Evening star., 1951-02-17
BY the Associated Press

Prime Minister Stain by
Prada correspondent as broad
cast last night By the MoscotD
radio and heard here:
@. How do you estimate the
latest statement made by British
Prime Minister Attlee in the
House of Commons to the effect
that after the termination of the
war the Soviet Union did not dis
arm. i.e.. did not demobilize its
troops and that since then the
Soviet Union is constantly in
creasing it's armed forces?
A. I estimate this statement
made by Prime Minister Attlee as
a slander against the Soviet Union.
It is known to the whole world
that the Soviet Union demobilized
its troops after the war.
Three Stages Cited.
AS is known, rehabilitation was
carried out in three stages:
The first and second stages. in
the course of the year 1945; the
third stage, from May to Septem-
ber, 1946. In addition, the de-
mobilization of older age groups
of the personnel of the Soviet
Army was carried out in 1916 and
1947.
Such are the facts known to
every one.
II Prime Minister Attlee were
competent in financial or economic
science. he would have realized
without difficulty that not sin
gle state, the Soviet Union in
cluded, could develop civilian in
dustry to the full, launch great
construction projects like the hy-
droelectric power stations on the
volga and Dnieper and the ANU
Darya (Oxus), which demand
scores of thousands of millions in
budget expenditure; continue the
policy of systematic price reduc-
tion for consumer goods. which
also demands scores of thousands
of millions in budget expenditure;
invest hundreds of thousands OF
millions In the restoration of the
national economy destroyed by the
German invaders, and together
simultaneously with this multiply
it's armed forces and develop war
industry.
Peril of Bankruptcy.
It is not difficult to understand
that so reckless a policy would
have led any state to bankruptcy
Prime Minister Attlee should
have known by his own expert
ence as we'll as by the experience
of the United States that the mul-
tiplication of a country's armed
forces and an arms race lead to
developing war industry, to cur
failing civilian industry, to stop
ping civilian construction work,
to increased taxation. to rise in
prices for consumer goods.
It stands to reason that if the
Soviet Union is not reducing but
on the contrary is expanding its
civilian industry. 1t is not wind
ing up but on the contrary ex-
pending the construction of new
civilian hydroelectric power sta
tions and irrigation systems; is not
stopping but on the contrary con-
tinuing the policy of price reduc-
ton. 1t cannot simultaneously
with this initiate war industry and
multiply it's armed forces without
risking finding itself in a state
of bankruptcy.
If despite all these facts and
scientific considerations. Prime
Minister Attlee considers it never
theless possible openly to slander
the Soviet Union and its peaceful
policy, this can only be explained
by the fact that by slandering the
Soviet Union he thinks it is pos
sible to justify the armaments
race in Britain now being carried
out by the Labor Government.
Says "Lie" Is Needed.
Prime Minister Attlee needs a
lie against the Soviet Union. and
it is essential to him to depict
the peaceful policy of the Soviet
Union as an aggressive one and
the aggressive policy of the Brit
lsh Governemnt as peaceful one
in order to mislead the British
people, to impose upon them that
lie about the U. S. S. r. and thus
to draw them by means of deceit
into the new world war being
organized by the ruling circles of
the United States.
Prime Minister Attlee repre-
sents himself to be a supporter of
peace. However. if he is really
in favor of peace, why did he re-
ject the proposal of the Soviet
Union in the United Nations Or
ganization for the immediate con-
clusion of peace pact between
the Soviet Union. Britain, the
United States of America, China
and France?
If he truly stands for peace
why did he reject the proposals
of the Soviet Union for an imme-
diate start on the reduction OF
Iarmaments, for the immediate
prohibition of atomic weapons?
If he is really in favor of peace
why does he persecute the fight
ers of peace. why did he prohibit
the Peace Congress in Britain
Can a campaign in defense OF
peace threaten Britain's security?
Charges Aggressive Policy.
1t is obvious that Prime Min
lister Attlee is not in favor of
preserving peace. but of unleash
ing of a new aggressive world
war.
@. What do you think of the
Intervention in Korea? How
could it end?
A. If Britain and the United
States reject finally the proposals
made by the Peoples Government
of China, the war in Korea can
only end in a defeat of the in