38. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Poland0
124. Embtel 140.1 Program outlined Deptel 1012 based on high level consideration relevant factors, including supply situation in Poland, requirements our policy toward Poland, question whether policy should be maintained, effect of Berlin crisis on policy and effect PL 480 program on Berlin contingency planning. Have given careful consideration recommendations contained recent Embassy communications and have had full discussion with Donnelly, who argued effectively for significant cut from last year’s program. While proposed program developed subsequent Donnelly’s departure and cannot claim it has his endorsement do not believe it inconsistent his argumentation.
Decision proceed with program at this time based principally on judgment it essential if policy toward and present relations with Poland to be maintained. Failure proceed at this time would be interpreted as measure connected with Berlin crisis. This would be counter to posture we wish to assume at this stage crisis.
While level of program could be open to differing views believe there is minimum essential level required to maintain present degree Polish dependence on US. Providing too little may be worse than nothing at all. Extreme short tether approach as suggested your G–5553 would in our judgment lead Poles reevaluate their relations with us.4
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.4841/7–2461. Confidential; Priority; Limit Distribution. Drafted by Katz; cleared by Blumenthal, Tyler, and the Department of Agriculture; and approved by Kohler.↩
- Telegram 140, July 24, stated: “Cannot concur program outlined Deptel 101 and hope will not be presented Polish delegation pending our considered comments.” (Ibid.)↩
- Dated July 21. (Ibid., 611.4841/7–2161)↩
- Airgram G–555, June 23, reported Embassy comments on Lychowski’s statement on the Polish position in economic contacts. (Ibid., 411.62041/6–2361)↩
- In telegram 152 from Warsaw, July 26, the Embassy reiterated its concerns and outlined its objections to the size of the proposed Polish economic assistance program. (Ibid., 611.4841/7–2661)↩
- Not found.↩