Love: Youth can help
By Gilbert Love
…
Eight publishers who spurned new song hit almost driven to drink – ‘Rum and Coca-Cola’
Catchy calypso tune scores surprise – hard to learn words help sheet sales
By James Thrasher
…
Intelligence centralization plan proposed
Efficiency is aim of Donovan program
…
Roosevelt’s Blaze may start fire in priority inquiry
Three Army officers heard by Senators – Bridges wants full-dress probe
…
Two Columbia Gas directors resign
Disagree over policy of integration
…
New clothing plan to start March 1
Low-cost apparel to return to stores
…
Roosevelt to skip Paris invitation
PARIS, France – President Roosevelt will not visit Paris after the Big Three Conference because of the fact that Gen. Charles de Gaulle was not invited to the Allied meeting.
Last fall, French officials in Washington were instructed to find out whether the President would regard an invitation to come to Paris favorably. They reported that he would, and the White House later let it be known that an informal invitation had been received.
It was believed at the time of Prime Minister Churchill’s visit here Nov. 10-11 that the President would come early in the new year. Later, it was believed that he would make the visit immediately after the three-power conference.
In view of the fact that Gen. de Gaulle was not invited, however, Americans feel that the reception of the President’s visit in official quarters would be less cordial than if it were postponed for a few months.
U.S. State Department (February 10, 1945)
President Roosevelt to Marshal Stalin
Yalta, February 10, 1945
Top secret
My Dear Marshal Stalin: I have been thinking, as I must, of possible political difficulties which I might encounter in the United States in connection with the number of votes which the Big Powers will enjoy in the Assembly of the World Organization. We have agreed, and I shall certainly carry out that agreement, to support at the forthcoming United Nations Conference the admission of the Ukrainian and White Russian Republics as members of the Assembly of the World Organization. I am somewhat concerned lest it be pointed out that the United States will have only one vote in the Assembly. It may be necessary for me, therefore, if I am to insure whole hearted acceptance by the Congress and people of the United States of our participation in the World Organization, to ask for additional votes in the Assembly in order to give parity to the United States.
I would like to know, before I face this problem, that you would perceive no objection and would support a proposal along this line if it is necessary for me to make it at the forthcoming conference. I would greatly appreciate your letting me have your views in reply to this letter.
Most sincerely yours,
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT
President Roosevelt to Prime Minister Churchill
Yalta, February 10, 1945
Top secret
Dear Winston: As I said the other day, I am somewhat concerned over the political difficulties I am apt to encounter in the United States in connection with the ratification by the Senate of the Dumbarton Oaks agreement because of the fact that the United States alone among the three great powers will have only a single vote in the Assembly. I understand from our conversation that you would have no objection if I found it necessary to work out some way of giving the United States additional votes in order to insure parity. I am writing you this letter since I know you understand so well our political situation in the United States and I hope in reply to this letter you can give me your agreement to this suggestion if I find it necessary for our public opinion to make some proposal along those lines at the forthcoming United Nations Conference.
I am enclosing a copy of the letter which I have written to Marshal Stalin on the same subject.
Most sincerely yours,
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT
Log of the Trip
Saturday, February 10, 1945
0800: White House mail was dispatched to Washington via a Joint Chiefs of Staff courier who left Livadia this morning.
1300: Lunch at Livadia. – The President, Mrs. Boettiger, Miss Harriman, Admiral Leahy, Justice Byrnes and Admiral Brown.
1500: Justice Byrnes left Livadia to return to Washington. He traveled by air in company with the Joint Chiefs of Staff party.
1600: The President presented specially engraved Fourth-Term Inaugural Medallions to the Prime Minister, Marshal Stalin, Mr. Eden and Mr. Molotov, and a book entitled “Target Germany” to Marshal Stalin. This book had been prepared by General Arnold and contained photographs showing damage wrought in Germany as the result of bombings by our strategical air forces.
1630: Marshal Stalin and Mr. Harriman conferred with the President. The conference was held in the President’s study. Mr. Bohlen was also present.
1650: The Seventh Formal Meeting of the Crimea Conference was convened at Livadia. Present:
| For the U.S. | For Great Britain | For the USSR |
|---|---|---|
| The President. | The Prime Minister. | Marshal Stalin. |
| Mr. Stettinius. | Mr. Eden. | Mr. Molotov. |
| Admiral Leahy. | Mr. Cadogan. | Mr. Vyshinski. |
| Mr. Hopkins. | Mr. Clark Kerr. | Mr. Maisky. |
| Mr. Harriman. | Mr. Jebb. | Mr. Gousev. |
| Mr. Matthews. | Mr. Bridges. | Mr. Gromyko. |
| Mr. Bohlen. | Mr. Wilson. | Mr. Pavlov. |
| Mr. Hiss. | Major Birse. | |
| Mr. Foote. |
The meeting adjourned at 2000.
2030: The President, Mr. Stettinius and Mr. Bohlen left Livadia for the British Headquarters (Vorontsov Villa) where they dined with the Prime Minister, Mr. Eden, Major Birse, Marshal Stalin, Mr. Molotov and Mr. Pavlov as the guests of the Prime Minister.
U.S. Navy Department (February 10, 1945)
CINCPOA Communiqué No. 253
Army Liberators of the Strategic Air Force, Pacific Ocean Areas, bombed Iwo Jima in the Volcanos on February 8 (East Longitude Date). Our aircraft were attacked by three enemy fighters of which one was destroyed. One of our bombers was lost.
Eleventh Army Air Force Liberators bombed Kataoka on Shumushu in the Kurils on February 8. All of our aircraft returned safely.
On the same date, Corsairs of the 4th Marine Aircraft Wing attacked targets on Babelthuap in the Palaus and destroyed a bridge on Yap in the Western Carolines.
Marine Hellcats and Corsairs bombed and strafed enemy installations on Rota in the Marianas on February 8.
CINCPOA Communiqué No. 254
Rockets bearing Venturas of Fleet Air Wing Four struck radio and lighthouse installations at Kokutan Zaki at the northern tip of Shumushu in the Kurils on February 8 (East Longitude Date).
More than sixty tons of bombs were dropped on Iwo Jima in the Volcanos by Seventh Army Air Force Liberators operating under the Strategic Air Force, Pacific Ocean Areas, on February 9. On the following day, StrAirPoa Army Lightnings swept the island and destroyed four bombers and three fighters on the ground and damaged another bomber on the ground. An enemy destroyer was strafed by our aircraft. One of our fighters was lost in the attack.
Warehouses and buildings on Babelthuap in the Palaus were damaged by fighters of the 4th Marine Aircraft Wing on February 9. On the same date, harbor installations on Yap in the Western Carolines were set ablaze by Marine aircraft.
Venturas of Fleet Air Wing One bombed the airstrip on Puluwat in the Western Carolines on February 10.
Press Release
For Immediate Release
February 10, 1945
Navy Department steps up activity in preparing to prosecute war crimes
RADM Thomas L. Gatch, Judge Advocate General of the Navy, announced today that the Navy Department is expanding its participation with the Army in preparing for the prosecution of war criminals.
An augmented staff, including representatives of the Navy, the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard, is being assigned under LCDR James J. Robinson, USNR, Director of the Navy Division of the War Crimes Office, to assemble evidence, interview witnesses and prepare trial briefs in the War Crimes Office in Naval and other cases involving cruelties, atrocities and acts of oppression against members of the United States armed forces and other Americans.
“Bringing to justice international gangsters and their underlings has always been a special concern of the United States Navy," RADM Gatch said in describing the Navy’s purposes in the expansion of this activity.
He continued:
In fact, the Navy was recreated after the Revolution to wipe out the Barbary pirates in order to protect American lives and property from those ransom racketeers.
The Navy has always been a principal instrument for maintaining international law and order. We believe in justice. We shall do everything within our power to see that the evidence collected is true evidence and that the trials will be just. The accused will be given full opportunity to know the charges leveled against him and a fair chance to present his defense.
In gathering evidence of war crimes our chief interest is the Navy’s desire to protect its own and to serve all other Americans. To do this we believe we should be prepared so that the trials of war criminals can be held as speedily as conditions will permit.
The War Crimes Office was established last fall by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson in cooperation with Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal. It is under the general supervision of Maj. Gen. Myron C. Cramer, the Judge Advocate General of the Army, and is directed by Brig. Gen. John M. Weir. The office is located in the Munitions Building. The Navy Division, under LCDR Robinson, reports directly to RADM Gatch, the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, and to Brig. Gen. Weir.
The Navy has been at work assembling data regarding war crimes before and since the organization last year in London of the United Nations War Crimes Commission.
Early last year, RADM Gatch, acting in conjunction with FADM (then ADM) Ernest J. King, USN, Chief of Naval Operations, designated LCDR Robinson to serve as the Navy’s representative in war crimes matters.
The work of the War Crimes Office, in which the Navy Division participates with the Army, includes the following activities:
- Investigation of alleged war crimes, securing evidence and statements of witnesses.
- Organization of evidence and preparation of files of alleged war criminals.
- Drafting charges and specifications, and trial briefs.
- Assisting in trials and other details of prosecution.
- Organization to carry out sentences.
U.S. State Department (February 11, 1945)
Eighth plenary meeting, noon
Livadia Palace, USSR
| Present | ||
|---|---|---|
| United States | United Kingdom | Soviet Union |
| President Roosevelt | Prime Minister Churchill | Marshal Stalin |
| Secretary Stettinius | Foreign Secretary Eden | Foreign Commissar Molotov |
| Fleet Admiral Leahy | Sir Archibald Clark Kerr | |
| Mr. Hopkins | Sir Alexander Cadogan | Mr. Vyshinsky |
| Mr. Harriman | Sir Edward Bridges | Mr. Maisky |
| Mr. Matthews | Mr. Jebb | Mr. Gusev |
| Mr. Hiss | Mr. Wilson | Mr. Gromyko |
| Mr. Bohlen | Mr. Dixon | Mr. Pavlov |
| Mr. Foote | Major Birse |
There is a list of those present and of subjects of discussion, indicated as (1) communiqué on close of conference, (2) reparations, and (3) Japan, but these are followed by the notation: “No report was written up on this Conference.”
Bohlen Note
Leningrad, February 11, 1945, noon
Secret
At the last Plenary Session, the communiqué was discussed and most of the conversation dealt with the details of language, the results of which are apparent in the final communiqué agreed upon. The Soviet suggested that in the part on voting procedure no reference be made to the fact that the proposal accepted was put forward by the President. Marshal Stalin stated that there would be no objection to the President, or any other American Official, making it public that the United States’ proposal had been adopted, but he felt such a reference did not properly belong in a communiqué. The Soviet suggestion was adopted.
Hiss Notes
Leningrad, February 11, 1945, noon
2/11 12.15 p.m.
Plenary
Communique
PM likes draft but too many “joints.” Also make separate ¶ re reparations
Mol. We have an amendment that does that
The 1st part: prefer more detail, naming personalities who took part
Church: At end
St: Better at beginning. Was at Teheran
Pres & PM: OK
St. no other remarks on opening
Church put in generals as well?
St. Yes
Church I agree with that
St name whomever you like
I Defeat of Ger.
Mol amends
Church: Is point of substance in introducing word “Hitlerite” It narrows it. We would prefer “Nazi” Germany
Mol. Withdraws amend. (re Hitlerite Ger)
Church. leave out “joint”, goes without saying various Church amendments
II OK with St.
Ed: Ought make it clear how zone is to be given
Shouldn’t indicate we have accepted the Fr. demand.
“Limits of the Fr. zone will be agreed by the 4 Govts thru their repres. on the EAC”
Wire to Winant
Mol: After II a new chap. on reparations.
We consider the q. on the costs by Ger of Allied loss to Allied Govt in this war it is fair to exact from Ger reparations in Kind in the greatest poss. amt. to the greatest possible extent possible A Commission is created on Reps which will have as its task determining the amt. of reps.
The Com. will sit in Mos.
Pres Only q is whether it is worthwhile to have sep. Chapter or work it in. I can’t find a good place.
III
Mol After 1st 2 ¶s add:
It has been also resolved to recommend to the Conf. to invite Uk. & Wh. R as orig. member
Pres very embarrassing to me
Church If brought out pub. now without any explanation of US position will cause trouble.
3 members of the War Cab. are objecting to the prin. of more than 1 vote. This only shows controversies it will raise We are all pledged to it in the draft conclusions
I should have to ask for adjournment to consult dominions. It might take several days But we put it all down in the conclusions
St.: Withdrew it But in
Mol ¶s 4 & 5
These ¶s should read as follows:
Concerning voting proc. in the Sec. Coun. of the projected org. Confused with our early draft Say they have no copy of last draft omit “put forward by the Pres.”
Mol If the text which we rec’d last night is united draft of Brit & Ams we didn’t know it. It is agreed
ERS asked Pres if it would affect him politically back home if “put forward by the Pres” is retained & Pres said it would not. Pres preferred to leave the phrase in
P M wants to eliminate 1st sentence of Chap. V on Pol.
Chap IV agreed to
Ed: insert after inherent: “we were impressed by the dangers of any divergence of policy between the major allies toward Poland”
St leave it out altogether
Church: Would prefer Ed’s amended form
St: This is only a statement about proceedings of various representatives. Some may have been impressed, others not.
Pres read our proposed new sentence
Agreed
Church wants to say dec. re Pol. will be very heavily attacked in Eng. It will be said we have yielded completely on the frontiers & the whole matter to R.
St: Is it in earnest I doubt it
Church I assure you it is. Lon Poles will raise a dreadful outcry
St: But the other Poles will predominate
Church I hope you’re right. We’re not going back on it It’s not a q. of nos. of Poles but of the cause for which Brit drew the sword Will say you have completely swept away the only const. govt of Pol. However I will defend it to the best of my ability
VI Yug
Church translate Avnoj
St That’s right. Not everyone will understand
VII Agreed
VIII Prisoners of war
St suggests mention of prisoners of war should be deleted. This is a q. among ourselves. We can take dec. but not nec to pub
Mol Says he & Ed agreed will come up in meeting For Mins
Church But can be published?
Agreed be published separately when text completed this afternoon
IX Unity O K with St.
Summary was dropped O K
IX Church what does “want” mean “It means privation & not desire”
Mol Will this communique be signed by the heads of govts
Pres Just as at Teheran
Should be signed first by St. because has been such a wonderful host
St I object
Church. If take alphabet I’ll be first
St – Am. Bloc
" If you take age I also come first
St If St. 1st signature will say he leads. Insists he be in last place
Who will take charge of final text
Church: Bridges
St. perhaps to the For Mins for final checking
Pres. Early
St Mol & Vishinsky. He is not interested in lunch
Pres: For Mins then to read it over in place of P.M., Mar. & me.
St. Who will make list of decs. Assign this task to someone else
Pres On summary of conclusions re reps. (i e Sov. protocol) entirely satis to us with few changes
Church Not for publication
List of Amendments to the Draft Communiqué
Yalta, February 11, 1945
Prime Minister’s Amendments to Draft Communiqué
Defeat of Germany
Line 8: For “co-ordination”
Read: “concert”
Line 9: After “launched”
Insert: “continuously.”
Three lines lower down, instead of “our joint military plans,” read “our combined military plans.”
The word “joint” appears twice in the next three lines, and the Prime Minister would omit it in these two places.
Occupation and Control of Germany
In the second line for the word “jointly” substitute the word “together.”
Line 7 – the word “co-ordinated” should be struck out and “united” substituted.
Line 10 – the last sentence of the paragraph should read as follows:
It has been agreed that France should be invited by the Three Powers if she should so desire to take over a fourth zone of occupation, and to participate as a fourth member of the Control Commission.
In the first line of the next paragraph for “it is our joint purpose” read “It is our inflexible purpose.”
In the third line of this paragraph for “threaten” read “disturb.”
Six lines from the bottom of the paragraph, instead of “to take jointly such other measures” read “to take in harmony such other measures.”
The last sentence of the paragraph on this page should read as follows:
It is not our purpose to destroy the people of Germany, but only when Nazism and Militarism have been extirpated will there be hope for a decent life for the Germans and a place for them in the comity of nations.
President Roosevelt to Prime Minister Churchill
Yalta, February 11, 1945
Dear Winston: You have expressed some concern with regard to our different viewpoints concerning the policy to be pursued about Italy. I am happy to tell you that Mr. Matthews on behalf of the Department of State went over the ground on this matter with Alec Cadogan yesterday afternoon. As a result of their conversation, Matthews reports that although there are naturally some differences in emphasis in our respective viewpoints, there seems to be no basic reason for any quarrel between us. I find that we are both in accord with the important fact that whatever the Italian attitude and action have been in the past few years, we are faced with a real problem of the future. Italy is and will remain an important factor in Europe whatever we may think of the prospect. It is surely in our joint interest for us to do whatever we properly can to foster her gradual recuperation by developing a return to normal democratic processes, the development of a sense of her own responsibilities and the other steps so necessary in preparing the long hard road of Italy’s return to the community of peace-loving democratic states. To this end I believe we are both agreed that we must give her both spiritual and material food. I am impressed with the dangers for us both in Italy’s present condition of semi-servitude and of the fact that those who fish in troubled waters will be the only ones to gain from her present conditions approaching despair. I know that our soldiers share this view and feel that there is definite inherent danger in the situation to our joint military operations.
I believe that some constructive steps should be taken to move away from the present anomalous situation of onerous and obsolete surrender terms which are no longer pertinent to the situation today. I hope the Foreign Office and the State Department will be able to work out some mutually satisfactory procedure to remedy this situation. As you know, we accepted the Combined Chiefs of Staff’s directive to General Alexander along the lines suggested by Mr. MacMillan [Macmillan]. Although we felt that the directive was greatly watered down and much of its substance lost, we went along with you in the hope that we may reach some agreement on further steps in the near future.
At any rate, I want you to know that we are determined to pull together with you in Italy as we are in other areas, and that we believe that by full and continuous consultation and goodwill on both sides there is no danger of any serious split between us on this important question.
Most sincerely yours,
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT
Tripartite luncheon meeting, 1:00 p.m.
Livadia Palace, USSR
Roosevelt acted as host.
| Present | ||
|---|---|---|
| United States | United Kingdom | Soviet Union |
| President Roosevelt | Prime Minister Churchill | Marshal Stalin |
| Fleet Admiral Leahy | Foreign Secretary Eden | Foreign Commissar Molotov |
| Secretary Stettinius | Sir Archibald Clark Kerr | |
| Mr. Hopkins | Sir Alexander Cadogan | Mr. Pavlov |
| Mr. Harriman | Major Birse | |
| Mr. Bohlen |
Bohlen Note
Leningrad, February 11, 1945, 1 p.m.
At the luncheon, which was attended by the President, the Prime Minister, and Marshal Stalin; the three Foreign Secretaries, Ambassador Harriman, Clark Kerr, and Sir Alexander Cadogan, and three interpreters, the conversation was general and personal. At one point, however, Marshal Stalin made an obvious reference to Iran, and stated in his opinion, any nation which kept its oil in the ground and would not let it be exploited, was, in fact, “working against peace.”
Dr. Koppen: Stärker als das Schicksal…
Von Dr. Wilhelm Koppen
In diesen Tagen zeigte sich die Londoner Daily Mail höchst ungehalten, dass das verratene und verkaufte Volk im besetzten Italien noch wagt, die Ohren seiner Peiniger mit Klagerufen zu beleidigen. Die Italiener, so meint dieses Blatt, hätten gefälligst alle Prüfungen, die der Feind über sie verhängt, stillschweigend zu ertragen, denn keinesfalls könne ein Land, das es wagte, die Waffen gegen England zu erheben, darauf rechnen, milde behandelt zu werden. Dasselbe hat mit anderen Worten kürzlich auch Churchill vor dem Unterhaus zum Ausdruck gebracht und diese Denkweise entspricht vollkommen der ganzen Selbstgerechtigkeit des „auserwählten Volkes“ auf der Insel, das seit jeher seine Gegner im Kriege als Feinde der göttlichen Gerechtigkeit zu beklagen pflegte.
Dieselbe Heuchelei steht heute bei der Konferenz Pate, die an der sowjetischen Schwarzmeerküste stattfindet. Stalin, Roosevelt und Churchill zeigen sich dort der Mitwelt auf dem hohen Kothurn von Weltrichtern, denen es zunächst obliege, Deutschland vor die Schranken zu ziehen und damit das Urteil zu sprechen. Die Moskauer Iswestija schreibt hierzu sehr aufschlussreich: „In der Endphase des Krieges wird die Todesstrafe, die von der gesamten freiheitsliebenden Menschheit über Deutschland verhängt wurde, durchgeführt werden.“ Diese Formulierung hat Reuters so gut gefallen, dass sie auch als Stichwort für die englische Presse ausgegeben und dort in breiter Front aufgenommen worden ist mit dem Bemerken, die alliierten Befehlshaber hätten nunmehr die Aufgabe, dieses Todesurteil an Deutschland zu vollstrecken.
Gingen die Absichten der Alliierten in Erfüllung, so wäre allerdings der Ausdruck Todesstrafe keineswegs übertrieben. Es ist durchaus glaubwürdig, was amerikanische Beobachter über Roosevelts Haltung auf der Konferenz mitteilen: der Präsident werde keinerlei Widerspruch gegen die bolschewistischen Gebietsforderungen erheben, insbesondere nicht gegen den Raub ganz Ostdeutschlands bis zur Oder. Er werde auch dem Programm zustimmen, das nach dem Besuch de Gaulles in Moskau bekanntgegeben wurde und die Auslieferung von Rhein und Ruhr an Frankreich und die Sowjets vorsah, und er sei schließlich für eine Besetzung Deutschlands bis zum Jahre 2000. Nebenbei werden dann die baltischen Länder abgeschrieben und die Ausdehnung des Sowjeteinflusses auf ganz Ost- und Südosteuropa an erkannt.
Dass die Briten Stalins Diktat ebenfalls widerspruchslos schlucken weiden, liegt auf der Linie der Politik Churchills, die England zum willenlosen Mitläufer seiner Verbündeten herabgedrückt hat, so dass amerikanische Senatoren das Vereinigte Königreich schon ganz offen als eine Art Kolonialbesitz bezeichnen.
Über das Sowjetprogramm braucht man danach keine Worte weiter zu verlieren. Sicher ist aber, dass man in Moskau das Wort Todesstrafe nicht etwa nur als politisches Symbolwort gewählt hat, sondern dabei an Massenmorde denkt, die selbst die hochgespannten britischen und amerikanischen Erwartungen bei weitem übertreffen würden, wenn es den Bolschewisten vergönnt wäre, in ganz Deutschland so zu hausen, wie sie es heute in unseren östlichen Provinzen tun. Der Mordwahn der östlichen Steppe stimmt im Übrigen genau zu den Plänen der Morgenthaus und Genossen, die mittels der Zerstörung der deutschen Industrie viele Millionen deutsche Arbeiter mit ihren Familien zum Hungertod verurteilen möchten und mit deren Absichten Roosevelt völlig übereinstimmt.
Zur allgemeinen Überraschung wurde dieser Tage eine Zwischenverlautbarung über die Konferenz ausgegeben, die offenbar dem Bedürfnis entsprang, irrigen Ausdeutungen in England und Amerika zu begegnen. Es wurde darin betont, dass man sich auf einem gemeinsamen Kriegsplan geeinigt habe. Was über die Behandlung der politischen Fragen gesagt wurde, klang allerdings wesentlich verschwommener, und es fehlt auch nicht an einer Fülle von Kombinationen von weiteren Konferenzen, die sich an die Zusammenkunft am Schwarzen Meer anschließen würden. Diese werden – so wird gemutmaßt – in einer allgemein gehaltenen Schwarzmeer-Charta nach dem Muster des verlogenen Atlantikvorbildes schließen, die von Bedrohungen gegen Deutschland begleitet sein werden, im Übrigen aber werde man sowohl über die territorialen Fragen wie auch über das Sicherheitssystem weiter verhandeln müssen. Das bestätigt die Auffassung, dass sich die drei Spießgesellen wohl über die Vernichtung Deutschlands, wie schon immer einig sind, nicht aber über die Herstellung eines Weltfriedens, der irgendwie Aussicht auf Dauer verspräche und den besonders die Sowjets gar nicht wünschen, da für sie der jetzige Krieg ja nur den Auftakt zur weltrevolutionären Ausweitung gibt.
Es war bisher das Kennzeichen aller zahlreichen Sondertagungen, die seit zwei Jahren auf amerikanischem Boden abgehalten wurden, dass man über allgemeine Empfehlungen niemals hinausgekommen ist und vor der letzten Hürde scheuen musste, nämlich vor der Abgrenzung der gegenseitigen Interessen der drei Machte, deren ewige Einigkeit doch bei den komplizierten Nachkriegsplänen als selbstverständlich vorausgesetzt wurde. Das zeigte sich besonders deutlich bei der Konferenz von Dumbarton Oaks, die sich mit der Frage der sogenannten Organisation des Weltfriedens befasste Man entwarf dort den Plan eines neuen Völkerbundes, dessen Rat von den Großmächten beherrscht werden sollte. Diesem Rat wurde die Aufgabe gestellt friedenswidrig handelnde Mitglieder in Acht und Bann zu tun. Der entscheidende Punkt aber ist die Frage was eigentlich geschehen sollte, wenn eine dieser Mächte selbst als Aggressor auftrete.
Und hier stellen sich die Sowjets sofort auf den Standpunkt, dass sie selbst Richter darüber bleiben müssten, ob sie bei irgendwelchen, dass auch für sie die zwingendsten Gründe bestehen, solche Wünsche zu hegen.
Bei der Beurteilung der Kriegslage muss sich jeder diese Tatsache vor Augen halten. Der Feind möchte es so darstellen, als ob wir einen Verzweiflungskampf führten, dessen Ausgang von vornherein feststände. Wir aber wissen, dass unser Widerstand, für den alle materiellen und moralischen Kräfte einer großen Nation angespannt sind, allein Leben und Zukunft unseres Volkes sichert und das entscheidende Gewicht auf der Waagschale des Schicksals sein wird.
Wir führen diesen schweren Kampf mit klarem Sinn und starkem Arm weiter und sind uns bewusst, dass der Erfolg nicht ausbleiben kann. Man mag am Schwarzen Meer mit angemaßter Richterpose Todesurteile fällen, wir werden solche Drohungen zu bestehen wissen und damit auch die Welt von dem Alpdruck des Dauerkrieges befreien, der für Stalin, Roosevelt und Churchill der Weisheit letzter Schluss ist.