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

860C.00/5–446: Telegram

The United States Political Adviser for Germany (Murphy) to the Secretary of State

confidential

Berlin, May 4, 1946—10 p.m.
[Received May 5—12:55 p.m.]

1188. From Lane.⁴⁴ Following is substance of my talk with Modzelewski May 4, noon, immediately prior to my departure for Paris by airplane. As this telegram is being dictated in airplane, I regret I am not able to refer to previous telegrams on all subjects discussed.

1. I referred to assurances given by Rajchman and Zoltowski during credit negotiations that we would be furnished with copies of all trade agreements now in effect and of future agreements to which Poland may be a party. I referred specifically to our desire to obtain text of Soviet-Polish agreement of April 15, 1946 (Deptel 369, April 30⁴⁵). Modzelewski said that we would receive copies as promised and added somewhat unpleasantly that Poland always complies with its undertakings. I asked when we would receive agreements. Modzelewski said that it would be necessary for him to confer with Jedrychowski, Minister of Navigation and Foreign Trade. I asked why it would be necessary to consult him in view of promises made by Polish Govt in Washington. Modzelewski said that Jedrychowski has originals of all treaties. I countered that we are not asking for originals but only for copies of agreements and inquired whether FonOff has such copies. Modzelewski said that FonOff had copies [apparent omission] would receive them. As it was evident from conversation that Modzelewski was giving me the usual run-around I said that I would like to be able to inform Secretary Byrnes as to when we would receive such copies. Modzelewski finally said, “next week”. In order that there might be no misunderstanding I asked, “Then I may assure Mr. Byrnes that treaties will be furnished us next week?” Modzelewski replied in the affirmative.

2. I said that Modzelewski’s note⁴⁶ in reply to our memo of April 19 re date of elections⁴⁷ did not refer to our suggestion that pertinent portion of Potsdam Decision re Polish elections [apparent omission]. Modzelewski replied, as in his note, that Osubka-Morawski’s speech before KRN covered this. I said that Premier’s speech was not as specific as we would have liked. I said that we had presumed that notes recently exchanged in Washington following credit negotiations would have been published before now and would therefore have satisfied the suggestion made in my memo of April 19. I said that conditions agreed upon had not been published in Polish press despite agreement to this effect. Modzelewski said that release to press by Under Secretary Acheson contained observations which had not been previously agreed upon between Lange and Dept. He said that he had no objections to Dept’s comments but the fact was that these observations came as a surprise to Lange. He said that Polish Govt had not published text of notes exchanged because it had not yet received them from Lange. I inquired whether Lange had addressed notes on such important matter without authorization of his govt. Modzelewski replied that Lange had been entirely correct in obtaining authorization from his govt which had in fact been confirmed by President Bierut but that actual text of notes had not been received. I expressed failure to understand that Lange would have addressed notes without receiving detailed textual authorization. Modzelewski’s comment was, “We will publish them when received.”

3. I delivered a first person note, date May 3, copy of which will be transmitted to Dept by despatch. (Deptel 372, April 30, mytel 624, May 1 and Dept’s reply to latter message⁴⁸). Modzelewski made surprising statement that there is no censorship of any messages sent by foreign correspondents in Poland. He said that in his opinion some employee in telegraph office in order to make trouble between us and Poland may have failed to transmit press despatches on Banczyk’s speech but the fact that speech was published in Polish press (so far as I know only in Gazeta Ludowa) there was no reason why Govt would object to transmission abroad. He said that Polish Govt wishes to know what our correspondents were sending but that there is no censorship and that messages are being transmitted no later than 15 minutes after receipt at telegraph office. We have evidence of censorship of outgoing telegrams. It is clear that Modzelewski as in preceding paragraph is pretending to evade responsibility for actions committed by subordinate officials who undoubtedly act under orders of their superiors. Larry Allen⁴⁹ informs me that his story of May Day parade which was filed May 1, 3 p.m. was not sent, according to notations by telegraph office on his telegram which was received in Prague, until 9 a.m., May 2, thus greatly detracting from news value.

4. I reminded him of promises to furnish me with draft electoral law. He said that proposed law had been so much changed in electoral sub-committee of KRN that original draft had no further importance and would merely mislead us as to scope of final legislation. He promised to furnish us with draft as soon as it is approved and in the meantime would send us copy of law on referendum as passed by KRN.

5. He [I?] said that I had received morning May 4 telegram from Dept authorizing me to protest re practice of Security Police in intimidating Polish members of Embassy staff.⁵⁰ I said that employees had been threatened with punishment and in some cases even with death if they did not agree to furnish UB with information re Embassy’s activities. I said that in the first place our regulations prohibit us from imparting confidential matters to alien members of staff so that there would be no confidential information which Polish members could give to Secret Police. Secondly, I have no activities in Warsaw which I desire to keep from Polish Govt. I said that I resent that Polish police should adopt scandalous procedure of threatening members of my staff. I said that members of staff felt they could not serve two masters. This attitude does not imply disloyalty to Poland but in view of fact that they are receiving their salaries from US they wish to be loyal to Embassy. I said that I had consulted with several colleagues who had confirmed similar practice employed with respect to their Polish staff. In view of receipt of instructions from my Govt, I desired to protest emphatically and request that procedure be discontinued. Modzelewski asked me to supply names; I said I could not do so as this would undoubtedly endanger the lives of members of my staff. He said he did not wish names of our employees who had been questioned but names of security police who had done the questioning. I said obviously names of police had not been disclosed by the police to our employees and for that reason I could not comply with his request. Modzelewski said he would look into the matter but it was obvious from his general discomfiture that he was not able nor willing to make any effective representations to the police authorities.

6. I referred to two incidents which had taken place at airport May 4 on my attempted departure for Paris: (a) Security Police had demanded search my baggage. Military Attaché for Air refused but police still insisted and stated that they wish to ascertain whether I was smuggling gold out of the country. (b) Security Police officer refused to return my passport to me when flight was postponed on ground that I might substitute somebody in my place on the plane. I said that I regarded these two incidents as an insult to me and that I wished to protest re the insolence and hostile attitude of the Secret Police towards me and my Embassy. Modzelewski immediately said there is no argument in the matter, that I was completely right and that if I would furnish him with the names of the offending officers he would take immediate action. Embassy Warsaw is endeavoring to obtain names which it will furnish to Foreign Office as requested.

Sent to Dept as 1188; repeated to Warsaw as 133. [Lane.]

Murphy

44. Ambassador Lane was en route to Paris to discuss the situation in Poland with the Secretary of State and other Government officials.
45. Not printed.
46. For text of Acting Foreign Minister Modzelewski’s note of April 29, see footnote 21, p. 431.
47. Ambassador Lane’s memorandum to the Polish Foreign Ministry dated April 19 not printed, but see telegram 550, April 19, from Warsaw, p. 429.
48. None printed; these messages were concerned with the representations Ambassador Lane was to make to the Polish Government requesting that American correspondents be permitted immediately to send Banczyk’s speech in full by wire to the United States and that no further obstacles be placed to their reporting freely on aU developments in Poland (860C.00/4–2846 and 860C.00/5–146).
49. Correspondent for the Associated Press.
50. Reference to telegram 389, May 2 to Warsaw; see footnote 29, p. 438.