Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, Eastern Europe; The Soviet Union, Volume V

860C.00/6–949

Memorandum of Conversation, by the Assistant Chief, Division of Eastern European Affairs (Salter)

confidential

[Washington,] June 9, 1949.

I asked Mr. Wszelaki¹ to lunch with me today as I wished to hear about his recent visit to London, which he undertook for the purpose of renewing contact with his “principals” there and of discussing with them the possibility of Polish affiliation with the newly-formed (in New York) National Committee for Free Europe, Inc.² It took Wszelaki more than two hours to fill me in on his trip. The principal points he made may be summarized as follows:

1. Wszelaki went to London to see his principals, the officials of the Polish Government in exile, and to tell them what he had been able to learn over here about the private American Committee to aid European exiles. He felt, if possible, he should convince the London Poles that association with the American organization could best be carried out by the formation of a representative committee of Poles who would maintain contact with the Americans in the United States. In other words, he wanted to stress his belief that the seat of the Polish Committee should be in the United States rather than in England or elsewhere. He felt that he had been quite successful in his mission.

2. He said he discovered an element of doubt in the minds of Polish and other exiled Eastern European leaders with whom he talked about United States policy toward the Eastern European area. Many leaders expressed the feeling that the United States did not have a deep and abiding interest in that part of the world. There was a common fear that the United States is really indifferent to the fate of Eastern Europe. Wszelaki did his best to answer these arguments but admitted (to me) that this feeling or fear of American indifference was genuine among many exiled political leaders.

3. He got the agreement of his principals to the formation of a committee of Poles (with headquarters in the United States) to work with the American Committee for Free Europe, subject to certain important conditions respecting the composition of the Polish Committee.³ His principals felt that such a committee should be composed of the following elements:

(a) A representative of the Council of Polish Immigrants and Refugees in Paris

(b) A representative of the Polish war veterans who, if possible, enjoys the confidence of General Anders⁴

(c) A representative of Polish “culture and education”

(d) Jan Ciechanowski, former Polish Ambassador to United States must be a member

(e) Wszelaki should also be a member (although I gather this is not a must)

(f) A representative from each of the main political parties

(g) Under no circumstances would the London Government Poles agree to join a committee whose membership included Mikolajczyk personally as the representative of the Polish Peasant Party. If the Peasant Party was a member of the Committee it would have to be represented by someone other than Mikolajczyk.

Wszelaki said he received a “free hand” from his principals to negotiate in the United States in accordance with the stipulations itemized above.

4. Wszelaki then referred to the formation in this country of National Committees by the Hungarians, the Czechs, and the Rumanians. A study of these national committees, he observed, showed that there had been some central “unifying idea” around which they had been created. For example, in the case of the Hungarians, the unifying idea had been that of the Republic, as opposed to a monarchy or regency. There was no representation in the Hungarian Committee for those who favored a monarchy or a return to the regency. With the Rumanians, almost the reverse situation had supplied the unifying idea, namely, the Monarchy. In the case of the Czechs, the unifying idea around which their national committee had been created was the “unity of the nation” as opposed to its division into two parts (Czechs and Slovaks). The question of monarchy or republic was not a factor with this group.
The London Poles considered that the unifying idea around which their national committee must be established was that of the “legal continuity” of the Polish Government. The principle of the legal continuity of the Polish Government was something that was believed in by 99 per cent of the Polish emigrés. (I remarked that this figure might be a bit high.) This principle was a very valuable asset and since it was viewed as such by so many Poles abroad, there could be no compromise on this question. It must be the unifying idea which would bind the national committee together. Those who did not accept it would have to be excluded from the proposed committee.

5. Next, Wszelaki gave me some data about the present standing of the Polish political parties among the emigres. He said the Socialists had lost considerable ground. The Pilsudkists had made the most surprising recovery in popularity among the emigres. They were quite strong. Bielecki’s National Democrats were likewise popular but not the most popular. Lowest on the list were the so-called anti-Mikolajczyk “agrarians” (Peasant Party). They were fairly strong among the DP’s in Western Germany. He could however discover no following or support for Mikolajczyk himself anywhere!

Comments by EE:

Wszelaki is a friendly and intelligent “London” Pole, whose views merit consideration. His report shows clearly the chasm still dividing the Polish emigres, particularly the political leaders. According to Wszelaki’s account, the chief divisive element in the picture is Mikolajczyk himself, with whom there will be no truck, unless he recants and changes.

The popularity poll of the political parties is also interesting. It seems to show that the more conservative elements are gaining strength among the Poles abroad. The report of the rise of the Pilsudski group is almost disturbing. This faction includes a lot of young people, too. The ascendancy of the more conservative elements may be explained by the presence among the political emigres of so many pre-war leaders, including the military, as well as a reflection of the growing revulsion to Communism generally.

A Polish National Committee without the participation of the Polish Peasant Party may have a diminished appeal for the people of Poland, particularly if they get the idea it stands for the old order. Relics of dead regimes are unlikely to have much attraction for the people back home. In its arresting editorial on June 3, 1949, commenting on the formation of the American Committee, The Washington Post stated: “The Committee for Free Europe will make a greater impact if it encourages men of the background of Mikolajezyk of Poland and Dimitroff of Bulgaria, whose names and whose records still stand for something at home.”

Fred K. Salter

1. Jan Wszelaki, unofficial representative in Washington of the Polish Government-in-Exile in London.
2. Regarding the establishment of the National Committee for Free Europe, see the circular airgram, infra.
3. It was announced on June 6 in London that a meeting of Polish émigrés had agreed upon the formation of a Polish National Council under the chairmanship of Titus Filipowicz, former Polish Ambassador in the United States. No representative of Mikolajczyk’s Polish Peasant Party had been included in the Council.
4. Wladyslaw Anders, Commander of the Polish II Corps in Italy, 1943–1945; Commander of Polish Armed Forces (in exile), 1945.