Origins of NATO
The period that immediately followed the end of World War II, at a time the whole world was celebrating the defeat, through so much sacrifice, of Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and militarist Japan, was imbued with the forward march of humanity which had hoisted the banner of peace, freedom and democracy.

The need of the time was to carry out all the decisions which had been taken by the Allied powers at the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences in 1945 to carry out the "four Ds": denazification of Germany; demilitarization of the former Nazi Wehrmacht (armed forces); democratization, including the formation of political parties and trade unions, freedom of speech, of the press and religion; and decentralization of the German state into a federal system, that included establishing a new basis for Germany's economy, as well as other post-war tasks in Europe which presented themselves at that time.

The need to preserve the peace and interdict the dangers posed by imperialism was astutely grasped by the leader of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany, Joseph Stalin. J.V. Stalin was General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), and then Chairman of the Council of Ministers from 1941 when he led the Soviet Union, Red Army and partisans in achieving that victory. He summed up the experience and repeatedly emphasized the need to implement the agreements for the post war arrangements so as to preserve the peace. As he assessed the situation he warned the peoples of the Soviet Union and people's democracies and the entire world of the threats to peace as a result of the betrayal of those agreements on the part of the Anglo-American imperialists.

This supplement of TML Weekly publishes for the information of our readers an article on what Stalin had to say on the urgency of realizing the aspirations of the peoples of the world -- who had sacrificed so much to defeat Nazi-fascism and Japanese militarism -- for peace, freedom and democracy. The second item is the statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR in response to the drafting of the North Atlantic Pact that would lead to the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on April 4, 1949.

Stalin on Preserving the Peace and Dangers from Imperialism 1945-1952

On May 9, 1945, Stalin hailed the victory over Hitlerite fascism in a broadcast to the Soviet people. Henceforth, he said, the great banner of the peoples and peace among peoples will fly over Europe.[1] In September in a further address, he stated that "now we can say that the conditions for peace all over the world have been gained."[2]

Early in the following year he spoke several times of the origins and character of the Second World War. He explained that the capitalist system of world economy harbours within itself elements of general crises and armed conflicts. The result is a splitting of the capitalist world into two hostile camps and war between them. The Second World War had been prepared by international reaction and started by the main fascist powers. They had declared for all to hear that they were out for world domination and the establishment of a fascist regime throughout the world. They had showed that they were prepared to carry out their threat of enslaving all the freedom-loving nations. Thus, unlike the First World War, the Second World War against the Axis states from the very outset assumed the character of an anti-fascist war, a war of liberation, one aim of which was also the restoration of democratic liberties. The entry of the Soviet Union into the war against the Axis states could only enhance, he argued, and indeed did enhance, the anti-fascist and liberation character of the Second World War.[3]

In his May 1 address in 1946, Stalin pointed out that the smashing of fascism had led to a profound growth of the democratic movement of the people. People who want to change their lives take the fate of their state into their own hands, he said, and erect a democratic order and lead a struggle against the reactionary powers, against what he termed "the arsonists of a new war." The Soviet Union, he declared, was in the vanguard of this movement. It would continue its politics of peace and security, equality and friendship of the peoples. At the same time, he warned, the armed forces of the Soviet Union must be on guard, to protect the peace.[4]

First among these "arsonists," he maintained, was Winston Churchill. In March 1946 at Fulton, Missouri, Churchill had given his infamous Iron Curtain speech. Several days later, Stalin, in an interview with Pravda, stated that Churchill's speech had unquestionably prejudiced the cause of peace and security. He had taken the stand of the warmongers, and was not alone. He was calling for war on the Soviet Union. Stalin likened Churchill to Hitler and his friends, in setting out to unleash a war with a race theory, in Churchill's case calling upon the English-speaking peoples to decide and rule over the destiny of the world. He denounced Churchill's disregard of solemn Anglo-Soviet treaties. He ridiculed Churchill's talk of the Soviet Union's "expansionist tendencies" and the subservience of the People's Democracies, while pointing out his support for former Nazi collaborators. He said that Churchill's correct observation of the growing influence of the Communists in Europe was a logical result of their fearless and self-sacrificing fight against the fascist regimes. He ridiculed too Churchill's patronizing reference to "plain people from little homes," pointing out that these plain people in Britain had just swept Churchill out of office! He ended by asserting that should Churchill succeed in launching war against the Soviet Union -- not probable because millions of "plain people" stood guard over the cause of peace -- he would be thrashed as surely as he was when he led the intervention of 14 states against Russia in 1919-20.[5]

Later that month, questioned by an Associated Press correspondent about safeguarding world peace, Stalin replied that he attached great importance to the UN as a serious instrument for maintaining peace and international security. He did not believe nations or armies sought a new war, but that certain political groups engaged in propaganda for a new war in order to sow seeds of dissension and uncertainty. He went on to say that the public and ruling circles in the freedom-loving countries should organize widespread counter-propaganda against the propagandists of a new war, that not a single utterance should go without rebuff.[6] Stalin expanded on this theme later in 1946 in an interview with a Sunday Times correspondent. He said that he did not believe that there was a danger of a new war. The clamour about it was aimed to scare naive opponents and win concessions from them, to obstruct reductions in arms production, and to hinder troop demobilization to prevent alat rapid growth in unemployment. When asked about "capitalist encirclement" of the Soviet Union, he said this could not be done, even if desired. He called for a demilitarized and democratized Germany, as one of the most important guarantees of stability and lasting peace. He said that friendly and lasting co-operation between the Soviet Union and the Western democracies was possible. Asked about the U.S. atom bomb monopoly as a danger to peace, Stalin replied that he did not think it such a force. It was intended to intimidate the weak. It could not decide the outcome of any war. It was certainly a threat but the U.S. monopoly would not last long, and its use would be prohibited.[7]

Towards the end of 1948, Stalin said that the policies of the leaders of the USA and Britain were policies of aggression, of unleashing a new war. Asked in an interview with Pravda on October 28, 1948 about the USA and Britain declaring null and void agreements already reached regarding Berlin, Stalin explained that they did not want agreement and co-operation, but rather to show that co-operation with the Soviet Union was impossible and to show the necessity of a new war, and thus to prepare the ground for the unleashing of war. The policy of the present leaders of the USA and Britain, he said, was a policy of aggression, a policy of unleashing a new war.

Asked how this would all end, Stalin replied that it could only end in ignominious failure on the part of the instigators of a new war. Churchill, he said, the main instigator of a new war, had already managed to deprive himself of the trust of his own nation and of democratic forces throughout the world. The same fate lay in store for all other instigators of war. The horrors of the recent war were still fresh in the memory of the peoples; and public forces favouring peace were too strong for Churchill's pupils in aggression to overpower them and to turn them towards a new war.[8]

On February 17, 1951, again in an interview with Pravda, Stalin refuted as a slander British Prime Minister Clement Attlee's claim in the House of Commons that the Soviet Union was not demobilizing its forces but increasing them. He pointed out that no state could develop its war industry while, as was the Soviet Union, reconstructing its economy demolished by German occupation, expanding that economy and reducing prices, and developing huge hydropower works, without risking bankruptcy. Attlee's government, he said, was justifying carrying on its own arms race, misleading the British people, blindfolding them with lies about the Soviet Union, dragging them towards a new world war that would be organized by the warmongering circles in the USA. If Attlee were for peace, he asked, why was he against the proposals of the Soviet Union to limit armaments and immediately forbid atomic weapons? Why had he forbidden the holding of the Second World Peace Congress in Britain?[9] Could the campaign for the defence of peace possibly threaten the security of Britain? Stalin concluded that it was clear that Prime Minister Attlee was not for keeping the peace, but for unleashing a new world-encompassing war of aggression.

Asked in the same interview about the Korean War, then into its second year, Stalin said that if Britain and the USA declined the proposals of the People's Republic of China for peace, the war in Korea could only end in defeat for the interventionists. He explained that while the soldiers had considered the war against Hitler and Japan just, it was difficult to convince them that Korea and China were not right to defend their security on their own territory or on the borders of their state. That is why the war was unpopular among the American and British soldiers, why they did not believe in the justice of their mission, or feel enthusiasm.

As to the UN declaring China the aggressor, this was scandalous, he said. The UN, Stalin argued, which was created as a bulwark for keeping peace, had been transformed into an instrument of war, a means to unleash a new world war.[10]

Asked if he considered a new world war unavoidable, Stalin replied that he did not consider war unavoidable. He explained that in the USA, in Britain, and also in France, there were aggressive powers that longed for a new war. They needed war to achieve super-profits and to plunder other countries. These aggressive powers held reactionary governments in their hands and guided them. At the same time they were afraid of their people who did not want a new war and were for keeping the peace. Therefore they used the reactionary governments to ensnare their people with lies, to represent a new war as a war of defence, and the peaceful politics of peace-loving countries as aggressive. They feared the campaign for the defence of peace. They feared the proposals of the Soviet Union on the conclusion of a peace treaty, on the limitation of armaments and on the forbidding of atomic weapons.

Peace will be kept and strengthened, Stalin said, if the people take the upholding of peace in their own hands and defend it to the utmost. War could be unavoidable if the arsonists of war succeed in trapping the masses with their lies, in deceiving them and drawing them into a new war. Therefore a broad campaign for the upholding of peace, as a way of exposing the criminal machinations of the arsonists of war, is of prime importance. The Soviet Union, he said, would continue to carry through the politics of preventing war and keeping peace.[11]

Later that year, on October 6, 1951, Stalin spoke on the issue of atomic weapons in a further interview with Pravda. He asserted that there were no grounds for alarm regarding the Soviet Union's atomic bomb test. He explained that the Soviet Union not only opposed the employment of atomic weapons, but also stood for their prohibition and the termination of their production. The Soviet Union had several times demanded prohibition of atomic weapons, but each time this had been refused by the Atlantic bloc powers. Therefore, in the event of an attack by the USA on his country, he said, the ruling circles of the USA would use the atom bomb. This had compelled the Soviet Union to have the atomic weapon in order to meet the aggressor fully prepared. Thus, he argued, if the USA had no intention of attacking the Soviet Union, the alarm was false, as the Soviet Union did not contemplate ever attacking the USA or any other country.

Stalin went on to say that the Soviet Union stood for international control of atomic weapons. He explained that U.S. personages also spoke of control, but presupposing not termination but continuation of production relative to the amounts of raw material at the disposal of different countries. This was not control but a mockery of control, he said. This could not satisfy the demands of the peace-loving peoples.[12]

That same month, significantly, Stalin sent a telegram to Kim Il Sung, President of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, wishing the brave Korean people success in their heroic struggle for the freedom and independence of their homeland.[13]

The following year, on March 31, 1952, in answers to U.S. newspaper editors, Stalin said he did not consider a Third World War likely in the coming years, that he thought a meeting of the Great Powers would possibly be useful, that the time was ripe for German reunification, and that capitalism and communism could live side by side if both sides co-operated, and had the readiness to do so, if both fulfilled their international duties, and if the basis was equality and non-interference in the affairs of other states.[14]

On October 14, 1952, in his Speech to the 19th Congress of the CPSU, Stalin spoke of the struggle for a better future for the people, the struggle against war, the struggle to keep peace. He expressed thanks for the support of the fraternal parties. He noted the special quality of that support of the peace endeavours of his Party by each fraternal party simultaneously signified the support of their own people in their struggle to keep peace. His Party must do its duty by its fraternal parties and support them and their peoples in the struggle for liberation and in their struggle for keeping peace.

Stalin ended his speech with his famous call concerning national independence and national sovereignty. Earlier, he said, the bourgeoisie, as the heads of nations, were for the rights and independence of nations and put that "above all." Now there was no trace left of this "national principle." Now the bourgeoisie sell the rights and independence of their nations for dollars. The banner of national independence and national sovereignty had been thrown overboard. Without doubt, he said, you the representatives of the communist and democratic parties must raise this banner and carry it forward if you want to be patriots of your countries, if you want to be the leading powers of the nations. There is nobody else to raise it.[15]

Most significantly, Stalin finished with these slogans:

Long Live the Peace Between the Peoples!
Down with the Arsonists of War!


1. Victory Speech: broadcast from Moscow, May 9, 1945. Works, Volume 16.

2. Stalin's Address to the People, September 2, 1945. Works, Volume 16.

3. Origin and Character of the Second World War, February 9, 1946, from a speech to the voters of his district during the election to the Supreme Soviet. For Peaceful Coexistence: Post-War Interviews (International Publishers: New York, 1951).

4. Order of the Day of the Minister of the Armed Forces of the USSR, No 7, May 1, 1946. Works, Volume 16.

5. Interview with Pravda Correspondent Concerning Mr Winston Churchill's Speech at Fulton, March 1946. J.V. Stalin on Post-War International Relations, Soviet News, 1947.

6. Replies to Questions put by Mr Eddie Gilmore, Associated Press Correspondent, March 22, 1946. J.V. Stalin on Post-War International Relations.

7. Replies to Questions put by Mr Alexander Werth, Moscow Correspondent of the Sunday Times, September 24, 1946. J.V. Stalin on Post-War International Relations.

8. For Peaceful Coexistence, op. cit.

9. The Second World Peace Congress had been scheduled for Sheffield, England in 1950, but British authorities sought to undermine it on an anti-communist basis. They refused visas to many delegates, with Prime Minister Attlee denouncing the congress as a "bogus forum of peace with the real aim of sabotaging national defence" and saying that there would be a "reasonable limit" on foreign delegates. In light of this, the congress was moved to Warsaw.

10. The UN flag was criminally co-opted by the U.S. to give a veneer of legitimacy to the Korean War. In reality, it was a police action led by the U.S. that involved 15 other countries, including Canada, in this unjust anti-communist aggression. A UN Security Council Resolution supporting military aggression was illegitimately passed when the Soviet Union was absent from the council, due to a boycott in support of the People's Republic of China's inclusion in the Security Council, rather than the Republic of China which had been defeated in the Chinese Civil War. The People's Republic of China later sent 780,000 troops of its People's Volunteer Army to bolster the forces of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

11. Interview with a Pravda Correspondent, February 17, 1951. Works, Volume 16.

12. Prohibition of Atomic Weapons, October 6, 1951. Interview with Pravda Correspondent. For Peaceful Coexistence, see above.

13. Answering Telegram to Chairman of Council of Ministers of DPRK, October 20, 1951.

14. Answers to Four Questions from a Group of Editors of American Newspapers, March 31, 1952. Works, Volume 16.

15. Speech to the 19th Party Congress of the CPSU, October 14, 1952. Works, Volume 16.

The Post-War Foreign Policy of the USA

- USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs, January 29, 1949 -

On January 14 the United States State Department published a verbose statement under the imposing title: "We Build the Peace. Collective Security in the North Atlantic."

This official document sets forth the position of the USA on the question of the so-called "North Atlantic Pact," negotiations for which have been carried on since the Summer of last year by the USA and Canada jointly with the Governments of Great Britain, France, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg.

Whereas the ruling circles of these five West European states, with patronage on the part of the USA, formed a military-political alliance last year under pretext of collective self-defense; this year there is being realized the far-reaching Anglo-American plan of forming a "North Atlantic alliance" with participation of those same European countries and Canada, directly headed by the United States of America.

In his speech January 20 President Truman declared that the draft North Atlantic Pact, the official aims of which were declared to be a desire to strengthen security in the North Atlantic, will soon be sent to the Senate.

I. The Western Union -- An Instrument of the Aggressive
Anglo-American Bloc in Europe

In March, 1948, a treaty of mutual aid and collective defense was signed in Brussels between Great Britain, France, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg. This inaugurated the formation of a separate grouping of certain West European states known as the "Western Union." The view is entertained that certain other European countries, ready to adjust their policy to the aims of this grouping headed by Great Britain, will also be included in the Western Union. At the same time it is known that from the very outset those who instituted the Western Union excluded the possibility of the participation of the Soviet Union and all the countries of people's democracy in this union, thereby demonstrating that the Western Union was formed not for the purpose of uniting the peace-loving European countries and in general not in the interests of ensuring lasting peace in Europe, but for other purposes which have nothing in common with the interests of strengthening peace and international security.

It is not accidental that statesmen of the countries participating in this grouping, beginning with British Minister Bevin, were obliged to declare openly that the formation of the Western Union signified an important change in the policy of these countries. It was no longer possible to conceal this when the behind-the-scenes work of preparing this grouping was terminated. It is not hard to discern that formation of this union signifies that the Governments of Great Britain, France and the other participating countries have conclusively broken with the policy followed by the democratic states composing the anti-Hitler coalition during the second world war, whose aim was to rally the forces of all the peace-loving states in order to put an end to Hitlerite aggression and fascism and not to allow revival of the aggressive forces after the end of the war.

The formation of the Western Union signifies, first of all, a complete change of the policy of Great Britain and France on the German question, and demonstrates the abandonment by the governments of these countries of the democratic and anti-aggression policy toward Germany which was adopted by the Yalta and Potsdam conferences of the powers of the anti-Hitler coalition.

During the second world war the allies in the anti-Hitler coalition were united not only by the desire to carry to a victorious conclusion the war of liberation against Hitlerite Germany and fascism. They were also united by the desire in the future not to permit German aggression, which has unleashed two world wars in the course of recent decades. These noble desires found expression in the decisions of the Yalta and Potsdam conferences.

The 20-year treaties of friendship and mutual aid signed by the Soviet Union with Britain in 1942 and France in 1944 were expressions of this policy aimed at not permitting resurgence of an aggressive Germany. It is perfectly evident that the policy which found expression in these and other such treaties accords not only with the interests of the countries signatory to these treaties but also with the interests of all the peace-loving peoples of Europe.

The Soviet Union continues to stand firmly on the ground of this policy, which fully corresponds to the decisions of the Yalta and Potsdam conferences of the heads of the Governments of the USSR, USA and Great Britain, and of France, which associated herself with these decisions, and which is aimed at securing lasting peace in Europe and preventing fresh aggression on the part of the state which was the chief culprit in the unleashing of the two world wars.

The formation of the Western Union signifies that Great Britain and France have abandoned the implementation of this anti-aggression policy adopted at the Yalta and Potsdam conferences and that these powers have passed over to a new policy very dangerous for the peace-loving peoples which pursues the aim of establishing their hegemony over the other peoples of Europe, even to the point of employing for these purposes yesterday's aggressor, which since the war has fallen into a position of dependence upon them. Only in this way can the fact be explained that although the text of the Brussels pact refers inter alia to a desire not to permit a renewed policy of aggression on the part of Germany, the Governments of Great Britain and France, together with the Government of the USA, are striving at the present time to involve and use for their purposes Western Germany where, with the assistance, in the first instance, of the Anglo-American occupation authorities, the old pro-Hitler and militarist elements of German reaction have increasingly come to strengthen themselves in all parts of the administration. The fact that this change in the policy of the West European states has found support and encouragement on the part of the U.S. ruling circles considerably increases the danger in the political changes which have occurred in these European countries, which have made a break with the peace-loving policy and have embarked on the path of preparing for new aggression in Europe.

In contrast with all the treaties of mutual aid concluded by the Soviet Union with the other European states, including France and Britain, which are aimed at preventing the possibility of new aggression on the part of Germany and fostering a strengthening of peace in Europe, the military alliance of the five Western states has in view not so much Germany as the possibility of employing the grouping of Western powers formed by them against those states which were allied with them during the second world war. The speeches of a number of statesmen of the Western countries and also articles in the Anglo-American and French press openly make aggressive statements to the effect that the Western Union was formed against the USSR and the states of people's democracy, although the peace-loving character of the policy of the latter countries is an incontestable and well-known fact. Given this situation it cannot be denied that no matter how much the real aims of the Brussels treaty may be glossed over, the formation of the Western Union has nothing in common with these states' interest in self-defense.

On the other hand, it has already been made sufficiently clear that it is intended, under the pretext of not permitting a situation to arise which could jeopardize the so-called "economic stability" of the members of this pact, to take military measures and all sorts of repressions against the working class and the growing democratic forces within these states and also against the mounting liberation movement of the peoples in the colonies and dependent countries. It is not accidental that the Brussels pact is an alliance of colonial powers which for the sake of preserving their age old privileges in the colonies are striving to employ the new formed military-political grouping for the purpose of repressing the national-liberation movements in these colonies. All this merely underscores the anti-democratic and reactionary-aggressive character of the Western Union.

The alliance of the five West European states is a military-political supplement to that economic association of European states which was formed to carry out the "Marshall Plan" in Europe. Both these groupings of European countries receive their orientation from the ruling circles of the Anglo-American bloc, which is by no means interested in realizing the genuine national-state or, at any rate, economic aims of the countries belonging to these groupings, but pursues the aims of strengthening and further expanding its own military-strategic and economic positions.

Implementation of the Marshall Plan is not directed at the real economic recovery of the European states, but is a means of adapting the policy and economic life of the "Marshallized" countries to the narrowly selfish and military-strategic plans of Anglo-American hegemony in Europe. In the same way, formation of the new grouping was undertaken by no means for the purposes of mutual aid and collective defense of the participants in the Western Union, since, if the Yalta and Potsdam agreements are carried out no aggression threatens these countries; but the new grouping pursues the aims of the strengthening and further expansion of the ruling influence of the Anglo-American ruling circles in Europe, with subordination to their narrow aims of the entire foreign and domestic policies of the corresponding European states. The incompatibility of these political plans of the Anglo-American bloc with the interests of peace and with the implementation of the principles of democracy in the European countries is perfectly evident.

As soon as the Western Union was born in March of last year, it was immediately stated on the part of the U. S. ruling circles that full support would be given to this union.

Such a statement was quite natural, since these circles have every ground for supposing that the new grouping will not get away from them and will be in complete dependence upon any kind of Anglo-American plans. In any case special American observers, whose role is understandable, were nevertheless assigned to the Western Union. It is now apparent that the farther and more rapidly the countries of the Western Union travel along the path of being opposed to the countries of people's democracy and the Soviet Union, to which the policy of the Anglo-American bloc impels them in every way, the more the Western European states will fall into political and economic dependence upon the ruling circles of the USA, who have no concern at all for the political independence and economic recovery of the European states.

The result of this situation will be an inevitable aggravation, already manifesting itself at every step, of the contradictions both between the USA and the countries of the Western bloc and within the West European grouping itself. The new West European grouping, which has a kind of auxiliary significance if the broader European grouping composed of the "Marshallized" countries is borne in mind, was not formed on a healthy and firm basis of economic recovery. It not only is not rendering any substantial practical assistance to the countries participating in the new grouping but, as is known, has in no way prevented the rise of ever-mounting economic difficulties in a whole series of West European states, has also failed to prevent a tremendous growth of unemployment in certain of them, and has not helped to open up any encouraging prospects for their further economic development. The aggressive aims of this grouping also are expressed in ever more new demands to increase armies and military budgets, which still further undermines the possibility of their further and stable economic progress. At the same time this situation causes a constant growth of serious political difficulties inside these states. And this at a time when the Soviet Union and the countries of people's democracy, which are taking only the first steps in their socialist development, are marching along the path of swift and unswerving economic recovery and advancement and, at the same time, along the path of strengthening the democratic foundations and political unity of the peoples liberated from reactionary oppressor regimes.

The Western Union has already undertaken no few measures for its organizational set-up. Not only the Consultative Council but also the permanent organ of the union, consisting of representatives of the five states, were formed in London last Spring. Also formed was the Military Committee and furthermore the Defense Staff of the Western Union, composed of the chiefs of staff of the five states, headed by British Field Marshal Montgomery, although those who instituted the Western Union were unable to point to the existence of any danger of aggression against their states.

The haste in implementation of all these organizational measures, including the formation of the Military Staff under peace-time conditions, by no means attests that the participants in the new grouping are imbued with a desire to ensure lasting peace in Europe. The bustling to carry out these measures rather attests to the fact that they pursue the aim of bringing political pressure upon certain European countries, including the Western part of Germany, in order to accelerate the attraction of these countries to participation in the Western grouping with the aid of loud advertisement of all these measures and, at the same time, to further an intensification of the alarm, uncertainty and war hysteria in public circles of the European states, which is at the present time one of the chief tactical tasks in the development of the aggressive policy of the Anglo-American bloc in Europe.

Together with the formation of this new grouping in Europe, the ruling circles of the USA and Great Britain have been making preparations in recent months for the formation of a North Atlantic Alliance composed of the same five Western European states, Canada and the United States of America. The aims of the North Atlantic Alliance are considerably broader than the aims of the West European grouping, and moreover it is not hard to discern that these aims are most closely linked with plans for the forcible establishment of Anglo-American world hegemony under the aegis of the United States of America.

II. The North Atlantic Pact and the Anglo-American Plans
of World Hegemony

The formation of the Western Union answers the aims of the Anglo-American bloc in Europe and it is already clear at the present time that the West European grouping is only one and moreover not the main element in the system of measures envisaged by the plans for establishing Anglo-American world hegemony. Granting Great Britain the principal position in the Western Union, the ruling circles of the USA have every opportunity to exercise the influence which they need upon the policy of the whole West European grouping.

It should also not be forgotten that the treaty concluded in Rio de Janeiro among the states of North and South America, which ensures the ruling circles of the USA the influence which they need with respect to the overwhelming majority of these states, came into force at the end of last year.

In the above-mentioned document the State Department regards the realization of the Western Union in Europe and the coming into force of inter-American pact as important conditions preparing the ground for implementation of U.S. policy on a world scale. Moreover, it advances as the principal element in the implementation of this policy the North Atlantic Pact, which is to have as its support the already formed groupings of countries in Europe and America; the ruling circles of the USA furthermore have from the very outset taken the realization of all this into their own hands.

In its document "Collective Security in the North Atlantic, the U. S. State Department endeavors to represent the North Atlantic Pact which it is preparing as a regional security agreement among the countries of the North Atlantic, glossing over the real character and true import of this pact. The groundlessness of this explanation of the necessity for such a pact is evident from the single fact that, as everyone knows, no aggression threatens the countries of the North Atlantic.

In order to mask still further the real character and true aims of the North Atlantic Pact, the State Department had to resort to stupid fictions about the "obstructionist policy" of the Soviet Union in the United Nations and to deliberately nebulous statements about the necessity of "meeting a potential aggressor with overwhelming force," allegedly the obligation of a special grouping of countries headed by the USA which cannot await the time when the United Nations will be sufficiently strong.

The State Department was unable to conceal the hostile character of the North Atlantic Pact with respect to the Soviet Union and the countries of people's democracy, restricting itself, however, to all sorts of dark hints about "a potential aggressor." But on the other hand the State Department did not venture to refer bluntly to the anti-Soviet aims of the new treaty which it is preparing, since dissemination of slander about the aggressiveness of the policy of the Soviet Union reacts more and more in international public circles against those who resort to such dishonest means of political struggle.

The North Atlantic treaty project and the circumstances accompanying its preparation plainly disclose the desire of the Anglo-American bloc for world hegemony.

Although the North Atlantic Pact envisage participation of the five European countries, Canada and the USA as its nucleus, it is clear to all that leadership in this affair belongs to the ruling circles of the United States of America, who are en bloc with the ruling circles of Britain, as the most powerful capitalist power in Europe. Given this situation, the North Atlantic Pact is in fact being converted into the principal instrument of the aggressive policy of the ruling circles of the USA and Britain "on both sides of the Atlantic," i.e., in both hemispheres, and thereby accords with the aggressive desires for establishment of Anglo-American world hegemony, which, as is known, was proclaimed as the main post-war task of the USA and Great Britain in Churchill's sensation-creating Fulton speech at the extraordinary meeting which took place under the chairmanship of President Truman.

Apart from the United States, Canada and the five West European states, which include such a "North Atlantic" state as Luxembourg, the projected North Atlantic treaty allows for the inclusion of certain other states as members. There is no little gossip abroad now in this connection.

There is talk of attracting such countries as Sweden, Norway and Denmark to participation in this treaty, with note being taken moreover of the peculiar activeness of the Government of Norway in this affair. Certain persons recommend that the difficulties existing on this score be circumvented by a special Scandinavian pact which, according to these plans, should not prevent incorporation of the Scandinavian countries in the orbit of the states factually under the leadership of the "North Atlantic" grouping.

It is stated that discussions are in progress concerning the possibility of participation in the North Atlantic Pact by Franco Spain, Portugal, Italy and even Turkey; evidently it is considered that fulfillment of the tasks of the ruling grouping of the so-called "North Atlantic" can be furthered in this way too. Along with this there is discussion of a plan of forming a Mediterranean alliance or an East Mediterranean pact as one of the auxiliary instruments of the "North Atlantic" grouping.

These plans of forming more and more new separate groupings of states under the aegis of the USA and Great Britain merely underscore the fact that the aims of the basic imperialistic grouping now being assembled on the basis of the North Atlantic Pact bear by no means a regional character but embody the claims of certain powers for hegemony in all parts of the world.

This is attested to by the project for the formation of a grouping of countries of Southeast Asia, the realization of which was begun at the recent conference convened in New Delhi (India) under the pretext of a discussion of the Indonesian question. But the mere fact of the complaisance of certain leaders in the Governments of these countries is naturally insufficient for the peoples of Asia to consent to embark upon the slippery road onto which they are being strenuously impelled by powers which have become embroiled in colonial affairs and their wealthy patrons.

All this shows that in effecting the formation of the North Atlantic Alliance the ruling circles of the USA and Great Britain are attempting to involve in this affair, by direct or indirect means, as many states as possible, and thereby to take them in hand. For this purpose they are resorting to all sorts of accepted and unaccepted devices. They are employing financial and other economic handouts. They are promising improved economic positions to countries which at the same time are falling into more and more fresh economic difficulties under pressure of the "dollar policy." They are intimidating by reference to a non-existent danger on the part of "a potential aggressor" and at the same time are resorting to crude means of pressure on the governments of small states.

However, in one respect the situation should be considered perfectly clear. Just as in the formation of the Western Union, the inspirers of the North Atlantic Pact have from the very outset excluded the possibility of participation of all the countries of people's democracy and the Soviet Union in this pact, letting it be understood that these states not only cannot become members of the treaty but that the North Atlantic Pact is aimed precisely against the USSR and the countries of new democracy.

It is clear from all this that the purpose of the North Atlantic Pact is to put the reins of as many states as possible in the hands of U. S. and British ruling circles, depriving the states of the opportunity to conduct an independent foreign and domestic policy and employing these states as auxiliary means for realization of aggressive plans aimed at the establishment of Anglo-American world hegemony. Given this situation there can of course be no talk of the participation of the USSR and the new democracies in a North Atlantic Pact, or in other such unions of states.

Perhaps at one time certain persons assumed that in the post-war period they would succeed by all sorts of pressure and threats from without in pushing the Soviet Union off its chosen socialist path since certain "bright boys" proceeded from the reckoning that as a result of grave military and economic tests during the second world war the Soviet Union would be so weakened it would be unable to cope with its internal difficulties by its own forces and would have to depart from its socialist positions for the sake of obtaining economic support from the strong capitalist powers. The absurdity of such reckonings is evident to us; but this does not exclude the possibility of the existence of such myopic reckonings and plans hostile to our Soviet motherland.

In the above-mentioned official document the State Department was obliged to admit that it has not succeeded "in three years of fruitless attempts in bringing about a change in Soviet policy." The State Department evidently says this for the purpose of justifying the present plans for formation of the North Atlantic Alliance, since the anti-Soviet character of the "North Atlantic" grouping being created can no longer be concealed.

From what has been said it is evident that the North Atlantic Pact is in fact the most far-reaching expression of the aggressive desires of a narrow group of powers and primarily an expression of the desires of the U. S. and British ruling circles, who wish in one measure or another to adapt to the realization of these aims the policy of the pliable or directly dependent governments of other states. It is also perfectly evident that both the Western Union and the inter-American grouping of states, as well as the pacts of Mediterranean states, Scandinavian countries, Southeast Asia countries, and other such pacts now in preparation, are closely linked with realization of the aims of the North Atlantic Pact, which has guiding importance in the Anglo-American plans of establishing hegemony in Western Europe, the North Atlantic, South America, the Mediterranean, Asia, Africa, and everywhere hands stretch.

However, it cannot but be admitted that it is one thing to form all sorts of groupings and to gather signatures under more and more pacts cooked up in the offices of the American State Department and the British Foreign Office, and something quite different really to achieve the aims which the inspirers of these pacts and groups pursue.

The formation of these groupings and the signing of the pacts does not in itself liquidate those multitudinous frictions and contradictions which exist among the countries signatory to these pacts. Even within the Anglo-American bloc the appearance of these pacts by no means diminishes the contradictions between the principal partners since the aggressive desires of both powers clash at every step. It all the more deserves to be said that the mere signing of various pacts cannot liquidate the contradictions of interests between the large and small countries included in these groupings, in which one partner or one group of states wishes at every opportunity to profit at the expense of another partner or at the expense of another group of states, employing all possible means of pressure and economic influence in so doing.

It must also not be forgotten that not all countries will consent to join these groups and that not all the states which have already joined them will consent to subordinate themselves unconditionally to the Anglo-American dictate on all occasions.

Can one furthermore ignore so important a fact as the tremendous upsurge, which began recently, of the movement of national liberation in countries of the East, among peoples who have only now reached the opportunity to straighten their shoulders.

Finally, it is necessary to refer to the Soviet Union and the countries of people's democracy, which are carrying out the genuine will of their peoples and the great principles of friendship and equality of rights in relations with other nations.

The very existence of the Soviet state, with its growing power and international authority, and also the mighty support given it by the democratic forces in other countries, are an insurmountable obstacle in the path of any and all plans for establishing the world hegemony of this or that group of powers; this fact has already found its historical confirmation in the liquidation of the fascist states, which attempted to realize their fantastic plans of world hegemony, differing little from the present plans for the establishment of Anglo-American hegemony.

After everything said above, the well-known fact becomes understandable that in recent times the countries of the Anglo-American bloc, particularly the USA, are allocating such large appropriations to the unprecedented increase of their armies to the enormous increase of their military budgets, to the further construction of a network of military air bases and naval bases in all corners of the earth, and for all other military plans, including wild calculations on the use of the atomic bomb for the same purposes.

In order to justify this unrestrained aggressive policy, the ruling circles of the USA and Great Britain are sowing fear and uncertainty in the public circles of Europe and America by every possible means; they artificially picture the unprecedented growth of the democratic forces and the national liberation movements in the post-war period as some sort of "dangerous aggression," they encourage -- even among government officials -- those who are actually becoming active war-mongers, in spite of the fact that war propaganda was unanimously condemned by the United Nations; they are unleashing more and more of their various henchmen and their subservient press on such peace-loving countries as the USSR the states of peoples democracy, not scrupling in the dissemination of floods of lies and bellicose threats.

All this is necessary for them since they are loath to undertake the real solution of the internal problems ripening in their countries, in accordance with the changed historical conditions, and therefore they associate their further calculations primarily with plans for accomplishment of one or another aggressive external goals, even though they have understood that this is incapable of accomplishment by other than a violent path, by other than the path of unleashing a new war.

Immediately after the conclusion of the second world war, the ruling circles of the USA began the establishment of military air bases and naval bases in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and also on many far-flung seas, including even regions located several thousand kilometers from the borders of the USA. Since that time, the number of American military bases has not only not been reduced, but has considerably increased, both in the Eastern and Western Hemispheres, in European countries as well as in the countries of America, Asia and Africa. Entire states, particularly those located in the vicinity of the borders of the USSR, have been adapted to the guarantee of more convenient bases for Anglo-American air forces and for other possibilities of attack on the USSR. Such states are being sent a flow of supplies of various weapons at the expense of ever more American credits to these countries.

Not a single reasonable person can assert that this is being done for the purpose of self-defense of the USA. On the other hand, it is also well-known that since the second world war, which concluded with defeat of the aggressive powers, no danger of aggression against the USA exists.

Furthermore, can one consider it accidental that the USA and Great Britain, even after conclusion of the second world war, continued to maintain their Joint Chiefs of Staff headquarters in Washington, which is quietly continuing its work of preparing its new plans of aggression? Truly, if there were no such plans, then there would be no reason to preserve this Washington staff in the present peaceful conditions, and there would be no need to send American and British troops into the territory of more and more states.

American troops are now not only located in the countries of Europe and Asia in connection with fulfillment of their post-war occupation duties on the territories of former enemies. American troops continue to remain on the territories of a number of states belonging to the United Nations. In recent years it has turned out that the ruling circles of the USA have assumed the right to send their troops into the territory of other states, such as Greece in Europe and China in Asia, with the excuse that this is ostensibly indispensable to the security of the USA.

It is completely obvious that such a foreign policy has nothing in common with the lawful interests of defense of the USA, and that this policy is permeated through and through with the spirit of violence and the spirit of aggression.

It is generally recognized that certain circles of the USA are attempting to prepare both Western Germany and Japan as their weapons for carrying out aggressive plans, and are converting them into their accomplices in the preparation of aggression.

Neither is it accidental that the USA is postponing, with every possible pretext, the conclusion of peace treaties with both Germany and Japan. Such are the natural consequences of the foreign policy of the U.S. ruling circles, which is directed now not toward the strengthening of world peace, but toward the fulfillment of aggressive plans.

The aggressive character of U.S. policy toward the growing democratic forces and entire democratic countries is widely known. Thus the Greek people cannot break out of the impasse which has been brought about, since reactionary forces foreign to the people find powerful support from without. No sooner did the people of Czechoslovakia begin last year to check somewhat the reactionary circles within their country, and to render support to the leading democratic forces, than the governing circles of the USA and the entire Anglo-American bloc raised an unbelievable clamor about the internal events in Czechoslovakia, including all sorts of attempts to intervene in these internal affairs.

In their relations with the Soviet Union, the ruling circles of the USA and other countries of the Anglo-American bloc demonstrate more and more their unwillingness to take into consideration the agreements which only recently were unanimously accepted as the basis for the conduct of the joint policy of the USSR, the USA and Great Britain in the post-war period.

In the example of the Berlin question, the Soviet Government again showed graphically that at the present time the ruling circles of the USA and Britain do not consider themselves interested in agreement and cooperation with the USSR. Even when they speak about this, the matter is limited to conversations about agreement and co-operation, which end with direct rejection of former agreements and direct disruption of every kind of actual cooperation with the USSR.

The matter has reached the point where, in the field of foreign trade with the Soviet Union, the USA is conducting an intolerable policy of actual boycott which characterizes the inspirers of this policy as supporters of the principle, "all methods are good in relation to the USSR," although this policy brings harm above all to the authority of the country whence it is inspired.

All these facts regarding the post-war foreign policy of the USA and Great Britain testify that at the present time the ruling circles of these powers not only are not conducting a policy of establishment of firm world peace, but, on the contrary, have reverted to a policy which can be called nothing other than a policy of aggression -- the policy of unleashing a new war.

The North Atlantic Pact, which accords with the plans of the violent establishment of Anglo-American world domination and thus similarly accords with the aims of a policy of unleashing a new war, was intended precisely for fulfillment of these purposes.

Behind this pact stand not only the aggressive ruling circles of the USA and not only its British inspirers, such as Churchill and Bevin, but also not a few other warmongers of somewhat less import. It should not, however, be forgotten that the signing of these or similar pacts still does not guarantee and still does not create the possibility of accomplishment of the aggressive aims advanced by the inspirers of such pacts. In connection with this, it is appropriate to recall the unanimous support rendered by democratic circles in all countries to the well-known statement of the head of the Soviet Government, J. V. Stalin, that "the horrors of the recent war are too fresh in the memory of the people, and the social forces standing for peace are too great, for Churchill's pupils in aggression to overcome them and set the course for a new world war."

III. The North Atlantic Alliance -- Undermining the UN

In the State Department's official document, an attempt is made to provide grounds for the formation of the North Atlantic Alliance and also for the other groups mentioned above, in the desire "to strengthen the UN." Such a statement would only be convincing if it were possible to agree that the formation of the North Atlantic Alliance and of the other groups and blocs bypassing the UN and behind the back of the UN could serve in strengthening this organization. But such a suggestion, of course, is simply absurd.

In reality, the organization of the North Atlantic Alliance, which heads a whole list of separate groups of states in various parts of the world, is a final break on the part of the present policy of the USA and Great Britain with the policy which was unanimously followed by the Governments of the USA, Great Britain and the Soviet Union, together with many other nations, in forming the UN and in drawing up and approving the UN Charter.

It is well known to all that the UN has discussed neither the question of the formation the North Atlantic Alliance, nor the Western Union nor the Inter-American Pact. It is also well known that the question of formation of a Mediterranean alliance, or of a Scandinavian group, or of a federation of countries of Southeast Asia and other newly organized alliances of states, is taking place [sic] now without the participation of the UN and obviously bypassing this organization.

Those taking part in these groups and above all the leading circles of the USA and Great Britain understand that it is not profitable to them to put these questions up for discussion by the United Nations. For here the real aims and the true character of these groups may be asked. The interested governments which are leading in the formation of all these alliances, blocs and groups do not desire this. They prefer to do this in secret ways, hidden from the UN. The ruling circles of the United States and Great Britain are in effect confronting the UN with a fait accompli by forming these blocs and groups.

All this does not prevent them from saying at every step that the North Atlantic Alliance as well as the other blocs and groups set up by them serve to strengthen the UN. But no one believes these statements. Significance is not attached to them even by those who make this kind of statement.

In fact the North Atlantic Alliance and the grouping of powers belonging to it, headed by the ruling circles of the USA and Great Britain, are a direct undermining of the UN. Today these groups are aimed at undermining the authority of the UN, and tomorrow they may lead to destruction of this organization. It is not for nothing that during the last three years systematic subversive work has been carried on against the foundations of this organization, and this finds its expression particularly in the desire to put an end to the unanimity principle adopted in the Charter for the five great powers in deciding all important questions of ensuring universal peace and international security.

To reinforce its position on the question of the North Atlantic Alliance, the State Department refers to the Charter of the UN. However, these references are not only unconvincing, but also are distinguished by their exceptional irresponsibility.

The State Department refers to Article 52 of the UN Charter, which deals with the possibility of the existence of regional agreements compatible with the aims and principles of the UN. Such an article, of course, is necessary in the UN Charter. The facts, however, show that the North Atlantic Pact cannot be regarded as such a regional agreement.

The political meaning of the North Atlantic Pact and of the agreements attached to it has nothing in common with what is said concerning the aims and principles of regional agreements in Article 52 of the UN Charter.

In general the North Atlantic Pact cannot be regarded as a regional agreement, since it embraces states in both hemispheres and has as its aim not this or that regional question, but the definition of the whole foreign policy of such powers as the USA and Great Britain, which constantly intervene in the affairs of many other states and, moreover, in any part of the world. Only as a mockery is it possible to say that the North Atlantic Pact is a regional agreement. He who respects Article 52 of the UN Charter will not say this, since the North Atlantic Alliance is formed not on the basis of Article 52, but in direct violation of the Charter and of the basic principles of the UN.

The State Department also refers to Article 51 of the UN Charter, which deals with the "inalienable right to individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack is made on a member of the Organization" and the Security Council is not able to take the necessary steps to maintain international peace.

The necessity of such an article in the UN Charter is perfectly evident. But on the other hand it is just as evident that the formation of the North Atlantic grouping can in no way find justification in Article 51.

This is evident above all from the fact that neither the United States of America nor Great Britain nor the other countries of the North Atlantic are threatened by any armed attack. From this alone any references to Article 51 in order to justify the formation of the North Atlantic Alliance are absolutely unfounded.

The North Atlantic group is by no means being formed for self-defense or in general for those tasks with which the article of the Charter in question deals. The North Atlantic Alliance, headed by the United States, would simply be unnecessary to anyone, if the desire for the violent establishment of the domination of the United States and Great Britain over other countries did not exist, if the desire for the establishment by violence of Anglo-American world domination did not exist. The North Atlantic Pact is in no way necessary for self-defense, but is necessary to implement a policy of aggression and to implement the policy of unleashing a further war.

From this it follows that the attempts of the State Department to justify the formation of the North Atlantic Alliance by Article 51 of the Charter have no foundation, that these references can only mislead wide circles of the public, but they cannot, serve as a real explanation of the reasons for the formation of the new "North Atlantic" group or of any kind of subsidiary alliances and blocs attached to it.

This is the position with regard to the State Department's references to Articles 51 and 52 of the UN Charter.

If the irrelevance of the State Department's references to the UN Charter is recognized, attention must be paid to the other explanation of the motives for the formation of the North Atlantic Alliance, which is also contained in this document. In this connection the State Department's references to the so-called Vandenberg resolution adopted by the American Senate merit special attention.

In reality, in the Summer of last year the U.S. Senate approved the resolution moved by Vandenberg concerning the "new trend" of American foreign policy. The State Department's document says that this "resolution proposes that for the first time in the history of the country, the United States should combine in peace time with countries beyond the limits of the Western Hemisphere, by concluding with them an agreement on collective security aimed at ensuring peace and strengthening our own security."

This statement by the State Department once again refutes its own assertion concerning the regional character of the North Atlantic group. Moreover, it shows that since the end of the second world war such alterations have taken place in the foreign-policy of the ruling circles of the USA as reveal the frankly aggressive present character of this policy.

This resolution unties the hands of the U.S. Government for the formation of any international alliances in peace time, and under the pretext of ensuring security permits the ruling circles of the USA to enter any group and to begin any adventure, a fact which fully accords with the present aggressive mood of the ruling circles of the United States.

The adoption of this resolution by the American Senate means that the ruling circles of the USA have not only broken their main obligations with regard to the UN but have also changed over to a new course in their foreign policy, which henceforth is aimed at the establishment by violence of Anglo-American world domination. From this it follows that the resolution adopted by the American Senate means that the ruling circles of the USA have advocated the policy of aggression, a policy of unleashing a further war.

With such a new formulation of the foreign policy of the USA and Great Britain it should not be surprising that this policy has its spearhead directed against the Soviet Union and the countries of popular democracy. Since the Soviet Union and the countries of popular democracy consistently defend the cause of universal peace and are waging an unfailing struggle against all and any instigators of a new war; we cannot expect a benevolent attitude toward our country from those foreign circles which are the inspirers of new aggression and which at present are devoting their energies to the preparation of a further war.

The Soviet Union has important agreements with the United States and Great Britain concerning the questions of a joint policy both toward Germany in the West and toward Japan in the East, which should serve as a good foundation for the establishment of a firm and universal peace on democratic principles. These agreements are now being trampled underfoot at every step by the ruling circles of the USA and Great Britain, since these circles are now adhering to a new course in their foreign policy and do not desire to take into consideration the agreements signed by them. Violating the spirit and the meaning of previous agreements, the ruling circles of the USA and Great Britain are now forming the so-called "North Atlantic Alliance" not only without the participation of the USSR, but also with the direct aim of using this group against the USSR and the countries of popular democracy.

The Soviet Union also has 20-year treaties of friendship and mutual aid with Great Britain and France, which are entirely in accordance with the interests of universal lasting peace and are particularly important for consolidating peace in Europe. However, the ruling circles of Great Britain and France openly scorn these treaties and ignore the obligations of Great Britain and France, which the treaties contain, to maintain and strengthen peace in Europe jointly with the Soviet Union. It is well known that the Governments of Great Britain and France are taking part in the formation of the North Atlantic group and, moreover, on the pretext of strengthening their security, have formed the so-called "Western Union" not only without the participation of the USSR but also with the direct purpose of using the new West European group against the Soviet Union.

The United States, Great Britain and France, together with the Soviet Union, were the principal countries which prepared the establishment of the UN. Together with the other United Nations, it was unanimously recognized that these four states and China should strive for unanimity and cooperation within the UN, and therefore the unanimity principle for the five great powers in deciding the fundamental questions of peace and international security was made the basis of the UN Charter. Almost the day after the establishment of the UN the undermining of this organization was begun.

Although this was done by other hands, everyone saw and everyone knew that the ruling circles of the USA and Great Britain were directing this subversive work.

How is this to be explained?

This is explained by the fact that as soon as the second world war ended, the ruling circles of the USA and Great Britain became so conceited as to think that the leading part in the UN should belong to them themselves, and not to all the five great powers jointly. Since the Soviet Union has demanded and is demanding strict implementation of what is stated in the UN Charter concerning the necessity for concerted action by all the five great powers, since only such agreed action can in reality ensure the interests of universal peace and international security, the ruling circles of the USA and Great Britain have intensified their attacks on the USSR and have developed still further their intensive work in undermining the UN.

All this was insufficient.

Since the Soviet Union and a whole list of other states did not agree to alteration of the UN Charter, the ruling circles of the USA and Great Britain evidently came to the conclusion that they would not succeed in completely adapting the UN to their aggressive policy, although they have not stopped striving to achieve this. The UN Charter was inconvenient to them, and they have achieved nothing by their attacks on the USSR for its defense of those principles on the basis of which the UN was established, since they have been unable in any way to shake the position of the Soviet Government, which defends the sacred cause of strengthening universal lasting peace and consistently exposes all and any aggressors and instigators of war.

Convinced of this, the ruling circles of the USA and Great Britain evidently have drawn the conclusion that they need to bypass the UN. The implementation of this policy also led to the formation of the North Atlantic Alliance and also of the other groupings of powers which have been formed and are being formed in secret ways behind the back of the UN.

Thus we have every ground for asserting that the North Atlantic Alliance is undermining the UN. It is impossible not to take into account that this fact expresses the inexorable desire of the ruling circles of the USA and Great Britain for the final undermining and ruin of the UN, which somehow or other still restrains and hinders the complete adaptation of other states to their aggressive policy and which cannot become a silent weapon in the hands of the Anglo-American bloc in implementing a policy of establishing Anglo-American world domination by force.

After all this it is understandable why the ruling circles of the USA, Great Britain and France, in following their policy of aggression and preparation for a further war, are now striving everywhere to pursue a policy of isolating the USSR, although this policy is a crude violation of the obligations they have undertaken.

Consequently, the so-called "new trend" in the foreign policy of the ruling circles of these states consists of the fact that they have returned to the old anti-Soviet course of the foreign policy built upon carrying out the isolation of the USSR -- the policy they followed in the years preceding the second world war, a policy which almost brought European civilization to catastrophe.

Carried away by their aggressive plans for world domination, the ruling circles of the USA and Great Britain have not understood the fact that the so-called "new trend" of their policy, which runs counter to their recent obligations to the USSR and the other United Nations, not only cannot contribute to strengthening their political and economic position, but also will be condemned by all peace-loving peoples, will be condemned by all protagonists of strengthening universal peace, who comprise the overwhelming majority in all countries.

The Basic Conclusions. The First Conclusion

The Soviet Union is compelled to take into consideration the fact that the ruling circles of the United States and Great Britain have gone over to a frankly aggressive political course, the ultimate aim of which is forcible establishment of Anglo-American world domination; the policy they follow -- a policy of aggression, a policy of unleashing a new war -- accords with this aim.

In view of such a situation, the Soviet Union must wage still more energetically and still more consistently the struggle against all and every instigator of war, against the policy of aggression and unleashing a new war, and for a universal, firm and democratic peace.

In this struggle to strengthen universal peace and international security, the Soviet Union considers as its allies all the other peace-loving states and all those innumerable protagonists of a universal democratic peace who are the real spokesmen of the feelings and thoughts of the peoples who bore on their shoulders the incredible burdens of the last world war and who are justifiably rejecting all and every aggressor and instigator of war.

The Second Conclusion

Everyone sees that at the present time the UN is being undermined, because it hinders and restrains the aggressive circles, even though only to some extent, in their policy of aggression and of unleashing a further war.

In view of this situation, the Soviet Union must fight still harder and still more insistently against the undermining and destruction of the UN by aggressive elements and their accomplices; it must strive to prevent the UN from indulging such elements, as frequently happens now, and strive to make it value its authority more highly when the question is one of rebuffing those who follow a policy of aggression and of unleashing a new war.

4 Apr 2019 - 21:43 by WDNF International | comments (0)