YouSaid · the spoken record

Manuilsky

THE RECORD WRITES THIS SPEAKER AS MANUILSKY

lines on the record: 139
first: 1946-09-24
most recent: 1949-09-24
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

“Bevin knew very well that the United States proposal overlooked the most important prerequisites for ensuring a solid peace and the security of nations, to say nothing of the fact that that draft went counter to the previous joint decisions of the Allies. And then, after the United Kingdom and the United States had violated the Yalta and Potsdam agreements, Mr. Bevin had cited that proposal as an alleged example of the uncompromising attitude of the Soviet Union Government. Mr.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“The document merely contains a list of military measures and war economy measures; yet even those measures are set forth in the proposal less completely than was done in the decisions of the Berlin Conference of the leaders of the three Powers, which included other and no less important conditions for the safeguarding of security and lasting peace. Hence the Soviet Government came to the conclusion that if the four-power agreement were to be limited exclusively to what is said in the United States proposal with regard to the disarmament of Germany, it would be impossible for such an agreement to serve as a solid guarantee for the security of Europe and the entire world. On the contrary, the inadequacy of the measures proposed in the proposal might hold in itself the danger of the rebirth of Germany as a power of aggression. » Mr.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“Byrnes’ proposal, although he must be perfectly aware of the fact that the Soviet Union delegation had repeatedly explained why that proposal was unacceptable. At a meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers on 9 July 1946, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR had made the following statement with regard to the United States proposal to which Mr. Bevin had referred: «A study of the proposal slums the inadequacy of the measures proposed therein for safeguarding security and preventing German aggression in the future.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“In his presentation of the matter, the work of the Atomic Energy Commission had been interrupted because of the unyielding attitude of the Soviet Union Government, an attitude which had allegedly prevailed in all the relations of the USSR with the United Kingdom and the United States. As an example of that unyielding attitude, Mr. Bevin had cited the rejection by the Soviet Union Government of Mr. Byrnes’ proposal to conclude a forty-year agreement between the USSR, the United States, France and the United Kingdom with a view to preventing German aggression. Mr. Manuilsky pointed out, however, that Mr. Bevin had remained silent regarding the true reasons which had made it impossible for the USSR Government to accept Mr.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“The Baruch Plan actually gave the United States the right to establish quotas for various States for the production of atomic energy and subjected the economic life of those States to control by that country, thus infringing upon their national sovereignty. Among other representatives of world public opinion, the Executive Committee of the Association of Scientific Workers in the United Kingdom, the country represented by Mr. Bevin, had spoken against the Baruch Plan. In August 1947 it had published a memorandum criticizing the Plan and agreeing on a number of points with the USSR proposals. Mr. Bevin appeared to have forgotten all that.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“Furthermore, the United States delegation, having at the meeting of 14 June 1946 submitted the notorious Baruch Plan, had for two years refused to deviate from that plan in the slightest, and had deliberately wrecked any possible rapprochement between its viewpoint and that of the USSR, in its determination to utilize atomic energy for military purposes only. Mr. Manuilsky recalled that the representative of the Soviet Union had taken part in the work of the Atomic Energy Commission despite the fact that the Baruch Plan was faulty in its very essence. The purpose of that Plan had been to place in the hands of the United States, behind the screen of an international control organ, the actual control over the production of uranium and thorium ore throughout the world.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“A glance at the records of the meetings of the Atomic Energy Commission would show that the deadlock in that Commission had been brought about by the representatives of the Anglo-American bloc, while the representatives of the Soviet delegations had steadily insisted that the work should continue. Moreover, in the interests of co-operation, the USSR Government had made two most important and constructive proposals in the Atomic Energy Commission: the draft convention for the outlawing of atomic weapons, submitted on 19 June 1946, and the proposal to establish control over atomic energy, made on 11 June 1947. Those proposals had been rejected by the representatives of the Anglo-American bloc almost without discussion.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“Bevin’s attempt, after having invoked the threat of atomic war, to lay the responsibility for all the disasters brought about by such a war not on the actual warmongers but on the Power which had been valiantly resisting all the plans of aggression dictated by the atomic policy of the Anglo-American bloc. No statesman, aware of his responsibility both to his own people and to world public opinion, could have made a statement so openly contradictory to the General Assembly resolution 110 (II) against propaganda and the inciters of a new war as Mr. Bevin had done.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“Spaak, whose frank speech in defence of that political and military alliance left no doubt as regards its true character, aims, purposes and programme. Mr. Spaak had admitted that the policy of Benelux was to seek security in the framework of regional, rather than international, agreements. Such an attitude could be dictated only by hostility towards other Members of the United Nations, by an outright rejection of the policy of strengthening international co-operation among all the Members of the United Nations, and by the desire to substitute a grouping together of certain States of Western Europe in pursuit of selfish interests for international co-operation. Mr. Manuilsky regarded as cynical Mr.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“Bevin had asserted that the British circles which he represented had no hostile intentions towards the USSR. Mr. Bevin, and later Sir. Spaak, had even attempted to deny the hostile attitude towards the USSR of the military and political alliance concluded by the five Western Powers, headed by the United Kingdom. Yet there could be no other explanation for that alliance, which was directed against the Soviet Union, and the countries of the new democracy, and which was designed to correlate measures for the increase of armaments and the preparation for a new war. Mr. Bevin had been forced to recognize that the Western political alliance pursued military purposes, although he had tried to conceal those purposes by references to defence. What Mr. Bevin had failed to say had been said for him by Mr.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“Bevin’s speech had made clear that the present proposal of the USSR Government would meet with serious opposition on the part of the Anglo-American bloc, which sought to prevent effective control of the production of atomic energy in the United States and of the unchecked growth of armed force in the United States and the United Kingdom. The Ukrainian delegation did not wish to dwell on Mr. Bevin’s attacks upon the peoples of the Soviet Union, attacks which had been intended to divert the attention of the General Assembly from the extremely important proposal submitted by the USSR Government. Mr. Bevin’s inimical attitude towards the Soviet Union was well known. Attacks of that sort could not injure those against whom they were directed; they merely served to lower the dignity of those who made them. Mr.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“The USSR proposal met the heartfelt wishes of the peoples who did not want new wars. It would lighten the burdens of taxation and would raise the standard of living of the masses throughout the world. It represented a continuation of the pacific policy of the Soviet Union, a policy which had found expression in the proposals made by that country’s Government at the 42nd plenary meeting of the General Assembly on 29 October 1946 for the general reduction and regulation of armaments. Mr. Manuilsky remarked that Mr.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“Mr. MANUILSKY stated that the proposal submitted by the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in his speech at the 143rd plenary meeting of 25 September, providing for a one-third reduction by the five permanent members of the Security Council of their armed forces for the space of one year and for a ban on atomic weapons, had been a valuable contribution to the cause of peace. That proposal could not fail to increase international confidence, strengthen international co-operation, and relax the artificially created tension in international relations. It would help to end the deadlock in the work of the Atomic Energy Commission and the Commission on Conventional Armaments, a deadlock brought about by the representatives of the Anglo-American bloc.”
1948-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 3 (1948)
“May I recall, in this connexion, the wise words of fee great Generalissimo Joseph Vissarionovitch Stalin, spoken by him on 23 March 1946, on the subject of fee United Nations: “The strength of this international Organization lies in the fact that it is based on fee principle of the equal rights of States, and not on principle of the domination of some States over others. If the United Nations succeeds in maintaining the principle of equal rights in the future, it will, undoubtedly, play a great positive role in fee cause of guaranteeing international peace and security.” All supporters of peace and international cooperation will never forget these words. They will work tirelessly on behalf of peace, and win strive for peace against the dark forces of evil, the prenicious forces of reaction and aggression.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Thirdly, it is essential that the co-operation of the five great Powers, which ensured the victory of the United Nations in the greatest war in the history of mankind, should form, as well, the basis of concerted action for the maintenance of peace and security in the post-war period. The matter rests wife you, gentlemen. Fourthly, it is essential to respect the sovereignty, independence and national dimity of peoples and countries, however small. The concept of equality of rights and self-determination of peoples, occluding all claims for the domination by some Powers over others, must become the law of international life in relations between States.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“First of all, it is necessary to adopt the USSR delegation’s proposal of 18 September last, which has the full and unqualified support of the delegation of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, for the speedier implementation of the General Assembly’s recommendation of 14 September 1946 for the reduction of armaments and the elimination of the atomic weapon from the Rational armaments of all States Members of fee United Nations, The urgent measures for the muzzling of warmongers provided in the USSR proposal should also be adopted. Secondly, strict and punctilious observance of fee United Nations Charter by all Members, without exception, is essential.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Whether the actual initiators of the proposal for the revision of Article 27 want this or not, whether they foresee it or not, it would be the beginning of the end of the United Nations. Perhaps this accords with the plans of the warmongers, but it does not accord with the aims of the champions of peace and international security. It is exactly because the friends of peace believe in the wisdom and the power of the peoples that they want to believe also that the United Nations will find the internal strength to overcome the difficulties which the planners of aggression are trying to place in its path. What is necessary to overcome these difficulties?”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“But try as they may to divert attention, by their clamour about the so-called veto, from the fundamental questions raised by the USSR delegation, the agents of imperialism will fail, for all honest men realize that the attacks on the unanimity rule are an integral part of war propaganda, a smokescreen concealing preparations of war, a mask for illegal actions organized under the eyes of the United Nations. If at the present time, when Article 27 of the Charter is still in force, we are witnesses of the ever-greater disruption caused by the warmongers and violators of the Charter, what will it be like tomorrow if this bastion, Article 27, is removed and the elemental forces of lawlessness surge unchecked around the United Nations?”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“It is under these conditions, when the warmongers are raising their heads ever more boldly, when they not only artificially create and foster war psychosis, but take practical steps which cannot but evoke disquiet among the nations, that the protagonists of respect for the Charter and the decisions of the United Nations are asked to agree to call a special conference to abolish the principle of the unanimity of the five permanent members of the Security Council in decisions concerning peace and security, or at least to annul Chapter VI. Apparently some people find the framework of the United Nations so restricting and the Charter adopted at San Francisco so cumbersome that they wish to deprive the minority of the weapon of self-defence provided for it by the Charter.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“The representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the Security Council would not have done his duty to the sixteen Republics comprising the Soviet Union, nor his duty to the United Nations, if he had voted for the proposal to set up a High Commissioner or a permanent Commission, for such a proposal is a preliminary step towards a new intervention in Greece and is designed to extend the intervention in Greece's internal affairs to other Balkan countries also.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“There is obviously only one basis for these illegal acts, the desire to compel the Greek people to surrender its country to those who require it as a base for realizing their expansionist plans. The real essence of the Greek question lies here and not in that monstrous political diversion, that downright international fraud under cover of which some people want to accuse Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia of threatening the integrity and independence of Greece.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“What right had Great Britain to dictate to the Greek people the dates of the parliamentary elections, to fix the date of the plebiscite, and to form — as it is forming even now, with the co-operation of the United States Government — Greek governments acceptable to itself? What right had Great Britain to form the Tsaldaris Government, of which one may say that its longevity depends on how long it takes to conclude the discussion of the Greek question? It is the prerogative of the sovereign Greek people to make decisions on such matters. What article of the Charter put Greece at the mercy of Zervas, Gonatas, Turkovassilis and all those who helped the German occupants to crush the Greek patriots who fought against them for the salvation of their homeland and for the Allied cause?”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“The real essence of the Greek question lies in this intervention, which is designed to duplicate or replace the intervention of Great Britain. What would you have said, gentlemen, if your country, which suffered fewer casualties than Greece in the war against fascist Aggression, had to accept intervention by foreign troops? Why cap this be done to Greece? Why is the Greek people refused the right which the Yalta Conference gave all the liberated peoples of Europe “to destroy the last vestiges of nazism and fascism and to create democratic institutions of their own choice”? On what grounds are the Greek people being deprived of the-right to solve their internal conflicts by themselves and to be the masters in their own country?”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
““We have selected Turkey and Greece,” wrote the journalist Walter Lippmann, “not because they are specially in need of relief . . . but because they are the strategic gateway to the Black Sea and the heart of the Soviet Union.” It was in order to realize these expansionist plans that, as Tsaldaris declared, the Security Council set up a Commission to investigate frontier incidents. The majority of this Commission presented a confused and contradictory report of which it can only be said that, in it, fantasy took the place of facts, partiality of logic, and perjury of truth. With the same aims in view, this question has been submitted in its “Tsaldaris” version to the General Assembly, with whose authority it is hoped to cloak a new intervention in Greece.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“The essence of the Greek question is not that someone or other is threatening the integrity and independence of Greece, and that the United States must protect the Greece of Tsaldaris and Zervas from this “danger”, but that the warmongers wish to turn Greece into a centre of unrest and acute conflict in the Balkans, and that plans are being laid to draw Greece into a military alliance with Turkey and perhaps even with Italy, and to provoke a clash in the Balkans; that someone, after occupying Greece with its troops, wishes to take a firm stand in the Mediterranean area with a view to penetrating into Palestine and the Arab countries of the Near East, and to approach nearer to the Suez Canal and simultaneously take up a strategic position which would threaten the Soviet Union.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Which Greek question are they talking about — the falsified Greek question winch has just been brought before the General Assembly, and which is nothing but a crude revival of Bismarck’s Ems telegram, or the genuine Greek question which the USSR delegation raised in January 1946 and the Ukrainian SSR delegation on 25 August 1946?”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“The representatives of those countries which daily violate the Charter, circumvent the recommendations of the General Assembly and contravene the decisions of the United Nations, are attempting, in order to escape blame, to throw the blame on others; in fact, on the very countries which conscientiously, day in and day out, defend the Charter and the decisions of the United Nations. They spread the myth that the blame for the ineffectiveness of the United Nations rests on our colleague, Mr. Gromyko, the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, who, by voting in the Security Council against the proposals of the United States and Great Britain, “blocked” if you please, the Security Council’s adoption of resolutions on the Greek question.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Here, in this Assembly, we are now being asked to violate the Charter and to create a kind of third interim organ, a sort of second Security Council, a second Assembly, or, as many fear, a branch of the State Department of the United States. Let me point out only that, according to Article 109, amendments to the Charter must be ratified by the States Members of the United Nations in accordance with their constitutional processes. It is very significant that they who talk most loudly about the inoperativeness of the United Nations are precisely those who, by their arbitrary actions, most paralyse the activity of the United Nations and help to undermine its authority.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“It is perfectly clear that the drive for world domination engenders in some people a quite unjustified assurance of their own superiority, and in others a bitter feeling that they have been deprived of their rights. On the whole, it surrounds the United Nations with an atmosphere of arbitrary lawlessness, of triumph of the principle innate in every aspirant to world domination: “I do as I please.” One can hardly maintain that such a policy serves the cause of peace and international co-operation. The systematic high-handedness thus displayed by particular States which are increasingly seeking to bring us back to the practices of the late lamented League of Nations, is the basic and deep-seated cause of the ineffectiveness of United Nations activity.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“When world domination is being sought, the principle of trusteeship embodied in the United Nations Charter cannot but be transformed into a system of re-partitioning colonies and continuing the enslavement of colonial peoples, as in pre-war days. When efforts are being made to secure world domination a particular and of trusteeship will inevitably be introduced over States which have hitherto considered themselves sovereign and independent. Take, for instance, the attempts now being made to establish a special kind of trusteeship over the war-stricken countries of Europe by hanging around their necks a series of foreign loans for which the peoples of these countries will have to pay dearly.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“McNeil did not mention it, but questions such as that of the nationalization of the steel industry in Great Britain, and the participation of representatives of workers’ parties in the Governments, let us say, of France and Italy, are matters of domestic concern of the respective countries, and not of international agreements, as the British representative imagines. When world domination is being fought for, the national dignity and sovereignty of other countries will necessarily be jeopardized and the most glaring inequalities will be engendered — whether by armed or economic force or by political, pressure — between States (and this is sensed by many of those present in this hall) which are fighting on the basis of the United Nations Charter for the equal rights of all nations and peoples.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“We must discuss, not what Articles of the Charter and decisions of the United Nations have been violated, but what articles and decisions are still being observed by those States which take a conscientious view of their relations with tike United Nations. The efforts of reactionary circles in the United States to achieve world hegemony and to transform the United Nations into an instrument for that purpose cannot likewise serve to strengthen the authority of the United Nations. World domination by a great Power and the national Sovereignty of lesser States and nations, especially the small and medium ones, are two things that are mutually incompatible. Mr.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“McNeil also forgot that China, with whom the USSR is supposed to be at enmity, has now adopted the USSR’s position after the latter’s refusal to attend the conference of eleven States to conclude a treaty with Japan. We agree, for example, with Egypt about the withdrawal of British troops from that country. We agree with the countries of Latin America that the prices fixed by the American trusts for their agricultural produce are ruinous, and that steps should be taken to do away with or remedy such an abnormal state of affairs. And to what do we not agree? We do not agree to the United Nations Charter being violated. Unfortunately, violation of the Charter and disregard of the decisions and recommendations of the United Nations, and of the United Nations itself, has become the rule.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Would it not be better to recall how British reactionaries, fully supported by the British Government of the day, in which the Labour Party, of course, also participated, hindered and sabotaged the opening of a second front? They preferred to see their Russian allies bled white in the East, bearing the brunt of the wild onslaught and almost the whole weight of the war machine of Hitlerite Germany in single combat with Hitlerite fascism. That is history’s reply to the British delegation, Mr. McNeil uttered another untruth in his speech here when he implied that the USSR did not find itself in agreement with any other country. This is not the case; we even agree with Great Britain that the overseas loan which it is about to conclude is very disadvantageous for the British people. Mr.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“These circles believed that a Hitlerite government come to power would serve as a weapon for a future war by Germany against the Soviet Union. Speeches made by the Hitlerite fanatics at Nurnberg Congresses about the future campaign against the East received a sympathetic hearing from the warmongers of that time in Great Britain. Czechoslovakia was surrendered to Hitler. The Munich Pact was concluded — and I think it necessary to remind Great Britain of this — an agreement which freed Hitler’s hands for his Eastern campaign, a campaign which cost the Ukrainian people and the other peoples of the USSR millions of dead and devastation of tens of thousands of towns and villages. Mr. McNeil knows, of course that there is not a grain of truth in his gibe about Russian gasoline.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“McNeil chose to appeal to history. Permit the representative of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic likewise to refer to history, and let us see in whose favour history will speak. We have not forgotten, as those present in this hall have not forgotten, the advent to power of the German fascists. When, after the burning of the Reichstag, they seized the reins of government in Germany, they were still weak. Carrying out the agreed international action envisaged in Article 16 of the League of Nations Covenant would have sufficed to hurl Hitler’s Government from the saddle in a very short space of time. But the governing circles in Great Britain who took the lead in the League of Nations did not lift a finger to prevent the fascists from consolidating themselves in Germany.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“All this activity, which is contrary to the Charter and the decisions of the United Nations, cannot be dismissed as mere chance: it is an integral part of the crazy plan hatched by the warmongers. Here I should like to pause and reply to the speech of Mr. NcNeil which the General Assembly heard this morning. Apparently Mr. McNeil was unable to deny the facts characterizing the activity of the warmongers which were quoted by the head of the USSR delegation in his statement on 18 September. Instead of condemning the warmongers, Mr. McNeil took a different line, that of attacking the policy of the USSR, which was, is and always will be a policy of peace. In order to cast a slur on this policy and also I defend the notorious speech made by Mr. Churchill in Fulton, Mr. McNeil did not shrink from direct insinuations. Mr.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“They are maintained not in haphazard fashion, but as armed formations which are being trained by the warmongers and are obviously being prepared for future military operations both against the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the peoples of the whole Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Both in the United States and British zones of occupation, and on the very soil of the United States of America and of Great Britain, underground organizations operate, carrying out their disruptive work against both the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the other Republics of the USSR, They operate not only freely, but in many cases with the support of the British and United States authorities. How can one believe, after this, in the pacific statements made from this rostrum?”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“In England, under the guise of sheltering displaced persons, comfortable billets have been round m Lincoln, Sheffield and Essex for the “Galichina” SS Division, which formed part of the German forces and fought in their ranks against the army of the USSR, the army which, by its brave fight, saved not only its own country, hut other States which had succumbed to or been weakened by the enemy’s onslaught. In the displaced persons’ camps in the United States and British occupation zones in Germany arc traitors to their fatherland, former Gestapo agents.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Under the guise of being displaced persons there are hiding, in the United States and British zones of occupation in Germany, war criminals whose hands are stained with the blood of thousands of innocent people, patriots of their own country. For example, in the western zones of Germany there is in hiding the notorious, criminal Bandera, that consummate spy and secret agent who, during the war, acting on the instructions of the Germans, formed bandit detachments which massacred the peaceful inhabitants of my country who were supporting the armies of the USSR and shot in the back its troops who were fighting against the aggressors. This man’s name is accursed in the Ukraine by the entire Ukrainian people.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Does it not seem strange that, while warmongers move about freely, write articles, speak at public meetings, give interviews to the Press, and enjoy the tokens of outward esteem, the supporters of peace and security are persecuted, driven from their jobs, imprisoned; are killed in Greece and Spain, to the accompaniment of applause in Argentina? Their status is worse than that of the German nazis and their accomplices, while individuals who collaborated with the enemy during the war now enjoy honour and esteem, sit in governments, occupy leading administrative posts, pass judgment and mete out punishment to those who, weapon in hand, fought against the enemy during the war. This occurs not only in such a fascist and monarchist country as Greece, but in other countries too, which falsely call themselves democratic.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Anyone, of course, is free to make a joke, but there are jokes which smack of powder and blood, and which threaten to multiply the number of graveyards in the world and bring suffering to mothers and wives who have not yet lost their nearest and dearest on the battlefields. Several organs of the United States Press also referred in unfriendly tones to the USSR delegation’s statement, a fact most significant in itself. If a statement in support of peace, made from the rostrum of the General Assembly in the country which is the seat of the United Nations is accorded a hostile reception by a section of the Press of that country, it gives all friends of peace and international co-operation grounds for thought and for drawing certain inferences.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Earle would never have dared to use such language, or the United States Press to print such statements, if there were not behind Earle’s back sinister forces supporting him and convinced that no punishment would befall them. I feel sure that such shameless statements as Mr. Earle’s do not represent the feelings of the American people, who, no less than other peoples, want to see warmongers muzzled, for people like Mr. Earle are more dangerous than criminals behind bars. The remarks made by the head of the USSR delegation evoked a reply also from Mr. Harwood, Vice-President of the Cutler-Hammer concern, who had deplored the fact that no atomic bomb was yet available which could destroy people only, without destroying property. We know what Mr. Harwood is hinting at. Mr. Harwood says that his words wore spoken in jest.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“George Earle, former special envoy to the Balkans, published in the American Press: “I am delighted and highly honoured to be called a warmonger by Mr. Vyshinsky. If by ‘warmonger’ he means that I advocate using atom bombs on Russia, he, that is, Mr. Vyshinsky is absolutely right.” Is this the raving of a madman or the hysteria of a warmonger caught in the act? No, this is simply the voice of a Hitlerite surpassing his teacher in cynicism. Even at the very worst period of the Nurnberg Congresses, the German fascists did not dare throw out a challenge to the world so blatantly as Mr. Earle is doing now. I am not interested in Mr. Earle’s personality, but I call the attention of the General Assembly to the fact that the United States Press was prepared to reproduce this cannibalistic statement by Mr. Earle. There is no doubt that Mr.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Vyshinsky’s speech a “falsification”, cannot be considered an answer, for Mr. Austin could not prove, and no one can prove, that the warmongers’ statements were incorrectly quoted by Mr. Vyshinsky, that the figures of the profits earned during the war by American trusts were untrue or that the facts cited by him were inaccurate. Where, then, was the falsification in Mr. Vyshinsky’s speech? Mr. Austin was also wrong when he said that Mr. Vyshinsky’s speech might injure the prestige of the United States of America. If anyone is damaging the honour of the United States it is those warmongers who were named by the USSR representative. To substantiate what I am saying, I will quote a statement by Mr.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Matters have reached such a pitch that even here, in the General Assembly, the United States delegation described a bare reference to implementing the Assembly’s recommendation on disarmament as “irresponsible propaganda”. Yet the United States delegation has not uttered a syllable in condemnation of the unbridled propaganda for a new war which is being conducted in the country where the United Nations has its seat. The USSR representative quoted a wealth of factual material in his speech to confirm the existence of this war propaganda. Millions of people heard the statement made by the head of the USSR delegation, and his proposal for muzzling the warmongers. The facts quoted in this statement cannot be evaded or ignored. The statement made by Mr. Austin at a dinner at the Waldorf-Astoria, when he called Mr.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Sabotage of the proposal for the reduction of armaments is the only way one can describe the attempts of the United States representatives to separate the question of the atomic weapon from the general question of the reduction of armaments and to evade reduction of armaments by an artificial formula about “guaranteeing” peace and security. The reduction of armaments and their control by the Security Council provide precisely this vital guarantee which will serve to strengthen confidence and international cooperation. The delegation of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic will never agree to the armed forces of the United Nations being organized in such a way that only one particular Power occupies a dominant position, or to these armed forces being a tool for expansionist policies cloaked by the authority of the United Nations.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“The fault of such non-implementation rests with those States which consider that the USSR proposal for the reduction of armaments — a matter of vital concern to the peoples of all countries — can be pigeon-holed just as the USSR disarmament proposals were pigeon-holed at the League of Nations. The same States are also to blame for the fact that the work of the Atomic Energy Commission, set up by the United Nations on 24 January 1946, has reached a deadlock as a result of the persistent, but completely unfounded, United States claims to keep as its exclusive and monopolistic preserve such means of mass destruction as the atomic weapon and to, place the sources of atomic energy as well under its control. There can be no disarmament unless atomic bomb stock piles are destroyed and their manufacture stopped.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“It is abundantly clear that each of these so-called local wars is a breach of the peace, and that each of them, as the experience of the last war has shown, beam within itself the threat of transformation into an armed conflict on a far vaster scale. But it is even more disquieting to all friends of peace and international co-operation to realize that the warmongers are more and more brazenly drumming for a new war, and that Mr. Molotov’s proposal made at the General Assembly last year for the reduction of armaments has not been implemented in spite of the Assembly recommendation.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)
“Today, as could well be expected, the United States authorities are preparing to come forward as the executors of the unsuccessful British policy and to undertake to carry out the functions which the United Kingdom was unable to discharge. These instances of violation of the United Nations Charter are all the more striking if one observes how conscientiously it has been obeyed by the USSR, which, of course, withdrew its troops from China, Norway, the island of Bornholm and Iran. A regular war is also being waged by the United Kingdom on the soil of Palestine, which is most rightfully striving for its independence. Nor can we fail to notice the sanguinary events which have been going on in Indonesia for nearly two years. Despite the Security Council’s “cease-fire” order in Indonesia, Netherlands troops continue their offensive.”
1947-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 2 (1947)