In view of the difficulties and delays which the Embassy is constantly
encountering in arranging for the departure from the Soviet Union of
Soviet wives of American officers and employees of the Embassy76
it is believed that Mr. Vyshinski’s frank discussion of
[Page 878]
certain aspects of this problem is of
considerable interest. It is realized, of course, that there are other
factors which come into the determination of this question, such as the
rigid control which the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs holds
over the people of this country and which Mr. Vyshinski obviously did
not touch upon. However, I believe that he spoke with unusual frankness,
for a Soviet official, in discussing this question with a diplomatic
officer of another country.
[Enclosure]
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Second
Secretary of Embassy in the Soviet Union (Page)
Mr. Hamilton stated that on several occasions he had taken up with
various officials of the Foreign Office the question of the interest
of the Embassy and the United States Government in the cases of
Soviet wives of American officers and employees of the Embassy who
desired to leave the Soviet Union to accompany their husbands to the
United States. He said that one such case was that of Mrs. Kemp
Tolley (I. V. Rabinovich), the wife of Commander Tolley77 who was due to leave
Moscow for the United States within the next few days. Mr. Hamilton
expressed the hope that the appropriate Soviet authorities could
expedite consideration of Mrs. Tolley’s case so that she might
accompany her husband.
Mr. Vyshinski replied that these cases presented certain difficulties
and stated that they should be taken up through OVIR (Bureau of
Visas and Registration). Mr. Hamilton stated that Mrs. Tolley had
taken this case up with this Bureau. Mr. Hamilton mentioned that a
few days ago Admiral Olsen78 had wished
to express directly to this Bureau his interest in the case of Mrs.
Tolley, but the Bureau had informed him that it could not receive
foreigners and that the place for foreigners to take up matters was
at the Foreign Office. Mr. Vyshinski commented that the Soviet
citizen involved always had access to OVIR. Mr. Hamilton said that
anything Mr. Vyshinski and the Foreign Office could do toward
expediting consideration of Mrs. Tolley’s case would be appreciated,
as we naturally looked to the Foreign Office as the agency to
communicate an expression of our interest to whatever Soviet
authority had jurisdiction over the matter.
[Page 879]
Mr. Hamilton then said that he would like to turn aside from the
particular case and to ask whether Mr. Vyshinski could give him any
information on the underlying concepts and origin of Soviet law
concerning the denaturalization of Soviet citizens. He said it was
difficult for us to understand the basic reasons in this aspect of
Soviet law. He remarked that anything Mr. Vyshinski wished to say on
the subject need not apply to the case at issue.
Mr. Vyshinski stated that perhaps the following historic reasons for
the Soviet regulations pertaining to denaturalization would be of
interest to Mr. Hamilton. At the time of the revolution many of the
Russian upper classes and a large part of the aristocracy had
succeeded in fleeing abroad from the Soviet Union. The same process
had obtained during and after the French revolution. As a
result—both at the beginning of the 19th century and following the
Russian revolution—emigrant circles had grown up in neighboring
countries which were inimical to revolutionary France and in the
20th century to the Soviet Union. They had caused trouble in
subsequent years. These circumstances had undoubtedly been felt in
the framing of the laws relative to the renunciation of Soviet
citizenship and the departure of Soviet citizens from the Soviet
Union. They had also contributed to Soviet traditions and
contemporary thinking on the problem—although of course conditions
had greatly changed since that time.
Mr. Hamilton stated that he was grateful to obtain these views of Mr.
Vyshinski. He remarked that in the United States although the
problem of divesting one’s self of American citizenship had never
been of comparable significance, that of acquiring American
citizenship was much more difficult and one which involved much more
time. Mr. Vyshinski welcomed this approach to the question at issue.
Remarking that he was of course speaking entirely unofficially and
on a personal basis he stated that after the Russian revolution,
living conditions were extremely difficult in the Soviet Union and a
great deal of toil and sweat had to be expended before life became
easier. Some people, including many good workers, had tried to avoid
the work of building up the Soviet state by leaving the country—and
frequently under the cloak of marriage to a foreigner. The Russian
state and the Russian people looked down on these shirkers and held
them in contempt, not because they wished to enter into matrimony
with a foreigner but because they used marriage as a subterfuge—as a
means of avoiding their share of honest work that was required of
all in the Soviet Union. In the revolutionary years certain laws
were framed concerning the renunciation of Soviet citizenship and
the right to leave the Soviet Union and certain traditions and ways
of thinking were established. These Soviet traditions were deeply
engrained
[Page 880]
and have
prevailed and consequently the laws based upon them are difficult
quickly to change.
The Soviet state does not oppose foreign marriages—be it to a
Chinese, Negro or Englishman so long as the marriage is in fact
culminated for the purpose of entering into honest marital
relations. But it has been found that this has not always been the
case and that marriage has been use[d] for another purpose—to divest
oneself of Soviet citizenship in order to leave the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Government will not tolerate marriages being used for
that purpose. Interests of the state are involved and each foreign
marriage must be judged on its own merits. It is not the formal act
of marriage but the marital relationship that is the test; in other
words, has the marriage been culminated because a woman really
desires to enter into wedlock or because she wishes to divest
herself of citizenship?
Mr. Vyshinski stated that these were the fundamental concepts of
Soviet denaturalization law and added that it was of course not easy
at first thoroughly to understand such laws of a second country
unless the underlying reasons therefor were clear. He remarked that
in the United States the acquiring of citizenship and establishing
the privilege of immigrating were much more difficult matters than
in the Soviet Union, whereas, in the Soviet Union the divesture of
Soviet citizenship was harder than in the United States. Both
policies were based on the self protection of the state.
Mr. Hamilton thanked Mr. Vyshinski for the frank expression of his
views and stated that an understanding of the underlying concepts or
background on a subject offered great help in the avoiding of
misunderstandings. Mr. Vyshinski agreed. Mr. Hamilton said that in
this whole matter our principal concern was that families be not
separated. Mr. Vyshinski said that the Soviet Government also
believed that families should be together. He emphasized again that
he was simply expressing personal views in the friendly, frank way
which he liked to follow.
