Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Eastern Europe; Finland; Greece; Turkey, Volume X, Part 2

52. Memorandum of Conversation⁰

Washington, August 26, 1958.

SUBJECT

• U.S. Displeasure over Polish Statements about the U.S.

PARTICIPANTS

• Polish Ambassador Romuald Spasowski
• EUR—C. Burke Elbrick
• EE—Valdemar N. L. Johnson

Mr. Elbrick opened the substantive part of the conversation by saying that he had asked Ambassador Spasowski to call at the Department to inform him of the Department’s displeasure over certain statements made publicly by Polish leaders and media against the United States.

Mr. Elbrick recalled that Ambassador Beam had already advised the Polish Foreign Office of our displeasure concerning these statements.¹ He speculated that the Polish Ambassador might have been informed of Ambassador Beam’s remarks but he stated that, in any event, the Department wished to advise him directly of our views on the subject.

Mr. Elbrick noted with satisfaction the improvement in U.S.-Polish relations since October 1956 and expressed hope that this trend would continue. He referred in this connection to Ambassador Spasowski’s meeting last December with Mr. Dillon, when the Ambassador, in replying to Mr. Dillon’s questions about Poland’s attitude toward the U.S., had said that the Polish Government’s policy continued to envisage the establishment of closer relations with the U.S.² In contrast with this statement, Mr. Elbrick observed, high officials of the Polish Government and officials and organs of the Polish United Workers’ Party subsequently had made a number of public statements impugning U.S. motives and describing U.S. policy in an offensive and apparently unfriendly tone. He said that we recognized the fact that our Governments held differing views on various issues and that these differences could logically be expected to be reflected in public statements of Polish leaders and Party organs. The remarks with which we were displeased, however, went far beyond the mere recording of disagreement with U.S. policies by making repeated and gratuitous public references to the allegedly undesirable nature of U.S. policy in general. Mr. Elbrick said that we did not view such statements as contributing to the aim of closer relations between our two countries and that we wondered whether they represented in fact the considered policy of the Polish Government.

Ambassador Spasowski said that he could assure Mr. Elbrick that the policy of the Polish Government, as stated in December to Mr. Dillon, had not changed and that the Polish Government continued to follow a policy of developing closer relations with the U.S. He stated his observation in this connection that certain circles in the U.S. opposed the establishment of better relations with Poland and he noted a parallel in Poland where certain factions did not favor closer relations with the U.S. With reference to divergencies of public opinion in the U.S. concerning relations with Poland, the Ambassador said that serious problems had been raised for the Polish Government in relations with its neighbors by public statements made in the U.S. by persons favoring economic aid to Poland for the specific purpose of causing difficulties between Poland and the Soviet Union. As an example of this type of statement, he referred to remarks made by President Eisenhower on June 18 at a press conference where, the Ambassador said, the President had stated an aim of economic aid to Poland as being the creation of difficulties between Poland and the Soviet Union.³

Mr. Elbrick said that he did not believe that this was what the President had said on this occasion. He added that the President had made no charges against Poland and that his remarks could not be considered as a parallel to the repeated unfriendly Polish statements to which Mr. Elbrick had referred previously. Mr. Elbrick said that we were not fully informed about the opinions of various factions within Poland, to which the Ambassador had alluded, but we had noted that the Polish people sometimes expressed their opinions in violent ways. He stated his impression that the Polish people were not anti-American, an apparent fact which gave us further difficulty in understanding the gratuitous references made by Polish leaders to U.S. policy. He noted in this connection that we were registering displeasure specifically about statements made by Polish leaders and not about the opinions or public views of factions within Poland.

The Polish Ambassador said that complexities in Poland’s international affairs were an important part of the question under discussion. Mr. Elbrick replied that we realized this fully. Ambassador Spasowski proposed that the Department should judge Polish attitudes by facts rather than public statements. He said that facts demonstrated the improvement in U.S.-Polish relations and he referred specifically to certain developments in support of this point. He selected as an outstanding example the fact that Poland continued to be interested in further economic aid agreements with the U.S. He said that he was not in a position to make a formal presentation on this subject now, but he could assure us that the Polish Government had reached a decision to request the U.S. in the near future to resume talks looking toward another economic agreement. He stated that the Polish Government wished to avoid having this subject become a public issue in the U.S. in connection with the forthcoming elections and he implied that the formal approach to the Department would not be made before the elections or, if so, that the Polish Government would wish to begin the negotiations without publicity. He implied further that the Polish Government’s decision to enter into renewed economic talks represented an independent move by Poland in the face of Soviet displeasure with economic aid agreements between Poland and the U.S. Ambassador Spasowski also referred to the continuing exchange program and the forthcoming ceremonies in Jamestown commemorating the 350th anniversary of the landing of the first Poles in America as examples of improved U.S.-Polish relations.

In addition to implied difficulties with Poland’s neighbors, Ambassador Spasowski said that the Polish Government faced some serious internal difficulties, particularly with the Church. He set forth in some detail a presentation along the lines of the position taken by the Polish Government in the Polish press on this controversy. Mr. Elbrick observed that this was an internal Polish affair but that it was followed with great interest outside of Poland and that moves against the Church such as those taken by the Polish Government at Jasna Gora⁴ were bound to have repercussions in many countries. The Ambassador agreed that this was true but expressed the conviction that the issue would be solved.

Ambassador Spasowski asked if the statements cited by Mr. Elbrick had been made by Gomulka. Mr. Elbrick replied that they had been made by a number of Government and Party leaders, including Spychalski, Jarosiewicz and Cyrankiewicz, and that we would give the Ambassador detailed examples, if he wished.

Ambassador Spasowski said that he would inform his Government of the substance of Mr. Elbrick’s remarks.

(On leaving Mr. Elbrick’s office, Ambassador Spasowski was questioned by two representatives of the press who asked for information concerning the subject of his meeting with Mr. Elbrick, observing that the subject must have been of some importance since the meeting lasted 45 minutes. The Ambassador replied that the conversation had concerned U.S.-Polish relations in general and that he was not in a position to comment further.)

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.48/8–2658. Confidential. Drafted by Johnson and initialed by Elbrick.
1. See Document 48.
2. For the memorandum of this conversation, December 24, 1957, see Foreign Relations, 1955–1957, vol. XXV, pp. 701–702.
3. See footnote 3, Document 48.
4. Bishop Zdislaw Golinski of Czestochowa asserted that State and secret policemen had invaded the Jasna Gora Pauline monastery housing shrine July 21, 1958, and had confiscated all church archives and records. Spokesmen for Stefan Cardinal Wyszynski said on July 28 that police had ransacked his office on Jasna Gora and beaten protesting priests and pilgrims. Reports of these incidents were printed in The New York Times, July 29, 1958. Documentation on these incidents is in Department of State, Central Files 848.413 and 749.00.