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. “Having started a war of aggression in Korea which is earning them huge profits, the American billionaires and millionaires are tenaciously clinging to this source of gain and are in no mood to let such a “golden opportunity” of multiplying their millions and billions slip out of their hands. They view with alarm every hint of the likelihood of an armistice in Korea, and are doing everything possible to thwart the conversations in Kaesong, despite the fact that the American people — in common, we are profoundly convinced, with all peace-loving peoples — are longing for and demanding the termination of the war and the establishment of peace in the Far East. 66.”

   1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

2. “The basis of present United States policy is fear of any possibility of a peaceful development of international relations or the strengthening of international co-operation. 64. In American “ business ” circles it is openly admitted that fear of the “ peace danger ” reigns supreme ; that share prices rise on the American stock exchange — as has been reported on many occasions in the American Press — when the continuance of the Korean war appears probable, and fall, on the contrary, whenever there appears any likelihood of the conclusion of peace in Korea. 65.”

   1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

3. “It will lead to the transformation of Japan into a country dependent on foreign monopolies, will make it impossible for the Japanese people to develop their welfare and will impede the development of their material and spiritual forces. 62. This, however, was not the object of the inspirers of the treaty — the Anglo-American monopolists. They needed the treaty solely in order to legalize their way to a military alliance between the American monopolists and the Japanese militarists. Such a treaty cannot and will not serve the cause of peace. Rejected by the USSR and by the People’s Republic of China, India and Burma — the countries most interested in a peaceful settlement with Japan — the peace treaty signed at San Francisco will remain a dead letter. 63.”

   1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

4. “This is a dangerous development in international relations; a step which undermines the peace and security of the peoples of the Far East. It is dangerous, moreover, because the San Francisco Treaty provides for the continuance of the occupation of Japan by United States forces even after the signing of the Treaty, and lays upon Japan the obligation of offering its territory for American war bases. It is obvious that the San Francisco Treaty is not a peace treaty, but a treaty for the preparation of a new war in the Far East. 61. The San Francisco Treaty makes it more difficult for the Japanese people to secure the democratization of their country and develop the peace economy of Japan.”

   1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

5. “Instead of fulfilling these obligations, the initiators and inspirers of the “peace treaty” with Japan resorted to a policy of reviving Japanese military organizations of all kinds and establishing and expanding military, air and naval bases in japan ; of restoring the Japanese army, fleet and air force ; of strengthening Japan as an American military arsenal and war base in the Far East. 60. Such a “peace treaty” with Japan is incompatible with the interests of the peace-loving peoples and with those of the Japanese people themselves. By compelling Japan to enter a war bloc directed against the USSR and the People’s Republic of China, it condemns the Japanese people to the bitter fate of serving as cannon-fodder in the new war under preparation by the aggressive Atlantic bloc.”

   1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

6. “Not only the United States Government, but the Governments of the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Australia and a number of other States which signed the San Francisco Treaty, violated the obligations which they assumed in 1947 as members of the Far Eastern Commission, With their participation, the Commission adopted resolutions stating that the above-mentioned Powers undertook to carry out reforms in Japan with the object of destroying the influence of militarism and ensuring the complete disarmament of Japan, thereby rendering it impossible for that country to wage aggressive war in the future. 59.”

   1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

7. “The objectives of United States policy towards Japan were demonstrated beyond need of words in the farce staged at San Francisco by the United States for the signing of the so-called Peace Treaty with Japan. That Treaty is quite incompatible with the principles on which a genuine peace treaty might be constructed, a treaty calculated to ensure peace in the Far East and provide guarantees against any recurrence of Japanese aggression.”

   1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

8. “Acheson and his adherents organized their own meeting in Washington and then held a meeting of the Council of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Ottawa, endeavouring to intensify and extend the remilitarization of West Germany, to go still further in transforming Western Germany into a base for aggression against its neighbours. 57. For some years since the end of the Second World War — as also before it — rivers of American gold have been flowing into German war industry, with the object of forcing that industry into the service of the American monopolists, who thirst for ever greater profits even at a cost of disastrous calamities and sacrifices to all humanity. 58.”

   1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

9. “Acheson’s attempts to whitewash the boycott policy of the United States and its allies during the three months marking-time at the Paris meeting of Deputy Foreign Ministers on the German question are no avail. 55. The facts speak against Mr. Acheson. The facts speak against such attempts. The facts show that in this instance once again it was the Anglo-American bloc which did everything in its power to break off the meeting of Deputy Foreign Ministers on the German question, and in fact succeeded in doing so. 56. Last September, having wrecked the Paris meeting of Deputy Foreign Ministers, Mr.”

   1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

10. “In recent times the United States, the United Kingdom and France have been exerting fresh efforts to extend the conspiracy against peace, and to draw Western Germany, Italy, Turkey and Greece into the preparation of the new war. 53. It is no secret that the United States is the chief organiser and inspirer of measures such as the “Pleven Plan ” and the “ Schumann Plan ”, the general objective of which is to restore German militarism and the military-industrial power of Western Germany, and to use the German regular army and the German economy for aggressive ends. 54. That is why the United States and the United Kingdom and France, which indisputably follow in the wake of the United States, broke off the Paris meeting of the Deputy Foreign Ministers on the German question. Mr.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

11. “Among large numbers of people in the United States dissatisfaction with the policy of “situations of strength” is expressed with increasing frequency and insistence. In all probability these voices reach even the State Department, although the ears of the responsible persons there are tightly stuffed with cotton-wool. For example, the view is expressed that if the United States stubbornly refuses to conduct negotiations, and insists on rearmament at an increasingly furious rate, the consequences will be disastrous not only for the United States, but for its allies too. 52. The basis of the entire United States foreign policy is in fact the preparation of a new world war, with the object of winning world hegemony for the American monopolies and extracting gigantic war profits.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

12. “And if now a proposal on peace is introduced and words about peace are jumbled together, this has only been done under the pressure of a powerful movement of the popular masses, who are demanding peace and who have put more than 500 million signatures to a new appeal on the necessity of concluding a pact of peace. 51. Is this the source of your love of peace, organizers and inspirers of the Atlantic bloc warmongers? Now your only course is to try to conceal even more effectively your aggressive plans by false phrases of peace; you need to reconquer the trust of the peoples in order to hoodwink them. That, however, cannot always be carried off successfully. Even in the United States this theory of “strength” no longer carries its former weight.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

13. “How many times have they tried to resort to the same deception in order to strengthen their own position in the eyes of public opinion and to continue the line of their aggressive policy. 50. All that we heard today from Mr. Acheson is an expression of that same policy of situations of strength, the utter recklessness of which is now evident to every clear-thinking person, in spite of all the artifices employed by the instigators of the plan for another world war to deceive unsophisticated people. But this total diplomacy has already proved its complete bankruptcy.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

14. “Once again they boast of successes in the armaments race, in the expansion of the so-called combined defence forces in Europe under the command of General Eisenhower, and promise future expansion and increase of those armed forces and armaments, as Mr. Truman declared, in Europe and in other parts of the world just as long as that is necessary. It is obvious that all these measures are planned on a long-term basis. At the same time they are all screened with spurious phrases about an alleged threat from the Soviet Union ; but this is a repetition of the slander against the policy of the Soviet Union in order to deceive their own peoples, in order to drag them into a new world war organized by the ruling circles of the United States of America.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

15. “From this declaration, in spite of the words it contains about peace, the conclusion may clearly be drawn that these States will continue the armaments race, the production of atomic bombs, the barbarous aggressive war in Korea, once again on the pretext of defence interests and the alleged desire to protect the security of their countries. They thereby seek to prove that peace can be preserved only on the basis of a powerful war-machine, by force, and that only under such conditions can the well-known existing political disagreements between various countries be settled. 49. Here, I would recall, is a basic thesis of American total diplomacy, exhibited once again today by Mr. Acheson, repeating yesterday’s radio speech by Mr. Truman.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

16. “The United States is continuing to expand its military industry, which is swallowing up more and more thousands of millions of dollars, under the pretext of the “defence” and “national security” of the United States. 47. American ruling circles are trying to picture the armaments race, the forming of a large number of armies, the production of atomic bombs, the creation of military bases on foreign soil, as a necessity resulting from an alleged danger from the Soviet Union threatening England, the United States and France. 48. Aiming at a similar deception of the peoples in regard to the real character of the policy of the Atlantic bloc is also the declaration — I learned about it last evening — of France, England and the United States presented yesterday to the General Assembly.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

17. “Truman admitted in his message to Congress in April of this year, the United States had over the preceding ten months more than doubled the number of its armed forces and is planning in the course of the next fiscal year to increase them further to 3,500,000 men, not including 2 million men in other military units and in the National Guard. The number of the armed forces of the United States, England and France is thus already several times greater than in 1939, in the period before the Second World War, and is more than double the number of the armed forces and armaments of the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the armed forces of these countries and their expenditures are being increased more and more. 46.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

18. “Meanwhile, year after year, the United States has been increasing its army, navy and air force, has been building hundreds of new naval and air bases on foreign territory, has been creating a whole system of military alliances, involving in those alliances even the former “ axis ” countries — so well experienced in such matters — Japan and Italy, and also Western Germany. 44. The whole economy of the United States of America, as well as of England, France and a number of other countries, has been geared to war production. The lion's share of expenditures in their State budgets goes for war preparations. Military expenditures in the United States budget for 1951-52 amount by official American figures to £ 81,800 million, a sum which is seventy-six times greater that what was appropriated in 1939. 45. As Mr.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

19. “The aggressive character of the foreign policy of the United States is obvious to the whole world, in spite of the efforts of the United States Government to conceal it from world public opinion by representing the new war which it is preparing as a defensive war and representing the peaceful policy of the Soviet Union and other peace-loving countries as an aggressive policy, although everyone knows that the Soviet Union, as I already said in quoting , the authoritative statements of Generalissimo Stalin, has no intention of ever attacking the United States or any other country. 43.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

20. “Schvernik, and to the Supreme Soviet of our country, an appeal which contained assurances of the desire to improve relations with the Soviet Union. It must be frankly said that such declarations are not in harmony with the actions of the United States Government and in particular with the breaking of the aforementioned trade agreement with the USSR, which can only be evaluated as an act designed to bring about a further deterioration of relations between the USSR and the United States. 42.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

21. “The United States Congress piles act upon act aimed at destroying the peaceful co-operation between our peoples, at kindling a new world war. 40. Only this year the United States Government, proceeding along the path of further worsening relations with the Soviet Union, adopted an act to embargo trade with the Soviet Union and the countries of the peoples democracies and broke the USSR-United States trade agreement of 4 August 1937, which had hitherto operated quite soundly. 41. We cannot fail to note that this decision to break the United States-USSR trade agreement was adopted in the United States almost simultaneously with the appeal of the United States President, Mr. Truman, and the United States Congress to the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, Mr.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

22. “It is time to remind the United Nations of its duties, which are: to support not the aggressors who attack other countries, but those who are subjected to attacks by aggressors; to support international peace and security; and to develop friendly relations between nations. It is time to rebuff the aggressive forces which are pushing the world toward a new world war. 38. What is happening m the United Nations is a direct result of the foreign policy of the Anglo-American bloc, which constitutes the aggressive cone within the United Nations. 39. Influential government leaders in the United States — the President, members of the Cabinet, Senators — day after day instigate hostility towards the Soviet Union and the countries of the people’s democracies.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

23. “The aggressive tendencies and plans of the American monopolists are fully supported by a number of States, members of the North Atlantic bloc, which hold a commanding position in the United Nations, and are converting it from an instrument of peace into a tool of war. 35. “By becoming an instrument of aggressive war”, said Generalissimo Stalin, “the United Nations is ceasing to be an international organization of nations with equal rights. The United Nations is now substantially not so much an international organization as an organization for Americans, acting to satisfy the requirements of the American aggressors”, 36. Such are the facts and facts, as we know, are stubborn things. But we must not go further along this path. 37.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

24. “To-day, it is being guided by different interests; it is being pushed towards different goals by aggressive forces in the United States, England, France and the Latin-American countries, which now manage the questions of war and peace in the United Nations. And it is these goals and interests, this craving for a new war, for riches from war, for gigantic profits from war, which is the source of encouragement of the master monopolists who, as generalissimo Stalin, the head of the Soviet Government, remarked, “ consider war a money-making proposition providing colossal profits ”, Nor can this be concealed by deceitful and hypocritical phrases about peace, about “ peace through deeds ”, and “ uniting for peace ” — phrases, the spurious character of which is being demonstrated every day, every hour, every minute, by numerous facts. 34.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

25. “It was before your very eyes and unhappily, I must point out, it was with the support of many of you that all these decisions were taken, decisions designed to defeat the attempt to strengthen universal peace and prosperity, and to create a war psychosis which would facilitate the preparations for a new war that are being secretly made by the American military staff. 33. In this way, year by year, step by step, the United Nations has been departing more and more from the purposes and principles of the Charter, from the tasks set before the United Nations by its Charter and its founders. The United Nations has strayed far from the path of strengthening peace and promoting the development of friendly relations between countries and peoples.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

26. “In a word, it rejected any proposal submitted by those who were really attempting to improve the physical, economic and social condition of the people in many countries. All such proposals were rejected root and branch. 31. In the regional economic commissions, which dealt with matters chiefly affecting Asian countries, the Anglo-American bloc rejected a number of important constructive proposals by the USSR delegation and the delegations of the people’s democracies for promoting the development of economic relations in the countries and territories of Asia and the Far East and for promoting the development of national industry in those countries and territories, together with a number of other important proposals. 32. These facts are well known to you all.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

27. “It should be quite clear to all and sundry that the purpose of this resolution was to provide a hypocritical and lying cloak for the barbaric destruction of Korean towns and villages and the slaughter of the peaceful Korean people by American aircraft. 30. The Economic and Social Council took the same line at its twelfth session and did everything it could to support American aggressive policy also in the economic sphere. The majority in the Council at the same time systematically rejected any proposals for the development of a peaceful economy and the satisfaction of civilian needs. The Council rejected a proposal recommending steps to decrease war industry, to reduce prices of articles of mass consumption, to decrease the people’s burden of taxation, to increase expenditure on housing, health, education and the like.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

28. “It is only necessary for me to mention these facts to remove any doubt that the elementary principles and standards of international law are being trampled underfoot in the United Nations, and that American policy is doing immeasurable damage to the moral authority of our Organization. 29. Instead of performing the important tasks of helping to establish the requisite conditions for peaceful and friendly relations between nations, of promoting a better standard of life, of securing full employment, the Economic and Social Council, at its last session, devoted itself entirely to the preparation of measures supporting the Anglo-American aggression in Korea. During its eleventh session the majority in the Council adopted at the instigation of the United States, a resolution for the so-called “relief and rehabilitation” of Korea.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

29. “Shortly before this sixth session the majority in the Security Council, at the instigation of the United States and England, committed a new violation of the most important principles of the United Nations Charter by accepting for consideration the British complaint against Iran, in clear violation of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter which, as you are aware, forbids intervention in the domestic affairs of States. Thus once again the Anglo-American group in the United Nations demonstrated its complete contempt for the most important principles of the Charter, which require respect for the independence and sovereign rights of States. 28.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

30. “The Assembly resolutions on the so-called collective measures, those establishing a blockade and putting an embargo on goods exported to China, the iniquitous resolution declaring the People’s Republic of China an aggressor, and the equally iniquitous resolution charging the American Command in Korea to ensure “conditions of stability”, in the words of the resolution, throughout the whole of Korea, or in other words to continue the aggressive war until the whole of Korea had been conquered, speak for themselves and show the aggressive character of the policy pursued by the General Assembly at its last session under United States pressure. The Assembly openly embarked on a policy of supporting and intensifying aggression against the peace-loving peoples of Korea and China. 27.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

31. “On the contrary, it embarked on further departures from and violations of the purposes and principles of the United Nations. At the last session a number of resolutions were adopted, the aggressive character of which are beyond dispute, notwithstanding all the attempts of their authors and instigators to disguise their real object beneath fine phrases such, as “uniting for peace”, and “peace through deeds”, to quote two of the bloc’s resolutions.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

32. “Our delegation called for the adoption of proposals submitted by the Soviet Union and the people’s democracies to strengthen peace and to prohibit — not reduce, as Mr. Truman and Mr. Acheson would have it — I repeat, completely and unconditionally to prohibit the atomic weapon, proposals for the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes only, and for the prohibition of war propaganda. At the same time we called upon the Assembly to adopt resolutions for the immediate cessation of the war in Korea, which had been forced upon the Korean people by the Anglo-American interventionists, for the cessation of aggressive action against the People’s Republic of China and. on a number of other important subjects. 26. Unfortunately, the General Assembly did not adopt that course.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

33. “The Atlantic bloc has based its hostile policy towards the Soviet Union and the people’s democracies, under pressure in these cases chiefly from the United States of America, in an endeavour to make a tool of the United Nations and to push through the General Assembly and other United Nations organs resolutions invalidating decisions, designed to remove the threat of a new war and to maintain international peace and security, which had been adopted at previous sessions of the Assembly. Such resolutions were in fact taken at earlier sessions of the Assembly. But they have not been acted on. At the fifth session of the General Assembly, the Soviet Union delegation declared that the Assembly was thereby violating the fundamental principles of the United Nations.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

34. “In his reply to the Pravda correspondent Generalissimo Stalin exposed the complete groundlessness of such apprehensions and showed them to be without foundation. 24. “The rulers of the United States”, said Generalissimo Stalin, “must be aware that the Soviet Union is not only opposed to any use of the atomic weapon, but recommends its prohibition and the discontinuance of its production. If the United States does not intend to attack the Soviet Union the fears of its rulers are spurious and unfounded, since the Soviet Union has no intention of attacking the United States of America or any other country at any time ”. 25.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

35. “And, in order to deceive the public, in order to mask their true aggressive aims, the President, members of the Cabinet, Senators and other political and social leaders in the United States are raising a hue and cry about the security of the United States being threatened by the Soviet Union. 22. They are trying to twist the recent atom bomb tests in the Soviet Union to serve this purpose; tests of different sizes of such bombs, according to a reply made by Generalissimo Stalin, President of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union, to a Pravda correspondent in connexion with the atomic weapon, are to be carried out as part of the plan for the defence of our country against attack by the aggressive Anglo-American bloc. 23.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

36. “The members of the Atlantic bloc are thus openly flaunting international agreements which were signed during the war against hitlerite Germany and militarist Japan with the object of preventing a repetition of fascist aggression and strengthening the bonds of friendship with the Soviet Union. In this way, the bosses of the North Atlantic bloc are rushing to pave the way for carrying out the aggressive plans worked out in the offices of the general staffs at the order of reactionaries in the United States of America who are thirsting for another world war.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

37. “Really honest people can obviously give only one answer : those who invaded Korea, who spilled the blood of the Korean people, who subjected the Korean people to untold misery and suffering, r who are breaking all the laws and regulations of international law by bombing civilian centres, including even neutral zones. That is where the responsibility for the Korean war lies. 21. The United States has seized the Chinese island of Taiwan, and is threatening the borders of China. Now it is trying to strengthen the North Atlantic bloc by the inclusion of Greece, Turkey and Western Germany, which have been assigned a special role in its aggressive plans against the Soviet Union.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

38. “Can there be any doubt that the truce talks in Korea could be brought to a successful conclusion by a very simple process? The American Government need merely instruct General Ridgway not to complicate the situation by all kinds of incidents; not to set up artificial obstacles designed to prejudice the success of the Kaesong talks; not, for instance, to put forward proposals such as the one reported over the radio today, an utterly ridiculous demand to the effect that the Kaesong area should be taken over by the American command, quite regardless of the fact that the area is at present in the hands of the North Korean forces. With an approach such as this, can there be any hope of successful talks? And who, in these circumstances, must be held responsible for their breakdown?”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

39. “If it proves necessary to do so, we shall be prepared to marshall all this evidence again at the sixth session. There is, I think, no need to dwell at length on that point at the moment. 20. As regards the Kaesong negotiations, to which Mr. Acheson also referred today, there can surely be no doubt about the fact that it is the American generals — the MacArthurs and the Ridgways and their protectors — who have persistently sabotaged all attempts from the other side to achieve success in these talks. Is it not, after all, the American command which has been undermining the success of these negotiations by using various delaying tactics, bombing neutral zones, and adopting other similar typically American methods of negotiation?”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

40. “The aggressive Anglo-American Atlantic bloc as led to a further worsening of international relations, already sorely strained by the atmosphere of unbridled war hysteria, the armaments race, and the constant attempts to frighten other nations by the threat of atomic and hydrogen bombs, for which the American reactionary leaders are responsible. 19. For almost a year and a half the United States of America and Great Britain, the leaders of the Atlantic bloc, have been waging an aggressive war in Korea. Mr. Acheson today made an attempt to shift the responsibility for the war from the government of the United States to other countries, although, as was proved over and over again in the course of the fifth session, it was in fact the United States of America which really launched the aggressive, predatory war in Korea.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

41. “Even more serious is the economic plight of the underdeveloped countries, most of them Asian countries, which, as a result of the militarization of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and a number of other States, are unable to obtain the equipment they require for developing their own industries. The proceeds from the sale of their raw materials are frozen in American and British banks, and they cannot dispose of them freely. Agriculture in these countries is on the decline, and holds out no promise of progress in the future. The production of foodstuffs is falling, and the populations of a number of areas are doomed to famine, disease and extinction. 18. The political situation too has deteriorated during the past year.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

42. “15. The exhaustion of the central gold and dollar reserves in the transactions of the sterling area as a whole would increase this deficit considerably. The conclusion? Mr. Churchill has drawn this conclusion: “These figures mean”, he said “that we are buying much more than we can afford from current earnings”. The new law, signed by the President of the United States of America on 26 October will of course make the situation even worse. 16. “That”, concluded Mr. Churchill, “may lead in time to national bankruptcy”. Such is the present economic situation of Great Britain, one of the leading members of the Atlantic bloc, a country which is also engaged in a mad arms race. 17.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

43. “Churchill used the following words: “As regards the general balance of payments of foreign trade, we are in the midst of a crisis. For the deficit is larger than in 1949 and in many respects even worse than in 1947. In the present half-year”, said Mr. Churchill, after the speech from the Throne, “we are running into an external deficit at the rate of £ 700 million sterling a year compared with an annual rate of surplus of about £ 350 million sterling in the same period a year ago”. 14. “In 1952”, said Mr. Churchill, “the latest estimates show that unless the situation deteriorates, the United Kingdom will have a deficit on its general balance of payments of between £ 500 million sterling and £ 600 million sterling”. Unless, Mr. Churchill said, the situation deteriorates. But what guarantee is there that it will not in fact deteriorate?”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

44. “Eden, who is now here as head of the United Kingdom delegation. That article contained the following passage, to which I think it is important to draw attention now. Mr. Eden was at that time, it is true, in the Opposition, but I do not imagine he has changed his views, at any rate on this point, as a result of becoming a member of the Government, Mr. Eden wrote, “ it must be remembered that the British economy is already fully stretched, with a higher level of taxation than any other country in the world ”. 13. Nor can I deny myself the pleasure of referring to another even more explicit statement on the same subject, made by the new British Prime Minister in outlining his programme to the House of Commons. In his speech, as reported in the official Press, Mr.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

45. “Economically and in particular financially, both Great Britain and other Western European countries are now threatened, and will continue to be threatened by serious difficulties, especially in view of the new United States law, which the President signed only a few days ago, 26 October. According to this law I am trying to keep as closely as possible to the actual wording — it will be United States policy to impose an embargo on all goods exported to the Soviet Union and countries friendly to the Soviet Union and to discontinue economic and financial aid to all countries trading with those countries. 12. While on this subject I cannot refrain from mentioning an article which appeared in the April 1951 number of the American periodical Foreign Affairs, written by the present Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, Mr.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

46. “The economic position of the countries of Western Europe, and in particular of England and France, may be judged from the conclusions contained in the report of a United Nations economic commission — not the statements of any mere propaganda paper but the conclusions set out in the report of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, and quoted in the 1 September number of the British periodical New Statesman and Nation, as follows : “The economy of the United Kingdom is showing every sign of suffering from severe strain. Cost inflation is rampant, and towards the end of the year may well be enhanced by demand inflation flowing from the heaviest rearmament programme in Europe.” 11.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

47. “Truman in his broadcast address last night again had to concede — a point which Mr. Acheson today confirmed from this rostrum — that there is a close connexion between raising the standard of living of the population and decreasing the armaments burden. However, it is common knowledge that this realization does not prevent the Government of the United States of America from pursuing the mad arms race, thus bringing about a further deterioration in the material condition of its people. 10.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

48. “Truman in his economic report to Congress for the first half of 1951 in which he said that inflation in the United States of America has led during the past year to an increase in the price of essential consumer goods. I shall quote further from this report: “It has encouraged speculation and has made things more difficult for a large part of our people” — that is, the American people. Those, continued Mr. Truman, who have been fortunate enough to increase their incomes have been able to maintain their standard of living. But more than half the families in the country have been unable to increase their incomes between the beginning of 1950 and the beginning of 1951. Indeed the incomes of nearly a fifth of the aggregate number of families have actually decreased. 9. Mr.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

49. “It must be pointed out that the policy of economic discrimination, primarily in trade relations, against the Soviet Union and the countries of the people’s democracies plays no small part in worsening the international economic situation ; this policy has seriously harmed the economy of the world, the economy of the United States, and, to an even greater extent, that of the United Kingdom and France. Many of the prominent leaders of these countries have been forced to admit that the economic situation in the capitalist countries has seriously deteriorated. 8. As to the United States, such an admission was made recently by Mr.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)

50. “The economic situation in the capitalist countries has further deteriorated during this time as a direct result of the aggressive policy of the Atlantic bloc, led by the United States of America, and of a number of other countries forced to follow this policy under constant pressure from the United States. 7. The economy of the United States itself has become unstable as a result of war inflation. It is marked by a steady increase in the production of armaments and simultaneous retrenchment in the civilian branches of industry. The armaments race has inevitably resulted in an increase in military budgets and direct and indirect taxation, which has led to a further deterioration in the material situation of those countries.”

    1951-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 6 (1951)