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

“The yearly recurrence at the past few sessions of the whole sorry business of inviting the People’s Republic of China to take its rightful seat in the United Nations is surely nothing but an infraction of these important principles which are the very basis of the work of the United Nations. 53. The stubborn opposition of some delegations which support the attitude taken in the matter by the United States — an attitude contrary to the principles of the Charter and of international law — proves that these delegations are unfortunately not inclined to fulfil their obligations by adhering to the principles of the United Nations.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“I do not doubt that the American people sincerely believe in the purposes and principles of the United Nations, but the American people have little to do with these matters, while those Americans who deal directly with United Nations affairs frequently disregard the principles of the United Nations. They flout the principles of the Charter, such as the injunction in Article 1, “to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace” and “to achieve international co-operation”.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“Their assertions are refuted by all the facts, which show that the United Nations, an international organization dedicated to the maintenance of international peace and security, cut a sorry figure on many occasions and failed in its duty, under the Charter, to act in accordance with the principles of justice and international law, thereby prejudicing its international authority. Faithful observance of its principles and of the Charter is a prime requisite for the successful work of the United Nations. 52. In his statement of 23 September [475th meeting], Mr. Dulles said that the American people sincerely believe in the Purposes and Principles of the Charter.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“We need hardly say that in our opinion such a conception of the course of world events shows no real grasp of the process of prehistorical development of human society. Those who reason in this way truly cannot see the forest for the trees. They fail to realize that there are laws which govern the process of historical development. Yet only by adopting this guiding principle is it possible to gauge correctly the significance of world events — such as the widespread movement of national liberation in Asian countries — and to determine the position and the tactics of the United Nations which, in turn, should serve as a basis for its programme of action in relation to these events. 51. I feel I must also note that some representatives made an attempt to glorify the past activities of the United Nations.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“But they either made no attempt to explain this phenomenon, or if they did, in our opinion they were not successful. 50. We can hardly term successful an analysis of world events in which the course of history is portrayed as a meaningless jumble of facts brought into being by the malignant will of certain people who, as some speakers claimed, are intent upon upsetting the world order and whose troublesome behaviour presumably compels representatives of other States to engage in such pursuits as the armaments race, the stockpiling of atomic and hydrogen bombs, the formation of new blocs, the installation of new military bases in foreign territories and the preparation of plans for a new world war.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“In accordance with its practice, the General Assembly has begun its work with a general debate, which enables delegations to give their views on the questions they consider most important and most deserving of the Assembly’s attention. Several delegations have already availed themselves of this opportunity, and some have naturally attempted to analyse the current international situation, to appraise the role played by the United Nations in recent events, and to determine what history holds in store for the United Nations and the world. 49. Several representatives have noted that the agenda of the ninth session includes a number of questions already considered at previous sessions which, borrowing a term from botany, they called “the hardy perennials”.”
1954-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 9 (1954)
“The Soviet Union is deeply convinced that this is the real way not only to lower the temperature and lessen the tension in the international atmosphere but also to ensure peace and security for the peoples, enabling them to live on without fear or anxiety and to build their lives as they see fit, in accordance with their great sovereign rights as independent peoples. We sincerely hope that our appeal will meet with a widespread response, not only beyond the confines of this General Assembly, but among many delegations to this Assembly, and we call upon representatives to support our proposals, which are directed towards the strengthening of peace and international security.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“Recognizes that the establishment of military, air and naval bases in the territories of other States increases the threat of a new world war and operates to undermine the national sovereignty and independence of States; “The General Assembly “Recommends to the Security Council that it take steps to ensure the elimination of military bases in the territories of other States, considering this a matter of vital importance for the establishment of a stable peace and international security; “4. Condemns the propaganda which is being conducted in a number of countries with the aim of inciting enmity and hatred among nations and preparing a new world war, and calls upon all governments to take measures to put a stop to such propaganda, which is incompatible with the fundamental purposes and principles of the United Nations.” 84.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“Recommends to the five permanent members of the Security Council, the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, France and China, which bear the chief responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, that they reduce their armed forces by one-third within one year; and with a view to the alleviation of the burden of military expenditure recommends to the Security Council that it call as soon as possible an international conference for the carrying out by all States of the reduction of armaments; “3.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“Declares atomic, hydrogen and other types of weapons of mass destruction to be unconditionally prohibited, and instructs the Security Council to take immediate steps to prepare and implement an international agreement which will ensure the establishment of strict international control over the observance of this prohibition; “2.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“The USSR delegation therefore submits the following draft resolution to the General Assembly: “The General Assembly, “Noting that the cessation of hostilities in Korea is an important contribution to the reduction of tension in international relations, and that it has created more favourable conditions for further action to avert the threat of a new world war, “Noting, at the same time, that in a number of countries the armaments race, far from abating, is being continued on an even greater scale, and that weapons of mass destruction, as a result of the latest advances in the application of atomic energy for this purpose, are becoming ever more destructive and dangerous for many millions of people, “With the object of averting the threat of a new world war and strengthening the peace and security of nations, “1.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“The Soviet Union considers this to be a matter of vital importance for the establishment of lasting peace and international security. 82. The Soviet Union again raises the question of the necessity of reducing armaments, declaring the unconditional prohibition of atomic, hydrogen and other types of weapons of mass destruction, establishing strict international control, and instructing the Security Council to take immediate steps to prepare and implement an international agreement which would ensure the establishment of such control. 83.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“This makes it the more essential decisively to censure the propaganda which is being conducted in certain countries, a propaganda directed towards inflaming hostility and hatred among nations and towards the preparation of a new world war, and to call upon all States to. take measures to put a stop to such propaganda, as being incompatible with the fundamental principles and purposes of the United Nations. That is our second task. 81. The Soviet Union, considering that the establishment of military, air and naval bases in the territories of other States increases the threat of a _ new world war and undermines the national sovereignty and independence of those States, deems it essential that steps should be taken to eliminate military bases on foreign territory.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“Lenin never said and could never have said any such thing. He wrote what I have just read. 79. The liberties taken by all kinds of rogues and trouble-makers cannot arouse wonder; that is why they are trouble-makers. It would seem, however, that there are representatives among us who do not hesitate to make use of the base fabrications which they have the temerity to bandy about in the United Nations. This is a further proof of the vile methods used by those who are conducting a propaganda of hostility and hatred against the Soviet Union, the peoples’ democracies, the countries of socialist peace and international security. They stop at nothing. 80.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“He stressed that no bloodshed in a civil war could be even approximated to the seas of blood which the Russian imperialists shed after 18 June 1917, in the fourth year of an unprecedentedly cruel and criminal war which had exhausted the people, and in the offensive launched in June 1917 by the irresponsible Kerensky government. In an article entitled “The international position of the Russian Revolution”, Lenin wrote in 1917 that if a just peace were proposed to the victors in the civil war — the Russian proletariat — the chances were 99 out of 100 in favour of an armistice and peace without the further shedding of seas of blood. That was what Lenin, the great leader of our people and of other peoples fighting for the brighter future of mankind, actually wrote. We were here presented with a monstrous alleged quotation by Mr. Casey.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“In an article entitled “The Russian Revolution and the Civil War”, published on 29 September 1917, Lenin wrote: “The odds are 99 to 100 that the victory of the proletarian revolution would result in peace instead of an imperialist war”; in other words, as Lenin wrote, such a victory would have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, it would have saved the lives of half a million Russian soldiers who perished in the battles of 18 June 1917. Thus Lenin asserted that the victory of socialism in Russia at that time would save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“The heights of cynicism reached by this propaganda of hostility and hatred among nations may be judged from the statement made here by the Australian representative [436th meeting], who used a quotation fabricated by trouble-makers from the sayings of the great founder of the Soviet State, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. The words ascribed to Vladimir Ilyich Lenin in that so-called quotation represent an absolute bare-faced lie, since Lenin never said anything like that and of course could not have said anything like that. 78.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“The Soviet Union considers its most important task to be that of ensuring that atomic energy is used to promote the cause of peaceful progress.” 76. As may be seen from the preceding statements, the Soviet Union, having discovered the secret of the production of atomic and hydrogen weapons, continues to strive for agreement with other States concerning the unconditional prohibition of atomic, hydrogen and other types of weapons of mass destruction, the considerable reduction of armaments and the establishment of strict international control. 77. At the same time, we consider it essential to draw the special attention of the Assembly to the unremiting propaganda directed towards fomenting enmity and hatred among peoples and the preparation of a new world war.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“It stated, further: “Obviously, as long-as responsible circles in the United States reject the insistent proposals of' the Soviet Union for the prohibition of the atomic weapon, the Soviet Union, for reasons of security, must give its attention to the production of atomic weapons. At the same time, the Soviet Union will continue to pursue its policy of strengthening peace among nations and will seek to reach agreement with other countries on the unconditional prohibition of atomic, hydrogen and other types of weapons of mass destruction, the considerable reduction of armaments and the establishment of strict inter-national control to ensure compliance with those decisions. At the same time, plans are being carried out in the Soviet Union for the use of atomic energy for industrial purposes.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
““In accordance with the inflexible policy of the Soviet Union directed towards the strengthening of peace and the security of peoples, the Government of the Soviet Union has frequently proposed to the governments of other countries that they should carry out a considerable reduction of armaments and should prohibit the use of atomic and other weapons of mass destruction, establishing strict international control to ensure compliance with such prohibition within the framework of the United Nations. “The Government of the Soviet Union steadfastly maintains this position.” The TASS communiqué of 18 September stated that in the preceding weeks, in accordance with plans for scientific research in atomic energy, several new types of atomic bombs had been tested in the Soviet Union.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“As for the Soviet Union, it is appropriate to recall the government communiqué of 20 August concerning the hydrogen bomb tests in the Soviet Union and the TASS communiqué of 18 September on the tests of new types of atomic bombs in the Soviet Union. 75. The government communiqué stated: “Certain foreign circles which formerly based their policy on the United States monopoly of the atomic bomb, and then of the hydrogen bomb, are trying to frighten the peoples by the fact that the Soviet Union has discovered the secret of the production of the hydrogen weapon, and thus to arouse alarm, which they will exploit to intensify the armaments race. “The Government of the Soviet Union deems it necessary to declare that, as before, there is no basis whatsoever for such alarm.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“The proposals which the United States and its partners have hitherto submitted in opposition to this demand of the Soviet Union have always brought us back to the Baruch Plan, which provides for no prohibition and is unacceptable to those who are really striving for the unconditional prohibition of atomic weapons and the establishment of real international control. 73. Because the Soviet Union has discovered the secret of the production of atomic and hydrogen weapons, certain members of the United States House of Representatives and Senate have called, according to the Press, for an intensification of the armaments race and, in particular, for the strengthening of the strategic air force. 74.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“The conclusion of the truce in Korea has increased the certainty of millions and millions throughout the world that a peaceful settlement may be found not only of the Korean problem but also of other controversial and unresolved problems. 71. More propitious conditions are being created for the adoption of further measures to avert the threat of a new world war. These measures are essential. It is essential for the General Assembly to declare the unconditional prohibition of atomic, hydrogen and other types of weapons of mass destruction. 72.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“Dulles preferred to be silent on this matter in his speech of 17 September, as if the problem did not exist. He merely said that physicists had found methods which, if developed further, could wipe life from the face of this planet and also that there was no problem comparable to the central and world-wide problem of saving the human race from extinction. If this is so, it would seem to be all the more necessary to submit to the Assembly a programme on this question, which would of course be much more important and useful than the dissemination here of all kinds of fabrications and fables hostile to the Soviet Union and the peoples’ democracies and the utterance of libellous statements. 70. The cessation of military activities in Korea is an important step towards relaxing tension in international relations.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“Dulles, speaking about the United States proposals on the reduction of armaments, said that “they have laid the foundation for swift action once the general atmosphere makes this impossible”. It is absolutely clear that the purpose of these already familiar provisos is to avoid taking measures directed towards the real reduction of armaments and armed forces. 69. There is no need to stress the fact that the United States proposals, with which we have already dealt at the previous session of the General Assembly, can in no way serve as a basis for the serious consideration and solution of the question of the reduction of armaments. This applies also to proposals on the question of the prohibition of atomic and other types of weapons destined for the mass destruction of people. Mr.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“They have taken the opposite approach, that is to say, they made these measures conditional on an atmosphere of trust and calm, whereas these measures in themselves would help to increase trust and to promote calm by helping to lessen international tension. 68. The United States proposals on the reduction of armaments, submitted, as we all remember, by Mr. Truman in 1951, were confined to such technical matters as an enumeration of military equipment, _ to be followed by various stages of so-called reduction of armaments, but there was in fact no question of any real reduction. Now, two years later, the United States delegation, as may be seen from Mr. Dulles’ speech of 17 September, is again trying to confine the whole question to technical work, calling this a “technical analysis of the problem” of the reduction of armaments. Mr.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“The present United States Secretary of State takes virtually the same position, stating that the problem of reducing armaments cannot be finally resolved in the prevailing atmosphere of distrust. That, incidentally, was also the line taken in 1928 by Mr. Paul-Boncour, the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the French Chamber of Deputies, when he uttered the well-known phrase: “First pacification, and then disarmament”, although disarmament and the limitation of armaments are in themselves a means of strengthening of mutual trust. That fact, however, is disregarded. This was and still is the line taken by all the opponents of proposals for the education of armaments, the lessening of international tension, and the prevention of the threat of a new war.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“The then United States Secretary of State made a statement in the General Assembly to the effect that there was a direct connexion between the possibility of achieving a system of disarmament and the international temperature. He said that the solution of the disarmament question would be possible only if there was a drop in the political temperature. What then are these conditions? The cessation of the war in Korea and a drop in the temperature. The first condition has been fulfilled. As for the second, the position is uncertain. At times the temperature may go down, and at times measures may be taken to bring it up. Yet both conditions are regarded as essential prerequisites for the adoption of any measures aimed at the reduction of armaments and the prohibition of the atomic weapon. 67.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“The opponents of our proposals, as recorded in the declaration of the United States, the United Kingdom and France, said that the programme for the reduction of armaments could not be carried into effect so long as the war in Korea continued, and that the war in Korea must be put to an end before there could be any reduction of armaments and armed forces. Thus it would seem that the war in Korea was an obstacle to such measures as the reduction of armaments and. the prohibition of the atomic weapon. This is what we were told at General Assembly sessions in 1950, 1951 and 1952. Another prerequisite, we were told, was the lessening of international tension.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“We emphasized the need for taking every possible step to ensure international peace and security, and for putting an immediate end to the war which was forced upon the Korean people and which constitutes a threat of a new world war. We pressed for the immediate and unconditional prohibition of the atomic weapon and the establishment of strict international control to ensure compliance with that prohibition. We pressed for the termination of the armaments race and of the construction of new military bases on foreign territory, and for the withdrawal of troops from foreign territories. We submitted those proposals to the General Assembly when the war in Korea was still in progress. 66.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“Yet the armaments race, as we noted before, is a heavy burden on the taxpayers, as the people usually suffer the consequences. 64. At this session, as at earlier ones, the General Assembly is faced with the vital question of adopting measures to avert the threat of a new world war and to reduce tension in international relations. It is not for the first time that the USSR delegation is putting before the General Assembly the question of measures designed to prevent the threat of a new world war. 65. My delegation pointed out at past sessions of the General Assembly that the United Nations must make a special effort to find a way out of the dangerous situation into which the world had been placed as a result of the criminal plots of aggressive circles who gambled on war and who sought to aggravate international difficulties.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“The enormous military expenditures are increasingly necessitated by the armaments race which, while causing all peace-loving peoples literally to quake with fear, makes the United States monopolies hope that new streams of gold will flow into their pockets. As can be seen from the statistical data on this question, the profits of 416 United States monopolies were 25 pet cent higher during the second quarter of 1953 than during the same quarter in 1952. At that, I am not certain that this figure is not lower than the actual amount, as is so often the case for such figures in view of all the various laws governing excess profits. These profits certainly encourage some influential circles including, and perhaps particularly, those of the United States, to continue and even to accelerate the armaments race.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“This question is always on the agenda of the General Assembly. Indeed, it is of tremendous importance. Yet instead of being stopped, the armaments race is continuing on an ever-increasing scale, and the weapons of mass destruction, as a result of the recent discoveries in the use of atomic energy for that purpose, are becoming ever more deadly and are threatening the lives of millions of people. 62. As regards military bases, their expansion can be seen from the fact that the United States now has a network of air bases alone which stretches over forty-nine countries, and that it keeps close to 2 million soldiers and members of the armed forces abroad, in twenty different countries. 63.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“Indirect taxation, which, as is well known, is felt most by the broad masses of the population, reached 40 per cent in the United States, 44 per cent in the United Kingdom, 75 per cent in France, and 84 per cent in Italy. 60. The tax burden has grown to a point where many members of the United States Congress, according to recent reports in the United States Press, have been led to express the view that at the present level of military expenses, the United States will not be able to balance its budget without levying taxes which, in the view of some Senators, would amount to confiscation of property. A large part of the estimated funds is to be set aside for the expansion of existing military bases and the construction of new ones in foreign territory, and for the production of new weapons, including atomic and hydrogen bombs. 61.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“The enormous military expenditures were justified in the United States Senate Appropriations Committee on the grounds that without them the entire programme of mutual security would fail and that some countries of Western Europe, unable to bear the burden of military expenditure, might try — that was the official statement — to go their own way. This means that, unable to bear the burden of military expenditures, they would in future refuse to take part in the military programme forced upon them for obviously aggressive purposes. Indeed, the tax burden of those countries has become excessive, particularly in recent years. In 1952, in the United States, 30 per cent of the national income was absorbed by taxes; in France, the figure was 39 per cent, and in the United Kingdom, 42 per cent.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“To this amount must be added the unexpended appropriations from previous years which total close to $100,000 million — either 91,000 or $97,000 million, I am not sure of the exact amount. The very structure of the budgets evidences the fact that their chief purpose is to finance measures designed to put into effect plans of aggression. In his speech before the Chamber of Commerce at Minneapolis on 10 June of this year, the President of the United States confirmed that two out of every three dollars spent by the Federal Government were spent for military purposes. During the year 1952 to 1953, the military expenditure of the fourteen member countries of the North Atlantic bloc totalled $63,000 million dollars as against $18,000 million in 1950. 59.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“As regards the unfavourable changes in the world economy during the entire post-war period, which are also recognized by the survey brought out by the United Nations, these are the perfectly natural result of the policy pursued by such important countries as the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the other members of the North Atlantic bloc, a policy entirely dominated by military objectives which absorb the greater part of the national budgets of those countries. According to official figures, the current proportion of military expenditure of the total national budgets is as follows: United States, 73 per cent, United Kingdom, 42 per cent, and France, 33 per cent. 58. The Appropriations Committee of the United States Senate has approved a bill providing for the appropriation of $34,500 million for military expenditure in 1954.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“Tremendous problems, really gigantic problems, face the countries of Eastern Europe as a result of the radical transformation- — I might say the radical revolution — of their national economies, and coping with such problems is not plain sailing. 56. It is clear from the survey that the measures taken against the economic interests of the USSR and the peoples’ democracies, and in particular the economic blockade, far from fulfilling the expectations of the organizers of the blockade, have had the very opposite results. The economic blockade of the USSR, China and the peoples’ democracies in Europe has merely caused those countries to close their ranks from the economic point of view and to organize their mutual co-operation and assistance. These conclusions are most important. 57.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“A third point is that the Eastern European countries, while able to avoid a number of problems connected with the control of private trade in the countries of Western Europe, have had the means — not available to the countries of Western Europe — of directly controlling — their foreign commercial transactions with a view to balancing them. Fourthly, and lastly, the Eastern European countries — I am giving the survey’s findings — have gained certain advantages as the suppliers of both agricultural and mining products to the countries of Western Europe. 55. Such is the economic situation in Eastern Europe and in Western Europe. It does not mean, of course, that Eastern Europe is not faced with difficulties.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“Chapter 2, in particular the section headed “The division of Europe”, is of special interest. It notes a number of important facts. In the first place, during the entire post-war period the world economy has undergone certain changes which, the survey admits, have had unfavourable effects on the countries of Western Europe. The second important observation, in my opinion, is that in the countries of Eastern Europe, including the USSR, the situation has been altogether different, as a result of which the losses of Western European countries have meant the gains of the Eastern European countries.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“Experience has shown that either one of them excludes the other. You can either strengthen the national economy, in which case you must renounce an armaments race, or you can engage in an armaments race and not strengthen the national economy, unless, of course, the national economy is identified with the production of armaments, placing industry on a war footing, and similar measures. 54. The Economic Survey of Europe since the War [E/ECE/157], recently brought out by the Economic {Commission for Europe, clearly shows the unsatisfactory economic situation of Western European countries. It is a heavy volume of several hundred pages which deals very fully with the question. Although it contains serious errors and a number of tendentious distortions of fact, the survey contains useful information which deserves our attention.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“It may be of some interest to note that, again according to the Wall Street Journal, the United States representative did everything in his power to dispel the fears prevailing at the conference by talking about the continuing prosperity in the United States, but the Wall Street Journal adds that his attempts were completely unsuccessful. 53. At the session of the Council of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which was held in April of this year, special emphasis was placed on the fact that — as the communiqué of the session put it — the main task was to ensure the simultaneous development of stable national economies on the one hand, and the growth of the armed forces of the bloc, on the other. Yet it must be clear to everyone, and experience has shown besides, that these two objectives are mutually exclusive.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“This has been unanimously pointed out, for example, by the representatives of the business world at the Conference of the International Chamber of Commerce which met at Vienna in May and June 1953, and which was attended by over one thousand delegates from thirty-five countries. They all complained about the existing situation which, according to the report that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, they felt held little hope, particularly for any expansion of trade, in view of Western Europe’s dependence on the United States, which is now greater than ever.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“It is no accident that the United States is encountering increasing resistance to the allocation of thousands of millions of dollars to military purposes and, in particular, to the so-called mutual security arrangements which, in fact, have nothing whatever to do with real security. At the same time, the expansion of trade is vital to the economy of many countries, as is shown by the widespread movement in the West in favour of the restoration of normal economic relations among nations and the expansion of trade. 52. Western Europe is going through a difficult time. Nobody is going to conceal this fact., and it would be useless to try to do so.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“That is why the best elements of the German people reject this course, and strive to ensure peace for Germany, and to achieve a single, independent, democratic and peace-loving Germany. 50. In connexion with the question of the rebirth of German militarism we must bear in mind the important consideration that the rearmament of Germany will, as is already being said, inevitably raise new problems which may strain to the limit the already overtaxed strength of allied unity. A rearmed and nationalistic Germany, The New York Times has said, could set off the spark of a war of capitalists against capitalists. Such are the dialectics of history, however much certain philosophers, politicians and diplomats may object to them. 51.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“Yet millions of our sons and daughters have not shed their blood in the war against a militaristic Germany in order that this most dangerous breeding-ground of war in Europe should be restored. No, it was certainly not for that that we shed our blood in the great patriotic war!” 49. Germany’s immediate neighbours, who have suffered terribly and more than once at the hands of the German militarists, are particularly concerned in a peaceful and enduring settlement of the German question. The German people also suffered cruelly at the hands of those militarists, and they have learned the lesson of their own history, which is that militarism leads to aggression and war, and to national suicide.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“The Soviet Government’s position as regards the plans contained in the Bonn, Paris and other agreements was made unequivocally clear when the German question first arose. In this connexion, it may be well to recall the words of the head of the Soviet Government which express the will and determination, not only of the entire Soviet people but of all peace-loving peoples, of all those who genuinely want peace and friendly relations among nations and who are against another world war. In his address before the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, Mr. Malenkov said: “They ask us to agree to the rebirth of an aggressive, militaristic Germany, and they dare at the same time to speak of ensuring peace in Europe.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“But those who really desire a peaceful settlement of the German question are obliged to condemn and reject plans for the revival of militarism, which leads to' war. That is a path down which military adventurers have repeatedly driven Germany, and twice in the last half-century they have brought the German people to national disaster. Now once again there is a question of committing Germany to military adventures. 47. The German Democratic Republic, which is the bulwark of the peace-loving forces of the whole of Germany, of the Germany of peace and labour, of democracy and progress, aims at securing peace for Germany and the creation of a single, independent, peace-loving and democratic Germany, an aim in which it has the support, far beyond its frontiers, of the broadest masses of the German people. 48.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“It is a course which serves the interests of peace, and those of the German people and its neighbours, and of the peaceful and democratic development of the German State. 46. In March 1952, a year and a half ago, the Government of the Soviet Union submitted a draft to act as basis for the peace treaty with Germany, for consideration by the four Powers. The Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and France have still not presented their comments on this draft or their proposals in connexion with it. The three Western Powers are directing all their efforts to completing as speedily as possible the formation of the so-called European Defence Community and including in it the armed forces of Western Germany.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)
“But to do that is to revive German militarism and create a dangerous focus of fresh aggression. It means breaking solemn international pledges to promote the rehabilitation of Germany, not as a military State but as a peace-loving, democratic one, pledges which the three Powers made at the Potsdam Conference in 1945 and with which France later associated itself. Such a policy is not in the interests of peace, nor is it in the interests of the German, French or British peoples, or of any peace- loving people. 45. The Soviet Union is therefore categorically opposed to such a policy. It suggests a different course, consistent with the pledges the four Powers have made regarding Germany.”
1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)