Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Eastern Europe, The Soviet Union, Volume VI

860C.00/2–2646

The British Embassy to the Department of State

Aide-Mémoire

Mr. Bevin is greatly concerned over the political situation in Poland as revealed in recent conversations between His Majesty’s Ambassador at Warsaw and M. Mikolajczyk, a summary of which is attached.⁷¹

If M. Mikolajczyk is to be believed (and he is not normally given to exaggeration or nerves) the critical moment is rapidly approaching which will decide whether reasonably free elections are to be held on the basis of the 1921 Constitution or whether Communist predominance is to be perpetuated either by the passing of a new electoral law and the use of terrorist tactics against the Polish Peasant Party or by the passage of a new constitution through a Constituent Assembly elected with M. Mikolajczyk’s consent on a single list basis. In either event Poland would pass under a regime similar to those in Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Roumania.

2. The question arises therefore what action, if any, His Majesty’s Government and United States Government propose to take to forestall this.

3. In reply to a question in Parliament on the 20th February suggesting that an International Commission supervise the preparation and conduct of the elections in Poland, Mr. Bevin made a statement recalling the Polish Provisional Government’s pledge in the terms of the Crimea Agreement to hold free and unfettered elections and the assurances given by M. Bierut at Potsdam regarding the holding of elections on the basis of the 1921 Constitution, and added that if these pledges are strictly fulfilled, arrangements for the supervision of the elections by an international commission would appear to be unnecessary. Mr. Bevin hopes that Mr. Byrnes may find it possible to make a statement on similar lines.

4. M. Mikolajczyk has asked that His Majesty’s Government should state publicly that single list elections would not be “free and unfettered” elections in accordance with the Yalta Declaration. Mr. Bevin would be glad to learn Mr. Byrnes’ views on this point. There appears to be a chance that M. Mikolajczyk will find himself forced to accept the single list system, and if so, such a public statement by His Majesty’s Government might be embarrassing and might even be quoted by extreme opponents of the Warsaw Government as creating an obligation to break off relations, which Mr. Bevin doubts if His Majesty’s Government in any circumstances ought to do.

5. It will be seen that M. Mikolayczyk envisages the possibility that he and his party will be forced out of the Government. This would put an end to the Polish Provisional Government of National Unity, the formation of which was the condition of His Majesty’s Government affording recognition. It is a question therefore whether His Majesty’s Government and the United States Government might not usefully draw public attention to this fact, although they would have to avoid putting themselves in a position where they would have to withdraw recognition if the Polish Peasant Party representatives were turned out of the Government; but this could no doubt be avoided by careful drafting of the statement.

6. Mr. Bevin is anxious, if possible, to go hand in hand with the United States Government in this matter. He has not ignored the possibility of consulting also the Soviet Government, but it is obvious that they are of course behind the Communists and would no doubt do all they could to prevent, or at least hold up, any action likely to hamper communist plans. As time may be short, Mr. Bevin would be grateful to learn the considered views of United States Government at the earliest possible moment.

Washington, February 26, 1946.

71. Paraphrase of telegrams from the British Ambassador in Poland to the Foreign Office, not printed.