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

800.00b/8–3148: Telegram

The Chargé in Poland (Crocker) to the Secretary of State

restricted

Warsaw, August 31, 1948—noon.

1155. Information on proceedings World Congress Intellectuals requested by Department as of particular interest submitted herewith.¹

a. Embassy has no evidence of any link between Congress and Cominform.² Available evidence supports conclusion that Congress almost entirely of Polish inspiration to which French induced lend some support. It was not organized or held as CP spectacle and many non-Communists participated. Though line advanced in proceedings by Polish delegates followed in general Soviet and hackneyed CP line, our observers believe Poles were noticeably more restrained than Soviets and report that opening solies [sallies?] of Fadieev³ and tactics and behavior USSR delegation throughout were source dismay to Polish delegation and Polish organizers. Fact that Soviets adopted belligerent and intransigent attitude from outset and thus split Congress against wishes of Poles indicates there was no particular coordination between Poles and Soviets preliminary to or during Congress and that it was not considered by Poles as Party affair. Our observers believe Poles had hoped for unanimous approval main resolution with possible incorporation therein of expression of approval of Oder–Neisse frontiers but that Soviet tactics made such impossible of attainment to disappointment Poles. Lack unanimity purpose and front between Poles and Soviets plus fact reported by Embassy Moscow that Soviet press did not mention Congress until August 18 appear negate connection with Cominform and confirm our belief that Soviets and Poles were not more than casually coordinated.

b. There remains possibility that framework of permanent liaison committee established by Congress and national committees provided for in resolution (Embtels 1143 and 1144, August 29⁴) may envisage some loose type organization among left-wingers intended for political action and utterances. As such it would not parallel or compete with UNESCO since objective would not be objective discussion cultural problems. Closest observable analogy might be independent citizens committee of arts, sciences and professions in US headed by Jo Davidson.⁵ Before Congress opened Huxley⁶ informally discussed possibility welding world intellectuals into group which would be affiliated with UNESCO and UN but his disillusionment with Congress set in almost immediately and it was not proposed. It is understood that Soviet Union delegation opposed idea. Our observers inclined to belief that Soviet delegation regarded Congress as one-shot propaganda show. Kahn⁷ suggestion that similar national congresses be held throughout world incorporated into Congress resolution and as result thereof echoes of their solution may hereafter be heard in those countries where congresses are organized but they will almost certainly be purely political and pro-Communist in approach and tone.

c. Communist expressions did not attain theoretical or objective level but were almost exclusively limited to stark Soviet propaganda and political line that all things American and bourgeois were inferior to culture and attainments of Soviet Union. Charges and accusations were broad and brutal rather than factual or constructive.

d. Only UNESCO personnel identified with Congress were Huxley and E. J. Carter, UK delegate and UNESCO director of libraries. Carter did not figure in proceedings. Huxley conducted himself well throughout. Startled at outset by flagrant and unexpected political aspect of gathering, he overcame reluctance to compromise his own international standing and that UNESCO by making at end third day vigorous and earnest plea for mutual accommodation and understanding of conflicting attitudes. When these overtures rejected by Zaslavsky⁸ in angry taunting speech Huxley departed Congress quietly and with dignity. He earlier submitted a well-conceived resolution assigning to UN a major responsibility in maintaining world peace which was not considered.

e. Neither UNESCO nor UN as such mentioned by Communist delegates. Whole tenor their discussions favored development local cultures based on national independence and sovereignty. Since UN and UNESCO represent efforts to achieve supernationalism [supra-nationalism?] in political and cultural fields they were ignored. US was principal target of abuse. General attitude was that USA imperialism in political, financial and cultural fields constituted greatest threat to peace. Subsidiary theme was that US preparing for war. Fact that final resolution did not specifically name US as provided in original draft attributable to objections US and British delegations and Polish willingness to compromise in effort achieve unanimous approval of a resolution.

f. Official Congress publication lists 385 delegates from 38 delegations including 26 recognized nations and 6 colonial dependencies. Delegations also represented republican Spain, democratic Greece, “liberated” China, Vietnam, Soviet zone Germany and Portuguese in exile in France. Largest delegations from Poland 53, UK 43, Italy 37, USA 32, France 27, Czecho 24, and USSR 19.

Crocker

1. The World Congress of Intellectuals met in Wroclaw (Breslau) between August 25–28, 1948. The Department’s request for information was in telegram 495 of August 19, not printed.
2. The Chargé added in telegram 1165 from Warsaw on September 1, not printed: “Although as previously reported we believe there was no organizational link between it and Cominform, recently concluded World Intellectual Congress Wroclaw is perfect example of ability small core hard-shelled Russian Communists to dominate large group of generally well-intentioned but vaguely oriented ‘do-gooders’ and to pervert purpose and thoughts of majority.” (800.00b/9–148) Ambassador Caffery, however, reported from Paris in telegram 4890 on September 17 that, judging from the evidence available there, an “organizational link” did exist between the Congress and the Cominform. (800.00b/9–1748)
3. Alexander Alexandrovich Fadeyev was a prominent Soviet writer and novelist, whose novel The Young Guard had recently come under attack in the Soviet Union.
4. Neither printed.
5. A well-known American sculptor.
6. Julian S. Huxley, the British biologist and author, president of the United Nations Economic, Scientific and Cultural Organization, shared the chairmanship of the Congress with the French scientist Mme. Irene Joliot-Curie, and a member of the delegation from the Soviet Union.
7. Albert E. Kahn, Assistant Professor of Economics in Cornell University.
8. David Iosifovich Zaslavsky was a prominent, frequently unrestrained Soviet newspaper correspondent and writer.