet reactors. Apparently, no one in the intelligence establishment asked why so much metallic calcium was being produced, although it was at levels that suggested that the Soviets could be producing significant quantities of reactor fuel. [6] One of the major analytic units, CIA’s Office of Research and Estimates (ORE), was so disengaged from scientific intelligence that several weeks after the detection of the Soviet test and three days before the White House announcement it produced a paper repeating the estimate of mid-1953 "as the most probable date." [7]

The US Announcement

Once senior scientific advisers confirmed AFOAT/1’s findings, a U.S. announcement was by no means automatic. President Truman was not entirely convinced that a test had taken place and top officials debated whether to announce, with some (AEC Chairman David Lilienthal) arguing that the public had a right to know, while others (Secretary of State Acheson) were more reluctant. Moreover, another important announcement was pending – devaluation of the British pound, and Truman thought two shocks were too many. Yet, he feared that the information would leak (hundreds of U.S. government officials were already in the know), and concluded that an official U.S. announcement was better than a Soviet one. [8]

After Truman’s press secretary handed out the mimeographed announcement, no further information about the discovery was made available, even the estimated date of the test. The U.S. government kept the details secret, although that did not stop informed speculation by journalists and academics about how the test was detected, with some correctly deducing that the U.S. had used radiological analysis. Senator Edwin Johnson (D-CO) inadvertently released an important clue when, during a television interview, he said that the Soviet bomb contained "plutonium," indicating that the United States had acquired traces of the device that it could analyze. [9]

It took years before the fuller story became publicly available. Doyle Northrup, one of the leading officials at AFOAT-1/AFTAC, wrote several narratives that were eventually declassified (with excisions). It was not until the 1990s, however, that two anthropologists at Brandeis University, Charles A. Ziegler and David Jacobson, pieced together the declassified archival record to produce an authoritative and accomplished account of the early history of AFOAT-1 and the detection of Joe-1: Spying Without Spies: Origin of America's Secret Nuclear Intelligence Surveillance System (Praeger, 1995). [10]

Implications

The discovery that the United States had lost its nuclear monopoly created alarm about falling behind Moscow and a resolve to stay ahead. Among the measures that reinforced a spiraling nuclear competition were Truman’s decision to approve a Joint Chiefs of Staff proposal to expand fissile material production and his 31 January decision to authorize a thermonuclear weapons program. Moreover, the Soviet test gave impetus to a major policy report, NSC 68 (14 April 1950) calling for massive military spending to offset the political and military impact of Stalin's bomb. [11]

Stalin may have hoped that secrecy could prevent such U.S. reactions or even a war. Indeed, when the Soviets made a counter-statement on 25 September, they did not acknowledge a weapons test, claiming (preposterously) that the U.S. must have detected “blasting” caused by construction work. Moscow also tried to put a damper on U.S. preventive action by suggesting that it had possessed the bomb since 1947. In any event, the Soviet Union's entrance into the nuclear club may have had a direct impact of an entirely unexpected kind – emboldening Stalin to support Kim Il-sung's plan for a North Korean invasion of the South. As Evgueni Bajanov put it, when Stalin approved Kim's proposal, he was "more confident of the Communist bloc's strength." [12]

Notwithstanding all of the significant declassifications, a complete picture of the role of U.S. intelligence in the events of September 1949 is not yet possible. The part played by AFOAT/1 in detecting the test is well documented, but more needs to be learned about the role of the CIA, which played a central part in coordinating intelligence about the test. Moreover, reports that were of the nature of post-mortems on the intelligence failure remain largely unavailable, such as one by the Office of Scientific Intelligence for which only the conclusions have been declassified. Moreover, in response to a National Security Archive request, the CIA recently denied an unspecified number of documents concerning the detection of Joe I.

Read the Documents

Part i: overview of the discovery.

National-Security-Archive-Doc-01-Document-13

Document 01

American Institute of Physics, Neils Bohr Library, R.C. Williams Papers, box 3, Letters/Interviews (copy courtesy of Michael Goodman)

Thirteen years after the event, Doyle Northrup, who was a key player at AFOAT/1, wrote what may have been the first detailed account of the detection of Joe I, providing a narrative of the creation of the Atomic Energy Detection System and the analytic effort that followed Alert No. 112. He also showed how U.S. intelligence was able to develop a more accurate estimate of the date and location of the test. While acoustic records were analyzed, they did not immediately provide useful information. "On subsequent review these records revealed weak signals at two stations. These acoustic signals were very useful because they helped after the fact to establish the location, time, and size of Joe-1 with greater precision than was possible otherwise." (See page 17). Although this report provides no further information, apparently U.S. intelligence was able to determine the site of Joe-1 to "within 100 miles and the time to within 10 minutes." [13]

National-Security-Archive-Doc-02-Document-14

Document 02

This version of the Northrup-Rock study, written for an audience in the intelligence establishment, included additional details. The authors recalled that what precipitated the White House announcement was news that the Associated Press had picked up rumors of the test. The actual decision was more complex, but fear of leaks did influence the announcement. The authors also provided details of the contribution of acoustic intelligence to determining the time, date, and location of the test: 0100 GMT, Semipalatinsk, 29 August 1949, Moreover, the yield of the device was 20 kilotons.

Part II: Estimates, Analysis, and Information on the Soviet Nuclear Program

National-Security-Archive-Doc-03-Document-2

Document 03

Lowenhaupt, who was involved in the Manhattan Project and was present at the creation of the CIA's nuclear intelligence work, elucidates the painstaking and complex effort to learn about Soviet progress in the nuclear field during the 1940s. Through such methods as opening mail and acquiring bills of lading, CIA scientific intelligence acquired insight into the Soviet nuclear program even if most of it was beyond the Agency's ken.

National-Security-Archive-Doc-04-Calcium

Document 04

National Archives, Record Group 59 (hereinafter RG 59), Records of the Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for Atomic Energy, General Records Relating to Atomic Energy Matters, 1948-1962, box 83, 21.91 Country File USSR c. Estimates of the Russian Bomb 1947-1952

The archival file that includes this scientific intelligence report provides no clues on its provenance. So far it is only available primary source in U.S. archives concerning the results of a secret U.S.-British intelligence operation: to glean information on an industrial plant in the Soviet Zone of Germany that produced large quantities of distilled calcium, an important input into the Soviet nuclear program. Apparently, MI-6 sources at the plant provided most of the intelligence and this report may be derived from British information. [14] Early in the Soviet Union’s occupation of East Germany at the close of World War II, the Soviets took over a huge I.G. Farben complex at Bitterfeld (southeast of Berlin) that produced calcium products, including calcium metal. One of the plant’s products, metallic calcium, can be used for processing uranium ore into uranium metal, the fuel for a nuclear reactor. U.S. and British intelligence learned that the plant’s Soviet director had demanded high levels of purity for distilled calcium. That demand informed the report’s principal conclusion: “on the basis of the analytical specifications presented by the Russians to the German Directorate of the plant … the calcium is intended for an atomic energy project beyond any shadow of a doubt.” During 1946-1947, Bitterfeld produced 112 tons of distilled calcium, about half of which had the desired purity. The product went directly to the Soviet Union, either by air or by rail. One of the forwarding addresses was “Elektrostalwork Moskau, Bisonbahn Bozirk.Kursk:Postfach 3” The reference to Elektrostal was a good clue for the possible location of the Soviet uranium metal plant. Elektrostal, an industrial town near Moscow, was the site of factory 12, the plant designed by the German scientist Nikolaus Riehl [See document 27] Besides supplying distilled calcium, the report indicates that the Germans provided the Soviets with designs for a similar plant to be built at Dzherzhinsk. The plant at Bitterfeld and the Soviet plant produced enough calcium metal to help the Soviets produce up to 60 tons of metallic uranium per month, far more than CIA intelligence analysts were estimating. The Soviets had enough uranium metal to start their nuclear reactor operations and to produce enough plutonium to fuel a nuclear device.

National-Security-Archive-Doc-05-Document-3

Document 05

Harry S. Truman Library, Presidents Secretary's File, box 249, Central Intelligence-Memoranda 1945-1948 (copy courtesy of Jeffrey Richelson)

CIA director Hillenkoetter reaffirmed a 1947 estimate: while it was "remotely possible" that the Soviets would test a weapon by mid-1950, the "most probable date" was mid-1953.

National-Security-Archive-Doc-06-Untitled

Document 06

RG 59, Records of the Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for Atomic Energy, General Records Relating to Atomic Energy Matters, 1948-1962, box 83, 21.91 Country File USSR c. Estimates of the Russian Bomb 1947-1952

Probably written as an input for a yet to be identified report, this memo included estimates of output ofU 3 O 8 (triuranium octoxide), a form of yellowcake, and low-grade uranium.

National-Security-Archive-Doc-07-Memorandum-from

Document 07

RG 59, Records of the Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for Atomic Energy, General Records Relating to Atomic Energy Matters, 1948-1962, box 54, 21.91 USSR General 1947-1952

In this memorandum to State Department intelligence, Gordon Arneson, special assistant to the secretary of state for atomic energy matters, asked for information on possible graphite production facilities in the Soviet Union. By making this request, he demonstrated his understanding of a basic issue: that the Soviets could possibly develop an atomic reactor moderated by graphite, along the same lines as the U.S.’s Hanford, Washington plant. While suggesting some possible locations for graphite production, Arneson did not know about the prime source, the Moscow Electrode Factory. [15]

National-Security-Archive-Doc-08-Untitled

Document 08

Apparently, a draft for a 1 January 1949 estimate of the USSR atomic energy program, this memorandum restated the findings of the July 1948 estimate about mid-1950 and mid-1953 (see document 4). It made a special point that new intelligence on Soviet uranium mining from “well-placed sources” surpassed early appraisals based on “geological theory and low-grade intelligence reports on uranium mining.” Nevertheless, the reliability of the sources had to be tested

National-Security-Archive-Doc-09-Untitled

Document 09

Another draft for the 1 January 1949 estimate (not yet declassified), this memorandum cited unspecified “fragmentary” evidence on a plutonium bomb and other information furnishing a “picture of the organization of the Soviet atomic energy program and certain localities involved.” Whether such sites as Elektrostal had been identified as one of the relevant “localities” remains to be learned. According to this estimate, the Soviets had enough uranium to operate one reactor (“production pile”). Moreover, the quantity of uranium could be “considerably higher than that previously estimated.”

National-Security-Archive-Doc-10-Document-4

Document 10

National Archives, Record Group 341, Records of Headquarters, United States Air Force (Air Staff), Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Directorate of Intelligence Top Secret Control & Cables Section, July 1945-Dec 1954, box 45, folder "2-8100 to 2-8199."

A highly compressed report by the recently created Joint Nuclear Energy Intelligence Committee [JNEIC], produced only weeks before the Soviet test, reached the same basic conclusion as the earlier reports. Thus, it generally upheld the mid-1950 and mid-1953 dates, except for one modification: if the Soviets were using only "one method” for fissile material production, then mid-1951 was the earliest possible date for an atomic bomb. “One method” was probably a reference to a heavy water reactor.

National-Security-Archive-Doc-11-Memorandum-for

Document 11

Gordon Arneson provided Secretary of State Dean Acheson with an explanation of the intelligence information (or lack of information) that shaped the JNEIC’s recent assessment. U.S. intelligence concluded that before mid-1951 Moscow would not have enough heavy water at hand to operate a reactor for producing plutonium. As for a graphite pile reactor Arneson’s earlier efforts to collection information on Soviet graphite production had failed: “There are not even low grade rumors of Soviet manufacture within, or acquisition outside the USSR, of pile grade graphite.” Nevertheless, Arneson could not dismiss the possibility of a “uranium-graphite pile,” which is what the Soviets already had, a copy of the U.S. reactor at Hanford. U.S. intelligence had assigned a mid-1950 date as the “earliest possible date” for a Soviet bomb because it had “evidence indicating that a chemical extraction plant [with] the earmarks of a plutonium extraction plant has been completed in the USSR.” Arneson acknowledged that the evidence might be incorrectly interpreted and noted that the “Soviets, as we did during the war, have built a ‘flexible’ extraction plant before they had anything to extract.” Arneson cited estimates for Soviet stocks of U 3 O 8 that were significantly lower than the August 1948 estimate: in the range of 1324 to 2150 tons, “the lower figure being the most probable.” The estimate for Soviet bloc production of U 3 O 8 in tons was 570-850, as 1 July 1949, with “470-700 coming from outside the USSR--Saxony (250-400), Czechoslovakia (200-250), and small quantities from Poland and Bulgaria.” Arneson made a technical point about the rate of plutonium production by noting that intelligence analysts had assumed that by the 1950s, the Soviets would compensate for a postulated shortage of uranium by extracting “twice the amount or plutonium that we have been extracting to date.” The United States was seeking to achieve a “higher rate by keeping the slugs longer in the pile, after a recalculation of the risks involved in such a procedure.” The “risk” may have been a reference to the greater probability that the plutonium could have a higher fraction of spontaneously fissioning Pu-240; that could cause the weapon to fail by detonating prematurely before reaching maximum criticality.

Part III: The Discovery

National-Security-Archive-Doc-12-Memorandum-from

Document 12

Harry S. Truman Library, President's Secretary's Files, Intelligence File, Central Intelligence, Memoranda-1949 folder

In this closely held memorandum, DCI Hillenkoetter notified the White House of the detection of radioactive materials in the Northern Pacific but cautioned that the intelligence community was still trying to determine whether it had found evidence of “an atomic explosion” or of some other phenomenon (volcanic activities, effluents from the Hanford production reactor, or an atomic accident in Russia). According to George Elsey’s interview with NSC Executive Secretary Sidney Souers [See document 16B], the latter showed this document to President Truman.

National-Security-Archive-Doc-13-Air-Force-Chief

Document 13

President Truman had been doubtful that the Soviets had tested the bomb, but on 21 September 1949, he, his aide Steven Early, and Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson saw this memorandum and the supporting documents. Air Force Chief of Staff Vandenberg had written that that "I believe an atomic bomb has been detonated over the Asiatic land mass during the period 26 August 1949 to 29 August 1949. Drawing on the findings of Tracerlab, the AFOAT-1 report concluded that an atomic bomb had been detonated, that the “fission products resulted … from the fission of plutonium” and that the “observed phenomena are all consistent with the view that the origin of the fission products was the explosion of an atomic bomb whose nuclear composition was similar to the Alamogordo bomb.,” with the test occurring between 27 and 30 August. Vandenberg noted that "[c]onclusions by our scientists based on physical and radiochemical analyses of collected data have been confirmed by scientists of the AEC, United Kingdom and Office of Naval Research" [See documents that follow], In one of the attached memoranda, top scientific and military experts on nuclear weapons, including J. Robert Oppenheimer and Vannevar Bush, endorsed AFOAT/1’s findings. [16] Presumably, this dispelled Truman’s doubts. The excisions on PDF pages 3 and 5 may be references to the role of the Air Weather Service in providing the aircraft used for the collection of fallout samples.

National-Security-Archive-Doc-14-Document-6-U-S

Document 14

Harry S. Truman Library, President's Secretary's Files, box 199, NSC-Atomic

When Washington alerted the British government that an air mass containing radioactive particles was going to pass north of Scotland, London ordered special air sampling flights to collect more traces of the Soviet test. While the British had their own routine air sampling flight program, the next one was not scheduled until 14 September so important evidence could have been missed had it not been for the U.S. alert.

National-Security-Archive-Doc-15-Document-7-U-S

Document 15

Harry S. Truman Library, President's Secretary's Files, box 200, NSC-Atomic

Some months before the Soviet test, in April 1949, the U.S. Navy began "Project Rain Barrel" to analyze debris from nuclear weapons tests that might show up in rain water collected secretly at stations in Kodiak, Alaska, and Washington, D.C. "Rain Barrel" information described in this report was critically important to forming the scientific consensus about the nature of the Joe-1 test. [17]

National-Security-Archive-Doc-16-Document-8-U-S

Document 16

This detailed report shows how U.S. analysts back-tracked the radioactive samples collected in early September to a nuclear detonation that occurred sometime between 27 and 29 August 1949.

Part IV: Whether to Announce the Discovery

National-Security-Archive-Doc-17-Statement-by

Document 17

Harry S. Truman Library, George Elsey Papers, box 88, National Defense- Atomic Energy – Announcement of Russian Atomic Bomb – September 23, 1949

White House staffer George Elsey had been involved in foreign policy issues, but as he wrote on the first page of this document, the intelligence on the Soviet test was so secret that he knew nothing of it until the time of the announcement. A trained historian, he wanted to know about the decision-making process and interviewed Truman and NSC executive secretary Sidney Souers to find out who knew what when, how it was decided that a statement would be made, and what problems had to be resolved before President Truman was willing to approve one. According to Elsey’s notes, Truman wanted to hold up the announcement because of the impending devaluation of the British pound (two shocks were “too much”) and he wanted to be “sure” that the Soviets had tested a device.

National-Security-Archive-Doc-18-Elsey-notes-of

Document 18

Souers was as close as anyone to the discussions and decisions concerning the intelligence on the Soviet test and he provided Elsey with detailed information on the considerations behind the decision to make a public announcement, including the timing of the statement. While some, such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff and top civilian defense officials, wanted an early announcement to prevent a leak, as Truman had told Elsey, concern about the devaluation of the pound sterling led to some delay of the announcement. Indeed, these notes demonstrate that Secretary of State Dean Acheson, in New York for the UN General Assembly meetings, closely coordinated the timing and the language of the announcement with British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin. Just as important was concern about a leak to the press. That concern increased when the White House became aware that the news had already reached Senator Brian McMahon, chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Moreover, by the morning of 23 September, White House officials and others had learned that Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Vyshynsky would be giving a speech at the United Nations that afternoon. Perhaps they hoped that an announcement would force Vyshynsky to respond to the U.S. statement.

National-Security-Archive-Doc-19-George-W-Elsey

Document 19

The chronology in this draft is off (the Soviet test had not been detected on 28 August) but it includes an interesting account of how Deputy Secretary of Defense Steven Early tried to find out whether Truman knew about the early intelligence on the Soviet test. He asked if Truman knew about the “dust storm.”

Part V. Some Implications

National-Security-Archive-Doc-20-Memorandum-by

Document 20

RG 59, Policy Planning Council Subject Files, 1947-1962, box 2, Atomic Energy-Armaments 1949

Once senior State Department officials, including Policy Planning Staff director George F. Kennan, were read into “Vermont” intelligence, Kennan tasked several staff members to prepare a questions-and-answers document [See following item] that could be used to brief officials “in the field” after a White House announcement had been made. Here, Savage recounts how the document was prepared and what he learned about the White House decision-making on the announcement.

National-Security-Archive-Doc-21-Policy-Planning

Document 21

RG 59, Policy Planning Council Chronological Files, 1947-1962, box 1, Chronological 1949

This is the questions-answers document mentioned above. . Much of the text was incorporated into a confidential telegram sent to all U.S. embassies and consulates on 23 September 1949 as background information. The document conveyed great optimism that the Soviet Union had not benefitted from purloined intelligence information. But it also posited that the Soviet bomb did not make war more likely and U.S. policy was directed at policies designed to avoid war. The documents raised the possibility that “consciousness of possessing this terrible and destructive weapon will bring to [Soviet] leaders something of that same sense of responsibility to [the] peoples of world” that President Truman had previously acknowledged.

National-Security-Archive-Doc-22-Joint-Nuclear

Document 22

Taking into account the “Vermont” findings, the latest assessment by the JNEIC tried to put the best face on things by noting that the test confirmed previous estimates that the Soviets were working on a plutonium bomb (but not mentioning the mistaken estimates of mid-1950 and mid-1953). Nevertheless, the claim that the test occurred in Siberia suggested that acoustic and seismic data, which later indicated that the test had occurred at Semipalatinsk, had not yet been analyzed. Taking into account the plutonium findings, the report estimated that the Soviets had one or possibly two “graphite-moderated production piles in operation since October 1948” [only one pile, operating since July 1948]. On that basis, the committee estimated that the Soviets would have a stockpile of ten weapons by the end of 1949 and 25 by mid-1950, an overestimate because Moscow had only a handful of deliverable weapons in 1951 and did not produce them in quantity until 1953. [18]

National-Security-Archive-Doc-23-Document-9-R-W

Document 23

Roderick Spence, who had worked at the Manhattan Project’s Metallurgical Laboratory during World War II, directed Los Alamos Laboratory's Radiochemistry Group. AFOAT-1 sent Spence a sample of the radioactive material for independent analysis. Spence's report, written up several weeks after the analytical work had occurred, concluded that the "samples supplied to us contained radioactive isotopes and that the bulk of the activity was due to fission products of fairly recent origin, their age probably being one month or less.” [19]

National-Security-Archive-Doc-24-Document-10

Document 24

Record Group 341. Records of Headquarters, United States Air Force (Air Staff), Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Directorate of Intelligence, Top Secret Control & Cables Section Jul 1945-Dec 1954, box 46, 9300 to 2-9399

With the U.S. nuclear monopoly, if not superiority, ending, U.S. intelligence began to look at the military implications. Air Force intelligence prepared what turned out to be an exaggerated estimate of Soviet capabilities to produce atomic weapons and deliver them to targets in the United States and the United Kingdom. The Air Force projected that the Soviets already had the capability to deliver atomic weapons to targets in the Northwest United States, using TU-4 bombers on two-way missions. Striking significant industrial, political, and military installations further east would require one-way missions until the Soviets had an aerial refueling capability.

National-Security-Archive-Doc-25-Document-12

Document 25

National Archives, Record Group 128, Records of Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, box 3, JCAE Transcripts

During this hearing of the Joint Committee of Atomic Energy (JCAE), a defensive Director of Central Intelligence Roscoe Hillenkoetter argued that "our estimate was not too far off in the first place" because it was an "error of a few months" (p. 5) and that "I don't think we were taken by surprise." (p. 46). Nevertheless, a fuller picture emerged when Chairman Sen. Brian McMahon (D-Conn) read from the Joint Nuclear Energy Intelligence Committee’s 1949 report (see document 3 above) estimating mid-1953 as the "most probable" date. One of the Republicans, Senator Eugene D. Milliken (CO), observed that it was a "very bad mis-estimate" and that "we have not had an organization adequate to what is going on in the past and [Hillenkoetter] gives me no assurance that we are going to have one in the future." The DCI had his defenders. For example, Rep. Chester Holifield (D-CA) observed that "you can't order a piece of intelligence out of Russia like you order groceries in the morning." Senator Edwin C. Johnson (D-CO) questioned why the Soviets would "stumble on to the very best way to do this job without a little assistance from some place or the other." Hillenkoetter cited the high proficiency of Soviet science, but a full answer depended on intelligence sources, such as the Venona intercepts, that the DCI was unlikely to discuss in this setting.

National-Security-Archive-Doc-26-Central

Document 26

A brief analysis of the Soviet test in this CIA publication found that the Soviets had gained a political advantage. Despite the test, it did not fundamentally change the U.S.’s military-security position; the “superior US stockpile” remained a “significant” advantage. To identify a prospective military threat, it would be necessary to “determine the time at which the rising curve of a Soviet stockpile will reach a point at which it can be considered operationally effective.” The fact that the Soviets had an “ability to stockpile” was another matter because it raised “psychological and political imponderables.” Moscow’s access to atomic technology “permits [it] to exert psychological and political pressures in Western Europe.” While the Soviets had not yet exerted such pressure, and there was no way to gauge European reactions to pressure, “it is certain that the USSR has an enhanced ‘cold war’ capability.”

National-Security-Archive-Doc-27-Estimate-of-the

Document 27

To deal with the strategic issues raised by the Soviet bomb, the CIA produced a long analysis, focusing not only on Soviet nuclear capabilities but also on Moscow's intentions and the extent to which a nuclear weapons capability increased the risk of U.S.-Soviet conflict. The analysts reached the general conclusion that they saw “no firm basis for an assumption that the USSR presently intends deliberately to use military force to attain a Communist world or further to expand Soviet territory if this involves war with a potentially stronger US .” Even with atomic weapons, Soviet intentions were unlikely to change although “a Soviet capability for effective direct attack upon the continental US must be considered to increase the danger that the USSR might resort to military action to attain its objectives.” Dissents by the intelligence organizations of the State Department, the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force indicated profound misgivings about the ORE estimate of Soviet intentions. For example, the State Department dissented from the conclusion that “except under extreme and apparently unlikely circumstances, the USSR will not deliberately employ military force in its struggle against the US.”

Part VI: The German Factor: Future Findings

National-Security-Archive-Doc-28-Central

Document 28

Mandatory declassification review request to CIA

While U.S. and British intelligence were well aware that captured German scientists were playing multiple roles in the Soviet nuclear program, they did not have the details until they could interview the scientists when they began to return during the 1950s (Operation DRAGON). Some of the interview-based reports have already been declassified and published in a National Security Archive posting . This report, along with the next two documents, add to the knowledge base of the work on the German scientists, although they have to be checked against other sources. [20] According to the report, German scientists at the Agudzeri Institute successfully developed a mass spectrometer which is essential to measure the results of uranium isotope separation activities. Another success was Heinz Barwich’s contribution to the gaseous diffusion program, including theoretical work on cascade theory, for which he was awarded a Stalin Prize. By contrast, Nobel Prize winner Gustav Hertz’s effort to develop an industrial-scale method to separate uranium isotopes was a failure. At the end of this document, like the two that follow, are excised pages that probably list the German scientists and technicians who had been interviewed.

National-Security-Archive-Doc-29-Central

Document 29

The Sinop Institute, like Agudzeri, focused on isotope separation, but with greater success, according to the CIA. The leading figure was Baron Manfred Von Ardenne, whom some of the Germans saw as a “charlatan,” although with very good organizational skills. Research on electromagnetic separation of uranium isotopes began at Sinop but was eventually given low priority because the gaseous diffusion method proved more successful. In that respect, “The contributions of [Peter Adolph] Thiessen and of his group … at Sinop must be ranked high among the German contributions to the Soviet atomic energy program,” largely because of their development of the barriers used in gaseous diffusion plants. [21] Another major project at Sinop was the ultracentrifuge research directed by Max Steenbeck. The Germans may have convinced the Soviets that the gas centrifuge was an “ideal” method for isotope separation compared to gaseous diffusion, but technical problems were difficult to solve: the high speeds required (100,000 RPM) caused the rotors and bearings to fail. In 1953, key personnel in the Steenbeck group were sent to Leningrad for further R&D work. Gernot Zippe, identified as the head of Ultracentrifuge Team I, later became an important source on the progress of the Soviet gas centrifuge program. The drafters of this report did not have access to Zippe and the Steenbeck group, who did not return to the West until late 1956. Consequently, the report’s findings were rather downbeat: the “Steenbeck group probably made no substantial contribution to the overall success of the Soviet atomic energy program other than to vigorously investigate one possible means of isotope separation.”

National-Security-Archive-Doc-30-Central

Document 30

The German scientists at Elekrostal led by Nikolaus Riehl made a contribution to the Soviet atomic project that CIA analysts believed had saved the Soviets about “six months” of work. Born in Russia, Riehl directed research at the Auer Company, which manufactured uranium metal for the Nazi atomic weapons project. According to this report, two key Soviets, Iulii Khariton and General A.P. Zaveniagin who were in Berlin after the Nazi collapse made Riehl an offer to produce uranium in a Soviet laboratory. [22] The Soviets gave top priority to the production of “pure uranium metal in sufficient quantity for the operation of reactors producing plutonium.” At Elektrostal, Riehl’s group tried to reduce uranium oxide to metallic form but the results were not sufficiently pure. They then successfully processed uranium tetrafluoride (UF 4 ) into pure uranium metal. In both instances, the reducing element was the pure calcium produced by the plant at Bitterfeld, East Germany (see document ….). Much of the work was accomplished during 1946-1947, although the scientists “retained much value” for the Soviets. By 1952 all of the German scientists at Elektrostal had been sent to Sukhumi, Georgia, for a period of “forgetfulness” or “quarantine” before returning to Germany in 1955. A note on page 9 indicates that the CIA’s sources of information on Elektrostal included Nikolaus Riehl, Gunther Wirths, and Karl Heinrich Riewe.

[1] . For the naming of “Joe 1,” see Michael D. Gordin, Red Cloud at Dawn : Truman, Stalin, and the End of the Atomic Monopoly ( New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, 2009). 357, note 3.

[2] . David Holloway, Stalin and the Bomb: The Soviet Union and Atomic Energy, 1939-1956 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 266-267.

[3] . For the detection the Soviet test, see Jeffrey Richelson, Spying on the Bomb: American Nuclear Intelligence from Nazi Germany to Iran and North Korea (New York: W.W. Norton, 2007), 88-92.

[4] . For details, see Charles A. Ziegler and David Jacobson, Spying Without Spies: Origin of America's Secret Nuclear Intelligence Surveillance System (Praeger, 1995)

[5] . David Holloway, “Barbarossa and the Bomb: Two Cases of Soviet Intelligence in World War II,” Jonathan Haslam and Karina Urbach, eds ., Secret Intelligence in the European State System, 1918-1989 (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2013), 62.

[6] . Donald P. Steury, "How the CIA Missed Stalin's Bomb," Studies in Intelligence 49 No. 1 (2005), 19-26, and Richelson, Spying on the Bomb , 92l; Henry Lowenhaupt "Chasing Bitterfeld Calcium," Studies in Intelligence (pdf) Studies in Intelligence 17 (Spring 1973): 21-30.

[7] . Intelligence Memorandum No. 225, "Estimate of Status of Atomic Warfare in the USSR," 20 September 1949, in Michael Warner, editor, The CIA under Harry Truman (Washington, D.C.: History Staff, Center for the Study of Intelligence, 1994), 319.

[8] . For a detailed account, see Gordin, Red Cloud at Dawn , 216-238. For Lilienthal’s role, see Journals of David Lilienthal Volume 2: The Atomic Energy Years (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 569-572.

[9] . Truman later reprimanded Senator Johnson for the disclosure. "Science: So It Was Plutonium," Time , 5 December 1949

[10] . See also Richelson, Spying on the Bomb , especially 62-104, and Michael S. Goodman, Spying on the Nuclear Bear: Anglo-American Intelligence and the Soviet Bomb (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2007

[11] . Melvyn P. Leffler, A Preponderance of Power: National Security, the Truman Administration, and the Cold War (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992), 325-333, and Gordin, Red Cloud at Dawn , 247-275.

[12] Holloway, Stalin and the Bomb , 266-267; Evgueni Bajanov, "Assessing the Politics of the Korean War, 1949-51," Bulletin of the Cold War International History Project 6/7 (1995): 87; Vladislav Zubok, A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Khrushchev (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007), 86 (citing Bajanov). For the Soviet announcement and further discussion, see Gordin, Red Cloud at Dawn , 240-244.

[13] . Ziegler and Jacobson, Spying Without Spies , 210.

[14] . For Bitterfeld in context, see Henry Lowenhaupt, “ Chasing Bitterfeld Calcium .”

[15] . For Soviet production of highly pure graphite and the construction of a production reactor near Kyshtym, see Holloway, Stalin and the Bomb , 100-101 and 183-187.

[16] . See also, Ziegler and Jacobson, Spying Without Spies , 210-211; Richelson, Spying on the Bomb , 90

[17] . For the Navy project, see Herbert Friedman, Luther B. Lockhart, and Irving H. Blifford, "Detecting the Soviet Bomb: Joe-1 in a Rain Barrel," Physics Today 49 (No v ember 1996): 38-41.

[18] . Steven Zaloga, The Kremlin's Nuclear Sword: The Rise and Fall of Russia's Strategic Nuclear Force, 1945-2000 (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2002), 10-12

[19] . The Los Alamos findings corresponded to the findings of the AFOAT-1 contractor, Tracerlab. See Ziegler and Jacobson, Spying Without Spies, 187-189, 207.

[20] . Pavel V. Oleynikov’s “German Scientists in the Soviet Atomic Project,” The Nonproliferation Review , 7 (2000), 1-30, provides a valuable account of these developments.

[21] . For more on gaseous diffusion, see Holloway, Stalin and the Bomb , 191-192.

[22] . Ibid., 109-112. See also Oleynikov, “German Scientists,” at 7. During this trip, the Soviets also acquired 300 hundred tons of uranium oxide that the Germans had hidden.

IMAGES

Be Prepared for Your Child's First Visit to the Dentist
A Guide to Preparing Your Child For Their First Dentist Visit
Two Year Old Child’s First Dental Visit
Tips for Your Child’s First Dentist Visit
Make Your Child Comfortable During Their First Visit to the Dentist
First Dental Visit

VIDEO

2 Year Old at the Dentist. It Was Scary But Fun!
My first Dentist's visit 😁😁
2 years first dentist care
First Dentist Visit
First dentist visit for toddler video😳🥵
Anya

COMMENTS

A Child's First Dental Visit Fact Sheet
The first dental visit is recommended by 12 months of age, or within 6 months of the first tooth coming in. The first visit often lasts 30 to 45 minutes. Depending on your child's age, the visit may include a full exam of the teeth, jaws, bite, gums, and oral tissues to check growth and development. If needed, your child may also have a gentle ...
Your Child's First Dentist Visit: What Age and What To Expect
Babies should see a dentist by age 1 or within six months after the first appearance of their first tooth, whichever comes first. Early and regular dental care is important to your baby's oral ...
First Dental Visit: When Should Baby Visit the Dentist?
When to schedule baby's first dental visit. It might sound early, but aim to schedule your baby's first dentist appointment at a pediatric dentist (or one who's good with children) within 6 months of the time he sprouts a tooth or turns a year old, whichever comes first, according to the latest guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Academy of Pediatric ...
Preparing Your Child for Their First Dentist Visit
Once you have an appointment scheduled, start preparing your child for the visit. Children learn best when they are having fun. You can practice giving their stuffed animal a checkup with a toy mirror. Your child can bring that same stuffed animal to the dental visit to get a check-up by the dentist. Read books to them.
A Child's First Dental Visit Fact Sheet
The first dental visit is recommended by 12 months of age, or within 6 months of the first tooth coming in. The first visit often lasts 30 to 45 minutes. Depending on your child's age, the visit may include a full exam of the teeth, jaws, bite, gums, and oral tissues to check growth and development. If needed, your child may also have a gentle ...
Preparing for your child's first dental visit
In advance of the visit, give them an idea of what to expect: Go over what will happen at the appointment (more on that below). And be sure not to pass on any personal fear you may have of dentists to your child. Give them every opportunity to enjoy their first visit. Explain why it's important to go to the dentist and how it keeps them healthy.
A Child's First Dental Visit Fact Sheet
The first dental visit is recommended by 12 months of age, or within 6 months of the first tooth coming in. The first visit often lasts 30 to 45 minutes. Depending on your child's age, the visit may include a full exam of the teeth, jaws, bite, gums, and oral tissues to check growth and development.
First Dental Visit for Baby
The dentist will examine your child to make sure their jaw and teeth are developing in the way they should. During the visit, you will be seated in the dental chair with your child on your lap if your child isn't able to — or doesn't want to — sit in the chair alone. The dentist will check for mouth injuries, cavities or other issues.
What To Expect At Your Child's First Dentist Visit
Don't wait until there's a toothache before you schedule your child's first dental visit. In fact, a baby's first dental appointment needs to happen before their first birthday or when their first tooth comes in. ... This could be as early as 2-3 years old or as late as age 5. Overview Of Your Childs First Dental Appointment . It's ...
What Is the Right Age for A Child's First Dental Visit?
A child's first visit to the dentist marks an important milestone in their overall health and development. Though parents may be hesitant to bring their young child to the dentist, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD) recommends children have their first dental visit by age 1, or within 6 months of the eruption of their first tooth. . There are many benefits to starting dental ...
A Child's First Dental Visit Fact Sheet
The first dental visit is recommended by 12 months of age, or within 6 months of the first tooth coming in. The first visit often lasts 30 to 45 minutes. Depending on your child's age, the visit may include a full exam of the teeth, jaws, bite, gums, and oral tissues to check growth and development.
When Should I Take My Child to the Dentist?
When your child is between ages 4 and 6, expect your dentist to take a first set of X-rays to check for cavities lurking between the teeth. Prevention is the name of the game between ages 6 and 12 ...
PDF The Importance of the Age One Dental Visit
first dental visit is at five years old has nearly 20 times the odds of having caries at their first dental visit compared to a child whose first dental visit was at age one.40 In 2014, Nowak et al. examined billing data from 20 corporate treatment centers. Among 40,000 children, if the first dental visit was delayed until age four, there were ...
When Should I Take My Toddler to the Dentist?
The short answer is that your toddler's first visit to the dentist should be around age 1 or 2. ... American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Dental Association recommend a child's first visit to be no later than age 1 to 2 when the first tooth erupts. This can happen as early as 3 months of age for some babies. Instead of treating ...
PDF Fast Facts
Tips for parents on a great dental visit. 8. Dental Care for School-Age Children & Sealants A count down to dental health: Five steps to a cavity-free child. Sealants: The invisible protector and the best-kept secret in the dental office. 9. Dental Care for the Teenager Why teens may get their first cavity at the same time they get a driver's ...
Taking Your Child To The Dentist For The First Time
A quick search of the internet revealed that kids can start going to the dentist as soon as their teeth begin popping through—which, according to the American Dental Association (ADA), is usually around 6 months old. ( Whoops.) This, the organization says, is because tooth decay affects one in five children under 5—so by starting screenings ...
Delayed start to dentist visits: Parents need provider prompt
However, 1 in 6 (17%) believed that children should delay their first dentist visit until 4 years or older. Over half of parents (60%) reported their child has had a dental visit; for 85% of this group, the child's age at their first visit matched the parents' belief about when to start dental visits. Most parents (79%) felt the dentist ...
Age and Reasons for First Dental Visit and Knowledge and Att
The first dental visit should begin during pregnancy to advise the expectant mother on the importance of dental visit at 6 months of age. The average ages of first dental visit described in various studies are as follows: >6 years,[ 3 ] 5-12 years,[ 2 ] 5 years,[ 8 ] 3-5 years,[ 9 ] and 14.92 months.[ 10 ]
First Dental Visit: Age Reasons Oral Health Status and Dental Treatment
Ghimire et al. reported that in Nepal, most children making their first dental visit were 7-11 years old (52.7%), and only 7% were younger than 3 years. 21 Studies by Murshid found that in Saudi Arabia, most children visit the dentist at the age of 3-5 years (52.9%) and less often at the age under 3 years (32.2%). 22
"Metallurgical Plant "Electrostal" JSC
Round table 2021. "Electrostal" Metallurgical plant" JSC has a number of remarkable time-tested traditions. One of them is holding an annual meeting with customers and partners in an extеnded format in order to build development pathways together, resolve pressing tasks and better understand each other. Although the digital age ...
Nikolay Zherdev
Playing career. 2002-present. Mykola Olehovych " Nikolay " Zherdev ( Ukrainian: Микола Олегович Жердев; born November 5, 1984) is a Ukrainian-Russian [1] [2] professional ice hockey right winger who is currently playing for the Alleghe Hockey of the Italian Hockey League . He previously played in the National Hockey League ...
Vladimir Soloviev, prophet of Russia's conversion
Vladimir Soloviev, aged twenty. T HE conversion of Russia will not be the work of man, no matter how gifted he may be, but that of the Immaculate Heart of the Virgin Mary, the Mediatrix of all graces, because this is God's wish, which he revealed to the world in 1917. The life and works of Vladimir Soloviev are a perfect illustration of this ...
Detection of the First Soviet Nuclear Test, September 1949
Washington, D.C., September 9, 2019 - Seventy years ago, on 9 September 1949, Director of Central Intelligence Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter handed President Harry Truman a carefully worded report of "an abnormal radio-active contamination" in the Northern Pacific that greatly exceeded normal levels in the atmosphere. While uncertain as to the cause, the DCI's first hypothesis was "An ...

Prepare your child

Prepare yourself

Prepare the dentist

The first visit

The second visit

Protect your children's teeth at home

Related Topics

When Should Baby Visit the Dentist for the First Time?

Go to Your Baby's Age

How to Prepare Your Child for Their First Dental Visit

What to Expect

Preparing as a Parent

Where to Find a Dentist

Getting Ready For Your Child's Visit

Mental Preparation

Put Them At Ease

Anticipating Follow Up Visits

Your child’s first dental visit

Your Baby's First Dental Visit

What To Expect At Your Child's First Dentist Visit

Risk Of An Untreated Rotten Baby Tooth

When Should Your Child First Visit The Dentist?

What Happens At My Baby/Child’s Cleaning Appointment?

Overview Of Your Childs First Dental Appointment

Recommended reads

What Is the Right Age for A Child’s First Dental Visit?

Why Visit the Dentist by Age 1

To Assess Oral Health Risks

To Initiate Preventive Care

To Establish a Dental Home

To Prevent Early Childhood Caries

The Importance of Primary Teeth

Benefits of an Early First Visit

Familiarizes Child with Dentist

Reduces Fear and Anxiety

Saves Money and Time

Improves Oral and Overall Health

How to Prepare Your Child for the First Visit

Remain Positive

Read Children’s Books

Avoid Negative Language

Answer Questions

Bring a Friend

Schedule Appropriately

What to Expect at the First Visit

Tips to Make the Visit Successful

Establishing a Dental Home

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You may have missed

When is the Right Age for Kids to Get Braces?

Brushing Technique in Children with Special Health Care Needs

Signs of Teething in Babies

Role of Fluoride in the Prevention of Dental Caries in Children

Brushing Techniques for Kids By Age: How to Brush Kids’ Teeth

Breathe Easy for Spring

Prepare your child

Prepare yourself

Prepare the dentist

The first visit

The second visit

Protect your children's teeth at home

Related Items

Pediatric Diseases and Conditions

Delayed start to dentist visits: Parents need provider prompt

Implications

Pandemic-posed challenges to children's oral health

Many young children off to a poor start with dental health

For 12 million uninsured children, high barriers to dental care

First Dental Visit: Age Reasons Oral Health Status and Dental Treatment Needs among Children Aged 1 Month to 14 Years

Sukhdeep Singh

Materials and methods

Statistical analysis used

How to cite this article

I ntroduction

M aterials and M ethods

D iscussion

C onclusion

R eferences

VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV prophet of Russia’s conversion

A PERSONAL CONVERSION

THE “ RETURN OF THE DISSIDENTS ”