Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, Eastern Europe; The Soviet Union, Volume IV

860F.00/5–3148: Telegram

The Ambassador in Czechoslovakia (Steinhardt) to the Secretary of State

secret   urgent

Praha, May 31, 1948—2 p. m.

839. In spite of intense propaganda, intimidation, regimented voting, that casting of blank ballots was declared by high officials of the government to be tantamount to treason, and a complete lack of secrecy,—the number of intentionally mutilated ballots, blank ballots; and other protest ballots described below was considerably greater than the Communist leaders appear to have anticipated.¹ The percentage of protest votes unofficially reported to have been cast was sufficently high to confirm the belief of foreign diplomats and newspaper correspondents that sixty to seventy-five percent of voting population is as of today opposed to the Communist regime and resentful of the Communist seizure of power. The election was orderly and there were no disturbances, which may be attributed at least in part to methods of intimidation employed by the government and the complete lack of secrecy. Early official returns indicate that government will announce from eleven to twelve percent blank ballots. Undoubtedly government will not announce the number of ballots that were intentionally mutilated or the number of “home-made” protest ballots or pictures of Beneš and Masaryk that were clandestinely distributed on the same kind of paper of the same size as the official ballots and which were inserted by many voters in the envelopes intended to contain the ballots.

A noticeable feature of the election in the city of Praha was the conduct of the precinct officials as the day progressed, in limiting what freedom and secrecy there had been during the early hours. This was accomplished in many precincts by removing the screen or making it more or less inaccessible after noon, and by employing various forms of intimidation to make the voting progressively more public. Among the methods employed to achieve this end were to call out the names of the voters in a loud voice and to station an inspector next to the basket in which the voter was obliged to place his unused ballot thereby permitting the inspector to observe which ballot was used. Another noticeable feature in Praha was the unexpected dismissal at about 8:30 p. m. of the regular Praha inspectors who were tabulating the ballots. These inspectors had been prepared to continue their work until 3 a. m. when it was expected the final count would be established. Instead they were abruptly dismissed and the tabulation was taken over by representatives of the Ministry of Interior.

The foregoing measures can only be attributed to a degree of surprise and annoyance by the Communist leaders at the extent of the discontent indicated by the early vote and a determination to increase the pressure on the voters, to ascertain for themselves the extent of the discontent, and to control the final count. Early unofficial report from Moravia indicate that blank ballots were running 33 percent and in Slovakia 20 percent. It is most unlikely however that the government will admit any such percentages in the published count.²

Steinhardt

1. Reference here is to the elections for the Czechoslovak National Assembly on May 30, 1948.

2. Airgram A–495, June 9, 1948, from Praha, not printed, reported that final official election returns gave the Communist-dominated National Front 89 percent of the valid votes; the remaining 11 percent of the ballots were blank. The airgram commented further as follows:

   “The Embassy has already informed the Department of its conviction that the election results were ‘rigged’ and that at least 40% of voters cast the white ballot or purposely invalidated their vote. The British Embassy supports this view with figures of 42% opposition votes in Bohemia, 35% in Moravia, and 66% in Slovakia. These figures would, of course, be considerably higher but for intimidation of voters and absence of secrecy at the polls.” (860F.00/6–948)