Cablegram UN409 NEW YORK, 4 September 1946, 9.26 p.m.
1. Security Council to-day decided to postpone discussion on
admission to the agenda of the Russian statement regarding foreign
troops in members' territory  and proceeded immediately to
examine the Ukrainian complaint on Greece. 
2. Greece and Ukraine were invited to participate under Article
3. Manuilsky, who was immediately called on by the President,
occupied the whole three-hour session with a statement supporting
the complaint. The main points were-
(a) He recalled statements to the Council in London by Bevin
regarding the withdrawal of troops, declared the position was now
worse and promises not observed.
(b) He alleged that Greece had been turned into a monarchy through
long-continued efforts of former collaborators with Germany,
supported by British troops.
(c) Greek trade unions had been dissolved.
(d) Greek democrats and republicans tortured and killed.
(e) Slav minorities murdered.
(f) Special courts created and, as a result, leaders of the
resistance movement had been shot and known collaborationists were
free and honoured.
(g) Electoral lists used in the September plebiscite were corrupt.
The result of the plebiscite was the culmination of intervention
over a long period by the British and had been planned by them.
The plebiscite also constituted preparation for aggression by the
Greek Government particularly military operations against Albania.
(h) Various frontier incidents provoked by Greece against Albania.
4. The general effect of the statement was to build up a picture
of a Fascist country bent on aggression and the dismemberment of
Albania. The British were represented as real villains and were
charged with interference in Greek domestic affairs, both
political and economic, and with violation of Article 2(7) of the
Charter.  The only evidence submitted was one photograph
showing a British officer in company with fierce looking
characters whom Manuilsky described as Greek scalphunters and some
newspaper cuttings but localities, dates and details were given
regarding several alleged frontier incidents.
5. The Council adjourned to 10.30 tomorrow when the Greek and
United Kingdom representatives will speak in rebuttal.
6. Your instructions in UNY.201 now require us to insist on a full
and impartial inquiry. Up to date we feel that no prima facie case
of the existence of a situation endangering peace has been made
and statements have been so vague that if a proposal were made for
an investigation committee it would be difficult to tell the
committee exactly what to investigate. In view of the wildness of
the charges, Cadogan, with whom Hasluck is in close touch, is
anxious to make an early statement in rebuttal and his
instructions are to speak strongly. It may be that after the Greek
and British statement, the Council may be prepared to dismiss the
complaint. Johnson would  go along with such a move and even
rebuke Ukraine if the Ukrainian case is not better substantiated.
In these circumstances we would like discretion to decide in the
light of circumstances after Cadogan's statement whether our
interests can be served by dropping the item from the agenda or
whether to seek investigation.
7. If we should seek investigation we would propose, subject to
your further instructions, to point to the limits of the Council's
interests under Article 34 and isolate for examination only those
matters which fairly could be considered as likely to lead to
international friction or give rise to a dispute. We are in close
touch with Cadogan and Johnson.