cooperation with the U.S.S.R., because a policy of agree-
ment with the U.S.S.R, would undermine the position of the
warmongers and render the aggressive policy of these
gentry futile and purposeless/'
Comrade Stalin defined this policy when he said that
athe 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."
In the light of this, it is clear why new American mili-
tary bases are being created in all parts of the globe, why
Ihe American authorities want to maintain their troops in
so many countries, and why America's military budget has
been inflated this year to wartime dimensions and to eleven
times the size it was, for instance, in the prewar year
1940. In the light of this, it is also clear why in Wash-
ington there is being preserved to this day the Anglo-Amer-
ican military staff which was set up during the second
world war, and which is now working on new plans of
aggression secretly from both the American and British
peoples.
There is quite a lot of talk of late about the creation
of all sorts of "unions" and "blocs" of Western states, al-
though they are not being threatened by any other states.
All this agitated formation of "Western unions" "Atlantic
alliances," "Mediterranean blocs" and the like is camou-
flaged by defensive declarations by which only excessively
naive people can be taken in. In reality these "alliances""
and "blocs" have as their purpose preparation for new
aggression and the precipitation of new wars, in which
definite ruling groups are interested, but certainly not the
peoples of the United States, Great Britain or any other
country. In the case of Great Britain and France, they are al
variance with the pacts of friendship and mutual assistance
which these countries have with the U.S.S.R.
50?