CAPTIVE EUROPEAN NATIONS

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 1962

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursant to call, in room G-3, U.S. Capitol, at 2:45 p.m., Hon. John S. Monagan presiding.

Mr. MONAGAN. I will call this hearing to order.

We have now completed the advance consideration of the captive nations problem through the briefing we have had from Secretary Kohler, and also the testimony from the Chairman of Radio Free Europe, and the Director of the Voice of America.

In accordance with the ideas of the chairman of the committee, we are going to turn to specific countries of the captive nations. We are very honored to have with us today Mr. Stanislaw Mikolajczyk, who is a former Prime Minister of Poland, and president of the International Peasant Union; author of "The Pattern of Soviet Domination."

We are very honored to have you with us, Mr. Mikolajczyk, and appreciate your willingness to come here and educate us in this problem which is very important, not only for the people of Poland, but for the people of the United States and the free world.

Mr. MIKOLAJCZYK. It is my honor, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MONAGAN. You have a statement that I believe you would like to read, and you may proceed to present your statement and then there may be questions when you finish the statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. STANISLAW MIKOLAJCZYK, PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL PEASANT UNION, CHAIRMAN OF THE POLISH PEASANT PARTY, FORMER PRIME MINISTER OF POLAND

Mr. MIKOLAJCZYK. Mr. Chairman, Congressmen, members of the committee, many of the nations of the world, among them the nations of central and eastern Europe, which have behind them thousands of years of national independence, which are bound by and educated on the principles of Christianity and Western European culture, are today under the rule of the Communist dictatorship.

Due to the force and terror of the Red army and NKVD, due to the falsification of elections, they are ruled by Communist regimes against their will.

These nations are exploited by the Soviet imperialism. Their youth is being prepared as the cannon fodder of the Soviet war machine. These nations have to pay from their national incomes, already reduced by Moscow colonialism, the investment costs of aid to underdeveloped and Communist-subjugated Asian countries. They have to pay the cost of Communist political and economic diversion and Soviet Communist aggression on all the continents of the world.

Communist diversion and aggression endanger the whole world and directly threaten it with the prospect of world war III.

It is my opinion the best weapon in the fight against worldwide Communist aggression would be a general economic blockade of Soviet Russia and of the whole Communist bloc.

We have to remember that Hitler's final defeat was caused to a great extent by the economic blockade. We know how far Hitler got despite that blockade. However, nobody knows what would have been the outcome if Hitler had been successful in the application of the latest German scientific discoveries especially in the field of atomic energy.

The U.S.S.R. with its enormous natural resources, such as oil, gold, and other metals, is in a much better situation than Hitler was. Unfortunately, the U.S.S.R. with its own scientific program, also benefits relatively soon, from new inventions and scientific progress in the West by intensive and successful spying.

Fortunately for the free Western World, the Communist system itself is based on only a negligible minority in the countries it controls, on a dictatorship which kills the initiative of men in production, and on an enormously wasteful administration-all of which balances for the West the Communist advantages which come from natural resources and spying.

Therefore, in the long-range, a general economic blockade would lead to the deterioration of the Communist system and of Moscow's imperialism. It would cause the fall of communism and save the world from the disaster of a third world war.

But I am fully aware that, unfortunately, the free Western World will not apply a general economic blockade to the U.S.S.R. and the whole Soviet bloc.

The question then is: Is the West bringing help to the countries which are ruled by Communist regimes; help which will enable these countries to gain more independence from Moscow?

There are even people who say that Communist leaders, by the mere fact of accepting aid or loans from the West endanger themselves in Moscow.

Acceptance of loans or other help from the West does not endanger Communist leaders, because in the Communist empire the benefits of such loans are shared by all Communists.

I, myself, by chance overheard in Potsdam a conversation between Stalin and Minz, the Communist economic dictator in Poland, and Mr. Rajchman, who somehow came to Potsdam together with the American delegation.

Stalin said to Minz: "Comrade, you should apply for a big American loan. You will get it. We cannot get it; there is no chance. When you get your loan, we will share the benefits together."

I think that today, after Mr. Ulbricht asked Chancellor Adenauer to give an enormous loan to Communist East Germany, no one would say any longer that Western loans endanger the standing of Communist leaders in Moscow.

One should have also in mind that the Communists do not give moral credit to the Western World for its help; and publicize only "the abundant gifts and help of the U.S.S.R." in any country.

One way of financing their needs which the Communists dislike is investment loans from the World Bank, because these loans oblige the receiver to report the cost and the amount of production output. And it is just these things that are kept strictly secret in Communistcontrolled countries because they would reveal Moscow's exploitation of the captive countries. It will also show the amount substituted by the captive countries for Moscow in investments in the backward countries subjugated by the Soviets as well as the share the captive countries pay in the cost of Communist political and economic diversion and Communist worldwide aggression in all the continents of the world.

Some people think that the help given to Communist-controlled countries is based on such a simple thing as the transit of the goods sent there through the respective countries directly to Moscow.

That is not so inside the Communist empire under the Soviet orbit. Studying the work of Comecon, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, one finds the answer. Comecon in Moscow makes all the economic plans for the area of the U.S.S.R. and the captive countries in Europe. Delegates of the Asiatic Communist countries participate as observers. In the plan of Comecon, the U.S.S.R. has a right to every kind of production without any limits. The captive countries are limited in kind and amount of production.

The so-called technical advisers from Moscow are rather politruks and they control the fulfillment of Communist plans in the respective countries.

The plans of Comecon provide the quotas of raw materials from the U.S.S.R. to the captive countries as well as the quotas to be shipped from one captive country to another.

Comecon also decides which one of the captive countries, and in what amount, must substitute for Moscow in investments in the Asiatic Communist countries, as well as in the cost of Communist economic diversion and aggression throughout the world.

The recent acceptance of Mongolia as a full member of Comecon was caused by the fact that Poland is responsible for economic investments in Mongolia and so Poland has to pay from its own resources the cost of the economic development of Mongolia. Poland also has to pay the cost of economic diversion in Vietnam and the cost of economic investments in China, Cuba, and in other countries. Another example of this substituting for Moscow is the decline of industrial output in Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia's burden in substituting from its own resources for Moscow in Communist economic diversive action in the Middle East, Africa, and South America was so great that, due to lack of raw material and necessary capital, it resulted in the decline of industrial output in that country.

Another example: In order to buy 6 tons of kerosene, which soon will be brought to Poland, as well as to the other captive countries, by pipeline, Poland must pay 95.11 rubles-the value of which has been raised 100 percent in relation to the Polish zloty. For the same quantity of kerosene the Soviets charge Italy 51.21 rubles; Japan, 49.03 rubles; Argentina, 44.24 rubles; even Yugoslavia is charged only 68.88 rubles.

I do not like to repeat the important factor in the life of the Communist empire, the reason for the secret trade agreements of the captive people with Moscow and other Communist countries, but I have to stress it: The prices which Soviet Russia pays for important goods from the captive countries are low; while the prices of goods delivered to the captive countries by the U.S.S.R. are extremely high. The benefit for the U.S.S.R. from this manipulation runs into billions of dollars.

The problem of value in currency exchange plays a great role. In recent years, for example, the value of the ruble in relation to the Polish zloty was raised 100 percent. So Poland gets only half of the previous amount of products from the U.S.S.R. for the same amount of zlotys, and must pay twice the amount of zlotys for products delivered from the U.S.S.R. to Poland.

The chief question is what to do, when there is no general economic blockade of the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc and when the exploiting machine inside the Communist empire remains so well organized.

Is help to Communist-controlled countries, participating fully in and working for long-range Communist world aggression, possible? And can it be successful? To my mind, no.

Another question, then: Is Western aid to Communist-ruled countries helping them to gain more independence from Moscow? Again, in my opinion, absolutely no.

Above all, the problem of the Iron Curtain countries cannot be treated only as a problem of economic help.

In my opinion, the fact that the problems of the captive people were never included in the agenda of the Big Three meetings and are not included in major consultations on the high diplomatic level, the fact that the political action of the West in Europe stops in Berlin and does not go further, a fact which is used by the Communists in the countries behind the Iron Curtain as a silent acceptance of the status quo in central and eastern Europe-all these must result in the loss of morale and spirit among the captive people and cannot be compensated for by selling them grain from American surpluses.

The vague news of the possibility of a nonaggression pact between the NATO countries and the Warsaw Treaty countries was interpreted behind the Iron Curtain as another kind of silent acceptance by the West of the status quo in the captive countries and was also a blow to the morale and spirit of the captive people which, again, cannot be compensated for by the delivery of some American food surplus.

A few days ago a Polish newspaper, published by a certain Catholic order in Chicago whose political outlook I do not share (after reading their comment that Gomulka's election in Poland was the first free election for the Polish people), showed a picture of Poland as a prisoner in a net, enslaved by Yalta and Teheran. This picture indicates that Uncle Sam is responsible for Yalta and Teheran and is now turning his back on the prisoner in the net by refusing economic help for Poland. It is a very impressive and emotional drawing.

But, on the other hand, will dropping some pieces of bread into the net to the prisoner, compensate for the loss of independence and freedom in Poland? Will it be a solution, a fulfillment of its own obligation by a country which has signed the Big Three agreement and a declaration concerning Poland's freedom and independence? Will this country in its policy not put Poland on the same level as Berlin, Laos, the Congo, and so forth?

I hope that the noble declaration of President Kennedy about America's task in enlarging freedom in the world, like that made recently by him in Berkeley, Calif., will be followed up by political action concerning Poland and that in political action the United States will bring Poland onto the same political level as Berlin, Laos, the Congo, and so forth.

Hoping always for the best then, I believe, however, that by taking advantage of the catastrophic agricultural situation in the Soviet Union there is still a certain possibility in bringing some economic aid to the Polish nation today, temporarily. Such aid should be given, however, dependent on certain conditions.

In the Alliance for Progress program for South America the United States put conditions, and, in my opinion, those conditions are justified.

No conditions have been attached to the aid given by the United States to Poland. The Polish Communists have taken advantage of this situation and have fully monopolized that aid for their own political purposes. By imposing heavy custom duties, the Polish Communists have even made the sending of gift packages by Americans of Polish descent to their relatives and friends impossible. Aid in the form of gift packages went directly for years from the American people to the Polish people. It amounted to many millions of dollars vearly. Its moral and political value could not be measured in dollars. At the present time a person in Poland who receives a gift package, even with used clothing or other ordinary articles from the United States, must pay the equivalent of 2 to 3 months wages for custom duties.

After the Second World War the Primate of Poland, organized in Poland a Catholic social welfare organization, "Caritas," which, with the aid of the West, rendered great services to the poor in Poland. The Polish Communists unlawfully took control of that organization and turned it over to so-called "progressive" Catholics who are conducting a diversive action against the Catholic Church in Poland. After that, the Communists imposed custom duties on the aid sent directly to Cardinal Wyszynski by the American Caritas. In consequence, after a certain time the cardinal could not pay the $40,000 worth of custom duties imposed on the food which had been sent to him by the American Caritas and which was stored in the Gdansk Harbor. So he had to resign the continuation even of this aid.

Polish-American social welfare organizations were not permitted to carry on the distribution of food and other articles by their own representatives in Poland. Thus, they could not use American agricultural surpluses to aid the Polish people. They have been permitted only to supply Polish hospitals with some medical tools, instruments and orthopedic equipment for invalids.