Mr. WIERBLOWSKI said that in taking part in the discussion of the Secretary-General’s annual report, he would dwell first of all on the statement that, during the year which had just elapsed, the fear of war had decreased.
2. Ten years had gone by since the outbreak of the war, and more than four years since its end and the victory of the democratic forces over fascism. Yet after six years of suffering and bloody warfare, after four years hard work to rebuild what the War had destroyed, the fact that the fear of war had decreased was regarded as an achievement.
3. No doubt such a statement could be made and it was certainly justified. Nevertheless, it was an admission of the tragic fact that in 1949, as in 1939, the peoples were living in the fear of a new war, in the fear that death might once again threaten millions of human beings and that massacres and the barbaric destruction of the material and cultural wealth of mankind might once again take place.
4. Mr. Wierblowski represented a nation which had just celebrated, on the preceding 1 September, a tragic anniversary. Ten years before, his country had been bombed without mercy and mangled beneath the tracks of Hitler’s tanks. The criminal attack against Poland had marked the formal beginning of the Second World War. He said “formal”, because in fact the world war had started well before that.
5. Hitlerism, fascism and Japanese militarism had gained new territory and new positions long before September 1939. At the same time, they, had obtained increasing support from the Governments then in power in Great Britain and France. The German attack on Poland had been the climax of the criminal and treacherous policy of Munich.
6. It was not without significance that, as early as November 1937, Lord Halifax, the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, had informed Hitler that the members of the British Government were fully aware of the fact that not only had the Fuehrer achieved a great deal inside Germany, but that Germany could rightly be regarded as the bulwark of the West against Bolshevism.
7. On the eve of the total war for world conquest, hitlerism had been regarded as a bulwark of the West, A bulwark against what and for what purpose? British and French statesmen had had no doubts on that point. Hitler was to have become an instrument and an effective ally in the struggle against the State which had proclaimed and had endeavoured to realize the concept of collective security, the country which had been ready to come to the assistance of the smaller States which were threatened, and to help them effectively , not merely by a purely formal declaration of war, not only by a “phony war”.
8. Hitlerism was to have become the battering ram to destroy that Power which, at the difficult moment of the criminal Munich conspiracy, had offered genuine assistance to Czechoslovakia, the victim of a cowardly betrayal. It had been intended that the S.S. divisions should be used against the Soviet Union, which had resolved to defend, and was effectively defending the declining authority of the League of Nations, and which had earnestly desired to see the League become an effective instrument in the struggle for peace. The USSR had been blamed for opposing the profascist and anti-Soviet policy of Neville Chamberlain and Mr. Daladier, the policy of those who were digging the grave of the League of Nations. There had been an understanding with the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo axis. In order to cover the tracks, an attempt had been made to set up a facade of negotiations with the Soviet Union. As Mr. Dirksen, the German Ambassador in Great Britain at that time, had stated, the idea of German lebensraum had been received in London with full consideration.
9. It had been the peoples of eastern and southeastern Europe which were to become the victims of that policy. The Governments of those countries — semi-fascist or fascist emulators of Hitlerism, in full sympathy with the anti-Soviet policies of Germany, estranged from the masses and hated by them — had become mere puppets in the game, a game contrary to the interests of those countries. That was the origin of the tragic events of September 1939.
10. The Polish people, isolated and abandoned, had fought heroically against the full might of the Third Reich, while the British and French divisions had remained inactive. Poland had fallen a victim to the Germany policy of lebensraum, the perfidious policy of the western Powers which had supported Hitler Germany and the criminal pro-Hitler and anti-Soviet policy of the then Polish Government.
11. The reason why the western Powers had declared war on Germany at that time — though without waging it effectively — had not been to safeguard a principle, as was proved by the official documents which had since become available. Emboldened by the men of Munich and dazzled by his easy successes, Hitler had put forward exaggerated claims. In the new division of the world, he had wanted to gain too much too quickly. It had been a matter not of principle, but of a price and the terms of payment.
12. For Poland, on the other hand, as for tire other States in that part of Europe, it had not been a matter of price, but of life or death.
13. Documents in the German archives threw a harsh light on the political events of those years. Mr. Wierblowski could quote from many documents which had become public. He would confine himself to an extract from a conversation between the German Ambassador in London and Mr. Buxton, Neville Chamberlain’s confidential emissary. Mr. Buxton who, according to the Ambassador, was a well-known and moderate member of the Labour Party, had said that the United Kingdom promised fully to respect the German spheres of interest in eastern and south-eastern Europe; that it would therefore withdraw the guarantees it had given to certain States in the German sphere of influence and, furthermore, that it promised to influence France to break its alliance with the Soviet Union and to give up its ties in south-eastern Europe.
14. A similar idea had been expressed even more clearly by Sir Horace Wilson in a conversation with Mr. Dirksen, German Ambassador in London; it was that Poland was to be left to its fate.
15. Poland had indeed been abandoned. Thus Poland had had to pay not only the bloody price of betrayal by its own Government but also that of the political machinations of its alleged protectors.
16. Mr. Wierblowski had recalled the recent past, not only because that period of struggle, suffering and humiliation was still alive in the minds of his people, but above all because the date of 1 September conjured up more than mere historical memories. For that date had marked the tragic outcome of a policy which had sought to isolate one of the great Powers, a policy of contempt for the sovereignty and rights of small nations, a policy of perfidious violation of the principles of collective security in favour of the law of the jungle. What had happened on 1 September 1939 had been the result of the destruction of the international organization of that period.
17. Did the history of- the years which had since passed, and particularly of the Second World War, prove that Hitler and the men of Munich had been right? Did it indeed bring proof that jungle law was stronger than the principles of collaboration and the joint action of peoples in the name of progress? Of course not. It was always those who violated those principles, the Hitlers and the Chamberlains, who failed. The war alliance of the great Powers, tempered in the fire of combat, built on principles of collaboration, equality and joint decisions, had led the United Nations to victory. It was through Teheran, Moscow, Yalta and Potsdam, through the difficult task of drawing up joint, unanimous and compromise decisions, and not by imposing their will by force, not by arbitrary decisions, that the Allies had trod the path leading them to Rome, Berlin and Tokyo.
18. The same principles were at the basis of the United Nations. In the light of the experience of the preceding four years, the Secretary-General’s statement that, if the principle of unanimity among the great Powers had not been established at San Francisco, it would have been necessary to adopt it at that point, was proved absolutely correct and of immediate significance.
19. Mr. Wierblowski noted with regret that the statesmen of certain great Powers, forgetful of the lessons of history, were deliberately violating the principles of sincere international co-operation. They were choosing the method of arbitrary decisions and faits accomplis and, holding any methods valid, they were attempting, through military blocs contrary to the spirit and the letter of the United Nations Charter, to achieve the aims of their imperialistic policies, while proclaiming with exaggerated eloquence their fidelity to the principles of international co-operation and, recalling that they had supported those principles during the war.
20. But, since the truth must be faced, it must be asked whether, during the war, the four great Powers had honestly practised the principle of loyal collaboration, whether they had intended to observe it in peacetime?
21. While the peoples of Europe, and especially the Polish people, had been conducting a bloody war against the occupying forces and while the heroic armies of the Soviet Union had been defending Stalingrad and preparing the victorious offensive which was to culminate in the conquest of Berlin, the view had been expressed that there was no need to hurry, that it would be better to wait until the peoples of the USSR were bled white so that the USSR would emerge weakened from the war. Only a few weeks previously, during the session of the so-called Council of Europe at Strasbourg one of the British delegates. Mr. Macmillan, had made public a memorandum written in 1942, by Mr. Churchill dealing with the organization of post-war Europe. Even then Mr. Churchill had been elaborating plans to isolate the Soviet Union and to drive that country out of Europe. In that memorandum he had used the expression “Soviet barbarism” in referring to the ally to which the United Kingdom owed so deep a debt of gratitude
22. Mr. Churchill was not the only one who had acted in that way. In the United States, important groups had made no secret of their intention of embarking on a struggle against the Soviet Union after the victory over Germany.
23. It was of them that Harry Hopkins, President Roosevelt’s chief adviser and intimate friend, had written in his memoirs that they constituted a small, vociferous minority which took advantage of every rift between the United States and the USSR to make trouble between the two countries. And Mr. Hopkins had added that no Government worth its salt would ever permit that group to influence its policy.
24. Nevertheless, that was what had happened. The fact that, during the war, the alliance had withstood all trials, was due to the determined stand of the working classes of the entire world not only against Hitlerism but also against the anti-Soviet tendencies of Mr. Churchill and his followers; it was also due to the honest and straight-forward policy of the Soviet Union.
25., While Mr. Churchill had been writing his anti-Soviet memorandum, Generalissimo Stalin, in the speech he had made on 6 November 1942 to mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of the October Revolution, had spoken of the common programme of the coalition between the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and the United States for the war and the post-war period.
26. The war had been won thanks to the firm and fighting attitude, and to the spirit of sacrifice and heroism, of the masses of all the United Nations; thanks also to the wise and far-seeing policy of the USSR Government, which admitted compromises but was inflexible when necessary.
27. The policies of the peace-loving nations, with the Soviet Union at their head, would undoubtedly be able to counteract the plans of those who dreamt of world war as a means of increasing their profits and extending their domination. In the struggle for peace, the previous year had brought considerable successes. The forces opposed to war were growing rapidly. After the Wroclaw congress, the masses of the whole world had forcefully protested against war-mongering at the Paris and Prague peace congresses, at national peace conferences in the United States, in the United Kingdom, Canada, Hungary, Belgium, Romania, Japan, Brazil and Mexico, and at the anti-war congresses organized in Germany on 1 September. They had thus demonstrated not only their fear of war, to which the Secretary-General referred, but also their inflexible will to fight for peace.
28. There were some in the Assembly who considered those demonstrations as the expression of a particular political tendency. That was an obvious error which proved to what extent those men were estranged from the masses and how indifferent they were to the cares, sorrows, and real aspirations of those masses.
29. The peoples of the world desired peace. That was the aim which united them. The enthusiasm with which they had hailed the creation of the United Nations and the confidence which they placed in it resulted from the wish to avoid further carnage. They would judge the usefulness and importance of its work solely on what it was able to do and what it intended to do for peace.
30. At the same time as the broad masses were waging a struggle for peace, the oppressed nations were battling successfully for their freedom in Asia and in other regions. The Secretary-General had correctly emphasized in his report that the days of dependency or inferior status were fast coming to an end in Asia.
31. An impressive instance of that process was the case of China, which had forever banished foreign exploitation and influence from its territory. Each people which liberated itself from the yoke of imperialism weakened the bloc which sought war and strengthened the ranks which sought peace, because it eliminated the very sources of conflict which resulted from imperialistic tendencies.
32. Again, the cause of peace was advanced by the strengthening of friendly co-operation within the group of countries comprising the USSR and the peoples’ democracies. That was an example of co-operation between a great Power and smaller States, an example of mutual aid which increased the political and economic strength and reinforced the sovereignty of the smaller State. That example was all the more striking since the world was confronted with the picture of the foreign policy of other great Powers which, when they referred to aid or collaboration, meant the subordination of the weaker country to the more powerful.
33. The relations between the countries of eastern Europe were completely different from those which had prevailed in the pre-war period, when they had harboured the germs of many conflicts. That period was gone forever. Eastern Europe, which had suffered terrible losses in the struggle against hitlerism and fascism, was contributing immensely to the peaceful evolution of mankind.
34. During the past year, those who were bent on unleashing a new war had made feverish attemps to consolidate their forces.
35. It was with that purpose that the heads of the General Staffs of the United States Armed Forces had visited all the countries of “Marshallized” Europe. Secret councils had been held, and strategic bases throughout the whole world had been created, thousands of miles distant from the United States. The war potential of western Germany and Japan was being rebuilt. The Western Union had been organized. The North Atlantic Treaty had been signed. That treaty which was manifestly contrary to Articles 51 and 53 of the Charter, as well as to the principles of collective security. It was a treaty which created an aggressive bloc, established the sphere of influence of a single Power, and prepared the way for a new armaments race. No skilful playing with words could conceal its real meaning.
36. All those facts provided indisputable proof of the aggressive plans of those who, during the same period, had obstructed the disarmament negotiations and proposals and had prevented the prohibition of the atomic weapon and other means of mass destruction. The Secretary-General was right to warn that a new and terrible world war, conducted with the means currently available, could not be avoided by any arrangement which left out any of the great Powers, and that it was necessary that the peoples of the world should face those facts.
37. The previous year had been marked by increased interference in the domestic affairs of several States and by open attacks on the principle of national sovereignty. The ideological justification of the United States policy of expansion had found its expression in the organization of so- called European Councils, in idle statements concerning a world government, in the declarations of statesmen who emphasized the providential role of the United States, the country to which God had supposedly assigned the direction of the world and the mission of teaching men the American way of life.
38. The proposal for the inclusion in the agenda of the Assembly, in contradiction of every principle of the United Nations Charter and of the Peace treaties, the item dealing with the so-called defence of religious freedom in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania constituted such an attack on the national sovereignty of small countries. Not only had those countries not been allowed to become Members of the Organization, but a campaign of slander had been unleashed against them.
39. It could hardly be maintained that such activities served to strengthen the United Nations. And what should be said of the actions of one of the great Powers, which held a prominent position in the United Nations, when it set up a body such as that known as the Committee for Free Europe, which openly engaged in sabotage, diversion and espionage and which fomented disturbances in the territory of other Members of the United Nations; and when it offered such experts in underground activities — apart from a reward in dollars — entry visas to the United States? It was in fact an overt violation both of the United Nations Charter and of the elementary principles of international morality.
40. There were other champions of that morality, who did not hesitate to misuse the religious beliefs and sentiments of the faithful for ends which were essentially incompatible with all the commandments of religion, by giving their blessing to the warmongers, while censuring men of good will and good faith who were engaged in the reconstruction of their devastated countries.
41. In referring to the current problems of international policy, it was impossible to omit mention of the central problem of the liquidation of the consequences of war in Europe, namely, the German question. Mr. Wierblowski did not propose to enter into a thorough discussion of the German question in the forum of the United Nations, since, as was generally known, that was a question for which the Council of Foreign Ministers was alone competent. The German question, however, provided the most glaring example of arbitrary decisions, of the violation of operative international treaties and of the creation of a sphere of influence, exclusively reserved to a single Power and serving that Power’s political, military and economic ends.
42. In violation of the Potsdam decisions on the democratization and demilitarization of Germany, Nazi, chauvinist and revisionist elements were coming to power in Germany under the protection of the local occupation authorities. Poland was disturbed at the growth of fascist influence in the public life of the western zones. The reconstruction of Germany’s war potential by neo-Nazi elements was in full swing with the support of the western Powers. Without reference to the German people, a mutilated State was being established in western Germany and democratic and peace-loving elements were being intimidated or persecuted.
43. That artificial creation represented a threat, and not to Germany’s neighbours only. Western Germany might in future threaten its creators and protectors.
44. In the name of the Polish Government and people, Mr. Wierblowski denounced the Powers which, being Members of the United Nations, tolerated and encouraged revisionist provocateurs in the western occupation zones of Germany.
45. The situation in the Soviet zone of occupation was very different. The course of events in the eastern part of Germany proved that it was possible to settle the German problem along democratic lines on one condition, namely, that the occupation authorities, wishing to create a single and democratic German State, carried out a clearsighted and consistent policy. The development of democratic institutions in that State would create conditions favourable to the stabilization of peaceful relations and to the restoration of normal relations with other nations. The unity of. a Germany built on such democratic principles would open the road to a stabilization of peaceful relations in Europe.
46. The Polish Government expressing its peaceful aspirations and desiring above all the establishment of normal relations with its immediate neighbour to the west, had repeatedly and constructively defined its attitude towards militant German democracy and towards the future democratic German State, built on a just peace treaty. The Polish Government was putting that policy into effect by developing its economic relations with Germany, and especially with the Soviet zone. The economic relations which were being developed by Poland with the eastern part of Germany bore evidence of the fact that the strengthening of democratic forces in Germany was conducive to the normalization of Germany’s relations with neighbouring countries.
47. The climax of the pernicious policy which the western Powers were conducting in Germany had been the elections to the so-called Bonn Parliament. The result of those elections was very disturbing to progressive elements throughout the world. People linked with the Nazi movement, living symbols of the reviving German fascism, had emerged as leaders of the so-called State of western Germany.
48. The representative of France, Mr. Schuman, had devoted a considerable part of his speech (225th meeting) to the German question. It was in no way surprising that the representative of a State which had so often been the object of German aggression should pay a great deal of attention to the question; one of the most important to French policy.
49. Mr. Schuman had described the work carried out by the western Powers in the western zones of Germany as an experiment, adding that the rate of further development would depend on the results of that experiment. If Mr. Schuman had spoken before the inauguration of the so-called Parliament of Bonn and before the creation of the so-called Government of western Germany, he might have been said to be suffering from political shortsightedness. But it was sheer political blindness to speak of an experiment after Mr. Schumacher himself had stated that the Parliament of Bonn was swarming with Nazi supporters, after Heuss, a former Nazi sympathizer, had been elected President, after Kopf, a war criminal, had become a member of the Government and after Chancellor Adenauer had expressed distinctly revisionist, theories. The Polish delegation did not believe that the French people, who had fought so heroically against the Nazi occupation, were as unperturbed about the German question as the leader of the French delegation. Ten years after the outbreak of the war, Poland wished to issue a fresh warning against that policy.
50. In economic questions, the events which had taken place during the past year had shown that Poland’s forecasts had been correct. There was no doubt that during that period, particularly in the second part of the year, the capitalist countries had shown ever stronger signs of crisis. Neither the world economic survey nor the report of the Economic Commission for Europe had been able to ignore that fact.
51. The economic position of the capitalist countries was characterized by the weakening of economic development and, during the second part of the period, the cessation or decline of the development of production, notwithstanding the fact that in a number of countries the scars of the destruction wreaked by the war had not yet been obliterated and the standards of living had not yet reached their pre-war level. Although there was still a shortage of food, some countries were reducing the area under crops or the production of agricultural machinery and tractors. Less industrial equipment was being produced despite the fact that machines were wearing out and that there were large export potentialities.
52. Rising unemployment and the lowering of the standards of living of the masses of the people were related to the decline in production and the growing crisis in the capitalistic countries, The Polish delegation would make a full statement on its attitude to the causes of unemployment and the means of remedying, at any rate in part, that calamity which was inherent in the capitalistic economic system, when the agenda item referring to that question was discussed.
53. The rise in unemployment in the countries of western Europe and the United States could not be questioned. It was mentioned in all the economic publications of the United Nations Secretariat. It was regrettable, however, that those publications did not give sufficient prominence to the extent of the complications which resulted for western Europe from its ever growing submission to the United States and that they did not state clearly that the world was faced with that aspect of the Marshall Plan which had rightly been called the export of unemployment.
54. Mr. Wierblowski noted with surprise that the Secretary-General’s report did not contrast the grim situation in the capitalistic countries with the economic success achieved by Poland, the other peoples’ democracies and the Soviet Union.
55. Even though that part of Europe had suffered the greatest destruction, those countries were making the most rapid strides in development. Poland had succeeded in abolishing unemployment which before the war had been so disastrous for the working classes. The standard of living of the working classes was steadily rising, as wages were increasing while prices remained stable. The position of the farming population had definitely improved.
56. In comparison with 1937, employment figures had risen by 40 per cent and industrial production had increased by more than 70 per cent. The Polish mining industry was working not only for the home market but was meeting the needs of other European countries. The production of the mining and power industry, during the first six months of 1949, had increased by 11 per cent over the corresponding period in 1948. The production of heavy industry, which was the basis of Poland’s future development, was constantly increasing. During the first six months of 1949, Polish heavy industry production had increased by 25 per cent over the corresponding period in 1948. The increase in the food industry during the same period had been 24 per cent, and light industry had increased by 31 per cent.
57. Those few significant figures clearly showed how the economy of a country which had succeeded in making itself independent of the crises inherent in the capitalistic economy was developing.
58. Those results had obviously not been achieved on a basis of economic self-sufficiency. Precisely because Poland had strengthened its economic ties with the other peoples’ democracies and especially with the. USSR, which had rendered it great help, it had been able to set up a system of mutual economic assistance. That cooperation had taken the form of an organization, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance. That organization was an example of economic co-operation based on absolute equality and the absence of all political pressure. It was the exact opposite of the theory and practice of the Marshall Plan, the aim of which was the economic conquest of Europe.
59. Poland was ready, moreover, to develop, and was, indeed, developing, its economic relations with all the countries in the world on a basis of complete equality and mutual profit. Poland rejected any effort, at discrimination and would not tolerate the imposition of conditions incompatible with the trend of development of its national economy. On that basis it was ready to develop further its economic exchanges with the western European countries.
60. If, in spite of that, there were no signs that the western European countries wished to develop exchanges with the peoples’ democracies and the Soviet Union, that circumstance must primarily be attributed to the general political attitude of the Power which was currently determining the trends of economic policy with respect to the western European countries. A visible sign of that trend was to be seen in the export quotas and the black-listing of goods destined for eastern Europe. That trend ran counter to the vital interests of the western European countries and for that reason it might be hoped that economic wisdom would prevail.
61. Unfortunately, only a few days previously, those vital interests, and more specifically those of western Europe, had again been injured by an enforced devaluation of currencies. That action constituted an attempt to create conditions under which one single currency would dominate the economic life of a large part of the world. That would obviously facilitate the economic penetration of American monopolies into the economic life of those countries by making them even more dependent upon the United States. It was obvious that one of the principal aims of that manoeuvre was to place the burden of the crisis on the working masses and to lower their real wages and their standards of living.
62. Mr. Wierblowski wished to say a few words on the problem of assistance to economically backward countries. It was obvious that Poland fully supported the idea of the economic development of those countries. The Polish delegation continued to hold the views it had expressed during the discussions on the problem as a whole at the ninth session of the Economic and Social Council held that summer in Geneva. Such action, however, carried with it the danger of violation of the national sovereignty of economically underdeveloped countries, and the danger of the subordinating their interests to those of big capital. Poland would obviously oppose tendencies of that kind. It considered it essential that guarantees for the preservation of the sovereignty of those countries should be given and assurances offered that the aid would take into account their development and their economic needs.
63. In no circumstances, therefore, must those countries be turned into areas for the expansion of capital which would arrest and distort their development. Aid to those countries should in no case transform them into bases supplying raw materials to great monopolies. Those were the reservations that Poland felt obliged to make.
64. That analysis should make it easy to define the part of the United Nations, towards which the hopes of all humanity had been directed since its establishment. In previous years there had been certain tendencies to transform the Organization into an instrument of the Anglo-American bloc, into a voting machine, an inert, ignored and abandoned institution. It was only thanks to the will for peace and the vigilance of the peoples, and thanks to the firm attitude of tire peace-loving States, that that plan had not been put into effect.
65. Mr. Wierblowski was obliged to note with regret, however, the great harm done to the authority of the United Nations, and the fact that the United Nations had given very little aid to those States which were seeking to enable it to play an active part in the world and to uphold its prestige.
66. It was to be hoped that the sound view expressed in the Secretary-General’s latest report regarding the necessity for unanimous action by the great Powers, as well as the critical passages which dealt with the attempts to isolate one great Power, would become the starting point of more vigorous action by the United Nations in the service of peace and progress. The Organization should see that the spirit of the Charter was observed, and should prevent the creation of illegal commissions, such as the United Nations Special Committee on the Balkans and the United Nations Commission on Korea, or of bodies such as the Interim Committee of the General Assembly. The Organization should take care that, even in questions of minor importance, it should not become the instrument of a temporary and mechanical majority and should firmly reject all attacks on its authority or on the authority of its most important organ, the Security Council.
67. Speaking from that rostrum, the representatives of several States had given assurances of their will for peace. Nevertheless, no great Power, with the exception of the USSR, had voiced any clear or concrete proposal for the improvement of the existing situation. The representative of the Soviet Union had been the only one to submit to the General Assembly proposals (226th meeting) that would give the United Nations new possibilities.
68. Those proposals condemned the preparations for war that were being carried on, especially in the United States and the United Kingdom. They recommended the prohibition of atomic weapons and other means of mass destruction, the use of which was incompatible with the conscience and honour of nations and their membership of the international community. They called upon all nations to settle their disputes by peaceful methods. They recommended that the General Assembly should appeal to the great Powers which bore the primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and international security to unite their efforts and conclude amongst themselves a pact for the strengthening of peace. In the existing situation, which was tense and clouded by the threat of war, the USSR proposals could not be considered otherwise than as a concrete and constructive step of great importance. That was the kind of decision that the weary peoples and the working classes of the world expected from the United Nations. They greeted the USSR proposals with joy and hope. They believed that their adoption by the General Assembly would strengthen the United Nations and the cause of those who were fighting for peace throughout the world, and would lead to a real improvement in the situation.
69. The people and the Government of the Polish Republic were in entire agreement with the USSR proposals and asked the Assembly to adopt them unanimously.
70. Poland had already shown on more than one occasion its constructive attitude towards the United Nations, not only by words, but also by deeds. Poland’s foreign policy had no end in view save that of peaceful collaboration among peoples and the consolidation of the forces of progress. That was the end to which were directed all the alliances and treaties signed by the Polish Government, treaties which, in conformity with the Charter, were registered with the United Nations. Poland was taking part in none of the aggressive bloc-s organized under the guise of regionalism. Poland opposed, and would continue resolutely to oppose, the armaments race, the criminal and destructive atomic bomb, and bacteriological warfare. It looked with sympathy and comprehension upon any movement for national liberation- and any struggle for freedom and independence against oppression and slavery.
71. Poland demanded a democratic peace for the peoples of Greece, Indonesia, Viet-Nam and other countries struggling for national liberation and democracy. It considered that the first necessary step in that direction was the withdrawal of the armies of intervention, those of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands. Poland also looked with sympathy on other peoples which were trying to shake off the yoke of servitude. The Polish delegation could never acquiesce in that act of violence perpetrated before the eyes of the whole world — the annexation of South West Africa by the Union of South Africa. The welfare of populations and their right to self-determination would alone guide the decisions of the Polish delegation in that matter. That was equally true of the problem of the future of the former Italian colonies.
72. Poland would oppose any attempt at discrimination in questions regarding the admission of new Members to the United Nations. It would defend freedom of conscience against any attempt to exploit religious feelings for obscure political ends. In Poland, a peoples’ democracy, religious beliefs were considered the personal affair of each individual.
73. An atmosphere of war hysteria was pervading certain countries. That atmosphere was influencing the manner in which current international problems were being treated. It was producing conflicts, and hanging heavily over the deliberations of the Organization. It was distorting everything and leading to a situation where, in an artificially created fog, shadows assumed in the minds of those who suffered from such war hysteria, the proportions of great and real dangers.
74. The possibilities of easing the tension in the international situation and the growing promise of co-operation between nations still existed as they had in the past. Two different political and economic systems could quite well exist side by side and work together in peace. The example of the Council and Foreign Ministers had proved conclusively that, with a little good will, constructive solutions could be reached. Men of good will, the plain people who longed for peace, had welcomed with great relief the decisions taken by the Council at its recent meeting in Paris. It seemed that their faith had been justified. But the warmongers had wasted no time in taking their revenge and had sought to destroy the results of the Paris meeting of the four great Powers. The workers of the world, however, would not keep silent. The future lay in their hands. It was they who would shape the progress of history. They were determined that there should be no more war. Ten years after the military attack on Poland, in the month which marked the anniversary of the beginning of the Second World War, the whole Polish people took its stand in the forefront of those who were striving to banish forever the spectre of war and to establish peace.