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. “The signing of the Korean armistice has to a certain extent helped to relieve the tension in international relations, in spite of all the resistance and opposition of those reactionary forces which, by means of acts of provocation of the kind employed in Korea and Germany, have sought to increase such tension, to create still more international complications, to test the strength of fascist organizations, and to extend subversive action against the peoples’ democracies and the Soviet Union. 5. In his well-known book, A foreign policy for Americans, published in 1951, Senator Taft stated that one of the main lines of United States foreign policy should be the waging of an underground war in the rear of the Soviet Union and the peoples’ democracies.”

   1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)

2. “That such is the case has become very much apparent in the past few years, when its name has been used to cloak foreign intervention in Korea in an attempt to legalize the bloody war which was inflicted on the Korean people more than three years. 4. The war went on for over three years, causing innumerable casualties and creating the danger of grave international difficulties and even of another world war.”

   1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)

3. “My Government therefore attaches great importance to the work and the role of the United Nations, whose duty it is to help bring about a settlement of international problems and the strengthening of international co-operation and the peace and security of the peoples. The Soviet Union Government recently reaffirmed its intention of giving vigorous support to those aims. 3. It must be said, however, that at the present time the United Nations is far from being what it ought to be and what all peace-loving peoples would wish it to be. The Organization is going through a period of grave crisis, for its function has been reduced to that of a mere instrument of the North Atlantic aggressive bloc.”

   1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)

4. “1. It is the established practice of the General Assembly to begin the work of each session with a general debate in which it takes stock of the previous year’s activities, assesses the international situation, and considers future developments in international relations and the various problems before it as well as the methods for dealing with them. At this session, too, we must in the first place consider the international situation, the nature and the particular features of relations among States, and the role of the United Nations as an international organization which was set up eight years ago for the purpose of helping to settle international problems and to save succeeding generations from the scourge and horrors of a new war. 2.”

   1953-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 8 (1953)

5. “It envisages the peaceful development of the Soviet Union economy and completely corresponds to the Soviet people’s unanimous desire to defend the cause of peace and thus to secure all the conditions required for the fulfilment of the gigantic tasks confronting them. 123. The USSR delegation urgently appeals to the General Assembly to support the peace proposals of the Polish delegation. It is the General Assembly’s duty to adopt these proposals, which are worthy of a truly international organization, an organization which corresponds to the vital interests of all peoples and which is called upon to defend peace and international security, to remove the impending threat of a new world war and to avert the immense disasters and sufferings which would be the peoples’ lot should they again be drawn into the maelstrom of such a war.”

   1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

6. “It is designed to promote the expansion and consolidation of economic co-operation between the Soviet Union and the people’s democracies and to Contribute to the development of economic relations with all countries wishing to develop trade with the USSR on a basis of equality and mutual advantage. The fifth five-year plan provides new and exceptionally cogent evidence of the peaceful aspirations and aims of USSR foreign policy. It is a striking refutation of the slanderous and trumped-up allegations to the effect that the USSR is developing a war industry, is engaged in an arms race and has some kind of war-like designs.”

   1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

7. “This policy is governed by the basic economic law of socialism, whose main features and requirements were defined by Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin in the following terms: “To secure the maximum satisfaction of the constantly growing material and cultural requirements of society as a whole through the uninterrupted development and perfecting of socialist production on the basis of the most advanced technical methods”. 122. The new five-year plan of development for the Soviet Union has been drawn up in accordance with this law and constitutes an impressive programme of peaceful, economic and cultural construction. It provides for a further powerful upsurge of the national economy and ensures a further substantial rise in the material well-being and cultural level of the Soviet people.”

   1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

8. “The USSR is fighting for peace by its own methods, which are based on the principle of respect for the independence and sovereign equality of States, mutual support and effective, disinterested, mutual help in attaining further successes in strengthening new peaceful, democratic and socialist regimes, in genuine and honest peaceful co-operation, in the joint defence of the interests of their countries and peoples, interests inseparable from those of all peace-loving countries and peoples. The peaceful foreign policy of the Soviet Union rests upon the peaceful creative toil of the Soviet people, who are building a new society. It is a logical consequence of the principles upon which the socialist regime is based. 121. The policy of the USSR is a policy of peaceful and creative labour.”

   1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

9. “The Soviet State’s struggle for peace has been characterized by new methods, which differ essentially from the methods of the countries of monopolistic capitalism. The latter countries, with the United States in the lead, and the United Kingdom and France limping in the rear, base their foreign policy on the idea of “deterrent force”, which Mr. Truman and General Eisenhower, Mr. Acheson and Mr. Dulles laud to the skies.”

   1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

10. “The Soviet Union has remained and will remain unswervingly loyal to these noble principles of its peaceful foreign policy. I would remind you that in April 1952, in reply to the direct question; "On what basis is the co-existence of capitalism and communism possible?”, which was put to him by a group of American journalists, the Prime Minister of the USSR. I. V. Stalin, gave the following answer; "The peaceful co-existence of capitalism and communism is perfectly possible provided that there is a mutual desire to co-operate and a readiness to carry out the obligations assumed, and provided that the principles of equality and of non-intervention in the internal domestic affairs of other States are observed”. 120.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

11. “As long ago as 1920, our great teacher and leader, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, described the foreign policy of the Soviet States as follows: "We have waged a struggle for peace with unsurpassed energy. Such a struggle gives magnificent results…”. The struggle for peace is the keynote of USSR foreign policy. 118. In 1934, our leader and teacher, the great Stalin, made the following exhaustive definition of Soviet Union policy; "Our foreign policy is clear. It is a policy of preserving peace and strengthening trade relations with all countries. The USSR does not propose to threaten, much less to attack anyone. We stand for peace and defend the cause of peace. But we do not fear threats and are ready to answer the war-mongers blow for blow . . .”. 119.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

12. “Throughout three decades, from 1922 to the present day, it has put forward proposals on those lines at international conferences and has persistently sought to secure the adoption of decisions which would ensure an effective reduction of armaments and armed forces, the elimination of the threat of a new war and the preservation of peace. 115. The Soviet Union’s policy was and is based on a recognition of the possibility of the co-existence of the communist and capitalist systems and of co-operation between the Soviet Union and the capitalist countries and all other countries wanting such co-operation. 116. Throughout the almost thirty-five years of its existence, the Soviet State has often demonstrated its unwavering desire for the establishment and strengthening of peaceful relations with the capitalist countries. 117.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

13. “During the Second World War, the Soviet Union acted as one of the sponsors of the creation of the United Nations, in the hope that this new Organization would become genuinely international, that it would, profit by the mistakes of the League of Nations to become a pledge of lasting peace, and that it would succeed in averting the threat of a new world war and in protecting mankind against the disasters of further carnage. 114. In pursuance of its policy of peace, the USSR has upheld the need for general disarmament or the reduction of armaments.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

14. “Stalin, namely that "the basis of our Government’s policy, its foreign policy, is the concept of peace” and that the task of USSR foreign policy is "the struggle for peace, the struggle against new wars and the exposure of all measures being undertaken with a view to the preparation of a new war”. 112. In accordance with these high principles, the government of the Soviet Union seeking to ensure the maintenance of lasting peace, has often, over a long period of time, taken the initiative in approaching other States with proposals for the strengthening of collective security, has invariably raised its voice against aggression and in defence of peoples which have fallen victim to the aggressive policy of imperialist States, and of countries which are fighting for their national independence. 113.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

15. “It also goes without saying that the responsibility for violations of the frontiers of another State must always rest and does rest with those who perpetrate such violations. 111. As we know, the foreign policy of every State is an extension of its domestic policy. From the very first days of the formation of the Soviet State, the USSR Government has waged an unremitting struggle for peace, for the development of friendly relations with other States on the basis of respect for the principles of equal rights and independence and has defended the interests of the Soviet people, which are identical with the fundamental interests of the peoples of all other countries. In so doing, the Government of the Soviet Union has been and is at present guided by the principles laid down by the head of the Government, I. V.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

16. “President, but before doing so, I should like to say a few words about the statement made by the Swedish Foreign Minister, Mr. Unden [379th meeting], concerning the violation by a Swedish Catalina military aircraft of the Soviet frontier, a matter which has already been exhausted by an exchange of notes between the Swedish and USSR Governments. 110. In his statement, Mr. Unden dealt with a whole string of problems — the problem of the high seas, of territorial waters, frontier belts, international zones and arbitration. As regards the question of the Swedish aircraft, the published USSR notes indicate that on 16 June 1952, Soviet aircraft gave chase to a Swedish Catalina military aircraft which had violated our frontiers. The published notes state that it is the sacred duty of every State to protect its frontiers.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

17. “The USSR delegation will give every possible support to the proposals for the conclusion of a peace pact submitted by the Polish delegation at this session, for the reduction of the armed forces of the great powers by one-third, for the elimination of the threat of war and the strengthening of peace, 108. The Soviet Union has given concrete evidence of ifs desire for peace, of its willingness for a peaceful settlement of important questions of international relations which are still outstanding. But let no one abuse the Soviet people’s desire for peace. Let no one neglect the lessons of history — of the history of Russia and the history of the Soviet State, which on more than one occasion has emerged victorious from the tribulations of a war forced upon it by aggressors, 109. I am concluding, Mr.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

18. “The conclusion of such a pact cannot fail to upset the war-like plans of the aggressive circles of the United States, the United Kingdom and certain other countries, and must necessarily arrest all attempts to launch another world war, 105. The lessons of the war in Korea cannot and muss not pass unheeded. The war in Korea has shown the losses the people will sustain — people will be no exception — if the United States war-mongers launch a world war in their own predatory interests. 106. At the present session also, the USSR Government considers it its duty to do all it can to persuade the General Assembly to appeal to the five great Powers to conclude a peace pact, which would correspond to the vital interests of all peoples. 107.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

19. “The five-Power pact must guarantee a genuinely peaceful policy on the part of these Powers, in contrast to the North. Atlantic Treaty, which is undermined by fundamental internal contradictions and is based upon an erroneous premise — the negation of the sovereignty of States; its very basis is therefore unsound. 104. The Soviet Union continued its campaign for a peace pact at the fifth and sixth sessions of the General Assembly. The conclusion of a five-Power peace pact is even more important at the present time, when the North Atlantic bloc has intensified its activities in preparation for a new world. war.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

20. “In this proposal, the delegation of the Soviet Union reflected the unswerving will and resolve of the peoples to avert the threat of a new war and guarantee the preservation of peace, a determination which found expression in the powerful popular movement in all countries in favour of peace and against the instigators of war. Unlike the North Atlantic Treaty, which is not an agreement based on the principle of respect for the sovereign equality of the parties, but was dictated by the United States, the five-Power peace pact must be an agreement based on the principle of equality in the relations among the parties, an agreement which genuinely pursues the aim of strengthening peace and of combatting aggression in whatever guise it may threaten the peace-loving peoples.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

21. “103, In 1949, at the fourth session of the General Assembly, the Soviet Union, in pursuit of its policy for the strengthening of peace and co-operation among all nations desirous of such co-operation and taking into consideration the mobilization of the forces of aggression Which, at that time, was becoming more intensive, raised its voice against the preparation of another world war and in defence of peace and the security of the nations. The USSR delegation proposed that the General Assembly should call upon all States to settle their disputes and disagreements by peaceful means, without resorting to force or the threat of force, and that they should conclude among themselves a pact for the strengthening of peace [A/996].”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

22. “The USSR delegation Is well aware of the difficulties with which it has and will have to contend in this struggle, in its defence, in the United Nations, of the cause of peace, ill its attempt to ensure the cessation of hostilities where they are now taking place, in its attempt to secure the adoption of proposals designed to avert a new world war, to preserve peace and to put an end to the fighting where it is going on. At this session, the delegation of the Soviet Union will not hesitate before any difficulties to achieve the most effective and successful results in the struggle to avert the threat of another world war and to strengthen peace.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

23. “As a result of support by a number of countries which are Members of the United Nations, the United States laws of 10 October 1951 and 20 June 1952 on the organization of these criminal activities still remain in force. Such a situation is intolerable. 101. At this session the Soviet Union Government will try to ensure that the United Nations; which can be a means of strengthening peace and international co-operation, adopts on this matter a position in accordance with its principles, purposes and functions; this means that the United Nations must seek to protect the realization of plans for undermining peace and increasing the threat of a new world war. 102, The Soviet Union attaches great importance to the United Nations and its part in the struggle for peace and international security.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

24. “This line of action flagrantly violates the principles of the United Nations, and no government can subscribe to it if it regards the United Nations as an Organization, for international co-operation which, it should be if the Charter is properly respected and observed. The People’s Republic of China should have its representative in the United Nations if the United Nations has any regard for its name and authority. 100. ,In their plan for the preparation of a new world war the ruling circles of the United States, supported by the United Kingdom and France, place considerable — though, it can be said in advance, vain — hopes on the organization of subversive activities, espionage and terrorism against the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China and the European peoples’ democracies.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

25. “Such are the decisions relating to the So-called “Uniting for peace” [resolution 377 (V)], the Organization Of the so-called Collective Measures Committee [resolution 377 (V)], and the shameful decisions declaring the People’s Republic of China to be an aggressor and approving the United States intervention in Korea. All this proves that the Anglo-African bloc has no regard for the Chatter and does not consider itself bound by the obligations imposed by the Charter. 99. The United States Seeks to make use Of the United Nations for its own aggressive purposes; therefore, like the ruling circles of a number of other countries which support it, it is attempting to prevent a genuine representative of the great Chinese people from taking part in the work of the United, Nations.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

26. “As for the work of the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council, it is impossible not to observe that the whole of that work has been along the lines of the aggressive foreign policy Of the United States. Taking advantage of the governments which are obedient to it; which ate members of the North Atlantic bloc of which support that bloc, the United States has at preceding Sessions carried through the United Nations a whole defies of decisions which obviously Violate the principles of the Charter of the United Nations while at the Same time weakening the United Nations and placing it in a position of absolute dependence on United States policy.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

27. “The Commission merely indulged in insignificant conversations on the establishment of levels of armaments, which in the last resort were left to the discretion of each individual country. Look at the records of the Commission and you will realize that there is not a single incorrect word in this appraisal, 97. That is how the matter stands with the work of the Disarmament Commission. Clearly the United States, and also the United Kingdom, France and a number of other countries which are members of the Disarmament Commission; are not interested in really Effective Work by the Commission, or in a real reduction of armaments or the prohibition of atomic weapons. 98.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

28. “Acheson affirmed that, in the Disarmament Commission, the United States had “sought to outline a comprehensive disarmament programme with a view to reducing the possibility and the fear of war”. In reality however, the whole work of the representatives of the United States — with which Mr. Acheson must be fairly well acquainted — as well as the work of the representatives of a number of other governments which support the United States in the Disarmament Commission, was not only not directed towards the preparation of a “comprehensive disarmament programme”, but was not even calculated to bring about a small real reduction of armaments and armed forces. All the Commission’s proposals amounted to nothing but the already familiar listing of armaments, submitted, moreover, in accordance with the famous system of stages.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

29. “If the United States is really prepared to agree to a substantial reduction of armaments and armed forces, why does it systematically reject proposals for the reduction of armaments, and why does it instead, before the eyes of the whole world, engage in frantic armaments production and feverishly keep on building new military bases on foreign territories for use against the USSR, the People’s Republic of China and the European peoples’ democracies ? 95. Let us compare words and deeds. You now have the opportunity to assess the significance and value of these words in the light of actual facts, that is, of the intensive militarization which the United States is carrying out at home, while at the same time goading, whipping and spurring on the nations which are friendly to it in the same direction. 96. Mr.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

30. “If the United States is really prepared to refrain from the use of chemical or bacterial weapons, why does Mr. Acheson systematically and stubbornly refuse to ratify the Geneva Protocol of 1925 on the prohibition of the use of bacterial weapons? It would appear that the United States is the only country in the world of any importance which has not ratified this 1925 Protocol on the prohibition of the use of bacterial weapons. How is it possible to believe statements that the United States will not resort to aggression with atomic bombs or ,with chemical weapons or bacterial weapons, as stated by Mr. Acheson the day before yesterday, when at the same time it rejects proposals for the unconditional prohibition of atomic weapons and stubbornly refuses to ratify the Protocol on the prohibition of the use of bacterial weapons?”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

31. “The Commission refused also to consider the proposal of the Soviet Union delegation that States which had not acceded to or ratified the Geneva Protocol, forbidding the use of bacterial weapons should be called upon to do so. 93. Speaking of the work of the Disarmament Commission, Mr. Acheson said; “We will not commit aggression with atomic bombs or any other kinds of bombs, We will not commit aggression with chemical weapons or bacterial weapons ...” [380th meeting]* 94. If the United States is really prepared to refrain from the use of atomic bombs or any other kinds of bombs, why does it persist year after year in rejecting the USSR proposals for the immediate and unconditional prohibition of atomic weapons? Why does it refuse even to make a statement on this subject?”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

32. “Nor is it possible to take seriously the proposal of the United States, the United Kingdom and France, that numerical limits should be set on the armed forces of the various States, without anything being done to establish the relations between the air, naval and land forces; for the determination of such relations is an important element in any plan which is really calculated to bring about a reduction of armaments. 92. We shall have occasion to revert to the work of the Disarmament Commission later, when the report of the Commission is considered. For the time being we shall say no more. It may also be recalled that the so-called Disarmament Commission has completely evaded the outstandingly important question of the prohibition of atomic weapons.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

33. “It is indeed impossible to take seriously, as measures for the reduction of armaments and the prohibition of atomic weapons, the proposals of this Anglo-American group for what they call a progressive disclosure and verification of armaments and armed forces in the famous five stages; these proposals are obviously calculated to delay the adoption of any decisions which might be even to the smallest degree effective, and truly designed to bring about a reduction of armaments and the prohibition of atomic weapons.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

34. “The aggressive foreign policy of the ruling circles of the United States is reflected m the conduct within the United Nations of the representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and certain other States which belong to the North Atlantic bloc. 91. To turn to the work of the Disarmament Commission, organized at the sixth session of the General Assembly [resolution502 (VI)], there can be no doubt that the majority of the members of that Commission, headed by the United States, have directed all their efforts to preventing any real disarmament and any reduction of armaments, and to preventing the prohibition of atomic weapons, and instead have done all they can to legalize the further growth of armaments and give the United States the opportunity to continue accumulating stock piles of atomic bombs.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

35. “Truman, President of the United States. To quote Mr. Truman again, this “build-up” “has increased inflation in Europe and has endangered the continued recovery of our allies”. These words, I think, are not without significance. 89. In such circumstances, what: can be said of the situation in the under-developed countries, which literally writhe under this “assistance” under the Truman programme, and which are subjected to open looting and the most shameless exploitation on the part of the United States and other colonial Powers, countries where the United States is carrying out the task of so-called guidance, placed upon it, according to Mr. Truman, by Providence itself? 90.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

36. “When dictating their will to these countries, the ruling circles of the United States attempt to cover up these plans by stressing the so-called problem of strengthening defence in the so-called free countries against the Soviet Union, which is alleged to be planning an attack on the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the other States which are members of that bloc. 88. But this so-called assistance places even such economically developed countries as the United Kingdom and France in a difficult position. In his message to Congress of 9 January 1952, Mr. Truman was compelled to admit that the so-called “defense build-up” in the “free” countries (by “free” countries is meant principally all countries which are members of the North Atlantic bloc) had created severe economic problems”. Those are the words of Mr.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

37. “It has now been replaced by plans in which the aggressive character of United States policy appears still more clearly, such as the United States mutual security programme, the Schumann plan and the Pleven plan. The same thing must also be said about so-called American economic assistance under Point Four of the Truman programme. All these plans and measures are calculated to make the economies of the Western European countries and other countries subservient to the military and strategic plans of the aggressive North Atlantic bloc; as was demonstrated long ago, they are directed against the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China and the European peoples’ democracies.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

38. “Draper, the United States representative in the Council of the North Atlantic bloc, notes in his report that Western Europe is concerned at the financial and payments situation, particularly the dollar shortage, which results from the excess of American exports over imports and which places the countries of western Europe in a difficult situation. “There is real danger”, the report says, “of a deep and perhaps disastrous fissure between the economies of Europe and America”. 87. In this connexion it should be observed that the well-known Marshall plan played a considerable part in dislocating the economies of the Western European countries.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

39. “This review discloses the continuous growth in the capitalist countries of armies of unemployed and semi-unemployed, an increase which is to some extent reduced by the fact that people are being transferred to war industries, to production for purposes of war. 85. The economic and financial situation in the western European countries is deteriorating. The deficit in the balance of payments of these countries is growing alarmingly. In the United Kingdom, for example, the reserves of currency at the end of the first half of 1952 had gone down to less than half of what they were the year before. 86. It is therefore no coincidence that Mr.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

40. “In the United States, direct taxation in the financial year 1952-1953 is more than twelve times as high as in 1937-1938, Taxes have also increased considerably in the United Kingdom, France, Italy and other capitalist countries which are members of the North Atlantic bloc. Mr. Symington, former Administrator of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, has said that out of every dollar of tax, 60 cents go to the Pentagon, that is to say, are used for military purposes. 84. In these countries, there is a growth of unemployment which cannot be concealed even by the official economic reports and reviews, as is apparent, for example, from the Mid-Year 1952 Economic Review prepared by the Council of Economic Advisers to the President of the United States.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

41. “Not long ago, the New York Post stated that the slightest whisper of a disarmament agreement was enough to alarm business men, bankers and politicians throughout the country. 83. The militarization of the entire economy of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and a number of other countries in the North Atlantic bloc, combined with the tremendous increase in military expenditure, inevitably leads to endless increases in taxation and in the burdens of taxation imposed on the population, to lower standards of living for millions of people, and to a reduction in the credits designed to satisfy the elementary requirements of the masses of the people.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

42. “Truman, is asking for ever greater appropriations to carry out the military programme and, in particular, for the construction of military bases, and that he opposes any reduction of such appropriations on the grounds that it would be, as he put it, a dreadful catastrophe to reduce these appropriations and thus with one stroke of the pen to lose half the bases concerned. 82. This shows that the foreign policy of the United States Government is dependent on the interests of the magnates of industry and finance in the United States, who are thirsting for a new war so that they can earn millions of dollars from this sanguinary enterprise and who do not even think of relinquishing their military programme or the armaments drive.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

43. ““The economic problems of socialism in the USSR" — “to such hazardous measures as enslaving and systematically plundering the colonies and other backward, countries, transforming a number of independent countries into dependent countries, organizing new wars which, for the leaders of contemporary capitalism, are the best form of ‘business’, yielding the highest profits, and, finally, attempting to attain world economic domination”. It is well known that the military fever in the United States is resulting in huge profits for American multi-millionaires. In 1951, these profits amounted to almost $43,000 million, or 13 times more than in 1938. The same thing can be seen, though on a smaller scale, in the United Kingdom and France. 81. It is quite understandable, in the light of such facts, that the President of the United States, Mr.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

44. “We are therefore justified in speaking of the rapid rate of militarization of the economies of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the other capitalist countries. It can be explained by the characteristics of contemporary monopolistic capitalism, which is motivated solely by the desire to derive maximum profits. This desire drives it — as I. V. Stalin proved in his remarkable work, recently published.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

45. “In Prance, military expenditure in 1952 amounts to 3,789 thousand million francs, as against 92,700 million francs in 1938, France is now spending considerably more on war preparations than it spent in 1938, the last pre-war year. Taking 21 francs in 1950 as equivalent to 1 franc in 1938, in accordance with the ratio established in France, the French military budget in 1950 was 82 per cent of the military budget for 1938 (500,000 million francs as against 611,000 million francs at the 1950 rate). The official military appropriations for 1952 exceed pre-war levels and are now 145, per cent of the figure for 1938, and nearly 40 per cent of the entire French budget. 80.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

46. “The more Sober sections of the American Press, Speaking of the unprecedented growth of militarism in the United States, point out that if this all-pervading militarism is compared with the defensive measures adopted by the United States in 1941, it is easy to see that, as one member of the House of Representatives — Mr. Buffet of Nebraska — stated, the United States had advanced much further towards war than it had in 1941. 78. The same militarization of industry can be seen in the United Kingdom, where military expenditure in the financial year 1952-1953 amounts to approximately 34 per cent of the total budget, or more than twice the military expenditure in the pre-war period. 79.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

47. “The growth of industrial production in the United States is accounted for exclusively by the sudden Increase in military production resulting from the United States intervention in Korea, the intensified armaments drive, the construction of new American military air bases at the ends of the earth — particularly at points around the perimeter of the Soviet Union and the people's democracies — and the growth in numbers of United States armed forces. These data also emphasize the fact that the militarization of the United States economy is assuming tremendous proportions. General Eisenhower, too, was forced to admit this among other things, in one of his speeches, when he said that the economy of the United States was a military economy, that its development was military development.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

48. “Those figures are sufficient, too, to show that the ruling circles of the United States are not thinking of reducing the production of atomic weapons, much less of prohibiting it, and that every statement by official United States representatives on their readiness to prohibit atomic weapons is absolutely false and solely directed at misleading naive and over credulous persons. 77. The militarization of industry in the United States has increased still further during the last, year.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

49. “It seems to me that all these facts are sufficiently convincing to .show the hypocrisy of the oratory of the, leading political personalities of the United States and the worthlessness of the various plans which they and their allies in the United Nations put forward for the alleged purpose of prohibiting atomic weapons and reducing armaments. It is thus no accident that the United States Government is making every effort to increase even further the production of atomic weapons, Whereas $418 million, were spent on, the production of atomic weapons in 1945 and 1946— according to published data, which are certainly an understatement — $897 million were spent in 1950-1951 and $1,700 million in the current year 1952-1953. During the next two years, It is estimated that this expenditure will increase to $3,000 million.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)

50. “In the United States, military expenditure in the financial year 1952-1953, according to published data, was more than 58 times as much as in the financial year 1937-1938, and now constitutes 74 per cent of the total United States budget, compared to 14 per cent in 1937-1938. Vast appropriations are included in the United States budget for the production of atomic weapons and the expansion of the atomic energy industry, this “billion dollar business”, as they say m the United States, from which American monopolists are reaping tremendous profits. It should be pointed out that the 1952 appropriation for the production of atomic weapons was twice as great as, in 1951, and further increases are foreseen in the coming years. 76.”

    1952-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 7 (1952)