YouSaid · the spoken record

Baranovsky

THE RECORD WRITES THIS SPEAKER AS BARANOVSKY

lines on the record

130

first

1950-09-24

most recent

1953-09-24

sittings or episodes

4

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 Soviet Press reports on the wretched situation of the masses of the people in the United Kingdom, France and the United States, which Mr. Eden cited as an example of Soviet anti-British propaganda, are based exclusively on facts obtained from the actual conditions of life in England. These facts can be found without difficulty even in official publications issued by various government institutions in the United Kingdom and in British parliamentary records. In the House of Lords, for example, on 21 June 1950, Lord Selkirk, speaking in the debate on the housing situation in the United Kingdom, said: “. . . future historians will look with dismay on this generation . . . who are not only moving from radio to television, who are on the very verge of the atomic age, but who cannot provide themselves with reasonable houses”.”

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

2. “Free from the influence of the capitalist monopolists, the Soviet Press accurately informs the Soviet reader about the facts of his country’s domestic and international activities and acquaints him with the mode of life, economic affairs, culture and policy of foreign countries. It is easy to convince oneself of this by examining without prejudice the contents of the numerous periodicals and newspapers published in the USSR and by listening to the radio broadcasts for Soviet listeners. It is not, of course, the fault of the Soviet information organs and Press if the present situation in the capitalist countries, including the United Kingdom, does not provide material for reports of the kind which Mr. Eden might perhaps like to see in the pages of our Press. 119.”

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

3. “The gates of the Soviet Union are closed, of course, and firmly closed, to slanderers, spies and hostile agents. 117. To divert attention from the anti-Soviet activity which-the amateurs of high-sounding catch-phrases have called “psychological warfare”, Mr. Eden attempted to accuse the Soviet Press of deliberately presenting a false picture of the situation in bourgeois countries, in order, as he said, to discredit those countries and arouse the Soviet people’s hatred of them. What evidence did Mr. Eden adduce in support of this slander? As is usual with British diplomats, none. He merely said that in the Soviet Union references are made to the “pitiful slums ... in London, Paris and New York”, and so forth, 118.”

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

4. “The so-called freedom of the Press in the United Kingdom and other bourgeois countries which has been so lauded here by Mr. Eden is actually used for the most shameless dissemination of false information about the USSR. The Press, the cinema, the radio and responsible officiate allege every day that the Soviet Union is planning war. The bourgeois Press features all kinds of slanderous anti-Soviet articles which give a distorted picture of the situation of the Soviet people. How can serious-minded people allow themselves to follow the example of the gutter Press by talking nonsense about the “iron curtain”, when every year the USSR is visited by thousands of people from abroad — workers, peasants, members of the intelligentsia and public figures?”

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

5. “This return to sobriety on the part of the ruling circles of the countries of Western Europe, in reaction against the insolently aggressive policy of the United States, is connected with the increased strength of the Powers, headed by the Soviet Union, which have consistently pursued a policy of peace. It is the direct result of the growing resistance on the part of the peoples of the world to preparation for war. Fewer and fewer people in the countries of the Anglo-American bloc believe the lies and slander against the USSR. 116. It is precisely for this reason that the ruling, circles of those countries have intensified their propaganda against the Soviet Union. They are concealing from the people the fact that the USSR stands for peace and supports the reduction of armaments.”

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

6. “In spite of the fact that the United States has increased its pressure on its partners in the Atlantic bloc, compelling them to produce still more armaments, there has recently been an obvious effort on the part of the Western European Powers to reduce their armaments, and for the first time so far, attempts are being made to evade carrying out American plans for a new world war. Illusions about American “aid”, in which the European governments at first saw an easy means of solving all their post-war problems, have now been completely dispelled.”

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

7. “They reflect two trends in the development of world economy: the progressive decline of the capitalist countries subordinated to the United States, and the rapid economic growth of the Soviet Union and the peoples’ democracies. 114. By far the greater proportion of the resources of the USSR are used, not in preparation for war, but for the development of peaceful industries serving the needs of the people. Evidence of this is provided by the fifth five-year plan for the development of the Soviet Union. Even the reactionary, anti-Soviet Press of the capitalist countries has been unable to find any signs of preparation for war in this plan and has been compelled to recognize its obviously peaceful nature. 115.”

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

8. “It is scarcely surprising that, under the pressure of public opinion, the governments of the countries which have received the “benefactions” of the United States are demanding the immediate cessation of American “aid” and are making very effort to brush aside attempts to foist this “aid” upon them. Such efforts are now being made, for example, by the Government of Syria. On 27 October this year, The New York Times wrote as follows: “European governments are awfully tired of feeling dependent on the United States, of having to justify to their peoples various actions that acceptance of this aid entails,” 113. The comparisons we have made speak for themselves and need no explanation.”

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

9. “The Ukraine now smelts more pig iron than France and Italy combined, it produces more steel and sheet metal than France, it extracts, one-and-a-half times as much coal as France and Italy combined, and the total horsepower of the tractors it manufactures is greater than that of the tractors produced by France and Italy combined. The Ukraine produces considerably more grain, potatoes, sugar beet and sugar than France and Italy combined. It should be observed, in this connexion, that in 1951, as a result of the United States policy of strangling the French economy, the production of sugar in France fell by 142,000 tons, whereas the production of sugar in the Ukraine has been increasing steadily and has now reached 138 per cent of the pre-war level. 112.”

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

10. “The disinterested aid rendered to the Ukraine, on the other hand, has enabled that country in a short space of time to restore its ruined national economy, and, as early as 1951, to exceed its pre-war level of industrial production by more than 35 per cent. 111. The industry of the Ukraine has developed particularly rapidly in the last three years. During this period, industrial production in the Ukrainian SSR has increased annually by 23.7 per cent. In these same three years, industrial production in France, a country whose economy suffered incomparably less from the war than that of the Ukraine, has increased by only 6.3 per cent per year.”

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

11. “This comparison was made in a recent speech by Mr. Beria, one of the most eminent leaders in the USSR Government, 110. The Soviet Ukraine, ruined by the enemy occupation, could not have restored its economy without aid from outside. Such aid was given the Ukraine by all the republics of the Soviet Union. But how different this friendly aid has been from the American “aid” to France after the Second World War! The flood of millions of United States dollars has not brought about any recovery of the French economy. American “aid”, as even the reactionary French Press has said, has been of a military character and has helped to ensure France’s enslavement to American imperialism.”

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

12. “Significant in this connexion is the present economic situation of France, which was one of the first European countries to place itself in a position of complete dependence on the United States, By subordinating its national policy to the interests of the American monopolists, France, that old capitalist Power which for decades exploited the resources of many countries, including the national wealth of the Ukraine, has lost its commanding position in the world economy and has now been reduced to the status of a junior partner of the United States. The economic decline of France is especially striking if it is compared with the rapid development of the economy of the Ukraine, a country which, before the October Revolution, was almost a colony of the French, British and Belgian capitalists.”

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

13. “Under the pretext of the need to set up arrangements for joint defence against alleged aggression by the Soviet Union, the United States is lording it over the countries of Western Europe and forcing the governments of those countries to agree to a continuous increase in their military expenditure. This year the swollen military budgets of the European countries participating in the Atlantic bloc have reached the colossal figure of $14,000 million. 109. The armaments race forced upon them by the American imperialists is ruining the economy of the countries of Western Europe, completing its degradation and converting the countries themselves into an apanage of the United States Economy.”

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

14. “Seeking to strengthen its special position in these countries, a position comparable to occupation, the United States is demanding that the parliaments of the United Kingdom and others of its junior partners should adopt humiliating legislation whereby United States forces would be immune from the jurisdiction of those countries, thus forcing them to renounce their national sovereignty. Such a policy, which is making those States which, willingly or unwillingly, have placed their territories at the disposal of the American imperialists, completely dependent on the United States, increases the dangerous divergencies among the supporters of war.”

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

15. “The armaments race is accompanied by the further seizure of foreign territories by the United States and the conversion of the countries of Western Europe and the Near East into jumping-off grounds for armed aggression against the Soviet Union and the peoples’ democracies. Whole areas of these countries dependent on the United States are being converted into American “military zones”. It is a matter of common knowledge that the United Kingdom has become a military and naval base of the United States. Naval vessels, and even whole squadrons of the United States Navy, are constantly to be found in the sea ports of France and Italy. 108.”

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

16. “is accompanied by a well organized campaign, much of it conducted at public expense, to sell the American people the idea that while war may be temporarily unpleasant, on the whole it is a paying proposition” Nevertheless, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the ruling circles of the United States to conceal the fact that militarization is giving the American economy an unhealthy, one-sided character fraught with dangerous consequences. By the unwilling admission of the leaders of present-day American policy, the industrial boom is devaluating the dollar to such an extent that savings, pensions and social security funds have lost their value. The real value of wages is also falling rapidly in consequence of the continuous rise in market prices. 107.”

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

17. “By intensifying the armaments race and expanding military production, the United States ruling circles wish to lure the American people with the bait of wartime business and dazzle them with the prospect of participating in the share out of war-time profits, so as to make the American people accomplices in the new world war now being prepared by the American multi-millionaires. In his pamphlet, War or Peace?, Mr. Nearing, one of the confirmed ideologists of Wall Street, cynically declares that “the drift toward another general war ...”

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

18. “Under the pretext of supplying the needs of the Korean war, the United States Government has placed military orders to the colossal amount of $100,000 million. The lion’s share of this money has already fallen into the hands of the American monopolies engaged in executing government orders. Since the beginning of the Korean war, the profits of these monopolies have rocketed and are continuing to rise steadily, thanks to the further expansion of the armaments programme. 106.”

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

19. “It is officially admitted that, in the financial year 1952-1953, the total military expenditure of the United States will account for some 90 per cent of the whole national budget. The militarization of the United States economy, on a scale hitherto unknown in peace-time conditions, has placed an enormous burden of expenditure on the American people. Military expenditure per capita in the United States rose from $8.3 in 1939 to $396 in 1951-1952, and in the financial year 1952-1953 it will exceed $500, 105. The American financial and industrial magnates have turned the war which has been unleashed in Korea and the preparations of a new world war into an enormous undertaking which has become a major permanent factor in the United States economy.”

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

20. “104. The sixth quarterly report of the United States so-called Office of Defense Mobilization states that, in 1952, the value of military deliveries in the United States was more than six times as great as at the beginning of the war in Korea. In the present year, the report shows, capital investment in the war industry of the United States is at a record level. The military budget of the United States has increased to astronomical proportions. According to the American Press, the daily expenditure of the United States for military purposes is more than two-and-a-half times the cost of maintaining New York’s Columbia University, which is the fourth largest in the United States.”

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

21. “Acheson — that these agreements were a “tragic mistake” and demand their formal repudiation, thus further complicating their relations With the USSR and the peoples’ democracies and increasing the danger of a new world war. 103. The effect of this United States policy has been to intensify the armaments race among the countries, of the aggressive Atlantic bloc. The past year has been marked by the continuing increase in the armaments of those countries, and especially by the expansion of the armed forces of the United States. The United States Army and Navy are being re-equipped with feverish haste, a European army is being knocked together, a mercenary Japanese army is being created, the military contingents of the junior partners of the United States are being strengthened, and American, military production is being further expanded.”

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

22. “According to the United Nations World, the policy of force is not necessarily contrary to the United Nations, and it is important to have rules governing its use, Governments, it says, provide these rules on the national level, and the United Nations should establish rules to govern relations among States. 102. Openly proclaiming a policy of force, the aggressive American imperialists are anxious to draw a veil over Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam, where the foundations of a lasting and Just peace were laid and where agreements were entered into which, if properly carried out, would have guaranteed true international security. The ruling circles of the United States, in preparation for the implementation of their plans of aggression, now say — as did Mr.”

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

23. “Acheson, the United States Secretary of State, tried to divert attention from the aggressive policy of the United States by asserting at the present session of the General Assembly [380th meeting] that the United States Government was refraining from the threat of force and would not use force to violate the territorial integrity or political independence of other States. After two and a half years of bloody aggression by the United States in Korea, and in the light of recent events, such a false declaration about the United States desire for the pacific settlement of disputes between peoples can no longer deceive anyone. 101. The reactionary American Press openly calls on the United States Government to use force in international politics, demanding that the principle of force should also be predominant in the United Nations.”

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

24. “We are told by representatives of the United States ruling circles that this aggressive force must be capable of striking a decisive blow at will against objectives of its own choice and at a time of its own choosing. 99. Disclosing the true meaning of the United States proposals in the United Nations Disarmament Commission on so-called balanced armaments, Mr. Baruch, the well-known expert on atomic affairs, openly declared in an article in the US. News & World Report of 6 June 1952: “We simply cannot make peace unless we are militarily stronger” than other countries. “... To negotiate safely over Germany, we must be certain that an adequate military force is in being (not on paper) in France, the Low Countries and Britain, which is capable of being thrust into action without delay.” 100. Mr.”

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

25. “In the seven years since the end of the war, the United States ruling circles have not based their relations with the Soviet Union and the peoples’ democracies on the principle of the friendly settlement of international disputes and differences, but have been trying to attain their ends by means of pressure and dictation. The concept of force has become the determining factor in United States foreign policy. On the basis of this vicious concept, the United States intends, by 1954, to make is armed forces and military resources so superior that the American imperialists would be able to dictate their own conditions to any country without fear of rebuff.”

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

26. “The separate agreements entered into at Bonn and Paris in order to complete the division of Germany and to create a new centre of imperialist aggression in the heart of Europe, the revival of Japanese militarism, on the basis of the illegal separate agreement of San Francisco, and, lastly, the open refusal of the United States to stop the war in Korea and the acts of provocation committed by the American invaders against China, show the present United States policy to be one of aggression and encroachment directed against international peace and security. 98.”

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

27. “One of the General Assembly’s tasks at its seventh session is to review the work done by the Organization during the past year and to determine the course of its future activities. 96. The Ukrainian delegation attaches great importance to the Assembly’s present session, as it is being held at a time when the imperialist groups united in the Atlantic bloc have intensified their activities against peace, and when the evidence of the American imperialists feverish preparations for a war of aggression in Europe has become plainer than ever. 97. The United States, now the leading country in the imperialist camp, has recently taken further steps to undermine international co-operation and to aggravate international relations.”

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

28. “The Ukrainian delegation calls upon all sound elements in the United Nations to join in the struggle of the peace-loving countries against the threat of a new war and to support the USSR proposal for the defence of peace and against the transformation of the United Nations into an instrument of war.”

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

29. “Finally, the USSR Government again puts forward the proposal for the conclusion of a peace pact between the five great Powers and calls upon all peace-loving States to adhere to it. 44. This proposal is supported by 562 million men and women throughout the globe, who have clearly declared themselves in favour of the unification of effort by peace-loving Powers for the attainment of peace. 45. In submitting its proposals, the USSR delegation and the delegations supporting the proposals count on the spirit of co-operation and harmony in the solution of international problems triumphing in the United Nations. 46.”

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

30. “The establishment of these bases, and participation in the aggressive Atlantic bloc, are proclaimed incompatible with membership of the United Nations. In a similar direct and dear manner conditions are laid down for terminating the war in Korea. 42. Instead of idle talk about a reduction of armaments, the USSR delegation submits a concrete proposal for the convening of a world conference to examine the question of a substantial reduction of armed forces and armaments, and also of practical measures for prohibiting atomic weapons and establishing international control over the implementation of this prohibition. All countries are invited to the discussion of-this important problem, not excluding those which for various reasons have not yet entered the United Nations. 43.”

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

31. “The USSR delegation has submitted.to the sixth session of the General Assembly a proposal [A/1944] for “measures to combat the threat of a new world war and to strengthen peace and friendship among the nations”, The Ukrainian delegation unreservedly supports these proposals and fully associates itself with them. It stresses that the proposals, unlike the three-Power declaration, have real substance and constitute a programme of concrete and effective measures for averting the threat of war and for strengthening international security. 41. The USSR proposals clearly define the tasks of the United Nations with regard to aggressive blocs created for the purpose of unleashing war, as well as with regard to States which establish military bases on foreign territory.”

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

32. “That is why we regard the three-Power declaration as a propaganda document, not at all intended for serious study of the problem of disarmament and, therefore, not proposing any concrete measures. We must rather assume that the purpose of the three-Power declaration is to distract attention from the real and urgent problems involved in the strengthening of peace and the security of the peoples. 39. The Ukrainian delegation considers that in the present state of international tension, the United Nations must carry out particularly effective and speedy measures against the war preparations being made under the leadership of the United States of America by countries members of the North Atlantic bloc. 40.”

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

33. “Churchill, who, we are quite sure, is well acquainted with the state of the armed forces of the Atlantic bloc, that the participants in this aggressive union dispose of resources greatly exceeding the armed forces of the USSR and the people’s democracies. Hence the so-called “balance of power with the East” has already been more than attained, although it is the alleged absence of that balance which is said to have terrified the authors of the Atlantic bloc. 37. Spurious “peace” declarations can deceive nobody. The many statements and the appeals of the President and the military and political leaders of the present United States Government for more armament correspond more closely with the actual foreign policy line which the ruling circles of the United States of America are pursuing, as they feverishly prepare for a new world war. 38.”

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

34. “Preparedness to disarm would be an excellent prerequisite for the elimination of differences of opinion between the great Powers. Without this, any “peace plans” and declarations about peace will be empty and useless verbiage, serving only to distract attention from the basic problem of preventing a new war. 36. Mr. Eden’s speech at the present session did little to explain the position of the three Powers on the question of disarmament. If the United States, England and France do in fact genuinely desire disarmament, then why do they simultaneously force the armaments race and expand aggressive blocs? It would appear from a recent statement by Mr.”

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

35. “With regard to the second condition for disarmament, the removal of the causes of the present tension in international relations, this repeats the demand made by the United States as long ago as 1947 for so-called “international confidence” as a prerequisite for disarmament. As you will see, therefore, this proposal also is not new. This condition, as we have repeatedly shown, turns the whole problem of disarmament upside down. 35. Everyone must be aware that it is precisely disarmament, an end to further expansion of war industries and of the creation of new military formations which must be the chief means of easing the present tension in international relations; that would be effective as no other measure could.”

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

36. “This reveals the United States Government’s real intention, which is to secure the breaking-off of the negotiations and then cast the blame on the command of the Korean People's Army and the Chinese volunteers. 33. Although in its statements the United States connects the problem of disarmament with that of the cessation of hostilities in Korea, in actual fact it is not in any way proposing to reduce armaments even after the end of the Korean war. Half way. through this year Wilson, to whom we referred above, stated in his report to the President that the United States must continue its rearmament programme, whether or not fighting stops in Korea. 34. This statement fully reveals the hypocritical character of the first condition the United States lays down as a prerequisite for disarmament.”

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

37. “But it is precisely the United States of America, which unleashed this predatory war and has been waging it for approximately two years, that is doing everything to protract a military adventure. American land and air forces are barbarously destroying the peaceful population and towns of Korea by napalm and air bombardment. The American military authorities, acting on orders from Washington, are dragging out the armistice negotiations; they are ever creating new difficulties and are heaping obstacle upon obstacle to hinder the outcome of the negotiations. They provoke conflicts and shamelessly bombard the neutral zone where the negotiations are being carried on, menacing the lives of the Korean and Chinese delegates.”

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

38. “Thus, after examining the three-Power declaration, it is possible to find definitive provision only for the collection of secret information on the armaments and armed forces of every country by the representatives of any State. In proposing this census, has not Mr. Acheson the same purpose in view as the one for which that collector of “news”, the American journalist William Oatis, was brought to book in Czechoslovakia? 31. It is worthy of note that, as a preliminary condition for the reduction of armaments, the United States lays down the elimination of the causes of the present tension in international relations, and, above all, a cease-fire in Korea. 32. The war in Korea must indeed be brought to an end immediately.”

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

39. “As is well known, in 1945 the United States Government dropped atomic bombs upon the peaceful towns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, annihilating thousands of defenceless women and children. The consensus of opinion among experts was that this inhumane act had no military significance whatsoever. 29. Omitting reference in the three-Power proposal to atomic, chemical and bacteriological weapons, the American imperialists and their subordinates, making preparations for a new world war, do not wish to bind themselves with anything that might hinder the realization of their monstrous plans for the annihilation of peoples. 30.”

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

40. “If this is mentioned in the proposals, it is merely as an item in the census and verification, and only for the purpose of diverting attention and deceiving public opinion. The declaration is also silent on the subject of chemical and bacteriological weapons. Such an attitude with respect to the most dangerous categories of weapons will surprise no one. 27. The United States of America has always opposed prohibition of the use of means for the mass annihilation and barbaric destruction of human beings, and for the laying of peaceful towns and villages in rums, 28. As long ago as 1899 the United States Government refused to adhere to the convention prohibiting the use of dum-dum bullets. In 1925 it refused to ratify the Geneva protocol prohibiting the use of noxious gases and bacteriological weapons of war.”

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

41. “As in the Baruch Plan, modern armaments such as jet aircraft, tanks, super-dreadnoughts and, finally, atomic weapons, will be reached only at the very end of the census. How many months, years and even decades will this require? As regards the basic problem to which, indeed, a disarmament plan should be devoted, it appears that in the course of the census certain measures are to be elaborated, about which the declaration speaks very vaguely. 26. The three-power proposal is silent on the problem of who is to lay down criteria for the reduction of armaments and of how the permitted levels for the various types of armaments are to be determined. The declaration makes no provision whatsoever for the prohibition of atomic weapons.”

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

42. “This task is replaced by one of more modest scale, the gradual verification and census of armaments. The main features of the proposal are copied bodily from the famous Baruch Plan. Like the Baruch Plan, the present plan is to be implemented gradually and by stages. The perniciousness of this approach has already been unmasked by Soviet delegations on other occasions. 24. In very truth, on the basis of this plan, it is necessary to begin, as Mr. Acheson explained, “with the simplest things Thus, soldiers' billy-cans and knapsacks will be inventoried first, then the work will go on to, let us say, an inventory of penknives and daggers, and afterwards of rifles and machine-guns. 25.”

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

43. “This spurious manoeuvre is also designed to impart an outwardly peaceable character to the attitude of the delegations of the United States and other Western Powers at the present session of the General Assembly. 22. The plan for the regulation, limitation and reduction of armaments, submitted to the General Assembly in the joint declaration of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and France [A/1943], received wide publicity in speeches by the United States President and the Secretary of State, as being a “ fresh approach ” and a “ new programme Mr. Eden wished to assure us of this. 23. Are the proposals in the three-Power declaration genuinely original, and do they pursue the aims attributed to them? A careful study of the plan shows that it in no way envisages the reduction of armaments, at least for the present.”

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

44. “Hundreds of millions of people have joined the movement in defence of peace, which the bosses of the Atlantic bloc at first ignored and with which they did not wish to reckon, and it has since been transformed into a powerful force, capable of disrupting the plans of the instigators of a new world war. 20. In order to calm public opinion, particularly in European countries, where the public has been alarmed at the scale of the war preparations and the rapid occupation of their countries by the Americans, a three-power “ peace ” sortie has been launched at the sixth session of the United Nations General Assembly, with the aim of concealing the aggressive character of the North Atlantic bloc and of passing off the military preparations of the United States of America and its European partners as “ defence measures ", 21.”

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

45. “Who will believe the fable that it is possible to spend thousands of millions of roubles on peaceful construction, steadily lower the price of goods, raise the people’s standard of living and at the same time carry on preparation for war? The simple people of the capitalist countries know from their own experience what is the cost of the armaments race and the war preparations going on in their countries. 19. The peoples of the world do not trust their political leaders and refuse to believe in the inevitability of a new war. Faced with the threat to peace, they see only one means of averting war, the means which J. V. Stalin pointed out to them and which consists of taking the cause of peace into their own hands.”

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

46. “But the great masses refuse to believe that the Soviet Union is responsible for the present international tension and are showing ever greater opposition to the aggressive policy of unleashing a new world war pursued by the United States of America and the other Western States, which have paralysed the United Nations as an instrument of peace and persistently strive to turn it into a weapon of war. 18. Indeed, how can simple people be persuaded that the Soviet Union desires war and has aggressive intentions when it is not engaged in waging warfare anywhere, when it is not participating in any armed skirmishes, when it is not building aerodromes or military bases in foreign, territory and when it has not entered into any of the aggressive blocs?”

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

47. “The United Nations has put itself to shame by adopting a decision declaring the People’s Republic of China the aggressor while, in obvious contradiction of the facts, the real aggressor, the United States of America which has seized the Chinese territory of Taiwan and invaded the territory of Korea, has been proclaimed the defending party. These and many other facts indicate that the aggressive nucleus in the United Nations, headed by the United States of America, has made considerable progress this year in adapting that international Organization to the aims of United States foreign policy. 17.”

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

48. “This policy enriches the capitalist monopolies, but ruins the workers, reduces their standard of living and dooms them to poverty and want. 15. In the present circumstances, when the international situation has grown more difficult thanks to the influence of the United States of America, what is the position of the United Nations, created as an instrument of peace and for the peaceful settlement of international disputes? 16. The past year has been marked by further departures by the United Nations from the principles proclaimed at the San Francisco Conference, as well as by many violations of the Charter. The United Nations has approved and sanctioned the intervention of the United States of America in Korea and, under pressure from that country, is helping to extend that aggression.”

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

49. “Is it surprising then that the American millionaires and multi-millionaires have no intention of giving up the high monopolist profits they are making out of the arms race, and are reckoning to increase those profits by letting loose a new war? This attitude on the part of American business circles has been expressed with cynical frankness by Mr. Wilson, United States Director of so-called defense mobilization, who, as is well known, is a representative of the House of Morgan. In connexion with the proposal of the USSR representative in the United Nations for a cease-fire in Korea, he declared that any possibility, however slight, of a clearing of the atmosphere in international relations was a threat to the economy of the United States.”

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

50. “Here are some data showing the fabulous profits made by the American monopolists who are growing rich on war. 13. The average annual profits of the American monopolies, which amounted to $3,400 million in 1936-39, this year even exceeded the high figures for the Second World War and reached the figure of $18,500 million per annum. General Motors, which as everyone knows is controlled by the du Pont and Morgan Companies, in the course of last year alone increased its net profits by 38 per cent; while the 730 largest American monopolies made a net profit in 1950 of some $8,000 million. The profits of companies producing means of transport have increased by 95 per cent, those of oil companies by 50 per cent, and those of mining companies by 45 per cent above the figure for last year. 14.”

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