23. Despatch From the Embassy in Poland to the Department of State1
SUBJECT
- Dinner Conversation With Ambassador Winiewicz
During recent dinner conversation with former Ambassador Winiewicz, now head American and Commonwealth sections of the Foreign Office (British Ambassador present), the following points were discussed, which I believe bear reporting:
While discussing the “Iron Curtain” on exchange between East and West of views, ideas and developments in each area, which lends itself to continuance of misunderstanding, misrepresentation and, above all, lack of confidence, I mentioned that Polish radio jamming and ban on visits of foreign correspondents was a great stumbling block in this field. I mentioned that the New York Times Moscow representative, Clifton Daniel, was astonished at certain things he saw and found in Warsaw and had written an article in a somewhat favorable vein on his visit. Winiewicz admitted there was truth in my observation but said the subject was rather “touchy”, as non-Foreign Office officials, whenever the matter is discussed, allege that correspondents, especially American, come with pre-conceived ideas against the regime and always report on the worst, seamy aspects of [Page 50] what they see and that, as regards radio, everything broadcast is critical with never a word about accomplishments. This attitude makes it very difficult for the Foreign Office to raise the question without Foreign Office officials being unjustly accused of pro-Western leanings.
I expect nothing will come of this conversation, but as more and more American correspondents are applying for visas, my remarks may be a helpful reminder to Winiewicz when such applications are being considered.
During the conversation Winiewicz remarked that the “trouble” with Westerners, especially Americans, is that they rarely, almost never, appreciate the fact that the regime is not composed entirely of “agents of Moscow” who do only Moscow’s bidding. He said that there are official elements, one hundred percent Polish, who feel that, regardless of the complexion of the regime, they, as patriotic Poles, must do what they can in existing difficult circumstances for the good of the Polish people.
He went on to say that the Polish people are not completely pawns of Moscow and that a similar situation exists in other Soviet bloc countries, mentioning Communist China particularly. He said there was an awakening in Moscow to the fact that Moscow must give more consideration to the nationalist aspirations of the various “so-called” satellite peoples.
I infer that Winiewicz’s point is that the West should do more to encourage strictly nationalist elements in the satellite countries, especially in Poland; and not damn everybody connected with the regime.
The final observation of interest by Winiewicz was that, after so many years’ residence abroad, in England and the United States, he and his wife were very happy to be back in Poland, even though they had to live in a small three-room apartment. He himself was amazed at some things that had been accomplished during his absence.
Sir Andrew Noble’s chief contribution to the conversation was that the great difficulty between the East and West at the moment is a lack of trust and confidence on both sides. He said that we have no confidence in Moscow and he was sure that Moscow had no confidence in the West. The problem was to establish a more mutual basis of trust and good faith.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.48/7–2555. Secret; Limit Distribution.↩