S/PV.66 Security Council

The first item is the adoption of the agenda. 1 propose that we follow the procedure of our last few meetings; namely, adopt point 2 of the agenda and keep point 3 on the provisional agenda for further consideration. Point 2 of the agenda was adopted. The PRESIDENT: The Council has decided to invite the representatives of the Ukrainian SSR and Greece to participate in the discussion of point 2. 1 shall ask these representatives to ta.ke their seats at the table. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): The representative of the Govemment of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the representative of Albania have adduced numerous facts justifying the charges against the present Greek Government contained in the Ukrainian statement. These facts are given in answer to those members of the Security Council who have alleged that the Ukrainian statement is unconvincing and unsubstantiated. The representative of the Greek Government has a.ttempted to refutc the facts and assertions submitted in the Ukrainian statement and in speeches made by the representativc of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. However, not one of these facts has been refuted in substance. The representatives of the United· Kingdom and of the United States of America, respectively, have not even tried to refute in substance the concrete facts submitted by Mr. Manuilsky, which confirm that the present Greek Government is conducting an aggressive policy in relation to neighbouring countries and that one of the decisive factors determining bath the internaI situation in Greece and the external policy of the present Greek Government is the continued presence in Greece of British forces and the intervention of the British authorities in the internal affairs of Greece. The representatives of the United Kingdom and of the United States of Âmerica, respectivdy, have adopted the line of indiscriminately denying the charges contained in the Ukrainian statement. They simply assert that these charges do not correspond to the real facts. When facts are brought forward exposing the aggressive policy of Greek monarchist circles and the activities of the British authorities in Greece, thase facts are simply hushed up or replies are made about "the unconvincing character of such facts". When statements are brought forward, which have been made by politicians and the Press both .in Greece and in other countries, exposing the aggressive policy of the groups in power in Greece and the activities of British forces in Greece, they speak of "the unconvincing character of such statements". When, throughout the whole world, the voices of hundreds of thousands of Greek democrats are heard protesting against the despotism of fascist gangs in Greece and against the reign of terror in Greece which is directed against the real heroes of the Greek resistance, EAM, we are told that "their voices sound unconvincing". POWl'.f in Greece. . In spite of the disregard of facts and logic which we perceive here, the Security Council nous observonsici, le Conseil de sécurité must not ignore and has not the right ta ignore 1ne doit pas faire abstraction the facts. li it does do so, then it may comsait, promise itse1f. It is not investigation of the Ukrai- Ce nian statement which may harm the reputation nienne qui peut nuire à of the Securit.y CounciI, as some members of the de Security Council have tried ta emphasize here, ont but it is the reluctance of members of the Secuc'est rity Council ta proceed in alI seriousness ta the Conseil consideration of the question raised in the Ukrail'examen de nian statement, which may impai,r its reputation tion and authority. sa As regards, for example, the statements by some British Members of Parliament ta the effect . de that there is in Gree,ce a reign of terror which sur aims at the suppression of alI democratic parties pour a:nd organizations in the country, the repr~entanisations tive of the United Kingdom attempts ta refnte du Royaume-Uni tenteder6:u those statements by refen'ing to a statement made en by Mr. McNeiI in the House of Commons to the Chambre effect that the situation in Greece as characterle ized by some British Members of Parliament was des nat in accordance with the true facts. But then, rait the statement made by Ml'. McNeil is a statetion ment by a representative of the British Governsentant ment, that is to say, that Government which dire, bears the responsibility for the situation which bilité has arisen in Greece and which at present conqui, stitutes a threat to the maintenance of peace in pour the Balkans. The statements by the representatives of the British Government, whether made in the House of Commons or at the meetings of the Security vernement britannique, la Conseil tique britannique d'immixtion dans térieures agressive, suivie à pour Grande-Bretagne tions de membres du Parlement britannique sur situation en Grèce n'atténue en rien l'importance des décrit honnêtement en Grèce. Coun~, aim at justifying the policy of. British intervention in the internal affairs of Greece and the aggressive externaI poliey conducted by the present Greek Government towards neighbouring countries. Consequently, the fact that the Tepresentative of the British Governmeilt denies the truth of statements made by some British Members of Parliament concerning the situation' in Greece in no wise reduces the importance of the statements made by such men as Solley who have presented the state of affairs in Greece honestly and correctly. The representative of the United Kingdom has attempted to prove to us that Great Britain is without responsibility for the situation which has arisen in Greece and that the British troops present in Greece are not intervening in the internal affairs of Greece. But that statement is contradicted by the facts which, as 1 have already pointed out, Great Britain has not been prouver responsabilité de les l'écart sentant Aecording to a report by the Centre newspaper Kathemerina Nea of 6 JuIy, the former Minister of Justice, Mavros, stated on 5 JuIy in the Greek Parliament that the British, on the eve of the e1ections, had recommended the Greek Government "not to carry out one hundred and sixty court sentences, concerning mostly Greeks who had collaborated with the Gestapo at the. time 01 the occupation, so as not to excite public opinion». Let the British representative try to refute these additional facts ! The interventions of the British authorities extend to an aspects of the political and economic life of Greece. The pro-Britisù Centre newspaper Eleftheria stated on 4 July that Great Britain couId not give extensive aid ta Greece. "AlI that remains is to turn ta the United States, but, .for that, the preliminary sanction of the British is necessar'J andthey will ouly give it on condition t.l],at the American loan is effected through London.» Greek leaders of the Right and Centre have several times declared publicly that, since the Varkis agreement, the governments in Greece have been appointed by the British. The anglophile editor of the Centre paper Kathemerina Nea published therein on 26 June bis letter to the British ambassador protesting against British intervention; he wrote in particular: ". . the British embassy building is the basic centre of political life in Greece. AlI directives emanate from your office.» It would be possible to cite hundreds and thousands of facts confirming the existence of a gross intervention by British military and civil authorities in the internaI affairs of Greece. To allege that these facts are unconvincing and that they are not in accordance with reality is not to refute them. 1 repeat that if the facts are not convincing to sorne mernbers of the Security Council then it is incomprehensible what they do consider convincing. The telegram sent by Prime Minister Papandreou ta Churchill in 1944 requesting the dispatch of a substantial number of British troops to Greece was not drafted by Government decision, still less by law in accordance with article 99 of the Greek Constitution. No declaration by subsequent governments can legally change that law. Let the representative of the United Kingdom attempt to prove that the Bri~h forces are in Greece on a legal basis! He is powerless to do so, although he may assert that the references to Greek laws are unconvincing. 'But above all things there should be respect for Greeklaws in Greece. Is it really to be expected that under the conditions in which foreign troops are sojourning in Greece and actively intervening in the entire domestic life of that country, under conditions of a reign of terror, the people of Greece are in a position to express their will freely in deciding the question of the form of the government organization of Greece? The results of the elections in Greece and the results of the plebiscite are a falsification of the factual situation and can, in no case, reflect the true attitude of the overwhe1ming majority of the Greek people. That is not only a statement by the representative of the USSR, it Ï! a statement by Greek democrats,' including persons whose political views are not characterized by any particular leftist tendency. However the representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States of America may try to refute such conclusions, they are unable to do so. The simple repetition of the words: "incorrect, distortion, unsubstantiated" etc., does not constitute refutation of facts and the conclusions deriving from those facts. Apparent1y, the representative of the United Kingdom himself admits that his line of argument is not autorités continuent à res tue ceci dant, accepter There has been talk here about the merits of . the Greek people in the fight against the fascist invader~. The representative of the.United Kingdom aIso spoke about it. l must say that nobody appreciates the merits of the people 01 Greece, who have fought against the marauders, more than the peoples of.the USSR. The Rerl Army, the USSR partisans and the entire people of the USSR have followed attentive1y the fight waged against the marauders by the best sons of those nations whose countries were occupied by the fascist troops. They aIso followed attentively the heroic fight of Greek partisans against the fascist marauders. Their great tribute to the fight of these EAM heroes was paid not orny in the one Moscow ramo broadcast which the representative of Greece has recalled here. There was more than one such broadcast. The people of the USSR rejoiced at the small- In considerlllg the merits of the Greek people the' representative of the United Kingdom touched on the part played by individual States on the eve of the second world war. It was further noted iliat bis statement attempted to ref1ect "upon the USSR. The part played by various States in averting the war or in bringing it to a head is now an opCIl book. Every schoolboy now knows that for a long time before the outbreak of war with nazi Germany, the USSR did everything possible to check the aggressor. The USSR anticipated the threatening danger and demanded the adoption of decisive measures againsthitlerite Germany, and also constantly exposed the policy of certain other States which were encouraging the aggressor. What resulted from the criminal policy conducted by these other States is known to aIl, Freedom-Ioving nations of the world, including ·the people of Great Britain, paid dearly for that policy. Many generations will feel the consequences of that criminal policy. Every page of pre-war bistory is an incriminating document against it. The bold and resolute voice of the USSR was heard at the time of the war of fascist Italy against Abyssinia. It made an appeal that the agrcss'Jr be checked. Certain other States sacrificed Abyssinia. The USSR caIled upon other countries to fight against Italo-German intervention in Spain. But the governments of certain other countries decided to make Spain and the Spanish people the prey of fascism. The voice of the USSR made a bold and decisive appeal to check fascist Germany which was openly preparing for war. But sorne people were stubbornly reluctant to listen because they did everything possible to direct the aggression of hitletite Germany to t~e East. When the remarks of ':he representative of the United Kingdom are heard in the discussion either of the situation in Spain, which has arisen in connexion with tb: domination of the Francofascist regime there, or of the Ukrainian statement pointing out the threat to the peace which has arisen in the Balkans in connexion with the aggressive policy of the G.reek Government, it seems as though the Securit.y 00uneil chamber were filled with the phantonm of Munich. It has been alleged here that the question raised in the Ukrainian statement is an old question which has already been discussed in the Security Council in London. 1 must say that such an assertion is errOl1eous. The question discussed in London concerned the withdrawal of British forces from Greece. The fundamental question raised in the Ukrainian statement is the question of the aggressive policy of the present Greek Government towards Albania. In the Ukrainian statement the question of British forces in Greece is touched upan. But it is touched upon in so far as the presence of British forces in Greece is a fundamental factor deterrnining the abnormal state of affairs in Greece, and, in the final ana1ysis, the aggressive external policy of the present Greek Governmeni:. 1 wi· t once more to emphasize that what we are'discussing at the present time is the question of the aggressive palicy of the Greek Government, and of the threat to peace which.. has arisen in the Balkans in connexion with this policy of the Greek Government. What is absolutely unfounded is the assertion that investigdtion of the substance of the Ukrainian statement may, in sorne measure, harm the reputation of the Security Council. The representative of the United Kingdom did not display concern about the reputation of the Security Council when other questions were discussed which did not directIy affect British interests. When questions are raised in the Security Council the discussion of whicn exposes the intervention of British forces and British authorities in the internal affairs of another State, the representative of the United Kingdom starts ta allege that the investigation of such questions may harm the reputation of the Security Council. There is hardly any necessity to dwell in detail on the absolute groundlessness of such statements. 'fhe question raised in the Ukrainian statement is a very serious one. The Security Council must not lose sight of one important circumstance which, for sorne reason, sorne members of the Council are disregaràing. We have no right to ignore the fact that on the Greek-Albanian frontier systematic acts of provocation on the part of the Greek military and systematic raids on Albanian territory are taking place. Persons are killed and wounded as a result of such raids. Corresponding data have been submitted to us by the representative of Albania. The aggressive intentions of the Greek Government towards Albania have been officially confirmed by the Government of Greece. It is true that they are characterized as daims. But these claims are reinforced by the attacks by Greek military detachments on Albanian territory. They are claims which are also reinforced by rifle and machine-gun fire. Of what ;~und official expression' in those statements. l ask the Security Council whether such questions :'ts systematic provocation at the frontier between two States do not merit investiga.tion for, if not, one asks what questions the Security Council should investigate, and with what questions it should primarily concern itself. As regards the rem(\fks w:th which the '"ech of the Greek representative was interlarded aoout statements contained in the USSR periodical Slavyane conceI'ning Russian engineers on YugosIav territory, the formidable strength of the Albanian arnlY and other "hûrrors", aIl these remarks do not merit consideration. 1 will on1y say a few words about one remark, not because it merits consideration in itself, but because it characterises the nature of the political mentality of the Greek monarchists. The representative of the Greek Government drew an analogy between the Greek democratic parties and organizations, which he calls gangs, and Ataman Semenov, who was tri~d and sentenced sorne time back by a USSR court for criminal activities against the people of the USSR, and for work in a foreign intelligence service. The Greek representative has plainly got his comparisons mixed up. Ataman Semenov was a renegade, a criminal and a spy on behalf of a foreign intelligence service. The Greek democratic parties and organizations, especially the heroes of the ELAS and the F.AM, are the people who bore the main burden of the struggle against the fascist invaders and who defended the honour and independence of their mother country. And now we find these peopïe experiencing the cruellest terror and persecution at the hands of the anti-demc èratic monarchist Government in Greece. These heroes of the resistance are now being terrorized by men who have collaborated with the invaders. People who are of the same ilk as Ataman Semenov are in the State machine, in the army and in the police. r will leave it to the members of the Security Council to draw conclusions for themse1ves from that comparison contained in the speech of the Greek representative. 1 have already referred, in my first speech on the question under discussion, to the fact that talk about propaganda is intended to divert the attention of world public opinion from the substance of the question raised in the Ukrainian statement. Such talk is an old device which is exploited to Sir Alexwder CADOGAN (United Kingdom): 1 apologize for making a further intervention, but the representative of th,e Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic has complained that 1 by-passed the points and questions wlùch he made, and the representative of the USSR has followed 1ùm in that respect.. May l point out that 1 was at sorne disadvantage owing to the technique wlùch lv:lr. Manuilsky employed, and of which l have already had reason to complain. Wihout any previous warning or consultation, Ml'. Manuilsky one day flings on the table what 1 still describe as "bits and pieces of evidence". 1 made sorne reply to him within twenty-four hours, but, of course, without knowing what sort of points he was going to bring up 1 could not, even from my' encyclopaedic knowledge, be in a position to reply to the particular bits wlùch he chose to produce from his rather voluminous luggage. AlI the same, 1 was able, even in that time, to procluce a reply te a charge he made in connexion with a distribution of arms. Since 1spoke, 1have been able tb obtain rather more light on Ml'. Manuilsky's charges. The representative of Greece, as was his privJege, has already replied to a number of charges and insinuations designed to discredit the Greek Government. 1will confine myself to rebutting the more serious charges wlùch the representative of the Ukrainian SSR has seen fit to bring against His Majesi.y's Government in the United Kingdom, and the slanders on the British army. Ml'. Manuilsky yesterday, if 1 understand him aright, referred to the failure of the League of Nations to deal in due time with the threat from the aggressor nations. He seems to use that as an Then there is the story of this mysterious "George". Mr. Manuilsky seemed to say that he had a document to prove the guilt of this mysterious individual. 1 invited him to communicate it to me, so that 1 could ask my Government to institute an enquiry. 1 have received nothing and - have heard nothing from Mr. Manuilsky. But of course, 1 have caused to be made such enquiries as were possible on this slender evidence. 1 am sorry to say that the result is somewhat negative. The.re have been two British officers named George in Greece. One is an infantry second lieutenant who has not left Kavalla since he came to Greece. The other is a captain in the Royal Corps of Signals; he was a member of the British Military Mission technical staff in Athens and has now left Greece for demobilization. He was not in Thessaly when Mr. Videlis was kidnapped. Then Mr. Manuilsky made great play with what he represented to be certain pledges given by MI'. Bevin. He said: "Seven months have elapsed since February 1946. The promises made have not bee~arriedout". Ta refute this 1 have only to repeat textually the promises made. Here they are. On 4 February, MI'. Bevin said that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom hoped that a stable government would arise out of the elections in Greece and that the Greek police m'ld army would saon he organized so that British troops couldwithdraw. On 27 March, he said in the House of Commons: "1 am mast anxious to get the British troops out of Greece, and they will he withdrawn as soon after the elections as conditions allow. But there are certain conditions which must be fulfilled". His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom haS equally, in· repeated public statements, made clear its po- . lement Need 1 really deaI further with the charge about the Greek tl'ade unions, more particularly as 1 think the representative of Greeee has already put in a paper on the subjeet to the Couneil? Then, Ml'. Manuilsky said that the British "superVised" what he called "punitive expeditions". 1 can only affirm most emphatically, and leave it ta Mr. Manuilsky ta prove the contrary, that the operations of the Greek army arè not supervised by the British Military Mission, wmch is not in command of the Greek aImy. As for the Assistant Head of the British Military Mission who is refcrred to by Ml'. Manuilsky, he has never been present at any such operation. Nor did any British personnel direct the operations referred to. Ml'. Manuilsky, through his rapid intelligence service, was able to give us figures of the casual.:. ties on the day of the plebiscite, though in what way that would have been supposed to have substantiated his charges, 1 am at a loss to know. Anyhow, he said that on that day, "no less than two hundred and fifty persans were killed according to official figures". It may inteœst the Conncil ta have the real official figures. Here they are: in one seri6us attack by a left wing band on the village of Kontyli in northern Greece, sixteen soldiers were killed and eight gendarmes were captured. Bodies of the latter, that is, the eight gendarmes, were found later naked and mutilated. Seventeen left wing bandits were killed in various clashes with the army and gendarmerie. Three civilians were killed, one by the Right and two by the l 't. Total forty-four. That is very deplorable. But le'> still more deplorable that Ml'. Manuilsky should have multiplied the figure by five or six. 1 am not quite sure what degree ofresponsibility Ml'. Manuilsky wished to attach to the British authorities for the execution of the heroine Irene Jini. This lady was a member of an old Bulgarian family long identified with pro-Bul- 1 find some difficulty in obtailling the exact figures of the electoral register in Greece. The best estimates which 1 can ascertain of the number of electors in 1939 is 1,700,000. 1 think the present official figure published by the Greek Govemmellt is 1,aOO,Ooü. The increase of population between 1939 and 1946 is ample to account for the increase of 100,000 in the electm'ate. This increase is not so miraculous as Ml'. Manuilsky would have us think. It is largely due to the lack of the possibility, during the war, of emigl'ation from Greece. But 1really do not know what an argument about these figures is expected to prove one way or the other. 1regret that 1 cannot deal ,vith Ml'. Warbey's conclusion that not more than twenty per cent of the population are in favour of the present Greek Government, because 1 do not know how Ml'. Warbey conducted his poIl. In bis speech of yesterday, Ml'. Manuilsky took c..'Cception to what had been said by the representative of the United States of America to the effect that these matte..-s which are now raised had not been taken up directIy in any preliminary discussions with the Governments involved. To that, Ml'. Manuilsky replied that it was not so, that these mattel'S were raised on 21 July 1945 at the Potsdam Conference. That is quite true. He said that they were raised again in September 1945 in London, at the meeting of the Council of Ministers for Foreign Affairs, and again, he is correct. Finally, he said that these matters were brought before the. Conference of the Three Foreign Ministers in Moscow in December 1945. That, also, is true. And the acconnt is not quite complete, because Ml'. Manuilsky failed to l'efer to the fact that the matters were raised even earlier at Yalta. What hap-pened as a result of these discussions has already been stated to the Council, in Febru~ ary Iast, by Ml'. Bevin and 1 hope you Will allow "At a meeting on 31 July, Mr. Molotov, after rearling this, agreed to drop the matter. Further, the same thing occurred in London, that is to say, in September 1945, and after the discussion in London, 1was told by Ml". Molotov that 1should hear no more from the USSR about Greece and 1 understo.od the matter was left to Great Britain and the Greek Government as for a time it was. . . . "In regard ta the December meeting, 1 had a meeting with Ml". Molotov on 18 December. 1 gave a very full explanation about Greece, and Ml". Molotov did not press the matter further, and did not ask that any specific action should be taken." Ml'. Manuilsky went on to say that the discussion of the Greek question did not bring any results at the session of the Security Council in February 1946. But there was one result which 1 mentioned a day or two aga, that the representatives of the United States of America, Australia, France, China, Poland, Egypt, Brazil and the Netherlands declared their view that the presence of Briili:h troops iJ:"J. Greece does not constitute a situatim. likely ta endanger the maintenance of international peace and security. t \ To continue with the remarks which Ml". Manuilsky made yesterday, 1 may recall that he cited a number of opinions of high authorities on the contribution made by Albania to the conduct of the war against the Axis Powers. He asked how, in the face of this evidence, 1 could have voted against the admission of Albania to the United Nations. Ml". Manuilsky was not present here at the time, and so may perhaps be forgiven for not knowing that it was not on account of Albania's war record that 1 voted against her admission. 1 did not discuss that aspect of the matter. My principal reason was not that Albania had not played her part in the war: it was that she did not·seem to know how ta conduct herself internationally in peace. sur pardonner à manque ct qui Mr. Gromyko went on to give some particulars about matters in the police force. You will forgive me if 1 say that naturally, being unprepared to face allegations of that kind, 1 have not the details. 1 will report what he said and 1 have no doubt that if there is anything wrong, it will he enquired into. . He then said, or 1 understood him to say, that 1 had tried to justify British action in Greece by invoking paragraph 7, Article 2, of the Charter. 1 reaIly did nothing of the kind. 1 woUJ.d not have mentioned paragraph 7, Artide 2, of the Charter at aIl, unless Mr. Manuilsky had misquoted it. 1 remember now what happened. Mr. Manuilsky said that paragraph 7, Article 2, of the Charter forbade a nation to intervene in matters coming within the domestic jurisdiction of another nation. 1 pointed out that it does not, but it forbids the United Nations as a body from doing so. 1 added that it was not intervention of one nation in the affairs of another nation, if the latter had requested the former to maintain troops upon its territory. que tannique paragraphe semblable. paragraphe l'avait tenant l'Article à relèvent d'un ne Nations d'intervenir. tion de autre, tenir niques illégale l'article 99 de que tenues Further, Mr. Gromyko said that British troops were quite illegally in Greece and he quoted an article, 1 think article 99 of the Greek Constitution whereby, if foreign troops are tQ be retained, that situation must be regularized by the pàssage of a law. If the Greek Government has not reg- Another point Mr. Gromyko made was to enquire how it could be imagined that a people could freely express their will while their country was under a foreign occupation. 1 seem to have heard of more than one example of that in the course of the last few days. Mr. DENDRAMIS (Greece) (translated tram French) : The representative of the United Kingdom has aIready answered nearly all the points raisedin the speeches made by the representatives of the Ukrainian SSR and the USSR. l Will therefore confine myself to one or two points, so as not'ta take up too much of the CounciI's valuable time. It may he true that the different parties in Greece are not in agreement about internal poliey, whether social or econOlnic, as is the case in all countries with a parliamentary system. But l can assure the representative of the USSR that Greece's foreign policy is not exc!usively that of the present Government.,It is the policy of all parties, with the exception of EAM, which is controlled by the. Communist Party. The Greek delegation. to the·Paris .Conference includes representatives of the two largest opposition parties the party of Mr. Sophoulis and that of Mr. Venizelos. The representative of the. USSR described the policy of the Greek Govemment as aggressive. 1 would like to ask the COUDcil· whether that word has not lost its real meaning. Is it aggression when a Government defends itself against anarchist bands armed beyond its borders and dispatched by certain neighbouring countries to disturb the peace and seize power by violence, impose the will of the minority upon the majority by force, bring anarchy into the country and threaten itS territorial integrity? minorité dans toriale The representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics mentioned the newspaper Elejournal ftheria Ellûda. This joUI'Ilal is one of the organs organe.~ of the Greek Communist party. The representatant tive of the USSR aIso quoted the Athens paper' Eleftheria Eleftheria; he said that it had taken a stand pris against th~ presence of British troops in Greece. britanniques . The àccl'edited correspondent of the lastnamed newspaper, who is here, officially injournal, qui se trouve ici, formed me that the extract quoted by the reprement sentative of the USSR is, in the first place, conconflit trary to the political views of the newspaper, en . which approves the presence of British troops in. en ~ ""'II'l"""~~~~_:"'"",""" "The National Political Union, composed of representatives o~ the following parties: Liberal, Popular, Republican-Socialist, Reform, Republican Union, Unionist, National Liberal, Pan-Hellenic Patriot Union, National Party of Greece, and parties co-operating with them, expresses its astonishment that, unbeknown to Greece, the question of the withdrawal of the British troops now in that country has been raised before the United Nations. "Wc refuse to recognize any analogy between the Greek question and any other similar case, in another form, for Greece voluntarily made great sacrifices in the Allied cause and was the first to open the way to victory. British troops are not in Greece by order of the Allies. They are there in fulfilment of an obligation inherent in the guarantee given by Great Britain to her ally Greece; an obligation fust assumed in April 1939 and subsequently renewed by successive guarantees and dec1aiations involving concrete pledges to give assistance to Greece until that country was fully restored. "The obligations inherent in these guarantees and declarations cannot be considered to have been fulfilled until peace 'llld security are fully and finaUy restored, because not onIy a=e the legitimate daims of the people still unsatisfied, but in addition the neighbours of Greece are openIy dedaring their intention of annexing Greek territory and are trying in aU kinds of ways to bring about the mutilation of our country. Her faithfulness to the Allied cause was unswerving and her spirit of sacrifice was such that 550,000 persons lost their lives during the war, either in the fighting, or as a result of the famine or the executions ordered by the German, Italian, Bulgarian and Albaniim occupying authorities. Eight hund 'ed thousand more are disabled or sick and incapable of contributing to Greece's economic reconstruction, so that from this point of view they are likewise casualties. That, precisely stated, is my country's heritage from the war. And now the Ukrainian SSR and the USSR accuse us Greeks, who fought against two fascist empires, of being fascist-mon:ll'chists and imperilling peace. Albanian deserters who gave themselves up to the Greek frontier and military authorities and were sent j:o Florina, have stated that Greek anarchists entering Albania receive arms there and are sent back into Greek territory to create disturbances. monarcho-fascistes aux autorités transférés chistes vent lénique l'USSR conseil les armées albanais, immédiatement. semble cho-communistes Semenov l'URSS, nalité nemis rence d'un que pour ments. l'autre par l'URSS 1 can assure the representative of the USSR that if his Government were to advise the Tirana Government to cease provocatiO:l by raids of armed bands and attacks by Albanian regular and irregular forces, these frontier incidents would cease forthwith. The confused thinking which the representative of the USSR seems ta detect 1'1 my comparison of the communist-anarchists of my country with the renegade Semenov is only apparent. Greece, like the USSR, considers as traitors persons of Greek nationality who have collaborated with ner enemies. The only difference is that Semenov was a member of a single enemy intelligence service, whereas the anarchist.s in these armed bands are in the pay of several intelligence services. 1 spoke at lengtil the other day about the charges brought by the representatives of the Ukrainian SSR and the USSR in turn, concerning alleged collaborationists in the Greek administration. The representative of the USSR has added nothing new today on that stir!ect, so that 1 need not revert to it. . raient représentant d'hui, Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): 1 should like to put that right immediately. Mr. Gromyko has misheard, or misunderstood entirely, what 1 said. He must .remember that in the course of speeches that have beeIi made by the representative of the Ukrainian SSR, the British army has been accused of having a part in murder, torture, burning, and also being used as an instrument for imposing on the Greek population a form of government which they did not wish ta have. 1 do not say that Mr. Gromyko repeated aU those charges himself but, in general, he supported the representative of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and a great many of the th.. ~gs that he said about the intervention, the directed interference by the British troops in Greece, would certain1y lead one to suppose that he did endorse those accusations. 1 shall read what 1 said. 1 have the written text here: "I must also crave your indulgence if, in the course of the discussion 1 haye manifested any heat or indignation. The particular allegatians made by Mr. Manuilsky, such as they are, are not very palpable and not very difficult ta answer. But 1 ask the Security Council ta refiect on what they aU add up ta. They add up ta a charge, or insinuation, that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is trampling on freedom and democracy in Greece, helping her ta persecute minorities and inciting her to attack her neighbours." That is what ~ charged. against His Majesty's Govemment and the British .Army. 1 went on: "This charge is accompanied, 1 will not say supported, by slanders against the British army which 1 most hotly resent. If 1 have spokerr strongly on this point, let me ask the representative of the Ukrainian SSR and the representative of the USSR what they would have said if 1 had charged the Red Army with similar crimes; p~rtic!pation in punitive expeditions, burning, pillagmg, murder and torture, and supporting, by their presence insorne non-Russian territory, Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): May 1 ask for information? Why is it necessary to convene the Council every day in succession for a week when the matters that we are treating are matters on which most of the representatives will want to consult their Foreign Offices and their Governments, and have a little time to reflect? It seems to me it is pushing the matter very fast, and faster, unless 1 am misinformed, than the circumstances require. Could we not have a meeting, 1 put that as a suggestion only, on Friday morning and have only one other meeting this week, Friday morning and "then on Monday? Sir Alexander. CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : 1 support that. Mr. PAROD! (France) (translated {rom French) : 1 see no inconvenience in following the suggestion of Mr. Johnson that we should slow clown the debate upon the subject. 1 should like~ however, to suggest that if possible, if not inconvenient to other members of the Council, we should hold the meetings of"the Security Council in the afternoon. 1 have the misfortune to represent my country also on the Economic and Social Council which holds its meetings in the mornings. If, therefore, it would not inconvenience the other members of this Council, 1 would like to ask that our meetings be held, as far as possible, in theafternoon. The SEeRETARY-GENERAL: The Economic and Social Council have chosen the mornîng for their meetings, and we, of course, have some members of the Security Council who are members of the Econo:mic a.'ld Social Council too. l think it is most convenient to have the Economie and S'ôcial Council meetings during the morning and the Security Council meetings during the aftemoon. However, it is the Security Council which has to deciçle that.

1 should like to explain to the Council that the reason why 1 proposed daily meetings was a desire to :finish this case as soon as possible and also as a courtesy to the Foreign Minister c! the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Repilb~ lic who is aIUioms to return to ~he Peace Conference in Paris. HoWê\rer, if the representatives are of the opinion that they need some time to consult their Governments, which is a very natura1 request, then 1 think this would be a vaIuable consideration, and wc might, on the basis of this con- 1 should like to ask the representative of the United States of America, whether he maintains the preference expressed, or would he rather accept the proposal of the Secretary-General that we meet tomorrow and not on Friday. Ml'. JOHNSON (United States of America): If it meets with the convenience and the wishes of the other members of the Council, 1 think it would be more useful, if we must have another meeting this week, to have it on Friday and allow us to have one day following these long discussions to reflect a little bit on them and to consult with other people and our own superiors. Ml'. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (translated trom Russian): It seems to me that Ml'. Johnson's proposaI would be more suitable. The meeting rose at 6.52 p.m.