YouSaid · the spoken record

KISELEV

lines on the record

504

first

1946-09-24

most recent

1965-09-24

sittings or episodes

13

sources

un-general-debate

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

1. “The Times of 9 March 1956 stated that the United Kingdom had spent £5,700 million sterling for military purposes over the last four years and that the country had not of course had sufficient resources for such expenditures. These are the facts and figures. 31. Mr. Belaunde, the Peruvian representative, in his statement of 27 November 1956 during the general debate [597th meeting] took the liberty of stating that he had read with dismay the latest suggestion of the Soviet Union on disarmament. The fears aroused in Mr. Belaunde by the Soviet Union’s constructive new disarmament proposals are understandable because Mr. Belaunde is the spokesman for Western Monopolistic groups, which fear any kind of real disarmament as much as the devil fears holy water.”

   1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)

2. “Brucker, the United States Secretary of the Army, said in February 1956 at a meeting of the National Press Club, the United States is actively helping to train 200 divisions in various countries. On 8 March 1956 the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives approved a bill for the appropriation of an additional $2,000 million for the construction of 292 new military bases in foreign countries. 30. Military expenditures have been increased inordinately in a number of Western countries, diverting vast resources to non-productive purposes. This is particularly true in the case of the countries that are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Since 1949 the military expenditure of the United States has increased almost four times and that of France three times.”

   1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)

3. “Quarles, United States Secretary of the Air Force, stated at a conference on jet-age problems that the United States was prepared to use nuclear weapons in a local war as well as in a world war, and General Twining, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, stated on 28 January 1956 that the day is quickly drawing near when any conflict will involve the use of nuclear weapons. 28. These statements show that the military leaders of the United States intend to use nuclear weapons in local wars as well as in the third world war that they are planning. 29. It is well-known that all the time new military bases are being constructed round the peace-loving countries and that, as Mr.”

   1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)

4. “Flemming, informed the United States Congress that the cold war could last for thirty to forty years and that the United States Government was making its plans accordingly. This statement shows what the ruling circles of the United States of America are dreaming about. The United States is not prepared to end the cold war. 27. I should also like to draw attention to the statements of highly-placed United States officials, especially military officials, who at regular intervals come forward with an apologia for war, the armaments race and nuclear weapons. Thus for example on 4 February 1956, Mr.”

   1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)

5. “Ordinary people throughout the world naturally wonder why the disarmament problem remains unsolved. 25. In our opinion it has not been solved because in certain Western countries there are influential groups that do not desire a relaxation of international tension and stubbornly adhere to the bankrupt “from a position of strength” policy. These groups are counting on the perpetuation of the cold war, on a continued armaments race and on preparations for another world war. 26. I do not wish to be accused of making unfounded assertions and will therefore refer to specific examples. As the United Press agency reported on 23 February 1956, Director of the Office of Defense Mobilization of the United States of America, Mr.”

   1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)

6. “Many representatives who have spoken in the general debate devoted great attention to the questions of reducing armaments and armed forces, prohibiting the production and use of atomic and hydrogen weapons and eliminating the threat of another war. It must be said that these problems are of prime importance among the outstanding international problems that at present perturb the peoples of the world. Throughout the entire post-war period the question of disarmament has been placed on the General Assembly’s agenda and discussed year after year. 24. During these discussions there has, on more than one occasion, been a rapprochement between the views of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the USSR, but as can be seen by all, no agreement on this important problem has yet been reached.”

   1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)

7. “We all know that the task of strengthening peace and ensuring international security is for the Soviet Government not a matter of tactics or diplomatic manoeuvres but a corner-stone of foreign policy. 22. The Byelorussian people, like the peoples of other countries, vigorously reject all slanderous attacks on the Soviet Union and the people’s democracies. And the Byelorussian delegation will continue to oppose any proposals to interfere in the internal affairs of Hungary. The task of solving the problems that have arisen in Hungary lies exclusively within the domestic jurisdiction of the Hungarian State. 23.”

   1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)

8. “The great responsibility of the United Nations to the peoples of the whole world compels us to set about solving the problems before it with great care and attention. 20. The representatives of Peru, Australia, Cuba and certain others who have spoken here, however, have a completely different approach — they are fanning the flames of hatred and enmity among peoples. In trying to bring the foreign policy of the Soviet Union into disrepute, they talked themselves into the absurd assertions that the peaceful deeds of the USSR and all the measures it has recently taken to relax international tension and improve relations between States are merely tactical manoeuvres and that the entire post-war history of the USSR betrays its aggressive intentions. 21.”

   1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)

9. “It must be quite clear by now that any attempts to preserve colonial domination are doomed to failure. The United Nations should realize that tremendous changes have taken place in Asia and Africa during the post-war years and that a new situation has arisen. 18. The growth of the movement of national liberation is reflected even in the work of the United Nations. Proof of this is to be found in the fact that questions such as those of Algeria, Cyprus and West Irian have been submitted to the United Nations for consideration. 19. Peace-loving people throughout the world are impatiently waiting for international tension to be relaxed and the threat of another world war eliminated.”

   1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)

10. “Casey it would appear that the Egyptian Government is responsible for the outbreak of war, although we are all aware that those really responsible for the war are the United Kingdom, France and Israel. This is simply shifting the blame from the guilty to the innocent. Yet this is not the first time that Mr. Casey has assumed the role of advocate for the most aggressive circles of the Western Powers. 15. The General Assembly should place full and entire responsibility for the situation in Egypt on the Governments of the United Kingdom, France and Israel, which, by their aggressive action, have shattered the peace and security of the Middle East and flagrantly violated the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. 16. The Suez Canal rightly belonged, belongs and should belong to the Egyptian people. 17.”

    1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)

11. “The whole world knows that it was the Soviet Union which consistently tried and is still trying to bring about the peaceful settlement of the Suez problem with due regard to the interests of Egypt and of the other States concerned. It is enough to recall the Soviet Union’s efforts to find a generally acceptable procedure for the peaceful settlement of the Suez question, at the London Conference, in the Security Council and here in the General Assembly. 14. Speaking on 26 November, [595th meeting], Mr. Casey, the Australian representative, alleged that the nationalization of the Suez Canal by the Egyptian Government had in the final analysis led to war. According to Mr.”

    1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)

12. “Our delegation considers that the General Assembly should not allow the Force to become a tool in the hands of the United Kingdom, France and Israel and a means of bringing pressure to bear on Egypt in connexion with the general settlement of the problems relating to the Suez Canal and the Arab-Israel dispute. 13. Speaking on 22 November 1956 in the general debate [589th meeting], Mr. Pineau, the representative of France, accused the Soviet Union of trying to hamper any settlement of the Suez problem and to aggravate the situation in the Middle East. This assertion by Mr. Pineau is a crude distortion of reality and is nothing more than slander directed against the Soviet Union.”

    1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)

13. “The statements of the United Kingdom, French and Israel representatives give the impression that the original plan of the Western Powers to remove the Suez Canal from Egyptian control and place it under international control in the form of an “association of canal users” or in some other form, is still in force. 12. Faced with the determined opposition of the Egyptian people, supported by all peace-loving nations, the aggressors suffered a setback. Now they are trying to achieve their ends indirectly. That is why the United Kingdom, France and Israel want the United Nations Emergency Force to be stationed throughout the Suez Canal zone and remain there until the plan for the “internationalization” of the Canal has been imposed upon Egypt.”

    1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)

14. “The question naturally arises: what have the Governments of the United Kingdom, France and Israel done to comply with this and earlier resolutions and when do they intend to withdraw their troops from Egyptian territory? 11. Unfortunately it must be noted that, in their statements here, the representatives of the United Kingdom, France and Israel have not answered this question clearly. Mr. Lloyd, the United Kingdom representative, who has made several statements from this rostrum, endeavoured to mislead the General Assembly, to deceive world public opinion and, by his deliberately incorrect interpretation of the word “immediately”, to justify the continued presence of the armed forces of the aggressors on Egyptian territory.”

    1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)

15. “Fawzi, the representative of Egypt, in his brilliant speech of 28 November 1956 during the general debate [597th meeting], gave us a moving description of the tragedy through which the Egyptian people is now living. 9. The delegation of the Byelorussian SSR has already had an opportunity to express its views on the aggression carried out by the United Kingdom, France and Israel against Egypt; I shall therefore be brief. 10. As will be recalled, on 24 November 1956 the General Assembly by an overwhelming majority adapted a resolution in which it reiterated its call to the United Kingdom, France and Israel for the complete and immediate withdrawal of their forces from Egyptian territory.”

    1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)

16. “The delegation of the Byelorussian SSR, like other delegations whose representatives have already taken the floor, deems it necessary to express its views on the basic questions raised by the present international situation and on the work of the United Nations during the period under consideration. 8. Recent international developments have led to increased tension in relations between States. The armed aggression by the United Kingdom, France and Israel against Egypt must be regarded as one of these developments. In their statements the representatives of a whole series of countries have quoted many convincing facts by virtue of which the aggressors stand revealed to world public opinion in their true colours. Mr.”

    1956-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 11 (1956)

17. “By adopting this declaration, we shall give the peoples of the world a chance to free themselves from fear of a new war and Shall make a valuable contribution to the cause of peace and security among nations.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

18. “This declaration, which expresses the firm resolve of hundreds of millions of people to avert the threat of a new war, proposes once again to censure the propaganda in favour of a new war which is being conducted in a number of countries, to prohibit the use of atomic energy for military purposes, to institute international control to enforce this prohibition, to conclude a pact for the strengthening of peace between the five great Powers and to reduce the armed forces of the five great Powers by one-third during 1950. 119. The delegation of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic calls upon the members of the General Assembly at this plenary meeting to support this declaration.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

19. “The Byelorussian delegation, in expressing its people’s aspiration towards peace and desire to avert war, whole-heartedly supports the real programme for peace formulated in the “declaration on the removal of the threat of a new war and the strengthening of peace and security among the nations”, submitted by the delegation of the Soviet Union for the consideration of the General Assembly [A/1376].”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

20. “We must endeavour to establish mutual confidence and to unify all our forces for the maintenance of international peace and security throughout the world. We must endeavour to develop friendly relations between States on the basis of respect for the principle of equal rights and we must take all possible measures to strengthen peace and security throughout the world. 117. The representative of the Tito group made some slanderous attacks here against the Soviet Union; but the absolute nonsense which he uttered here is not worthy of any attention whatsoever. It would be beneath our dignity to waste time in refuting his slanderous fabrications. 118.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

21. “Bevin will not succeed in his manoeuvre of white-washing the real aggressors, who are now conducting a sanguinary war in Korea, and of ascribing the aggression to States which are unremittingly battling for the peace and security of the peoples of the world. 115. I have seen photographs, taken by American correspondents, of Mr. Dulles, who usually sits in this hall, in the trenches near the 38th parallel at a time when he was instructing Syngman Rhee’s officers. These photographs were reproduced in the newspapers of many countries. It is difficult to disprove such evidence. The Korean people know very well who organized the intervention in Korea. All this constitutes military interference in the affairs of other States. And those who do such things are the real aggressors, Mr. Bevin. 116.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

22. “A great struggle for peace in all parts of the globe has unfolded before our eyes. The war-mongers have run up against the granite wall of popular resistance. The ranks of those who strive for peace continue to swell every day. One half of the human race has expressed itself, in one form or another, for peace and against war. 114. When it became difficult to ignore this vast movement towards peace, the imperialists began to conduct propaganda against the movement and also undertook repressive measures and fierce reprisals against the partisans of peace, who are being prosecuted, imprisoned, and dismissed from their work. Mr. Bevin calls all this a propaganda manoeuvre. This is no question of propaganda. It is a question of the future of peace throughout the world. Mr.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

23. “On 25 September 1950 [283rd meeting], during the general discussion, we heard the statement of the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Bevin, who ascribes aggressive intentions to the Soviet Union and appraises peace petitions and peace campaigns for peace and security throughout the world as a propaganda manoeuvre. Whenever the question arises of discussing and settling serious problems, Mr. Bevin resorts to the word “propaganda”. Every day the postal and the telegraph services bring to the United Nations telegrams and letters from all corners of the globe, from simple people of all nationalities and of all creeds, who beg the United Nations to outlaw the atomic bomb, to put an end to the race for armaments, to put an end to the intervention in Korea and to conclude a peace pact between the five great Powers.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

24. “In spite of the fact that a resolution [110 (II)] was adopted by the second session of the General Assembly on “measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war”, the representative of New Zealand takes the liberty of speaking from this tribune in favour of a new war. I think it would be correct to include the name of the representative of New Zealand, Mr. Berendsen, in the list of inciters of a new war. The representative of New Zealand not only refuses to acknowledge the General Assembly resolution on the prohibition of propaganda for a new war, but he has become so bold as to allow himself to make an open call to war within the United Nations. 112. Gentlemen, we must censure such statements in definite terms. 113.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

25. “It is impossible to overlook the statements of the New Zealand representative [280th meeting], Mr. Berendsen, who, like the Australian representative, tried to distort the position of the Soviet Union in matters relating to international co-operation and the strengthening of peace and security throughout the world. For the first time from the international platform of the United Nations General Assembly, the representative of New Zealand openly proclaimed that war was the only possible means of settling disputes. His actual words were as follows: “This is our chance to banish war, even if — and the anomaly is inescapable — by war itself”. 111. Thus it would appear that only war can save the peace.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

26. “Under cover of speeches on agreement and co-operation, they are taking all the measures at their disposal to undermine such co-operation, to avoid concluding agreements and, at the same time, to lay the blame upon the USSR. 109. The peoples of the world know full well that the instigators of a new war fear agreements and cooperation with the USSR above all else, since a policy of agreements with the USSR would undermine the position of the war-mongers and would render their aggressive policy pointless. Is it not clear from this that the representative of Australia, Mr. Spender, has made a crude and unmannerly attempt to distort and discredit the foreign policy of the Soviet Union and thus_ to transfer the blame from the guilty party to the innocent? 110.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

27. “As far back as 1934, the head of the Soviet Government, Josef Vissarionovich Stalin, clearly and definitely formulated the foreign policy of the Soviet Union Government in the following words: “Our foreign policy is clear. It is a policy of keeping the peace and strengthening trade relations with all countries. The USSR has no intention of threatening anybody and even less so, of attacking anybody. We stand for peace and defend the cause of peace.” 108. Thus, the foreign policy of the Soviet Union in its relations with capitalist States is based upon the possibility of the co-existence of the socialist and capitalist systems and of wide-spread co-operation between them. It is clear to us that the instigators of an aggressive policy are not interested in agreement and co-operation with the USSR.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

28. “The representative of Australia was guilty of a completely untruthful statement, to say the least of it, when he declared that the Soviet Union was not conducting a peaceful policy. 107. The whole world knows that the Soviet Union has fought and is fighting for the extension of international co-operation and the strengthening of universal peace. It was in the interests of international co-operation and the strengthening of the peace and security of peoples that the Soviet Union drew to the, attention of the United Nations such important matters as the question of the reduction of armaments, the prohibition of propaganda for a new war, the prohibition of atomic weapons and the conclusion of a peace pact. Hence, it is not the Soviet Union that is to blame.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

29. “The Security Council has allowed the flag of the United Nations to be used in the present armed civil strife in Korea, thus flagrantly violating the fundamental principles of the United Nations. 106. On 21 September [280th meeting], a. speech was made here by the representative of Australia, Mr. Spender, who devoted some time to crude slander of the Soviet Union and the people’s democracies. It should be noted that such statements have become familiar to us and are not being made for the first time in organs of the United Nations. By distorting universally known facts, Mr. Spender tried to maintain that the Soviet Union was making no effort to promote international cooperation and did not wish to take constructive measures for the strengthening of universal peace.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

30. “We must decisively sweep aside any attempt to hinder the normal operation of the Security Council and we must put an end to attacks against the principle of unanimity. All the Members of the United Nations are obliged to abide by its Charter. 103. We must expel the Kuomintang representative from the United Nations, beginning with the Security Council, and we must give his place to the real representative of the Chinese people, that is to say to the representative of the Central People’s Government of China. 104. We must demand the immediate cessation of intervention in Korea and settle the Korean question by peaceful means, giving the Korean people itself an opportunity of deciding its own fate. 105. The Security Council has taken a number of illegal decisions on the Korean question.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

31. “Santa Cruz, the representative of Chile, has proposed [281st meeting] the conclusion of a four-point agreement which would render it obligatory for the States signatory to it to comply with recommendations of the General Assembly and automatically to declare war should the Assembly adopt a recommendation to that effect by a two-thirds majority. Mr. Santa Cruz long ago ceased to concern himself with the principle of unanimity. 101. It is not by accident that the former United States President, Mr. Hoover, and after him Mr. Dulles, spoke of the “reorganization” of the United Nations in order to remain in line with their uncomplaining satellites such as Mr. Santa Cruz. The same line is followed by the representative of Chile. 102.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

32. “The Anglo-American majority took advantage of the absence of two permanent Members — the USSR and China — from the Security Council to adopt a series of illegal decisions reflecting discredit on the United Nations, and has exploited the Security Council, to which the Charter assigns the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, as a tool of its aggressive policy. If the opponents of the principle of the unanimity of the five Powers succeed in having it abolished, they will in fact have achieved the liquidation of the United Nations. Mr.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

33. “In place of a policy of strengthening international co-operation based on respect for the independence and sovereign equality of all nations, based on common respect for the rights and interests of all five great Powers, these gentlemen are proposing a plan for the undermining of the principles of the United Nations, for its liquidation by the abolition of the principle of unanimity. 100. The idea of replacing the Security Council by the General Assembly is not new and has been put forward in the past. At previous sessions, we have witnessed repeated attempts to abolish the principle of unanimity and bypass the Security Council and replace it by other organs.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

34. “The representative of Iraq has openly called for the elimination of the principle of unanimity, which is the cornerstone of the United Nations Charter. Similar demands have been made in the Assembly by the representatives of Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Greece, Peru and others. This represents a new outburst of attacks against the principle of unanimity, which does in fact constitute an effective obstacle to the realization of the expansionist plans nurtured by the war-mongers.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

35. “Acheson attempted to place the blame for all the difficulties and failures of the United Nations on the Soviet Union, which he accused of having placed a number of obstacles in the way of the work of the United Nations. In actual fact, however, these barriers and obstacles to the work of the United Nations were erected by the United States and the United Kingdom. 98. The delegation of the Byelorussian SSR considers that certain of the proposals submitted by Mr. Acheson are incompatible with the Charter, and represent an attempt to bypass the Security Council, block its action and reduce it to a cipher by replacing it, in violation of the Charter, by the General Assembly and other organs. These proposals are therefore unacceptable, and should be made to conform with the Charter. 99.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

36. “According to Lawrence, a lasting peace with Russia would make it impossible to justify present and future expenditure on armaments and the threat of “a sudden turn to peace by Russia” would therefore be “the biggest economic danger faced by America”. 96. These words are a glaring example of the fear of peace. Those who think along these lines wish to hold off the possibility of peace as long as possible, and they therefore maintain a state of alarm and uncertainty in international relations. Their greatest fear is that a lasting peace might “break out”, and they do everything in their power to prevent the peaceful negotiations desired by the peoples of the entire world. 97. On 20 September, we heard the speech to the Assembly of Mr. Acheson, Secretary of State of the United States of America [279th meeting], Mr.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

37. “The causes of these tenacious attempts by certain circles to unleash a new war are openly described in the capitalist Press. The view is put forward that a lasting peace and, in particular, the peaceful regulation of relations with the Soviet Union, would “ruin business”. A lasting peace, it is declared, would be a calamity, and must be prevented at any price. 95. Thus Mr. Lawrence, editor of the US. News & World Report, explained in detail in an article published in the issue of 14 January 1949 under the title “Our Unpreparedness for Sudden Peace” that if the “cold war” against the USSR were to end suddenly, the American economy would be dealt “a devastating blow”, since its “false prosperity” is based entirely on the constant inflation of “armament expenditures”.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

38. “They are well aware what war means, and they are steadfast in their determination to foil the criminal plans of the warmongers. The Byelorussian people will defend the cause of peace by every means within their power, and they are confident that the struggle for peace will end in victory. 93. The great Soviet people and the Soviet Union, the mighty country of socialism, which has consistently pursued a Stalinist foreign policy of peace and friendship among the peoples, constitute a staunch and trusty bulwark of the international movement in favour of peace. The Byelorussian people are confident that the might of the democratic forces, led by the Soviet Union, will inflict a resounding defeat on the aggressive plans of the capitalist monopolies, which are doing everything in their power to unleash a new and bloody war. 94.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

39. “It is no accident that the Stockholm Appeal, which calls for the unconditional prohibition of atomic weapons and the establishment of strict international control in order to enforce this prohibition, has already been signed by hundreds of millions of people. Millions of people of all countries refuse to serve as cannon-fodder for the warmongers; they know that all over the world peace is endangered by an imminent and grave threat of a new war, and that such a war can and must be prevented. 92. The Byelorussian people, who have felt the impact of two world wars in a single generation, have hastened to add their signatures to the Stockholm Appeal. During the Hitlerite occupation, the Byelorussian people lost hundreds of thousands of their finest sons and daughters.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

40. “It is sufficient to note that at a moment when the capitalist countries are involved in a furious arms race, when thousands of millions of dollars are being spent for the production of atomic bombs and poisonous substances intended for the annihilation of humanity, the Soviet Government is beginning the construction of the two largest hydro-electric stations in The world on the Volga (at Kuibishev and Stalingrad), and another on the Dnieper. These decisions of the Soviet Government constitute new proof of the peaceful aims of the Soviet Union. 91. The peoples of the world have learned the bitter lessons of the past world wars; they passionately desire peace; they do not want war, and for this reason they are signing the Stockholm Appeal with immense enthusiasm.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

41. “The Soviet Union is an active participant in the great struggle for the survival of mankind against the forces of destruction and death. 90. A simple comparison is all that is needed to demonstrate who is working for peace and who for war. While every effort is being made in the USSR to utilize atomic energy for peaceful purposes and economic development, the only concern in the capitalist countries is to find new ways of destroying a greater number of human lives, to discover new bacilli etc. for the annihilation of human beings.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

42. “In the Soviet Union there can be no such thing as propaganda for military expansion, for national and race discrimination, for depriving any people of its national freedom and independence; whereas in the capitalist States propaganda for war and hatred of humanity is heard day after day, and the Press is full of it. Through its leading statesmen and its representatives in international organizations, through the proposals submitted by them to international conferences and meetings, the Soviet Union has constantly and consistently demanded the limitation of armaments, the prohibition of the atomic bomb and the utilization of the achievements of atomic science in the interests of humanity and for the strengthening of friendly relations between peoples.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

43. “These proposals clearly express the sincere hopes of those peoples who experienced the horrors of the Second World War for the maintenance of a lasting and firmly established peace. 89. The desire for peace is deeply rooted in the Soviet people, who are busy with their peaceful and creative labour. From the very first days of its existence, the Soviet Union has pursued a consistent and persevering policy of peace, a policy of unmasking any and every instigator of war. In its consistent struggle for peace the USSR Government is backed by the unanimous and active support of the entire Soviet people. In the Soviet Union the cry for war is not heard from a single platform, and speeches by haters of humanity demanding mass slaughter and the shedding of the blood of peace-loving peoples would be unthinkable.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

44. “As is well known, a number of important decisions having as their purpose the maintenance of international peace and security were taken during this period, but unfortunately these decisions have not been implemented, and many of the most important questions placed before the United Nations have not been carried to their proper conclusion. 88. On 20 September, in the course of the general debate, Mr. Vyshinsky, head of the USSR delegation, made a speech [279th meeting] in which he set forth a programme of peace and submitted for the consideration of the General Assembly a number of concrete proposals aimed at eliminating the threat of a new war and strengthening international peace and security.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

45. “Nevertheless, the work of the United Nations has shown, and unfortunately continues to show, a number of serious shortcomings, which are reflected in the abandonment of the most important principles laid down in the Charter and, in a number of cases, in the direct violation of positive decisions taken by the General Assembly. The United Nations has signally failed to do all it might have done to increase its prestige and authority and to fulfil the tasks assigned to it, which are: to strengthen peace, to develop co-operation among peoples and States based on equality of rights, to strengthen friendly relations between them, to bring about by peaceful means the settlement of disputes and to prevent acts of aggression and conflicts between States. 87.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

46. “It is now five years since the United Nations Charter, in which it was laid down that the fundamental purpose of the newly-established international organization was to be the prevention of new wars and the maintenance of international peace and security, was signed at San Francisco. 85. What results have we to show at this fifth session of the General Assembly? What has the United Nations achieved during these five years towards the fulfilment of the tasks and purposes laid down in the Charter? 86. If we trace its activities during this period, we must, of course, acknowledge that, despite the difficulties which it has encountered, the United Nations has a certain amount of positive work to its credit.”

    1950-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 5 (1950)

47. “The Member States of the United Nations could not disregard the anxiety of all the nations of the world to prevent another war. They must develop close co-operation among themselves. They must take concrete steps for the speedy solution of such international problems as the control and reduction of armaments and of armed forces, the prohibition of the atomic weapon, and the use of atomic energy solely for peaceful ends. Warmongering must be forbidden and all preparations for a new war must be stopped. 161. In appealing to the great Powers to conclude a pact for the strengthening of peace, the Soviet Union had sought to free the peoples of the world from the fear of another war and to bring to fruition the highest hopes of humanity, which craved only security and a lasting peace.”

    1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)

48. “Santa Cruz, representative of Chile, whom he accused of using the forum of the United Nations in an attempt to distract the attention of the General Assembly from the Soviet Union’s proposals (226th meeting) for the achievement of world peace. The Chilean representative had used doubtful arguments, had maintained that the USSR proposals were simply ironical and had thus sought to confuse a perfectly clear issue. Slander on the part of the Chilean representative was nothing new. Everyone was equally familiar with the fact that it invariably came to nothing. There was no need to stress the point further. 160. The delegation of the Byelorussian SSR wholeheartedly supported the proposals put forward at the 226th meeting by Mr. Vyshinsky.”

    1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)

49. “Kiselev gave another instance in support of his argument: according to official statistics, to be found in the Trusteeship Council’s report, only three of the 331 industrial undertakings in Ruanda-Urundi belonged to the Native population. Those three companies were concerned with the manufacture of pottery, basket-making and tanning. 158. It was essential to take steps to prevent American monopolists from enslaving economically under-developed countries under cover of the United Nations. Generous aid must be granted to under-developed countries, provided that such aid allowed them to promote their national economy and to progress towards political and economic independence. 159. Mr. Kiselev then alluded to the statement by Mr.”

    1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)

50. “That situation existed mainly in countries which for many years had been, or still were, subjected to ruthless exploitation by colonial Powers. 157. There was an attempt in some quarters to represent the United States plan of technical aid as one devoid of imperialistic aims. It was quite clear, however, that the plan was nothing more than an attempt by American monopolists to secure a political and economic hold on other countries, to ruin their domestic industries and to flood their markets with American goods. They sought to gain control of the resources of strategic raw materials with intent to use them for military ends. Thus, for example, the United States had bought up nearly all the supplies of raw materials in the Belgian Congo. American companies were ruthlessly exploiting the population of that region. Mr.”

    1949-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 4 (1949)