868.052/11–2951: Telegram
The Ambassador in Yugoslavia (Allen) to the Secretary of State 1
717. During interviews with Tito, both recent congressional groups2 here referred to current press reports of peasant unrest and indications of renewed drive by Yugo Govt for further collectivization. Tito admitted that collectivization program had not gone well but said chief reason for failure and dissatisfaction of farmers had been due to incompetent leadership and mismanagement by directors of collective farms and administrators of farm program. He declared that there wld be no forced collectivization and that program wld have to succeed on its demonstrated merits. He said his govt was satisfied that considerable extent of collectivization was necessary to meet Yugo farm conditions and that few years of continued effort wld prove collectives superior productivity.
In response to questions, Tito asserted that only purpose of Yugo Govt’s agricultural policy was to increase production. He said private farmers cld be persuaded to join collectives only by demonstrated productive superiority of collective method and that this means of persuasion wld be used.
Mrs. Kelly asked whether Tito wld allow Americans to give tractors, for example, direct to private Yugo farmers. Tito expressed surprise at question and answered, “of course. We wld welcome any help to increase production”.
I then pointed out that US was concerned with Yugo agricultural policy only insofar as we were asked to pay for it. Referring to obvious fact that practically every good farmer preferred to own his own land and resisted collectivization, I said I was concerned lest such farmers might change their present friendly attitude towards US if our aid were used exclusively for machinery and supplies for collective program. Tito replied that all American aid so far had been for specific projects, and that these projects had not been for purpose of promoting collectivization. He did not envisage any change in this respect. He repeated assurance that sole purpose of [Page 1866] agricultural policy was to increase production and that any measures leading to this end, whether through aid to private collective farms, wld be used and that both wld undoubtedly be employed.
Comment: Tito’s statements shld obviously not be taken at face value. Future will demonstrate their sincerity. At same time, they are significant since Yugo authorities can usually be held to policy statements by Tito whenever specific occasions for applying them arise.
Chief political question remains whether present regime will succeed in eliminating private landowners in order to proletarianize rural population, I have no doubt present thinking of Politburo is along this line, but I am not certain regime can succeed in this effort. Persuasion and demonstration may prove to be only method regime can employ successfully.
- Repeated to Paris, London, and Rome.↩
- Two Congressional delegations visited Yugoslavia during November 1951; the first, which included Congressmen William A. Barrett, Clarence G. Burton, and Tom B. Fugate, met with Tito on November 24, while the second, representing the Foreign Affairs Study Group of the House Foreign Affairs Committee comprised of Congressmen Clement J. Zablocki (Chairman) and Edna F. Kelly, held discussions with Tito on November 29. For a summary of these talks, see telegram 719 from Belgrade, infra.↩