SOVIET DECLARES AIM IS PEACE

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22484, 13 November 1947, Page 5

SOVIET DECLARES AIM IS PEACE

VYSHINSKY’S VIOLENT DENUNCIATION

“WARMONGERS” IN BRITAIN AND AMERICA (N.Z.P.A, —Reuter—Copyright.) (10 a.m.) NEW YORK, Nov. 12. Russia’s foreign policy was one of peace, said the deputy Foreign Minister, M. Vyshinsky, at the Foreign Press Association’s thirtieth annual dinner tonight.

“Its characteristics are stability and consistency, and it is animated by a spirit of co-operation and love of peace toward those peace-loving countries which are willing in their turn to co-oper-ate,” he said.

M. Vyshinsky followed this remark by a strong attack on “warmongers" in the United States and Britain and appealed to the press to show the way to peace and co-operation by illuminating that way “with the eternal light of truth and by ruthlessly exposing every intrigue. of the enemies of democracy and peace.” M. Vyshinsky began by recalling the horrors of the recent war and the sacrifices made by the Soviet “which countered the enemy’s hardest and fiercest blows.”

mental law of the United Nations—its charter—has become of late typical of some members of the organisation.” “Machine Majority”

M. Vyshinsky claimed that “a machine majority, rounded up by means of lobby diplomacy,” had forced the United Nations to deal with matters not provided for by the Charter, such as the Korean issue, Italian peace treaty and the establishment of a Little Assembly. By force of the same majority, some members of the United Nations established in violation of the Charter, the Balkans commission and even went so far as openly to call on the Assembly to take action on the admission of Portugal and obstinately refused to admit Albania. M. Vyshinsky concluded by saying that the press must carry out honourably its task of showing the way to peace and co-operation. “It is necessary that the vanguard of the workers of the press lead the entire press—all those willing to serve and capable of serving the interests of peace-loving nations. The fighters of the press must rally to the millions of people in all countries who curse war.” Ghastly Tragic Comedy” Professor Albert Einstein spoke of the ‘ ghastly tragic comedy being performed on, the international stage.” He said it would be different if the problem were not one of the things made by man himself, such as an atom bomb and other means of mass destruction equally menacing to all peoples. It would be different if, for instance, an epidemic of .bubonic plague were threatening the whole world. In such case experts would be brought together, would work out an intelligent plan to combat the plague and submit it to various Governments which would speedily agree on the measures to be taken. They certainly would never think of trying to handle the matter so that their own nation would be spared, whereas the next one would be decimated. Professor Einstein compared the world’s present atmosphere of fear to the plague threat and said that adaptation to warlike aims and activities had corrupted man’s mentality. Intelligent, objective and humane thinking had hardly anv effect and was even suspected and persecuted as unpatriotic. Attack on President The New York Herald-Tribune says the prominent American statesmen whose remarks of June 24, 1041, M. Vyshinsky referred to was President Truman who was then a Senator. M. Vyshinsky’s attack is the closest the Soviet officials have come to a direct personal attack on President Truman. The Associated Press says that President Truman’s full statement was: “If we see Germany is winning, we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is v. innin g we ought to help Germany and, in that way, let them kill as many as possible, although I do not want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them (the apparent reference is to Stalin and Hitler) thinks anything of his pledged word.”

“In defining the Soviet Union’s foreign policy in 1939, Marshal Stalin said ‘we are for peace and the strengthening of business ties with all countries.. We hold this view and will go on doing so as long as those countries maintain the same relations with the- Soviet and do not try to encroach upon our country’s interests,' continued M. Vyshinsky. “Three years ago, on the twentyseventh anniversary of the founding of the Soviet State, Marshal Stalin said: ‘Winning the war against Germany means the fulfilment of a great historic task. But winning the war does not mean guaranteeing for the nations a durable peace and reliable security in future. Our task consists not only in winning the war but in making impossible forever an outbreak of new aggression and a new war—if not forever then at least for a long period. “In answering the question by the Republican, Mr. Harold Stassen in 1946 Marshal Stalin made it clear that Russia and the United States can cooperate with each other. He said that if there is a wish to co-operate cooperation is possible, even though the economic systems be different. You can see that the Soviet foreign policy is one of peace. Senator’s Remark Recalled

“What is this programme confronted by?” he asked- “Would it be, by any chance, the so-called Marshall plan or the so-called Truman doctrine? In this connection, I might call your attention to the remarks made by Senator Wayland Brooks in the Senate in March 1947. Commenting on the appropriation of 400,000,000 dollars for Turkey and Greece, Senator Brooks said: ‘lf the Republicans had prevailed and let the Germans eat up Russia, we would not be in the predicament we are in now.’ In other words, the Truman programme would not be necessary. You cannot put it any more clearly. ’ “That is like a statement by one of the most prominent American statesmen, published in the New York Times on June 24, 1941, that the United States then should help whichever side it saw to be losing. The statesman said: ‘lf we see Germany is winning,. we ought to help Russia and, if Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany and, in that way, let them kill as many as possible.’ “It is known that similar wishes were voiced at the time in Britain. It cannot be denied that this programme, advocated by prominent British and American statesmen, also has stability and consistency insofar as hatred and vicious animus towards the Soviet are concerned.”

Trying to Keep Pace with Hitler

M. Vyshinsky added: “We know of the plans that Hitler made to destroy Russia so she might never rise again. Today, the Hitlerites and imitators — all those maniacs trauhnatised by war psychosis—are doing their utmost to keep pace with Hitler. They are propagandising the same crazy ideas and brooding over the same crazy schemes on which Hitler stumbled so badly. "The Soviet is countering these crazy plans and insane ravings of the warmongers by its fight against war propaganda, and for a durable, lasting democratic peace. “We can see the furies of war raging in various countries, particularly in reactionary circles in the United States and fanning the fire of a new war.” M. Vyshinsky then described the Soviet’s efforts in the United Nations Assembly to have war propaganda condemned-

“After a long battle the United Nations unanimously adopted a resolution condemning war propaganda, although it is in so timid, hesitating and halfhearted a form,’’ he said. “Nevertheless, the unanimous adoption of the resolution means that those who have the upper hand in the United Nations at the present stage of the struggle for peace are the more reasonable people, not adventurers who having lost their heads, are fanning the flames of a new war.”

New York Times Attacked

M. Vyshinsky next cited as an important step towards peace the United Nations’ decision to reduce armaments and prohibit the atom bomb—“a step which, unfortunately, has not yet borne any fruit as a result of resistance by the leaders of the United States foreign policy who believe they have a monopoly in the matter.” M. Vyshinsky attacked the New York Times for stating, in a leader, that the General Assembly’s resolution condemning war propaganda was a violation of the United Nations’ Charter which was apt to contribute to the outbreak of conflict rather than prevent it.

“Such utterances indicate the fact that the warmongers refuse to give up or stop this propaganda which whittles down, from day to day, faith in peace and good neighbourly relations among nations, does irreparable harm to the idea of co-operation and undermines the very foundation of the United Nations.

“The complete disdain for the funda-