Interview with Pravda Correspondent on Berlin Crisis, the U.N. and Anglo-American Policies

Berlin Crisis, the U.N. and Anglo-American Agressive Policies, Churchill *

October 28, 1948

[Interview with correspondent of Pravda, October 28, 1948]

Question
: How do you regard the results of the discussions in
the Security Council on the question of the situation in Berlin and the conduct of the Anglo-American and French representatives in this matter?
Answer
: I regard them as a display of the aggressiveness of the policy of Anglo-American and French ruling circles. Question
: Is it true that in August of this year agreement had already been reached among the four powers on the question of Berlin? Answer
: Yes, that is true. Agreement is known to have been
reached in Moscow on August 30 last, among the representatives of the U.S.S.R., the U.S.A., Great Britain, and France regarding the simultaneous implementation of measures for the lifting of transport restrictions, on the one hand, and for the introduction of the German mark of the Soviet zone in Berlin as the sole currency, on the other hand. That agreement does not hurt anyone’s prestige. It takes into account the interests of the parties concerned and insures the possibility of further co-operation. But the governments of the U.S.A. and Great Britain disavowed then representatives in Moscow and declared the agreement to be null and void, that is, they violated the agreement, having decided to refer the question to the Security Council where the Anglo-Americans have a guaranteed majority.
Question
: Is it true that, in Paris during the recent
discussions on the question in the Security Council, an agreement on the situation in Berlin had again been reached in unofficial talks even before the question was voted upon in the Security Council? Answer
: Yes. That is true. Dr. Bramuglia, the representative of the Argentine and president of the Security Council, who conducted unofficial talks with Comrade Vishinsky on behalf of the other powers concerned, did have in his hands an agreed-upon draft decision on the question of the situation in Berlin. But the representatives of the U.S.A. and Great Britain once again declared that agreement to be null and void.
Question
: What is the matter then? Would you explain?
Answer
: The thing is that those in the United States and Great Britain who inspire an aggressive policy do not consider themselves interested in an agreement and in co-operation with the U.S.S.R. What they want is not agreement and co-operation, but talk about agreement and co-operation, so as to put the blame on the U.S.S.R. by preventing agreement and thus to “prove” that co-operation with the U.S.S.R. is impossible. What the war instigators who are striving to unleash a new war fear most of all is the reaching of agreements and co-operation with the U.S.S.R. because a policy of concord with the U.S.S.R. undermines the position of the instigators of war and deprives the aggressive policy of these gentlemen of any purpose.

It is for this reason that they disrupt agreements that have already been reached, that they disavow their representatives who have drawn up such agreements together with the U.S.S.R., and in violation of the United Nations Charter refer the question to the Security Council, where they have a guaranteed majority and where they can “prove” whatever they like. All this is done to “show” that co-operation with the U.S.S.R. is impossible and to “show” the necessity for a new war, and thus to prepare the ground for the unleashing of war. The policy of the present leaders of the U.S.A. and Great Britain is a policy of aggression, a policy of unleashing a new war.
Question
: How should one regard the conduct of the
representatives of the six states, members of the Security Council: of China, Canada, Belgium, Argentina, Colombia, and Syria? Answer
: Those gentlemen are obviously lending their support to the policy of aggression, to the policy of unleashing a new war. Question
: What can all this end in?
Answer
: It can only end in ignominious failure on the part of the instigators of a new war. Churchill, the main instigator of a new sear, has already managed to deprive himself of the trust of his own nation and of democratic forces throughout the world. The same fate lies in store for all other instigators of war. The horrors of the recent war are still too fresh in the memory of the peoples; and public forces favoring peace are too strong for Churchill’s pupils in aggression to overpower them and to turn them toward a new war. (For Peaceful Coexistence: Post War Interviews, International Publishers, New York, 1951)