860C.51/1–2946: Telegram
The Chargé in Poland ( Keith ) to the Secretary of State
us urgent
[Received January 31—10:47 a.m.]
134. Olszewski received me at ForOff at 7 p.m. 28th. Zebrowski interpreted. I stated points contained Deptel 60, January 26, 11 a.m. [5 p.m.] and gave Zebrowski aide-mémoire from which he translated to Olszewski. I communicated only orally last sentence regarding “tactics employed”. Olszewski’s first question was what was implied by “tactics” and I replied two illustrations were statements made regarding nationalization and exchange rate. Olszewski was unperturbed and said he could not see how misunderstanding could have arisen regarding exchange rate and wanted to make further inquiries.
Olszewski then said if form and content of aide-mémoire conformed to Secretary’s thoughts he felt we were not getting very far in mutual understanding and Poles would have to consider whether there would not be some other way of proceeding in our relations in endeavor to avoid misunderstandings. Olszewski referred to assumption of willful distortion of remarks and obviously displeased said in effect that they did not do such things.
[Page 386]I said Ambassador Lane had clearly reported after his conversation with Minister Rzymowski that he had not protested nationalization and that not only had reports been given out regarding Lane’s alleged protest on nationalization but inaccurate information was given me regarding Secretary’s interview with Rzymowski on exchange rate. Olszewski then stated that Ambassador had not only spoken of infringement of treaty but had expressed himself as much concerned about attitude taken by Mine in his speech and has said that as long as attacks in press and in KRN (I assume Olszewski referred to Mine’s speech27) continued Poland would not get a dollar and he would not recommend it. Olszewski then said that although the Ambassador had not used word “protest” in connection with nationalization, ForOff had construed Lane’s reference to Mine’s speech as implying an attack on nationalization.
In referring to remarks made to you in London by Rzymowski and Modzelewski Olszewski said they had notes covering Lane’s conversation confirming fact stenographic notes had been taken as Lane was aware and had told me.
Olszewski referred to Mine’s speech and others delivered at KRN Congress and stated that there had been no word of attack against American capital at any time. In referring to exchange rate Olszewski stated he had asked me to confirm this information in Washington. I told him I had done so and that it was because I had expected to report it to Dept that as he would recall I had taken particular pains to quote him without error.
In commenting on your statement that US did not wish to interfere in Polish internal affairs Olszewski said Poles were going to have elections, were making plans for them and he did not quite understand why we continually made reference to free and unfettered elections. I replied I thought he would appreciate that we could not overlook responsibilities assumed at Yalta.
At no time did conversation become argumentative nor was there any display of personal animosity or unfriendliness but it was evident they both knew serious situation existed. Olszewski then said he would like to speak in private capacity his remarks to be regarded as unofficial. During past 6 months’ period he had felt tendency existed on part of Embassy not to understand problems of Polish Govt. He felt that Ambassador and I had on occasion tried to imply that if this or that were not done Poles would not be able to obtain loans, that he wanted to state that they had tried to keep relations cordial, and that in doing so matter of loans had had no bearing on such action. He expressed wish that we endeavor to inform ourselves (presumably [Page 387] more fully) as to situation here and said that so often it happened that it seemed to be trifling points which had given trouble. He added that they had tried to avoid raising minor issues. I replied I wanted him to know we endeavored to inform ourselves by knowing opinion of all elements within Poland. Olszewski then wished that we might work with Poles with same understanding in all matters as they had asked Ambassador Lange to do with our Govt. Olszewski said he desired talk with me on completely private basis to discuss problems which provided mutual difficulties and invited Zebrowski and me to dinner at his home on 31st. I accepted. Olszewski concluded 2-hour interview by saying he did not understand how misunderstanding with regard to exchange rate had occurred but as for subject of nationalization (presumably the protest) he was still not convinced.
Sent Dept as 134; repeated to Paris for Lane as 13.28
- Regarding Mine’s speech of January 3, see footnote 4, p. 374.↩
- Ambassador Lane was in Paris to attend a conference of economic counselors and advisers from American missions in Europe. In telegram 520, February 2, from Paris, he concurred in Keith’s views and added that he strongly recommended that the United States continue to refuse to extend credits to Poland until the questions of press freedom and police repression were satisfactorily settled (860C.51/2–246). Telegram 538, February 4, from Ambassador Lane in Paris, reads in part as follows: “I should like to reemphasize my conviction that a maintenance of a strong policy with respect to all Soviet dominated governments is essential to preserve prestige of the United States and to protect effectively American interests in Eastern Europe.” (860C.51/2–446)↩