I might point out, Mr. Chairman, the Voice of America broadcasts in the Polish language are not jammed in Poland, and this gives us a further avenue of access to the people who can listen to it.

Mr. MONAGAN. And therefore any trade or any cultural exchanges would have significance in counteracting propaganda, or in maintaining a friendly attitude on the part of the people?

Mr. TYLER. I think so, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MONAGAN. But we would not have confidence that they would have any effect upon the regime, itself?

Mr. TYLER. No, sir, we would not, if one has in mind a sudden or dramatic effect.

Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Tyler, would you supply for the record a memorandum on the question of what I call the "indirectly forced" labor exchanges from Lithuania?

Mr. TYLER. I would be glad to, Mr. Chairman. (See p. 316.)
Mr. MONAGAN. I think we left that up in the air

In connection with trade with a country like Poland, you would therefore be balancing on a tightrope, as you have pointed out, because it is very difficult to say that no import, even food, would have strategic importance, but then as you got beyond that it would become more and more objectionable, would it not?

Mr. TYLER. It is a question of careful assessment and of weighing the disadvantages and the advantages, and striking a balance and seeing on which side it comes out.

Mr. MONAGAN. So that our official Government policy with reference to the captive nations doesn't represent in your opinion any softening insofar as our support of their legitimate aspirations and their ultimate freedom and self-determination is concerned.

Mr. TYLER. None whatsoever, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MONAGAN. And we are not condoning or supporting the status quo in these countries in any way.

Mr. TYLER. In no sense of the word.

Mr. MONAGAN. I think that covers all the points that I had in mind. We certainly appreciate your coming here and giving us the benefit of your knowledge, and I hope that it will be some support to you to know that there is an active interest in the Congress in these matters, because one of the reasons why the Committee on Foreign Affairs decided to move forward with these hearings was, first of all, the importance of the subject, the fact that there had been no Congressional study for some 10 years, and the feeling that to some degree the situation had changed so that we should have a look at it, and also the fact that many Members of Congress have introduced resolutions with the objective in view of having a special committee look into this and keep current on it. The feeling of all of us is that as a nation we want to inspire these unfortunate people and give them hope, and to support them in every way that we possibly can, realizing the difficulties of the international situation.

Mr. TYLER. Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity of having appeared before your committee, and would be naturally very happy Mr. MONAGAN. Thank you very much. I will call the hearing closed.

to come again at any time you think it might be useful. (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the hearing was closed.)

CAPTIVE EUROPEAN NATIONS

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1962

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE,
Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 2 p.m., in room P-58, U.S. Capitol, Hon. John S. Monagan presiding.

Mr. MONAGAN. We will call the hearing to order. We are pleased to have with us today our colleague, the Honorable Michael A. Feighan of Ohio, who has long had an interest in the plight of the captive nations of Europe and elsewhere in the world, and who has been a student of the problems of history and politics as they affect these nations.

We are very happy to have you here, Mr. Feighan, to give us such statement as you care to on this subject.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL A. FEIGHAN, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. FEIGHAN. I appreciate receipt of your letter of July 25, 1962, inviting Members of the House to submit testimony concerning the captive nations.

I am delighted to have this opportunity to present my views on the issue of captive nations because I have long been an advocate of the rights of all nations and all peoples to self-government and national independence. Such views accord with the basic traditions of our country, with our political ideals, with our moral principles, and with our oft-stated intentions toward all the nations and peoples of the world.

I observe from your communication of July 25 that the subcommittee has taken testimony from persons having expert knowledge of conditions in Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Rumania. It struck me as peculiar that testimony before this subcommittee would be limited to a select few of the captive nations held by force within the present-day Russian Communist empire. It may be that geographical limitations placed upon the Subcommittee on Europe result in this condition. I trust this is the case, because any other reason could not survive the honest test of what constitutes a captive nation so expertly defined in Public Law 86-90, known as the Captive Nations Week Resolution.

Let me make this clear, Mr. Chairman, I stand for the freedom and national independence of all the nations on which this subcommittee has taken testimony. But let me make this equally clear-I stand without reservation for the rights of all the nations spelled out in Public Law 86-90 in their quest for freedom and national independence. Freedom is indivisible. The worldwide movement toward national independence is equally indivisible. I maintain that the unity of freedom's cause is vital to the survival of freedom anywhere in the world. I maintain with equal conviction that any effort, accidental or intentional, to divide the cause of freedom-expressed through the desires of all the captive nations to regain their national independence is divisive, dangerous in the extreme, self-defeating and a black mark upon the historic traditions of our Nation.

It will be a sad day for the peoples of Asia if, by these hearings, the impression is created that our Government is concerned only with those captive nations which fall within the purview of the Subcommittee on Europe of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. A casual examination of geography reveals that the 600 million or more people of mainland China are captive of the mythology of Marxism supported by the imperial power of Moscow. Such an examination will also reveal that the people of ancient Tibet are no less captives of this tyrannical scourge as are the people of North Korea and North Vietnam.

It will be equally damaging to the cause of American leadership if, as a consequence of these hearings, word goes out that our Government is not interested in the aspirations or the future of certain other captive nations of Europe and in the central Asian part of the modernday Russian empire. I have particular reference to such ancient nations as Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan-these three nations are classified as part of Europe by World Atlas-Encyclopedia BrittanicaTurkestan, Cossackia, and Idel-Ural. All of these nations declared and won their national independence and complete separation from imperial Russia during the period 1917-21. Acts of Russian Communist aggression which robbed these nations of their newly won national independence must not be allowed to purge the honest judgment of history. Genuine scholars are thoroughly acquainted with the historic struggles of these nations against the imperial encroachments of Moscow. Those who are not inclined toward or do not have the time for genuine scholarship in regard to these nations, can find a quick summary of the history and aspirations of these nations in the reports of the House Select Committee To Investigate Communist Aggression, 83d Congress.

Eyewitness testimony taken under oath and supported by reliable documents establish the facts concerning the rights of these nations to be regarded as captive nations. Popular ignorance concerning the history of these nations is no excuse for our failure to give them equal consideration in any deliberations relating to the issue of freedom versus human slavery.

Turning to the captive nations of Europe, I raise the question as to why the Ukrainian nation and the Byelorussian nation have not been considered within the immediate purview of the Subcommittee on Europe of the House Foreign Affairs Committee as expressed in the letter of July 25, 1962, of Hon. John S. Monagan.

These two nations have long been considered a part of Europe by competent historians. As far back as the 13th century, European cosmographers and cartographers have identified Ukraine as part of the European geographical area. Noted in this regard is the work of a Frenchman, Beauplan, whose maps and charts of Ukraine were published in 1651. I admit that the work of early cosmographers and cartographers may be difficult to include in hearings of this type, but I submit that any scholarly examination of the issue of the captive nations requires an understanding and appreciation in depth of geography.

The world atlas of the Encyclopedia Britannica divides the U.S.S.R., the contemporary land mass of the Russian empire, into its European and Asian parts. Both the Ukrainian nation and the Byelorussian nation are listed as European parts of that empire.

Mr. Chairman, I maintain that it is a dangerous exercise in folly, if not political suicide, to disregard the long history and the contemporary aspirations of the people of Ukraine, a nation inhabited by some 42 million people, among the great European powers, and holding unbreakable attachments to the history and culture of Europe. The same may be said for the Byelorussian nation whose population today approximates 15 million people, but which has no less an attachment to the history and to the future of Europe.

Mr. Chairman, I now come to the reason which compels me to appear before this subcommittee. My purpose is best expressed in a series of questions which I present for the consideration of the members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Those questions are

as follows:

1. Does the committee believe that the only captive nations within the present-day Russian empire worthy of our consideration and solicitude are those which, by an arbitrary decision, are considered a part of Europe? I trust this is not the case, because no one but imperial Russia could be served by such a decision.

2. Does the committee, in its considered judgment, agree that captive nations, regardless of their geographical location, merit equal concern and solicitude by the Government of the United States? I trust this is the case, because any other approach to this vital issue will divide freedom's cause, support the propaganda of imperial Russia, spread despair among multitudes of captive people, and, in the end, earn nothing but contempt for our purposes among the suffering masses of the non-European parts of the present-day Russian empire. We must not permit these things to happen.

3. Has the subcommittee on Europe been limited in its purview on this Eurasian problem in any manner which prohibits an honest and open examination of the captive non-Russian nations within the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? There is current public suspicion that these hearings seek to avoid an objective and deliberative examination of the non-Russian nations of the Soviet Union, either because of the feelings of the State Department expressed in the letter of Secretary Rusk to the chairman of the House Rules Committee in connection with the pending resolution-H. Res. 211-or because an open examination of the rights of those captive nations would interfere with or impair delicate negotiations now underway with the leaders of the U.S.S.R.? I trust this is not the case, because any concealment or delay of freedom's cause, accidental or deliberate, can only increase the prospects of war over the long run.