160. Editorial Note
At 3 p.m. on November 3, the Security Council once again took up the question of Hungary. After summarizing developments over the past few days, Ambassador Lodge asked Hungarian Representative Szabó whether he had any current information on Nagy’s November 2 letter. He also queried Sobolev about reports from Hungary which contradicted his earlier assurance that Soviet troops had not [Page 372] been reinforced. He asked both of them to comment on the status of the Hungarian-Soviet Mixed Commission negotiations. Then he discussed the key elements of a draft resolution (S/3730), which the United States intended to propose. It called for the end of Soviet intervention in the internal affairs of Hungary and for the withdrawal of all Soviet forces without delay. The Secretary-General was to be requested urgently to examine and to report on the relief needs of the Hungarian people.
Szabó replied that all he knew personally was the text of Nagy’s communications to the Secretary-General. He did state, however, that Soviet-Hungarian military negotiations had taken place and would resume at 10 p.m. that night. This led to a Yugoslav motion for adjournment so as not to impede ongoing negotiations. The French and British Representatives were not so sanguine and thus Dixon advocated adoption of the draft United States resolution. In respect to this matter, Ambassador Lodge then stated:
“We are still disturbed by the wide differences between Soviet Union words about troop withdrawals and Soviet Union actions, as evidenced in news reports. We believe, accordingly, that adjournment for a day or two would give a real opportunity to the Hungarian Government to carry out its announced desire to arrange for an orderly and immediate evacuation of all Soviet troops. But, clearly, the Security Council must keep this matter under urgent consideration. It may well be necessary for the Council to meet tomorrow, as the representative of Cuba suggests, if events do not bear out the reports which we have heard today. In this spirit I should be willing, as I said, to adjourn until tomorrow or the next day, but I should wish to hear the Soviet Union representative, if it is agreeable to him, before we adjourn today—and, of course, any other representative who may wish to speak.”
Ambassador Sobolev in a brief comment confirmed that Soviet negotiations with Hungary were continuing.
The fact that the General Assembly was scheduled to resume its consideration of the Middle Eastern situation at 8 p.m. led the President of the Council, Nasrollah Entezam of Iran, to push for a decision as to when to continue the discussion of Hungarian developments. Australia favored 5 p.m., on November 4. Since only six nations supported this time—which was opposed by the Soviet Union while the United States abstained—the Australian proposal failed to carry. The Council President then suggested that the next meeting be held at 10:30 a.m. on November 5 and his view was adopted. (U.N. doc. S/PV.753)
At that hour in Washington, Murphy told the French Ambassador, Hervé Alphand, that the United States did not wish to take “precipitate action in the Security Council which would look foolish a few hours later nor on the other hand would we wish to take steps [Page 373] which might be used by the Soviets as a provocation for strong action. Ambassador Alphand then urged that the United States make clear publicly and officially its reasons for going along with a delay regarding Soviet intervention in Hungary at the same time that it is pressing ahead at full speed with respect to the British and French action in the Middle East.” (Memorandum of conversation by Bennett, November 3; Department of State, Central Files, 320.5780/11–356)