Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1941, General, The Soviet Union, Volume I

811.111 Refugees/1456: Telegram

The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Steinhardt) to the Secretary of State

Moscow, May 30, 1941—2 p.m.
[Received May 31—2:20 a.m.]

1066. Department’s 669 [699], May 19, 3 p.m.⁵⁵ Individuals who departed from the Soviet Union or Soviet occupied territory since the outbreak of the war and apply in neutral or unoccupied countries for American visas should be regarded by the Department as even more likely to have agreed to act on behalf of the GPU in the United States than those who apply within the Soviet Union or Soviet-occupied territory. The mere fact that these individuals have been successful in obtaining permission to depart from the Soviet Union or Soviet-occupied territories indicates that there must be among them many who were the first to succumb to pressure by the Soviet Secret Police. The granting of exit visas by the Soviet authorities to a very limited number of the thousands of prospective emigrants lends support to my conviction that a considerable percentage of those who receive such exit visas have agreed to cooperate with GPU agents in the United States. In this connection I desired to emphasize the observation made in my No. 197 of January 31, 5 p.m.,⁵⁶ that it is impossible for the examining officers to elicit any information from visa applicants who have recently left or desire to leave the Soviet Union or Soviet-occupied territories concerning agreements which they may have entered into with the GPU in return for granting of Soviet exit visas, as experience had conclusively established that the applicants fear that their admission of the existence of any such agreements will result in the refusal of their applications for American visas.

In so far as concerns the statements made to the Department minimizing the danger of admitting applicants with close relatives in the Soviet Union or Soviet-occupied territories I desire to point out:

1. The contention that pressure on relatives in Soviet-controlled territory would be unavailing in the case of rabbinical students and teachers in strict religious orders, for the reason that entry into such orders requires almost complete severance of worldly ties, is tantamount to an assertion that religious persons entering such orders automatically lose all sense of piety and devotion to their families and relatives. Such a contention is not only inconsistent with human nature but with the spiritual forces which actuate entry into such orders. It is at variance with all rabbinical teachings as well. I should expect rabbinical students and teachers to assert more, rather than less, devotion to their families and relatives than laymen, and in consequence to be more disposed to protect them. The statements made to the Department constitute a reflection on the sincerity of purpose of individuals who have assumed theology as their life’s mission.

2. The suggestion that the degree of relationship as between relatives in the United States who are closer than, or as close as, those in Soviet-occupied territories constitutes a yardstick, is similarly an attempt to measure affection in terms of a family tree. Experience teaches that individuals are frequently more attached to an uncle, aunt or cousin than to a parent, brother or sister. Nor does the fact that an individual has relatives in both the United States and Soviet-occupied territory of varying degrees of consanguinity establish the relative degree of affection which he may bear towards those subject to pressure by the GPU.

3. The statement that the whereabouts of relatives in Soviet-occupied territory may be unknown to the applicant and that there has been no communication for a protracted period of time, usually because of exile or imprisonment, does not, of necessity, diminish the applicant’s affection for, or devotion to, such relative, nor does it remove the assumption that the applicant may be subject to GPU pressure after the whereabouts of his relatives in Soviet-occupied territory has been disclosed to him, accompanied by an intimation of a prolongation of the relative’s exile or imprisonment, unless the applicant cooperates with the GPU.

The fact that examining officer re-questions applicants closely with regard to relatives remaining in the Soviet Union is generally known among all applicants. As they consider their position difficult and are extremely anxious to obtain Ameri[can visas?] it must be assumed that they frequently make statements which are not in conformity with the facts in order to place their cases before the examining officers in the most favorable light. It is, therefore, not unlikely that many sustain lapses of memory when requested for information concerning the whereabouts of relatives. The fact that relatives of applicants are already in exile or prison creates a reasonable assumption that many of such applicants have only obtained their Soviet exit visas after agreeing to cooperate with the GPU on their arrival in the United States or, in any event, that they are particularly vulnerable to future pressure by the GPU in connection with the release or continued exile or imprisonment of their relatives.

While I wish to be understood as entertaining the view that the foregoing considerations apply to all of the applicants in question, I have for a long time been convinced that the percentage to which these considerations do apply is so substa[ntia]l that humanitarian considerations should be subordinated to the best interests and public welfare of the United States. I am of the opinion that up to the present time the pressure of sponsoring organizations and individuals in the United States has resulted in the admission of a substantial number of individuals from the Soviet Union and Soviet-occupied territories whose activities after their arrival in the United States, in some cases voluntarily, and in others under pressure from the GPU, bode no good for the immediate future welfare of our country.

My general views on this entire subject were set forth in my No. 197 of January 31, 5 p.m. I have had no reason to change the views expressed in that telegram and am still of the opinion that in the light of present critical world conditions, and particularly of Soviet-German cooperation and known Soviet methods and practices, it is dangerous not to say reckless, to continue to grant American visas indiscriminately to applicants recently residing in or who are now residing in the Soviet Union or Soviet-occupied territories.

Steinhardt

55. Not printed.
56. Not printed; but see telegram No. 39, January 9, 9 p.m., ante, p. 598; also telegrams No. 1487, November 5, 1940, and No. 1780, December 26, 1940, Foreign Relations, 1940, vol. iii, pp. 234 and 239, respectively.