860C.01/6–245: Telegram
The Chargé to the Polish Government in Exile (Schoenfeld) to the Secretary of State 67
[Received June 2—4:40 p.m.]
Poles 62. Your 17, June 1. Mikolajczyk signifies his concurrence in the list of names proposed but desires to offer the following comment.
Grabski is ill and will probably be unable to travel in the near future. Stanczyk should, therefore, be invited. This is also preferable in one sense since he is a leader of the Socialist Party and a representative of the Trade Unions, whereas Grabski is non-party. As regards Sapieha or Witos, Mikolajczyk feels Witos as the leader of the Peasant Party would be preferable. Sapieha is of course important but is not a party leader. Moreover he would probably have to consult the Vatican, which might or might not approve. This might result in delay.
Mikolajczyk notes that two of the major parties, i.e., Christian Labor and National Democrats, are unrepresented. He would like to appeal at least for inclusion of representatives of former, and suggests Popiel in London and Piwowarczyk in Cracow. Their presence would be valuable in assuring the cooperation of the large and influential Roman Catholic element.
Kolodzeij is a special case. He represents no substantial Polish element abroad. He was secretary of the Polish Seamen’s Union in London and sought to bring the Union under the control of the Lublin group. He failed in this and was expelled from the Union. This question was also injected into the World Trade Unions Congress last February. Mikolajczyk states Kolodzeij is personally inconsequential, is a creature of the Lublin Group and his inclusion is designed to lower the prestige of the real Polish Party leaders who are to be invited to Moscow from London.
Mikolajczyk states, however, that irrespective of whether the foregoing suggestions are acted on, he will go to Moscow for consultations if he is invited by the Three Power Commission. He assumes that all the Poles invited for the consultations will be allowed to meet freely and to discuss matters among themselves without restriction.
He desires to record his hope that by the time the consultations take place, the majority at least of the arrested Polish leaders will have been released. On this point he expresses concern about the use of [Page 317] the word “amnesty”. He points out that under Russian law this term has a special meaning. In Russia person who is amnestied is not relieved of guilt, can at any time be politically disqualified and can still be kept in detention. The Russians insisted on the use of this term for the Poles held in Russia in the Polish Soviet treaty of July 30, 1941.68 This led in practice to serious controversy and while many were released thousands were not. He, therefore, hopes the term “amnesty” will be avoided.
Sent to Dept as Poles 62, repeated to Moscow as 183.
- The Mikolajczyk–Schoenfeld meeting discussed in this telegram is also described on the basis of information drawn from the Mikolajczyk private files in Rozek, Allied Wartime Diplomacy, pp. 384–385.↩
- For text of the agreement for mutual aid, between Poland and the Soviet Union, signed at London on July 30, 1941, with protocol, see British and Foreign State Papers, vol. cxliv, p. 869. Also see telegram 3292, July 30, 1941, from London, Foreign Relations, 1941, vol. i, p. 243.↩