occupation authorities in the upper reaches of the (Danube.
He stated that the Danube fleet—comprising 800 ships be-
longing to Allied and former enemy countries, and seized by
the American authorities on the Danube—would continue
to be retained by the American authorities. Among these
vessels are 168 Yugoslav, 48 Czechoslovak and over 300
Hungarian ships. These ships" could just now be of great
use if they were restored to their lawful owners. But the
United States refuses to restore these ships even to the
Allied countries—Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia—and
frankly declares1 that this is done in order to force the
Danube states to -comply with certain American demands.
Not only ffias the United States to this day failed to restore
to Hungary the vessels seized by the American authorities
on the Danube; it has not even restored the equipment of
a number of important Hungarian factories, rolling-sto-ek,
cattle and other Hungarian, property which were removed
from Hungary by Szalasi's men and the Germans, and wlhich
found their way into*the American occupation zone. One
cannot agree with such methods of treating small states.
What do we get?
The Danube states do not want to have non-Danubian
slates lording it on the (Danube, in their countries. That,
one would think, is quite natural. In retaliation, strong
Powers which have no connection with the Danube, resort
to every means of pressure to compel the Danube states to
surrender their lawful rights. Are sudh methods of pressure,
coercion and intimidation worthy of democratic states? Are
they in keeping with the aim of establishing a democratic
peace?
We are told here that in the Economic Committee of the
Conference a decision was taken by eight votes to five to
convoke a Danube conference. But all the eight votes be-
longed to countries which are located far away from the
m