their libraries was the problem of the image of God. I had understood before that when one is of the Jewish faith, he believes in his God, if of the Protestant, in his, if of the Catholic, in his but in all of them the image of God is exalted.

I read in this Quarterly a poem, translated into Polish, and see that this publication presented the intellectual in the United States as having another kind of image of God: God is just a square block, a colored block, with which you can play as you want. Certainly such a publication would be put on the shelves of Communist libraries. Therefore, about the help to libraries I differ.

But about the hospitals I say that many Polish people, people who are non-Communist in Poland, would benefit from the hospitals.

Mr. MONAGAN. Mrs. Kelly, do you have some questions that you would like to ask?

Mrs. KELLY. I have several, Mr. Chairman, But I certainly think, due to the time, that I would like to waive my question period to Mr. Zablocki and to Mr. McDowell, who have been in Poland recently. I only have one brief one, and then I waive the rest of my time. Do you believe that the Government of Poland would permit direct aid or assistance of some kind to an individual farmer?

Mr. MIKOLAJCZYK. At this moment, if they know that it is a reinvestment in the farms under pressure I think that they would agree out of necessity.

Mrs. KELLY. Do I understand that you think that the present Polish Government would permit us, the United States, to give direct aid to the individual farmer?

I

Mr. MIKOLAJCZYK. No, madam, I am not saying that I am sure. am saying this: You Americans have an enormous amount of funds accumulated there. This is a problem: how to reinvest those funds in Poland. I hope that the Polish Government at present, in the difficult situation, will agree to direct help in credit from these funds to the Polish farmer. It may be possible, when pressure is applied, that they would agree to the reinvestment of these funds in privately owned Polish agriculture.

Mrs. KELLY. Do you think the funds in Poland owned by the United States could be loaned to individual Polish farmers at this time under joint agreement?

Mr. MIKOLAJCZYK. By agreement, yes.

Mrs. KELLY. Do you think they would agree to it?

Mr. MIKOLAJCZYK. I think if they pressed very much they would

agree.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. We don't own these funds jointly. These funds were accumulated from sales under Public Law 480. We have full jurisdiction over their disposal.

Mrs. KELLY. Proceed.

Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Freylinghuysen.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. My basic question-thank you, Mr. Chairman-is this simple one of whether, if we should curtail what aid we are providing in the ways we are providing it, and we are not able to liberalize the aid as you suggest we should, we are not going to be turning our backs on the Polish people, and whether this is not in turn going to solidify what the Soviets have been able to do, an economic bloc of the satellite nations in an undesirable way?

In other words, there is still this question of whether there isn't some advantage in maintaining contacts, unsatisfactory as they may be, rather than to give the impression that we have, as you have put it, already accepted the status quo. For that reason I wonder whether basically should we withhold all aid or whether, on the other hand, you feel it is more important we continue aid, but put some additional strings on it, that we make it more definitely American assistance and support than at present.

Mr. MIKOLAJCZYK. My answer is quite clear; I would be for the help if these conditions are fulfilled. You may have to stop the help and start to bargain again. They are in a compulsory situation. Last year they bought about a million tons of grain in the West, from Canada and the United States.

But about 600,000 tons of grain was sent from Poland to Eastern Germany because accelerated collectivization in Eastern Germany brought such shortages. Therefore, they announce, they have to buy this year again 1 million tons from Soviet Russia and 1 million tons from the West.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Your basic position is that we should bargain more than we have? You do not feel that we should cut our aid off, but that we should put it to better use to improve our position?

Mr. MIKOLAJCZYK. I make it abundantly clear. Maybe you have to cut the help

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. If our bargaining is unsuccessful. Your basic purpose is we should bargain and

Mr. MIKOLAJCZYK. About the second thing that was said here-that this American aid prevented the Communist bloc from solidifyingI don't share that view with you, Congressman. If you take the figures on the last agreement between Soviet Russia and Poland you will see how enormously more solidified is the exchange of goods and trade between Poland and Soviet Russia, despite, as I have said, about half a billion dollars of help from the West. I want to make it clear I don't believe for a minute that by giving economic help to a country you are bringing this country away from Moscow. This is my definite point of view. Maybe I am not right.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I have no further questions.
Mr. MONAGAN. Dr. Judd.

Mr. JUDD. Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to welcome our distinguished visitor and to hear his testimony. It corroborates what I tried to say yesterday; namely, that a lot of people believe that more freedom is more important than more food. We are in a war, just as much as if it were a shooting war. We didn't say when we were fighting Hitler, "We must not refuse to give food to the Germans because that will lose us our contacts with the German people." Instead we blockaded the whole nation, and it was the blockade which helped bring Hitler down. The people suffered for a time, but that was the way to get their freedom for them, and more food.

I would like to say this personal matter: I last saw you, sir, in your own home in Warsaw in October of 1947. I was there with the socalled Smith-Mundt committee. We came away from that meeting thinking we probably would never see you alive again, because those were the days when every move you made was under surveillance. I admired your courage for talking frankly to us about what communism was doing to your country. You were the Prime Minister, you saw clearly what was happening, and you warned.

I figured there must be microphones there taking all of it down, even in your own home. But you were fearlessly blunt and forthright. When we left, some of us said, "We will never see that man again. They will find some way to get him."

It was a great relief a few months later to read that you had managed to get out. You were so right then, so completely right in your diagnosis, which didn't agree with the diagnosis of most other people, that I have the greatest respect for your diagnosis now. I can't but commend you for your position which can easily be misinterpreted, but which in the end, in my opinion, is the one we should follow more as the way which will most quickly lead to the downfall of the adversary, which is the kindest thing in the end for the people of Poland and the other satellites.

I have no questions.
Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Zablocki.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, particularly, appreciate the opportunity to be with your subcommittee. I have, as Dr. Judd has, very high regard for Dr. Mikolajczyk. I agree with him to an extent, but not entirely.

I think we must become realistic when we deal with any controversial matter, and the more difficult it is, the more realistic we have to become. In the past, I have been instrumental in amending the mutual security bill to include conditions on our aid to various countries. I wish it were possible, Mr. Mikolajczyk, to include all of the conditions that you have spelled out on our aid to Poland.

I don't think, however, that is practicable. We must make a decision, therefore, whether we will forsake the people of Poland for the sake of certain conditions, or whether we will continue to aid them in spite of the fact that, in dealing with Poland, we have been unable to implement every condition you have mentioned.

You have given, in my opinion, the finest argument that we should not terminate our relations with Poland and our programs there. Many of us are interested, for instance, in the Krakow Hospital. I don't really see any difference between medical assistance to the people of Poland-whether it consists of an aspirin tablet or a hospital-and a loaf of bread.

Mr. JUDD. There is a lot of difference.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. I don't think that, recalling the economic blockade that was imposed upon Hitler, during the time of war, we should now advocate a similar economic blockade of the entire Communist bloc. I am not an international lawyer, but it is my understanding that a total economic blockade is tantamount to an act of war. I certainly wouldn't advocate our starting a war over Berlin or any other sensitive area of the world.

I would like to ask a few questions, Mr. Mikolajczyk, relating to your statement.

On page 3 you refer to a colloquy which took place between Stalin and Minz. And it implies that aid to Poland then, and aid to Poland now, would be diverted to other Communist countries or the U.S.S.R.. If that were true, I can't understand why the Soviet Union did not

permit Poland to accept Marshall plan aid. Can you think of any reason?

Can you explain why Poland didn't accept Marshall plan aid? You said that Stalin said to Minz, the economic dictator of Poland: "Comrade, you should apply for a big American loan. You will get it. We cannot get it. There is no chance of us getting it. But after you get your loan we will share its benefits."

If that was the thinking of the Soviets, then why did they stop Poland from accepting Marshall aid?

Mr. MIKOLAJCZYK. Congressman, should I answer all these questions now?

Mr. ZABLOCKI. If you will.

Mr. MIKOLAJCZYK. I will be very brief. You ask why some of these conditions which are brought forward now, why they haven't been put forward before. One reason is that it was not necessary. At the time when the United States was giving Gomulka about half a billion dollars in various things, at that same time he stopped the private person-to-person parcels to Poland which previously had been allowed to go to Poland. Therefore, the condition wasn't necessary until that happened. I say that on this point the Communists know they are in a weak position. When, finally, a big meeting of Polish Americans in Chicago started to protest about that, the Communists made a statement which is misleading. They said: "No, it is not true that all parcels have to pay duty. Some parcels are free."

Mr. ZABLOCKI. At that point

Mr. MIKOLAJCZYK. Which parcels are free? Namely, those parcels sent to people who are already on the social welfare lists and, therefore, people who could be, by acknowledgment of the Government, exempted from the duty. But other people are not exempt from paying custom duties.

Secondly, you said

Mr. ZABLOCKI. May I just comment on that point, Mr. Chairman? Mr. MIKOLAJCZYK. Sorry. Please.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Prior to that rally in Chicago which you mentioned, I happened to be in Poland and I discussed this matter with the Polish leaders. We had raised this question with them and said that this question certainly needed explanation; that is, the high duty on private gift packages. And the Polish authorities admitted that there was a high duty on gift packages from the United States to Poland. But they assured us that the duty is waived for older persons, for orphans and charitable institutions, and for people with low incomes. None of them have to belong to the Communist Party to get the waiver.

The reason they gave for the imposition of high duties, as I discussed it with you the other day, was that they were needed in order to prevent black market operations. They pointed out that nylon stockings and some very fancy and expensive clothing was being sent to certain areas of Poland, where climatic conditions and other reasons would prevent them from being worn; and that these items were being resold for high prices.

I agree with you that black market operations could and should have been locally controlled instead of submitting many others to hardship, but the regime in Poland held otherwise.

While we are on the subject of packages, you have mentioned, Mr. Mikolajczyk, that CARE packages to Poland cost $6, whereas the same packages anyplace else cost only 50 cents.

Mr. MIKOLAJCZYK. I have such a letter from CARE.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. I have asked the committee counsel to hand me this letter. It is from Frank H. Thomas, chief of CARE mission in Poland. The letter is very recent. It gives a summary of CARE operations in Poland from September 1957 to December 1961. If I may, I would like to read into the record one particular paragraph of that letter that I believe is very enlightening, especially since it comes from the chief of the CARE mission in Poland.

If possible, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the entire letter could be placed in the record. I ask permission for this to be done.

Mr. MONAGAN. The letter may be inserted in the record at this point, if there is no objection.

(The information is as follows:)

SUMMARY OF CARE OPERATION IN POLAND

September 1957 through December 1961

Total CARE deliveries to Poland (approximately)
Total U.S. agricultural commodities (approximately)

$15, 100, 000 10,000,000