860C.00/12–445: Telegram
The Ambassador in Poland (Lane) to the Secretary of State
[Received 7:47 p.m.]
628. Prior to receipt of Dept’s 314, December 1, 1 p.m. British Ambassador had shown me telegram received from Foreign Office London indicating that Dept has had conversations with British Embassy Washington regarding limitation of number of political parties in Poland to six.8
As to the reasons advanced by the Dept for our not protesting against the limitation of the number of political parties to six I respectfully make the following comment:
- (1)
- We understood that Zulawski as leader of the [apparent omission] exclusion on the ground that it is entitled to full political rights as one of the anti-Nazi organizations in accordance with the Yalta Declaration.
- (2)
- As to the past records of Endeks, it has the reputation of having exposed the Sanacja. Undoubtedly the Russians would oppose the inclusion of this party on the ground that it has had an anti-Soviet orientation. Whether the National Democratic Party is of importance today is a matter of opinion but granted that even though it may not have the power which it enjoyed during the days of Grabski and Paderewski the fact that its members wish to enter into the elections entitles it to consideration from the point of view of democratic principles.
- (3)
- In general however I feel it unwise to permit the Govt through an arbitrary decision to prevent the free development of democratic activity. Archbishop Sapieha recently complained to Keith that the limitation of the number of the parties is an illustration of the adoption of the Fascist idea which the Govt claims it wishes to eradicate. The British viewpoint seems to be that limitation of parties would be to the advantage of Mikolajzcyk and his party and that Zulawski’s health is so poor that he is no longer an important political figure.
In a recent talk with Bentinck however he expressed agreement with my view in pressing for freedom for all parties and said he would request London to amend his instructions to the extent of authorizing him to make oral comment to this effect.
I trust that the Dept will reconsider its position in the light of the foregoing. I feel that by allowing the decision of the National Council of the Homeland to pass without protest we accept a responsibility of acquiescing in an action which in my opinion is undemocratic and contrary to the spirit of Yalta.
From a realistic point of view the limitation works in favor of the three stooge parties, PPS, SL and SD,9 all of which are practically directed by PPE and would facilitate the creation of united front party which the Dept states it will oppose. If we lose the opportunity to protest on this occasion our opinion will undoubtedly have even less influence on the next occasion when we may be called upon to voice it.