YouSaid · the spoken record

VYSHINSKY

lines on the record
673
first
1947-09-24
most recent
1954-09-24
sittings or episodes
8
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. “In all those bodies, the United States and the United Kingdom were bent on achieving their own aims, which had nothing in common with the principles and purposes of the United Nations, and were endeavouring, with the help of an obedient majority, to impose their decisions on other States. 16. That policy was responsible for the fact that over a period of almost four years, a body as important as the Atomic Energy Commission had done nothing to implement the General Assembly’s resolutions on measures for the prohibition of atomic weapons and the establishment of international control of atomic energy in order that the latter should not be used for military purposes.”

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

  2. “The United Nations Secretariat, in its survey of the world economic situation, was obliged to admit that, contrary to what was taking place in the countries of western Europe and other parts of the world, industrial and agricultural production in the Soviet Union and the peoples’ democracies had continued to grow during the first quarter of 1949. 15. The policy of the United States and the United Kingdom, intended as it was to weaken the United Nations, was the cause of the unsatisfactory situation in such important organs of the United Nations as the Security Council, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Commission for Conventional Armaments, the Military Staff Committee and the Economic and Social Council.”

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

  3. “But while the countries of western Europe were weighed down by the burden of the aid which they were supposedly receiving under the Marshall Plan, the Soviet Union and the peoples’ democracies were successfully pursuing their programme of economic reconstruction and development. The Soviet Union was steadily increasing its economic power and was improving the cultural and material living conditions of the Soviet people. 14. Figures recently published by the central directorate of statistics of the USSR showed that, in the second quarter of 1949, industrial production in that country had risen by 20 per cent as compared with the second quarter of the preceding year. The number of industrial workers was mounting; their productivity was increasing. Prices of basic commodities were decreasing and the workers’ purchasing power was growing.”

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

  4. “The number of unemployed during that period had increased by one and a half times in France, had nearly doubled in the British and American occupation zones in Germany, and had doubled in the Netherlands and Norway. 12. As everyone knew, unemployment continued to mount in the United States, where, according to official data — which should not of course be taken too literally — there were currently more than four million unemployed. The USSR representative was therefore entitled to use those facts as a basis for the statement that the Marshall Plan had struck hard at the workers of the “Marshallized” countries, had lowered the purchasing power of the masses and had helped to impoverish them. 13.”

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

  5. “The authors of the Marshall Plan claimed that its only purpose was to lend economic assistance to the countries of western Europe. In actual fact, the plan had divided Europe into two camps and, by hindering the development of national industry in the western European countries, was about to deprive those countries of their national sovereignty. 11. Everyone was aware that the Marshall Plan had not normalized but had disrupted the economy of western Europe. That fact was confirmed by the United Nations Secretariat survey of the world economic situation, published in June 19491. The survey showed clearly that industrial production had severely fallen off in all the countries of Western Europe during the first three months of 1949. The decrease in production had been accompanied by a corresponding increase in unemployment.”

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

  6. “The aggressive character of the North Atlantic treaty was fully confirmed by the recent statements of such United States officials as President Truman, Secretary of State Acheson, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Bradley, in connexion, with credits voted for the rearmament of the members of the alliance and for other projects furthering the preparation of a new war. 10. A number of other measures inspired by the current policy of the United States and the United Kingdom were also designed to undermine the authority of the United Nations. The so-called Marshall Plan, in particular, fell into that category. That plan, which had been a failure, was one of the cornerstones in the political and military system of Western States which was being set up against the USSR and the people’s democracies.”

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

  7. “In its notes of 20 January and 31 March 1949, the USSR Government had pointed out that the North Atlantic Treaty had been inspired primarily by the desire of the ruling circles in the United States and the United Kingdom to prevent the greatest possible number of States from having an independent domestic policy and to use those States for the purpose of putting into effect their own plans of aggression. The Government of the Soviet Union had pointed out that the purpose of the treaty was also to frighten States which were not willing to obey the orders of the Anglo-American alliance, an alliance designed to achieve world, domination, regardless of the fact that the Second World War had ended in the destruction of fascist Germany and had demonstrated the madness of such ambitions. 9.”

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

  8. “The Government of the Soviet Union had repeatedly pointed out that Article 51 was applicable only in case of an armed attack against a Member of the United Nations. But neither the United States nor the United Kingdom, nor any other member of that aggressive bloc, was threatened with armed attack. Consequently, the references to Article 51 were quite irrelevant. They were intended to veil the true political significance of the North Atlantic Treaty and to mislead public opinion.”

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

  9. “Everyone recalled that in January 1949, the Secretary of State of the United States had stated that the North Atlantic Treaty had been motivated only by the desire to strengthen the authority of the United Nations. The authors of the Treaty had invoked Article 51 of the Charter, which provided for the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in case of an armed attack against a Member of the United Nations. In actual fact, the formation of a group of States signatories to the North Atlantic Treaty was in direct contradiction with the Charter and constituted a direct violation by those States of the obligations which they had assumed when they signed that document. 8.”

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

  10. “That became evident when it was noted that the Interim Committee had been established illegally, when it was observed that, despite the provisions of the Charter, the so-called United Nations Special Committee on the Balkans and the United Nations Commission on Korea had been created, and when a determined campaign was being conducted against the principle of unanimity, despite the fact that that principle was one of the cornerstones of the Charter. 7. It was also significant to note that, upon the initiative of the United States and the United Kingdom, several countries had signed the North Atlantic Treaty, which represented an open attempt to undermine the prestige of the United Nations.”

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

  11. “Those events had shown that the Anglo-American majority in the General Assembly, far from seeking to strengthen the authority of the United Nations and thereby universal co-operation, was endeavouring to undermine the prestige of the Organization. 6. The facts demonstrated that while they gave lip service to the United Nations, the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom were attempting to take action outside the Organization and often even against its interests.”

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

  12. “Coming to the main point of his remarks, Mr. Vyshinsky said that, everyone knew that the activity of the United Nations was closely linked with the relations existing between the Member States of the Organization and, above all, with the foreign policies of those countries which bore the main responsibility for activating its work. The attitudes of such Member States as the United States and the United Kingdom, leaders of the bloc of States which they had constituted, could not fail to influence conditions within the United Nations. 5. The past year had been marked by important events in the international sphere.”

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

  13. “Thus, for instance, concealing the truth of the matter, Mr. Tsiang had omitted to state that twenty-five years previously the Soviet Union had been the only country to conclude an agreement with China laying down the fundamental principles for the settlement of questions arising between the two countries. At the same time, the Soviet Union had renounced all rights granted to it under the agreements signed by the Tsarist Government in violation of Chinese sovereignty. 3. Mr. Tsiang had merely demonstrated the hatred of the Chinese reactionaries, who felt their power tottering, of the progressive and democratic elements which, in all countries of the world, were struggling for independence and for the destruction of the yoke of imperialism. But it would be undignified to enter into a controversy with Mr. Tsiang and his like. 4.”

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

  14. “Mr. VYSHINSKY said that the general debate with which the General Assembly had begun its work, in accordance with its tradition, should enable it to evaluate what had been done in the past, to outline its future tasks and to create the conditions which would make it possible for the United Nations to solve the problems before it. 2. However, as the previous two days had shown, representatives were far from unanimously agreed that their task should be interpreted in that way. In fact, one of their number, Mr. Tsiang, speaking on behalf of the Koumintang Government, had attempted the previous day (223rd meeting), to use the rostrum of the General Assembly to make perfidious and libellous attacks on the USSR. Mr. Tsiang had tried to retrace historical events, but his statement had lacked basic honesty and he had grossly falsified the facts.”

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

  15. “» The delegation of the USSR, in submitting this draft resolution, felt confident that the adoption of the above-mentioned proposal would be approved by the General Assembly and that thus the General Assembly would make a great and lasting contribution to the cause of peace and security of all peoples.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  16. “On instructions from its Government, the delegation of the USSR desired to propose to the General Assembly, for the purpose of strengthening the cause of peace and removing the menace of a new war which was being fomented by expansionists and other reactionary elements, the adoption of the following resolution (A/658): « Noting that, up to the present time, practically nothing has been done to implement the General Assembly’s decision of 24 January 1946 on atomic energy control, as well as the decision of 14 December 1946 on « principles governing the general regulation and reduction of armaments »; « Recognizing as a task of the first importance the prohibition of production and use of atomic energy for war aims; « Recognizing that a general substantial reduction of armaments satisfies the demands for establishing a durable peace and for the strengthening of international security and is compatible with the interests of the nations in easing the heavy economic burden they face as a result of excessive and ever-increasing expenditures on armaments in various countries; « Taking into account that the great Powers, permanent members of the Security Council, possess the overwhelming number of armed forces and armaments and bear the main responsibility for the maintenance of peace and universal security; «Desirous of strengthening the cause of peace and eliminating the threat of a new war fomented by expansionists and other reactionary elements, « The General Assembly « Recommends to the permanent members of the Security Council: United States of America, United Kingdom, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, France and Chin«, as a first step in the reduction of armaments and armed forces, the reduction by one third during one year of all present land, naval and air forces; « Recommends the prohibition of atomic weapons as weapons intended for aims of aggression and not for those of defence; « Recommends the establishment, within the framework of the Security Council, of an international control body for the purpose of supervision and of control over the implementation of the measures for the reduction of armaments end armed forces and for the prohibition of atomic weapons.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  17. “But behind the scenes of the United Nations, in all kinds of military offices in the United States, in the United Kingdom and in a number of other countries rotating within the orbit of Anglo-American influence, other speeches were being made which were utterly incompatible with the principles of the United Nations. Such a situation could not be tolerated. Millions of common people had paid with their blood for the crimes of the fascist warmongers who had been the organizers of the recent war; they could not allow a repetition of the recent war, which had caused such untold destruction, sorrow and grief to mankind.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  18. “Some reports concerning the possibility of the resumption of armament supplies from the United States to certain Western European countries under a sort of lend- lease programme had already appeared in the Press. Such was the situation in the field of international relations at present. Such were the conditions and the circumstances in which the third session of the General Assembly of the United Nations was starting its work. Undoubtedly pompous and grandiloquent speeches about international co-operation, peace, the independence of peoples, human rights and democracy could be heard from the rostrum of the General Assembly, as had been the case at the last session and as, now as before, was also the case in committees and commissions of the United Nations.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  19. “Enormous sums of money were still being spent on war experiments, military research and the manufacture of all kinds of new types of perfected weapons, with, as a result, the flow of billions of dollars of profits into the pockets of American monopoly capitalists. Not only was the United States itself carrying on intense preparations for aggressive steps against the USSR and the new democracies, but it was also helping a number of Western European countries to prepare for war. The United States was supplying the armies of a number of Western European States with American armaments, and all that was being done on the pretext of strengthening the defence and building up the protection of those countries against outside aggression.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  20. “During that same period, the United States Navy had increased by three and a half times in tonnage of operating naval units, and the personnel of the Navy had increased five times. The United States budget approved for 1948- 1949 showed an increase in expenditure for war purposes amounting to nearly four billion dollars as compared with the preceding year. According to official data, the following increases in the military budget intended for the purpose of the re-armament of the Army, Air Force and Navy of the United States had been planned for coming years: 1949-1950, seventeen and a half billion dollars; 1950-1951, twenty billion; 1951-1952, twenty-one and a half billion; and 1952-1953, twenty-two and a half billion. That was the United States Five- Year Plan.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  21. “They had openly caned for attack upon the oil fields of Batum and Baku, the Donetz Basin and industrial regions beyond the Ural Mountains. Despite the declarations which were constantly being made by representatives of the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and a number of other Western European States to the effect that their respective Government would not pursue any aggressive aims, a furious armaments race was under way in those countries, with the United States in the lead. In 1947, two years after the end of the war, the United States Army was three and a half times larger than it had ever been in pre-war years. The United States Air Force had grown even faster, its numbers in 1947 having increased seventeen times as compared with 1937.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  22. “They, and in particular the above-mentioned representatives of the high military command of the United States, were producing flashy coloured plans for the use of military aviation and atomic bombs for the destruction of such Soviet cities as Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, Kharkov and Odessa. United States Secretary of Defence Forrestal had overstepped all limits when speaking before the Armed Forces Committee of the United States Senate. He had insisted upon an increase of many billions of dollars in appropriations for war purposes — in other words, for purposes of war against the Soviet Union. He had called for powerful air forces capable of inflicting incessant blows far beyond the outer bases existing at present. Mr. Royall and Senator Bridges and Mr. Brown and other adventurers had spoken in the same manner.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  23. “Those persons included United States Secretary of Defence Forrestal; General Kenney, Commander of the Strategic Air Forces of the United States; United States Secretary of War Royall; Senator Bridges, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee; British Members of Parliament such as Mr. Brown, Mr. Harvey and Sir Thomas Moore; Deputy Chief of Staff of the British Air Force Air Vice Marshal Walmsley, Mr. MacMillan, and others. Those persons were no longer coming forward with general pronouncements and slogans calling for a war against the Soviet Union and the new democracies.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  24. “Millions of copies of magazines newspapers and books impregnated with bestial hatred of democracy and socialism were being issued, openly instigating an attack against the peace-loving democracies. The reactionary circles of the United States and the United Kingdom, as well as of countries such as France, Belgium, and others did not confine themselves to slander and abuse. The campaign was now being led not only by amateurs from the family of retired politicians, statesmen, senators and Members of Parliament, but also by persons now holding high official posts in the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and other countries.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  25. “It was called, quite provocatively, «The Map of the Third World War.» That was what was being published in the United States. It was being handed out to motorists. It carried, with provocatively militant appeals, the heading: «Pacific Theatre of Military Operations.» It was an example of malicious war propaganda against the Soviet Union and the new democracies of Eastern Europe. Reaction, which was no longer sure of the morrow, was continuously mobilizing its forces. Public opinion was being frantically manipulated, the Soviet Union and the new democracies were being shamelessly slandered and libelled, malicious lies were being spread abroad, facts were being manipulated so as to deceive millions of common people and to divert their attention from the actual instigators of war.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  26. “» The article, with cynical frankness, listed military air bases from which Soviet cities would be attacked, giving the respective distances, down to the nearest mile, of Soviet cities which apparently were doomed to atomic destruction by America. For instance, the article states: «It is 3,000 miles round-trip from London to Moscow; 1,750 miles one way from Tripoli to Rostov;» — Tripoli being another Anglo- American base — «3,400 miles one way from Fairbanks, Alaska, to Vladivostok; 3,500 miles from a Greenland base to Sverdlovsk. » Such were the occupations of the alleged peace- mongers who were proclaiming their peaceful intentions throughout the world. A map published by ESSO (the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey) was of the same insolently arrogant and war-inciting nature.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  27. “The explanatory note under one of these remarkable maps read as follows: «The United States will attack Russia chiefly by air. The Mediterranean area would be of first importance, together with Britain and the Middle East. The Arctic would be of minor importance in these operations. Southern Italy, Sicily and Turkey would be important as bases. Atom bombs would be saved for use on Russia herself.» Another American publication, The New York Times Magazine, published on 30 May an article expressing regret that the United States had no really satisfactory maps of the interior of the Soviet Union. The article stated: «This is perhaps the great disadvantage. The offence would suffer in bombing attacks upon Russia because of the lack of such maps... For blind bombing the most exact type of map is essential.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  28. “An editorial in the influential magazine United States News and World Report, in its issue of 9 April, openly confirmed that the air forces of the United States were being re-organized for the eventuality of possible military operations in Europe. The magazine stressed that those air combat forces based in the United Kingdom were being built up by the United States in a radius around the Soviet Union; it reproduced a detailed plan of attacks by American air forces upon the Soviet Union. According to the magazine, these plans were supposed to be in preparation, and would be carried out chiefly with the aid of the above-mentioned bombers, jet-propelled fighters and planes carrying atomic bombs. The same magazine had published a map showing the lines of attack by the air forces of the United States in accordance with the plan outlined above.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  29. “At the same time measures were being taken for the expansion and fortification mainly of military air bases for any future military adventures which might be decided upon. The Press of those countries was full of insolent articles, written in frantic warmongering terms, directed against the USSR and against the new democracies. The Press discussed various plans for the attack against the USSR from those bases, with the clear intention of puzzling nervous people in boasting of United States military powers and in particular of the power of the «special invasion forces», as the American weekly, the Saturday Evening Post, had pointed out in its issue of 11 September. It had mentioned the special invasion forces which were being prepared, that is to say bombers which could carry showers of atomic bombs.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  30. “It had been established in 1942 for the period of the war of the united nations against fascist Germany and for the task of directing the military operations of the Allies. It was still continuing its secret activities. Among the United States representatives on its staff were Admiral Leahy, Admiral Lewis Denfield, General Bradley, General Hoyt Vandenberg, and among the United Kingdom representatives were Admiral Sir Henry Moore, Lieutenant General Sir William Morgan, and Air Marshal Medhurst. In September 1947, under the supervision of the Anglo-American Combined Chiefs of Staff, manoeuvres were held in the North Atlantic with the participation of British, American and Canadian naval units. In September 1948, manoeuvres for the so-called defence of the United Kingdom were held with the participation of British and American Air Forces.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  31. “In that way, an attempt was being made to depict the USSR as an undemocratic country, while on the other band the United States of America, the United Kingdom and other countries of the Anglo-American bloc were being pictured as democratic countries par excellence. All that was accompanied by a furious armaments race and the development of plans for an attack against the USSR and the new democracies as well as by the preparation of other military measures. In that connexion, it had to be recalled that although three years had elapsed since the end of the Second World War, the Anglo-American Combined Chiefs of Staff, a body which was directed against the interests of peace, continued to exist secretly.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  32. “The resolution adopted at the second session of the General Assembly, denouncing propaganda concerning a new war and demanding assistance by means of information and propaganda for the purpose of strengthening friendly relations between nations, had not checked the instigators of war, who in the past year had become more insolent. They were now carrying on their criminal activities with even greater cynicism and were trying to poison with war propaganda as many as possible of the common people of their own countries. The propaganda was accompanied by slanderous falsehoods concerning the alleged aggressiveness of the USSR and the new democracies.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  33. “However, treaties such as the treaty of military alliance of the Western States, which included the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, did not only have in mind Germany, but could be directed against States which had been allies during the Second World War. All the British, French and American Press openly stated that the military alliance of the five Western Powers was directed against the USSR, and against the new European democracies. Such a treaty could in no way be regarded as one concluded for the purpose of defence alone. Those who concluded such agreements and those who established such alliances were pursuing a policy which was utterly incompatible with the strengthening of peace. Those who were concluding such treaties were assisting the instigators and organizers of a new war.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  34. “Similar treaties had been concluded by the USSR with the countries of Eastern Europe as well as with Finland; and it was on the same basis that the Anglo-Soviet treaty and the Twenty-Year Franco-Soviet Treaty of mutual assistance had been concluded. Such treaties and the alliances based upon them aimed at preventing the possibility of further German aggression; they were in full conformity with the interests of all peace-loving peoples and would not lead to the oppression of peace-loving countries. They were not designed to set States against each other or to split Europe.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  35. “The bloc could not pursue such an aim because it was not directed against the danger of the recurrence of German aggression and it even intended that Western Germany, which since time immemorial had served as a stronghold of German militarism and only recently had served as a bulwark for Hitlerite aggression, should be included in it. It was quite clear that the forming of such alliance was in direct contradiction with the objectives of strengthening world peace and security. However, other alliances of peace-loving European States were being concluded to prevent the possibility of recurring German aggression.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  36. “Such a policy was engendering a war psychosis and was sowing restlessness and fear among the great masses who strived for peace and peaceful creative labour. It was a policy which had nothing in common whatsoever with a policy of peace. As was well known, the United States Government, together with the Governments of the United Kingdom and France, had organized a military- political bloc of five States, the aim of which was not to prevent German aggression and render mutual assistance against such aggression.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  37. “It was organizing military alliances or blocs, constructing new military, air and naval bases as well as expanding, reconstructing and bringing up to date certain old bases that had been established during the war with Germany, Japan and Italy. Furthermore, it was carrying on an unchecked propaganda campaign to the effect that there would be a new war with the USSR and the new democracies of Eastern Europe. A wild armaments race was taking place. There existed a true worship of the cult of the atomic bomb which was supposed to provide a means of escape from all the dangers and misfortunes threatening the capitalist world. Those were the principal aspects, the characteristic features of the present foreign policy of the United States of America.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  38. “It fought for the realization and implementation of the democratic principles which had arisen out of the war. Such was not the case with respect to the present foreign policy of the United States. After the termination of the recent world war, the United States Government had changed its foreign policy from one of fighting against aggressive forces to one of expansion. It was now attempting to realize plans for world domination. In certain countries, it openly supported the most reactionary monarcho-fascist regimes and groups and aided them systematically with money and armaments for the suppression of democratic national liberation movements.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  39. “The people of the USSR were entirely preoccupied with peaceful labour, with the strengthening and furthering of the development of socialist construction in their country and were standing guard firmly for the peace and security of all nations. The policy of the USSR was consistent and constant in its efforts to expand and strengthen international co-operation. Such a policy followed from the very nature of the Soviet State. It was a socialist State of workers and peasants who were deeply interested in the establishment of the most favourable conditions for peaceful creative work and the building of a socialist society. The USSR pursued a foreign policy of co-operation with all countries prepared for peaceful co-operation. It fought consistently against any plan or measure which was designed to create a gap among peoples.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  40. “Side by side with the USSR the United States had shed the blood of its sons on the battlefield against the common enemy, completing the fight until the final stage had been reached and peace had been established. The USSR continued to pursue its former policy of struggle against Fascism for democratic principles and for the well-being and strengthening of the economic and political position of the democratic countries. German Fascism and Japanese militarism having been crushed, the USSR continued to pursue a policy of peace, devoting all its efforts to the solution of internal problems and, primarily, of problems connected with the rehabilitation and further development of the national economy of a country disrupted by war.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  41. “All the peace-loving peoples, millions and millions of common people through out the world to whom aggressive tendencies and intentions were foreign, should raise their voices for the immediate prohibition of the use of the atomic bomb which was intended for mass extermination of the peaceful population of countries and designed to destroy peaceful cities. Without a doubt, such a situation had arisen because of the policy which was being pursued in the United Nations by such influential Members as the United States of America, whose foreign policy had undergone a radical change in recent years. At one time, the United States and the USSR had fought together against aggressive forces, against fascist Germany and militaristic Japan.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  42. “The letter from the Secretary-General of the British Association of Scientific Workers contained the following reply: « In the two years that have elapsed since the first Soviet suggestion for a convention was made, it has become clear that the real reason for the attitude of the Western Powers on this issue was that the United States Government deemed it necessary to retain the threat of the use of atomic weapons as a key factor in the cold war against Russia.» Atomic weapons - were weapons of attack, weapons of aggression.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  43. “Recently the Manchester Guardian had published a letter from the Secretary-General of the British Association of Scientific Workers which very justly raised the following question: «What harm would have been done by our agreeing to a declaration that we would not use atomic energy for military purposes in any future war?» Such a declaration, be it noted, had been contained in the convention prohibiting the use of gas for warfare. The British Association of Scientific Workers wondered why the use of atomic energy in war could not be renounced, just as the use of toxic gas had been renounced.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  44. “It was clear that such a way of putting the question was intended to provide the United States with an unlimited possibility of further uncontrolled production of atomic bombs. The USSR maintained that a properly organized international control body should exercise control over the production of atomic energy in all its stages, beginning with the production of raw materials, up to and including the output of manufactured goods. The Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and other Powers could not agree with that position. The USSR — and not only the USSR — could not agree with the policy of these Governments.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  45. “That statement indicated that all attention was concentrated on the mining of raw materials. It would be futile however, to look in that report for any indication as to the necessity for a simultaneous establishment of control over the industrial production of atomic energy. Thus, there were no doubts left in anybody’s mind that the Government of the United States wanted to place its hands on the sources of raw materials in other countries, with the aid of the so-called international control body where the United States expected to be backed by its own majority. At the same time the United States refused to place its own atomic enterprises under international control, together with all the other enterprises and sources of raw materials.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  46. “That was the reason why the USSR, and probably not only the USSR, could not agree that the fate of its national economy should be placed in the hands of that organ. Apart from that, the United States proposal for control did not present an opportunity for the control of atomic production proper. The Second Report of the Atomic Energy Commission to the Security Council dated 11 September 1947 stated the United States position on that question as follows: « ... effective international control of atomic energy in order to prevent its use for destructive purposes must begin with strict control over these two key substances » — that is, uranium and thorium — and «the starting point of any system of control lies with the raw materials which are the source of these two key substances».”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  47. “It was perfectly clear that the plan for ownership by the international control body of all atomic energy enterprises would make that body the owner of all relevant enterprises in any country without any restriction of control in the economic life of the The USSR maintained that the international control body should have the right to adopt decisions by a majority of votes, but it was impossible to agree that that international body should become a United States body and should have the right to interfere with the economic life of any country, even if that were supported by a simple majority in the control organ. The USSR could not accept such a situation. The USSR realized that in the control organ there would be a majority which might adopt one-sided decisions, a majority upon whose favourable attitude the USSR could not count.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  48. “Taking into consideration the fact that the United States plan provided for the transfer to the international control body not only of enterprises, but also of whole industries, which to a certain degree serviced the plants and installations producing atomic materials, it was not difficult to understand what the adoption of the United States plan might lead to.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  49. “The demand that there should be concluded first the establishment of international control, and that conventions for the prohibition of atomic weapons might then ensue was designed to disrupt the conclusion of a convention for the prohibition of the use of atomic energy for military purposes. Such a position on the part of the representatives of the United States was nothing but a design to cover up their lack of desire to have any kind of control. Furthermore, the United States plan also included proposals for ownership by the international control organ of all enterprises connected with atomic energy. In other words, that international organ would have complete control and would have every opportunity for uncontrolled interference in the internal affairs of any country.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)

  50. “The Government of the United States, in insisting that an international control organ should be established first, and that agreement on the prohibition of atomic weapons would follow, placed the cart before the horse. It was clear that the Government of the United States was not interested in the progress of the work of the Atomic Energy Commission which, for two and a half years, had been struggling with the task of drawing up proposals regarding the exclusion from national armaments of atomic weapons and of all other principal types of armaments designed for the mass destruction of people.”

    1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)