RENOUNCE

YALTA

A FULL REPORT ON THE WORLDWIDE

RENOUNCE YALTA
CAMPAIGN
1982-1986

A contribution from the world’s immigrant community towards destroying post-

war order, uniting Europe, and attaining freedom for captive nations of the Yalta
Agreement.
ADAM WLADYSLAW KIERNIK
BLANK BACK PAGE
 CONTENTS

CONTENTS…….….………………………………….……………………..3

DEDICATATION…..………………………………………………………..5

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………7

SHOOTING AT THE MOON WITH A SLINGSHOT……..……………….9

MAKING PROGRESS IN WASHINGTON D.C……………..……………27

INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS IN U.S. CONGRESS…….………37

SEEKING SUPPORT AMID RESISTANCE…….………………………...57

CLASH WITH ENTIRE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION………….……..85

REAGAN RESPONDS TO CONTINUING PRESSURE………………...107

FATE OF SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 226…………………………125

YALTA REMAINS UNDER ATTACK…………………………….….…133

NEW RESOLUTIONS FOR YALTA’S 40TH ANNIVERSARY…………155

SUCCESS & DISAPPOINTMENT AMID COMPROMISE……..……….197

ACTION RENOUNCE YALTA TAKES ON LIFE OF ITS OWN……… 213

YALTA CRUMBLES IN REALITY…………………………………..….225

REFLECTIONS UPON ACTION RENOUNCE YALTA IN 2005………233

HOPE FOR THE FUTURE………………………………………………..237

BLANK BACK PAGE
 DEDICATION

As this will probably be the only book I ever write, I wish to dedicate it to a great many
deserving people. First and foremost, this book is dedicated to all those who died or
risked their lives in struggling for the freedom and independence of nations held captive
for decades by the brutal Soviet communist system of government. This includes the
millions who fought on behalf of freedom throughout World War II only to be betrayed
by allied leaders, while raped of their national identities by the likes of Stalin. This
includes all those who, against all odds, took part in resistance against brutal communist
dictatorships behind the “iron-curtain” throughout the post-war era.

It was easy being a political activist in the Western world. While we missed our share of
hours for enjoyment, spending with families, and sleep, we never had to live in fear of
being arrested, brutally beaten, or separated from our loved ones. Taking part in
resistance as for example during Prague 1968, Gdansk 1980, and especially when there
was no mass movement to be comforted with, were acts of amazing courage about which
more books should be written, and movies made. These were the heroes who because of
their persistence, and despite being unarmed, defeated one of the greatest threats to
mankind on behalf of the entire world. These were the people who gave lives for the
cause of freedom, some as young as 14 and 15, as during the case of the Hungarian
revolution. These were the people who often left us with no names to remember, as they
mysteriously disappeared out of sight.

On a more personal level I dedicate this book to several members of my family. A nurse
during the Warsaw Uprising, my mother Maria Galecka Kiernik was the first to teach me
about the realities of communism. When I was 7 I watched her in tears as she looked at
pictures of the Hungarian revolution and showed me what the Soviets had done. My
father Stanislaw Kiernik always defended my right to self-expression while being known
as the most anti-communist student attending the United Nations School in New York.
Despite feeling pressure from the Polish communist regime while holding important
positions in the Legal Secretariat Department of the United Nations in New York
(including Chief of the Treaty Section), he always remained loyal to his employer.

I dedicate this book to my grandfather Wladyslaw Kiernik who was a well-known

political figure in Poland prior to World War II, as well as his loving wife “Kobus.” I
dedicate this book to my grandmother Maria Galecka (mother’s mother), whose greatest
pleasure in life was to hold political discussions about the evils of communism. Adam
Galecki, my grandfather, died pre-maturely of a heart attack after interrogations by the
brutal U.B. communist secret service. Nor can I forget my uncle and aunt, Adam and
Wanda Styka, who were among the warmest and kindest people that I have ever known
while growing up in New York. I also dedicate this book to my loving sister and Polish
patriot Maria Kiernik Godin and her immediate family.

I dedicate this book to my wife Barbara. We met in Konstancin, Poland in 1967 at the age
of 18, and ended up corresponding on a daily basis, while usually separated until we were
married there at the end of 1972. Not only is she a very beautiful woman, but her warm
heart, love, understanding, and care as a mother, more than made up for my neglect of the
family during several busy political years. I am so grateful for having this most important
part of Poland by my side on a daily basis. Son Daniel is as proud of being Polish as his
old man and takes a lot from his father- both good and bad. It’s a good thing that son
Christopher turned out to usually be an “angel” as more than two aggressive
troublemakers in the family would have been too much. I love them all a great deal and
thank them for their understanding with the dedication of this book.

Finally, I dedicate this book to Krzysztof Rac, Waldemar Wlodarczyk, Roman Koperski,
and Marian Sromek, who attracted so many, like me, to POMOST.

Action Renounce Yalta became what it did only because of the joint efforts of POMOST,
an organization based in Chicago, coupled with the support shown by numerous other
patriotic organizations. In writing this book based on my own personal knowledge and
experience no doubt, unfortunately, I have omitted the efforts and accomplishments of
many pertaining to this action. I am sure that they, however, as everyone at POMOST,
were involved only because of desiring to support the people of Poland and other captive
nations in their drive for freedom, democracy, and independence. I would very much
appreciate hearing from them, the underground patriots in Poland who bravely supported
this action, as well as anyone wishing to comment on the Renounce Yalta campaign. I
can be reached by writing me at: P.O. Box 1506, Huntington Beach, CA 92647, U.S.A.
 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

I had the good fortune to be born in New York on August 4, 1949, to loving and caring
parents who left Poland immediately after World War II. While working in the neutral
Secretariat Department of the United Nations my father received home leave every two
years, during which time the family traveled to Poland and elsewhere in Europe. My first
birthday was spent aboard the Polish cruise ship “Batory” on the return journey to New
York.

From my youngest years I felt my Polish roots and enjoyed the warm people of Poland,
while hating the foreign imposed communist system of government. Feeling protected
and immune from the police state, I openly and frequently criticized the government
while in Poland. Despite always having a great time in Poland, partly thanks to the
incredible buying power of the dollar there, I was always sensitive to the difficulty and
hardship faced by the people of Poland. Not only were people forced to subsidize their
incomes because full time salaries were not enough to take care of basic needs, but all the
basic freedoms taken for granted in the United States were missing in communist Poland.

From my youngest years I was always moved by the courage of people to speak out and
complain, ranging from a priest who stated from a pulpit that “Christ was a true
communist, but not what we have here now,” to the average citizen who expressed
outrage when standing in line for a basic necessity. When at one time two members of the
communist militia forced a defenseless man into an ally to perform a major beating, I was
amazed at the courage of numerous people who gathered around to scream at the militia
to put a stop to it. They then signed a statement as witnesses to the brutality that took
place. When I asked the prosecutor’s officer what chance there was to win the case
against the militiamen who took part in the brutality I was told “none of course.” Besides
the signs of repression that one experienced on a daily basis there were constant
reminders of World War II, ranging from orphanages filled with young children to
buildings that were left with holes from firearms.

Amid the gloomy atmosphere in Poland there were always signs of resistance, which
ranged from complaining publicly to giving back bus or trolley tickets to the conductors,
so that they could re-sell the tickets for personal gain rather than placing the money in the
government’s hand. Beneath the outer layer of a government controlled economy there
was a thriving black market for almost everything, and bribes were a common occurrence
to get most anything accomplished.

While the government controlled press consistently praised the Soviet Union, ridiculed
the U.S., and never, ever, criticized its own communist leaders, the people were well
informed thanks to Radio Free Europe and other foreign broadcasts, which they strained
to listen to because of constant attempts by communist authorities to “jam” out the
stations. During my frequent travels to Poland rarely did I find anyone who supported the
communist system of government, and many looked upon the United States as their
eventual hope for a better life, despite having been sold out at Yalta.

Despite all their problems the people of Poland knew how to enjoy life, especially the
young who were not yet forced to enter the workforce and struggle for survival. I had the
best times of my life there just being around these people. Their hospitality, good nature,
sense of humor, love for America, and a deep sense of commitment towards friendship,
impressed me greatly. Each time I came back to the U.S. from vacation I missed Poland
more and dreamed of a day when I would never have to leave.

In 1977 I had the opportunity to stay in Poland upon being accepted for a position to
represent a U.S. Textile Importing Company (Stafford International, Seaten Textiles) in
Warsaw. Nothing in the world seemed better at the time than to live in Poland on a U.S.
salary. Life was indeed extremely enjoyable until I fired an assistant who turned out to be
an informer for the communist S.B. secret police. I was immediately called in for
interrogations, and quickly became aware that this most powerful organ of the communist
state had an enormous amount of information about me. It became obvious that not only
was my phone tapped, and mail read, but apparently I was also under 24-hour
surveillance. In seeking to recruit me, at first I was offered two homes to be an informer
and then threatened with disappearing off the face of the earth. During the events that
took place, published in detail in POMOST issue # 6, suddenly my beautiful Warszawa
became a sad, gloomy, and dingy city of the living dead. As I looked closer into the
strained faces of people walking the streets, I wondered from where they had the strength
to live under these conditions.

While my work benefited Polish business as well as the U.S. textile importing company
that I worked for, I was told that the secret police felt it was a necessity to have an
informer in each foreign company that operated in Poland. Dazed, and extremely
nervous, these were probably the worst few days of my life, during which time I jumped
with fear each time the phone rang. I could not eat, sleep, or focus on most anything
except my desire to leave the country without any problems as quickly as possible.
Despite feeling helpless, I recognized that my chances of leaving Poland were rather
good. I thought about ordinary Polish citizens who were approached in this way and had
no hope of leaving the country. The choice was either to cooperate to some degree or face
constant harassment, if not worse.

At this point I promised myself that if I were fortunate enough to return to the United
States I would get down on my knees and kiss the ground (which I did, when nobody was
looking). Secondly, I promised myself that if I were fortunate enough to return to the
United States I would become politically active on behalf of freedom for Poland and
other captive nations. To this point I had never been politically active for this cause,
rationalizing that I loved Poland too much to risk having its borders closed to me. Now I
realized that this way of thinking was selfish and wrong. Shortly upon returning to the
United States (May 3, 1978 aboard Pan American flight 65) I did become politically
active, beginning with a demonstration in New York in support of Polish dissident
Kazimierz Switon. During the demonstration I had the good fortune to obtain a copy of
POMOST Magazine issue #1. When moving to California I became the POMOST
representative for Los Angeles. By the end of 1982, my political activity was almost
entirely focused on Action Renounce Yalta.
 SHOOTING AT THE MOON WITH A SLINGSHOT

It was the spring of 1982. With the passing of time much of the world was becoming
more accustomed to the declared State of War in Poland. The strongly worded protests
and sanctions directed against the communist regime in Poland could not hide America’s
long-term resignation to the post-war division of Europe. Few Western leaders were
willing to seriously question this present “reality,” and even fewer were willing to
seriously challenge the foundation of post-war order, which condemned much of the
European continent to a life of tyranny. With little more than an idealistic and dedicated
organization to work with, it became our goal to help destroy European status quo by
working for the renunciation of the 1945 Yalta Executive Agreement.

As a relatively new and small political organization made up of mostly Polish

immigrants, and a few native born Americans of Polish descent, we knew that many
within and outside of our community would consider us to be naïve for this undertaking.
Indeed there were those who would state that we lacked the political experience and
expertise to even begin thinking about such a political action. Some would say that with
our limited financing and resources this was like trying to fly to the moon with the use of
a broomstick, or shooting at the moon with a slingshot. Others would find it hard to
understand the purpose of even trying to change the future by focusing on an irreversible
event of the past.

Amid growing resignation pertaining to Poland’s unfortunate fate it became clear to me

and others at POMOST that the remaining anger and frustration, which could be found
among the active Polish-American community, needed to be channeled into one
meaningful and united direction. While becoming increasingly divided in opinion
pertaining to sanctions and other issues relating to communist Poland, the 1945 Yalta
Executive Agreement remained as a symbol of Western betrayal and acceptance of a
Soviet “sphere of influence” for many politically concerned people of Polish descent
around the world. For years I had been hearing that Poland’s fate was doomed at Yalta. I
always wondered why we just complained about Yalta, instead of doing something to
destroy this agreement.

Calling for the release of political prisoners in Poland, collecting money for them, calling
for the serious implementation of sanctions against communist leaders, protesting a
communist sponsored event, and taking on other such actions, were important but limited
in scope. The time seemed advantageous, appropriate, and long overdue to try and rock,
rip, tear, and destroy the very foundation of status quo post-war order in every way
possible. This is what ultimately determined and maintained hardship and misery for
virtually every citizen in Poland, and the people of other Soviet dominated captive
nations, including Russia.

A few, mostly young, dedicated individuals formed POMOST (meaning “BRIDGE” in

Polish), in 1978. During four years it had grown from a handful of people to an
organization that published a quarterly magazine and maintained a radio program in
Chicago. POMOST also became involved in various political actions such as organizing
demonstrations, letter writing campaigns, and publishing a full-page advertisement in the
New York Times, which consisted of an open letter to President Reagan calling for
stronger commitment on behalf of a free Poland. The strongly worded letter to “Back The
Courageous People of Poland Now” was published in the July 10, 1981, edition of this
major American newspaper.

POMOST now had representatives in several major cities in the United States and around
the world. As typical among political organizations, most of the work was done by a core
group of members. Despite all holding down jobs, having families to care for, and being
short on financing, we were determined to make a difference for the people of Poland and
other captive nations. After several meetings and discussions, in September of 1982, the
POMOST SOCIO-POLITICAL MOVEMENT made its formal announcement that the
campaign to renounce Yalta had begun.

What little money could be spared was put into printing “Renounce Yalta” car bumper
stickers. Such work was usually done on a printing press located in the basement of
Marian Sromek’s home in Chicago, where POMOST Magazine and other literature was
published. Pomost Co-Founder Krzysztof Rac, as well as others closely associated with
the organization, often had to dig deep into their own pockets to keep the printing press
running. Because POMOST Los Angeles had a few thousand dollars, rich by POMOST
standards, we printed “Renounce Yalta” mailing labels, buttons in two sizes, as well as
additional car bumper stickers.

On the 13th day of each month POMOST held demonstrations in front of the Polish
consulate in Chicago to commemorate “martial law” in Poland (declared on December
13, 1981). Demonstrations were also held in other cities, although less frequently.
Because Poland was still very much in the news, the demonstrations were well covered
by the U.S. media. We used such occasions to parade Renounce Yalta banners and signs
while looking for every way possible to raise the issue during interviews with the press.
At times we challenged reporters to mention the Renounce Yalta action during their
reports, which they often did, and constantly referred to “Yalta” as the starting point for
Poland’s post-war problems.

As members of Solidarity began immigrating to the United States from Poland (given this
choice or staying in jail), we asked for their help in the campaign. We set up press
conferences for some of the Solidarity leaders. At such a press conference, Krakow
Solidarity leader Muzia Sierotwinska issued an appeal to President Reagan that Yalta be
renounced [Los Angeles Press Club on October 29, 1982]. Muzia and her husband Dyzio,
as well as daughter Berenika, supported most every positive initiative that emerged from
the Los Angeles Polish-American community.

On November 26, 1982, we sent out our first mailing to all members of the U.S. Senate
and House of Representatives. We included a questionnaire with the mailing which asked
each official if he or she would vote for, or against, the renunciation of Yalta, if the
matter was brought to the floor of the House or Senate. The questionnaire also included a
box which could be crossed off by those wishing to become honorary members of our
Renounce Yalta Committee.

While several members of the U.S. Congress responded, only four initially agreed to join
as honorary members of our Renounce Yalta Committee. Ultra conservative
Congressman Larry McDonald, from Georgia, was the first to join our honorary
committee. Don Bailey, a retiring congressman from Pennsylvania, was the second to
join, followed by Philip Crane of Illinois, and Kent Hance of Texas. We were under no
illusion that renouncing Yalta would be easy. “As long as there was always some
progress made towards renouncing Yalta victory was just a question of time,” were the
words often passed on among POMOST members and supporters.

Progress was being made on several fronts before 1982 came to an end. Various
POMOST locations were promoting the action aggressively in numerous cities. We were
getting news of the campaign out in the mainstream American media via frequently
organized demonstrations, such as those held against the Department of Immigration &
Naturalization in Los Angeles on October 3, and October 13, to protest the detention of
Solidarity member Czeslaw Sornat (who was released from the El Centro, California,
Detention Center on November 2, 1982). The major Los Angeles media also conveyed
news of the Renounce Yalta campaign during a November 10, 1982, demonstration in
support of “Solidarnosc,” organized jointly by POMOST and the Southern California
Chapter of the Polish American Congress.

We now needed to start circulating a Renounce Yalta petition so as to develop evidence

of massive support for this action. I sat at my desk in Huntington Beach, California, for
the purpose of drafting such a petition, but did not know where to begin. In frustration I
took a walk outside my apartment to the mailbox. There, inside an envelope was
President Eisenhower’s proposed 1953 resolution dealing with Yalta (which never made
it through the US Congress). It was sent by Professor Emeritus of Claremont Graduate
School and Pomona College Dr. Janusz K Zawodny. Formerly a member of the Institute
for Advanced Study at Princeton, Harvard Center for International Affairs, and the Center
for the Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford, Zawodny was not
associated with POMOST, but he was aware of our Renounce Yalta campaign. While the
Eisenhower resolution was far too weak for my taste, it served as an excellent base for
drafting a petition. After the wording was strengthened and placed on paper inside a nice
graphic design, off it went to the printers, and then for distribution around the United
States.

The petition read as follows:

“WHEREAS, During World War II, representatives of the United States took part in
secret agreements which resulted in Soviet domination of peoples who were not
represented; and

“WHEREAS, The Yalta Executive Agreement stands out as perhaps the most cynical and
immoral attempt to divide the world into Western and Soviet “spheres of influence”; and

“WHEREAS, The positive aspects of Yalta, such as the guarantee of free elections in
Poland, were clearly violated by Soviet leaders; and

“WHEREAS, The “Spirit of Yalta” threatens the security of all peace-loving people
around the world; Therefore

“We the below signed citizens of the United States, true to our tradition and heritage of
freedom, call upon our elected officials to express our sincere felt solidarity with the
suffering peoples of Bulgaria, Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,
Lithuania, Poland, Rumania, Russia, Ukraine, and all the people of Central and Eastern
Europe by formally renouncing the 1945 Yalta Executive Agreement.”

I was fully aware that I was using very simple and broad slogans, but they satisfied the
following initial goals:

1) To start with the strongest accusations possible from which there would be room
to retreat

2) To place as much blame as possible on the United States, and Great Britain, as a
means of applying the most pressure possible for meaningful commitment on
behalf of freeing captive nations from Soviet occupation

3) To be able to obtain the broadest support possible for supporting the Renounce
Yalta campaign among various ethnic Americans, including those whose former
homelands were not directly affected by Yalta

From our point of view, Western governments showed a considerable amount of

sympathy and admiration for the struggle for independence and democracy in Eastern and
Central Europe, but their actions were basically limited to protesting the Soviet
domination of this part of the world. The purpose of Action Renounce Yalta was
basically to say: “We [as the Western World] are partially responsible for placing such
countries as Poland under tyranny, and therefore we are partially responsible for getting
them out of their present misery.”

Thus the aim of the entire action was to change the world’s thinking that a divided
Europe was a fact of life which had to be accepted for now, while someday, somehow,
perhaps in a few centuries, Poland and other countries behind the iron curtain would
again become independent and free. We needed to project that these countries were ready
for freedom now, that freedom was just around the corner, and the time for the United
States and the world to seriously contest post-war “disorder” was now.

Opportunities to promote “Action Renounce Yalta” were not lacking. Marking the first
anniversary of the State Of War declared in Poland, dynamic POMOST San Diego leader
Alfred Znamierowski organized a very successful rally in that city on December 12,
1982. The demonstration was very well covered by the San Diego mass media.
Newspapers wrote extensively about POMOST, and our efforts to renounce Yalta.

POMOST Los Angeles held a demonstration on December 13th, 1982, heavily accenting
the Renounce Yalta campaign. On December 20th there was a gathering of 200 delegates
from the AFL-CIO [great and true friends of the Solidarity Movement]. There was a
“Freedom For Afghanistan Day” rally on December 26, 1982. There were radio talk
shows, invitations to address groups such as industrial and social associations. Rather
than just inform and comment on events in Poland, my aim was always to seek support
for the renunciation of Yalta. This involved requesting that senators and representatives
of Congress, the White House, and all leaders possible be contacted to support the
renunciation of Yalta, during every group meeting or interview given to the media.
When not in the process of organizing or taking part in an event, virtually each free
moment was used to mail literature to Polish and other ethnic American publications,
organizations, POMOST representatives, etc. In the middle of December 1982, we sent
out our second mailing to all members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives,
which included an appeal to support the action from Krakow Solidarity leader Muzia
Sierotwinska.

The lead article in the January-March 1983 quarterly edition of POMOST Magazine,
published in Chicago, was about Yalta. The cover of this POMOST issue #17 showed the
famous picture of Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin sitting together in Yalta, with the word
“CANCELED” stamped over the picture. Also appearing in bold print were the words
“RENOUNCE YALTA” at the bottom of the picture. POMOST Public Relations
Specialist David Wilke sent out a press release to the mass media in Chicago informing
of our action. He also wrote a great deal about the action in the January edition of “The
Bridge,” our monthly English newsletter. Solidarity leader Andrzej Jarmakowski, who
was now POMOST Chicago’s Office Manager, was busy gaining support for Action
Renounce Yalta among other Eastern and Central European ethnic groups. This marked
the start of interesting year 1983.

While momentum continued to grow in support of Action Renounce Yalta, ongoing bad
relations between POMOST and the Polish-American Congress (PAC) could not be
patched up for this effort. The PAC was established in 1944 to serve as an “umbrella” for
Polish-American organizations and the voice of the Polish-American community.
Traditionally, besides trying to influence Washington with its views on Poland, the PAC
[KPA in Polish, for Kongres Polonii Amerykanskiej] was involved in working on trade
and immigration laws, educating the American public about Polish heritage, supporting
Polish-American candidates for elected positions, and getting involved in other matters
pertaining to the United States. At this time the PAC was also very involved with
charitable work on behalf of Poland.

POMOST started its activity in 1978 as a magazine to inform about and promote support
for the emerging democratic movement in Poland. It had since become an activist socio-
political movement focused on international politics relating to Poland. POMOST tended
to attract younger and more recent immigrants, with a more activist and aggressive
approach to politics.

In organizing and working independently, PAC leadership considered POMOST to be

turning its back against established structures designed to bring together divergent views
among the Polish-American community. The President of the Polish American Congress,
and the Polish National Alliance (a fraternal life insurance company), Aloysius Mazewski
felt that POMOST was too militant, too brash, and too demanding of attention. As quoted
in a Chicago newspaper “Reader” on February 6, 1981, he added that “They are not in the
mainstream, they are such a minority.” The article went on to say that others among
established “Polonia” (community of Poles outside of Poland) considered POMOST to be
“more Polish than American in their citizenship.”

Most of the POMOST membership, in turn, considered the PAC to be a weak and
ineffective bureaucracy, which did not fully understand the situation in Poland, and
which spent too much time on internal meetings as opposed to concrete political activity.
While Mazewski, a second-generation American, had some access to U.S. leaders,
POMOST felt that the PAC was basically presenting status quo positions and not pushing
Polish-American views pertaining to Poland strongly enough to the U.S. government.

The opinions of each other, as well as differences in political views between the two
organizations, were probably as much perceived, as real, but there were some differences.
In the case of “Yalta,” for example, it was the PAC’s official position that the time was
ripe “for reviewing the implementation of the Yalta agreements,” as opposed to calling
for the renunciation of Yalta. With time the mistrust for each other, unfortunately,
became so wide and bitter, that criticism ranged from attacking the political approach to
questioning the motives of the other organization’s leaders. Perhaps most sad, at times
the conflict spilled outside of the Polish-American community.

As a Polish-American, who was born and raised in the United States, the motivating drive
behind my political activity, and those of virtually all POMOST members, was to
contribute towards attaining a completely free, democratic, and independent Poland.
POMOST Executive Committee Coordinator Krzysztof Rac believed that everyone had
the right to start an action. He also felt, however, that it was up to the person suggesting
the action to take full responsibility for carrying it out. If the action developed a natural
following it would succeed or, if not the case, it would die a natural death.

Feeling complete freedom to carry out Action Renounce Yalta, and knowing that as a
result it would not be compromised, made me feel very comfortable and at home within
POMOST. While the vast majority of Americans of Polish descent, estimated between 7
and 15 million, were not politically involved on behalf of Poland, nor belonged to any
Polish organization, I felt it was important for our voice as POMOST to be heard not only
for the good of Poland, but in the best interest of the United States.

In an attempt to gain support, or at least minimize the potential negative effects of the
POMOST- Polish-American Congress conflict on Action Renounce Yalta, letters were
sent to key leaders of the PAC asking them to join the Renounce Yalta Committee as
honorary members. Some PAC leaders, such as Jan Nowak and Jerzy Lerski, initially
joined with understandable hesitancy, especially since the PAC was preparing to launch a
Yalta action as well. Lerski, who was the Private Secretary to Polish Prime Minister
Tomasz Arciczewski during World War II, was responsible for wording the final draft of
the Polish protest [on behalf of the Polish Government-In-Exile] to the Yalta agreement
in February 1945. As the President of the Polish American Congress, Northern California
Division, he circulated our petition among PAC members in the San Francisco area.
Many other PAC members also supported our action.

The National Council of the Polish- American Congress drafted a resolution on Yalta at
their December 4, 1982, meeting held in Detroit. It urged the United States Congress and
Government, “to examine the Yalta Agreement concerning Poland and its consequences
and to renounce it as a symbol of the division of Europe into spheres of influence which
resulted in the establishment of Soviet domination over the nations of East- Central
Europe, and thus to re-affirm their inherent right to national self-determination, while
acknowledging the present Polish western border as conforming to justice and historical
necessity.”
POMOST welcomed the PAC resolution on the basis of placing additional focus on the
issue of Yalta. On the other hand we were disappointed that the PAC was, in effect,
calling for the renunciation of Yalta as a symbol, while calling for the implementation of
the Yalta agreement itself. One of the most important reasons for POMOST initiating
“Action Renounce Yalta,” was to place as much blame as possible on the United States
and Great Britain for what transpired at Yalta, and during the course of other World II
agreements, so as to make the Western World feel morally responsible for getting Poland
out of her present situation. Thus Action Renounce Yalta would serve as a call for more
meaningful commitment on behalf of a free Poland, and as a protest that the Western
world’s status quo acceptance of Soviet domination over Poland was unacceptable. We
also felt that it was up to us, the American captive nation community, to remind and
educate the U.S. government, and the American people, as to the betrayal that took place
at “Yalta,” at every opportunity.

It was our belief that the assurance of maintaining Poland’s western borders, while
important, should be settled independently of our action. While at Yalta it was
established that Poland would be re-compensated for lost eastern territories with land
belonging to pre-war Germany, the current Polish-German border was not established at
Yalta. It would also seem odd to raise Poland’s western border, while omitting any
mention of Poland’s eastern border, which was firmly established at Yalta. The raising of
any borders directly connected with an action to renounce Yalta had the potential for
starting a conflict among several of the ethnic groups that we would need to support this
action. It also seemed to be a contradiction to renounce an agreement made on behalf of
nations not represented, while at the same time insisting that parts of it should be honored
because our thinking was along the same lines with what was decided at Yalta, as
opposed to discussing this matter elsewhere.

Fortunately Gwiazda Polarna (Polar Star), the popular weekly newspaper published in
Stevens Point, Wisconsin, gave POMOST its full support. Editor-In-Chief Alfons Hering
became a member of the Honorary Renounce Yalta Committee. He often printed our
appeals and articles, as well as copies of our petition for signing. Extremely positive
editorials towards our action also appeared in the weekly publication. Gwiazda Polarna
served as very meaningful support for Action Renounce Yalta. The publication not only
allowed us to reach a considerable amount of people, but also legitimized our action
among the active Polish-American community which read Polish.

Another instant supporter of our action was Czeslaw Maliszewski, who published a
monthly “Letters To Poles” magazine in Connecticut. Although a much smaller
publication than “Gwiazda Polarna,” Maliszewski’s periodical reached very active
readers who collected a considerable amount of signatures under petitions (which were
included inside the magazine).

Poet and Professor Stanislaw Baranczak joined the Honorary Renounce Yalta
Committee. Well-respected World War II Veteran Stanislaw Jaworski soon followed. In
response to our 2nd mailing to all members of the U.S. Congress, Congressmen John R.
Kasich (Ohio), and Tom Corcoran (Illinois) joined our honorary committee. Many others
responded giving evasive answers but through our appeals, pressure for a firmer
commitment on behalf of our cause was being placed on Washington D.C. During a Los
Angeles February 5, 1983, dinner honoring former Congressman Robert K. Dornan, he
joined the honorary committee, as did Congressman Duncan Hunter (San Diego, CA).
Former California Congressman Wayne Grisham, and popular California Tax Reduction
Movement Chairman Howard Jarvis, also joined.

Besides Czech, Hungarian, and Russian-American organizations, the Romanian-

American Congress began circulating our petition. During a February 26, 1983, dinner
honoring exiled Cuban poet Huber Matos, the Cuban Independence & Democratic
Movement (C.I.D.) endorsed our action and collected 300 signatures that evening.
Abdala and Alpha 66, two other Cuban organizations, became involved as well. While
the above three Cuban-American organizations were divided on several issues, the
Renounce Yalta Action served as a uniting force for all.

Individuals from various parts of the country, such as Ted Kryski from Metairie,
Lousiana, Lidia Kopernik from Stillwater, Pennsylvania, Richard Figurniak from Itasca,
Illinois, Ludwik Mankowski from Bradenton, Florida, Janina Kaliniec from Hamtramck.
Michigan, were contacting us for petitions to circulate in their communities. Priests such
as Father Wysolmerski in Pittsford, Vermont, sent us completed petitions. Each new
development was passed on to the ethnic media. Copies of printed articles were in turn
mailed to members of the U.S. House and Senate. Letters requesting support for the
action were written to anyone and everyone who came to mind.

Recognizing the growing significance of this action, and wishing to show a completely
united front, on March 7, 1983, POMOST leader Krzysztof Rac sent a letter to P.A.C.
President Aloysius Mazewski offering a joint meeting. He recommended that well-
respected Professor Janusz Zawodny serve as a mediator between the two organizations.
Rac wrote:

“We consider our past differences to be very unfortunate for all concerned. This is
especially the case when many of these understandings are exploited and blown out of
proportion simply because there is no communication link between the P.A.C. and
Pomost.

“Therefore, we are proposing the formation of a committee, which would hold regular
meetings (on a monthly or bi-monthly basis), to discuss and work on projects of mutual
interest. The purpose of such a committee would be to work on points of overlapping
interest, pertaining to the cause of a free Poland. The purpose of this committee would
not be to mediate between organizations, nor to pass judgments, but merely to establish
working procedures and common actions for the benefit of the Polish cause…”

While Mazewski expressed the hope that the Rac letter would initiate a dialog, which
would lead to cooperation, in his March 30, 1983, letter of response he also stated that:

“I am sure that you recognize that unity must be based on mutual loyalty, trust and
respect. Frankly I feel that such considerations are largely lacking in Pomost’s attitude in
relation to the Polish American Congress. In fact, Mr. Jonak’s article in the recent issue
of Pomost represents an outright attack on Congress and its leadership.”

Mr. Mazewski was referring to the October- December 1982 issue of Pomost Magazine,
which, indeed, contained a harsh attack on the PAC written by Pomost member Ryszard
Jonak. Jonak bitterly complained about PAC inaction and, in effect, collaborating with
the Polish communist regime, which the PAC denied and found, with good reason,
offensive. While this was the first article in the POMOST issue, it was not an official
statement of the organization.

Mazewski, in turn, admitted that PAC statements were made and comments published,
which might well be considered as unfair and biased to Pomost. He reminded that
Krzysztof Rac and Roman Koperski, also a leading Pomost activist in Chicago, were
appointed members of the PAC Polish Affairs Commission, and expressed regret that
they chose to go their own way. In conclusion Mazewski wrote:

“By all means let us try to find a way to overcome the past. I doubt however that the
committee, which you propose, is correct forum for such an attempt at this time. The past
cannot be wiped out with a stroke of a pen. The committee would not be able to function
properly unless it is preceded by meeting of the minds and reestablishment of mutual
confidence and trust.”

I hope that we will work towards this end.”

I accepted Mazewski’s letter as being sincere, but it became rather obvious to me that
there was really little hope of establishing a good working relationship with PAC
leadership. Just as POMOST wanted to control what we believed to be the rightful course
of our actions, so did the PAC. Just as we wanted smaller activist groups to join
POMOST, believing that this would give us and them more meaning and strength, so to
the PAC, as an umbrella organization, was not prepared to treat another Polish
organization as an equal. Each side was also concerned that the other could compromise
its own positions and approach to various issues.

It also appeared that our proposed meeting was placing Mazewski in a difficult situation.
He was being asked to treat generally young and aggressive leaders, who spent as much
time in the streets gathering signatures as sitting at a desk, as equals. On the other hand
he knew from past actions that we got things accomplished, were growing, and were
developing a large following by Polish-American standards.

Action Renounce Yalta continued to gain momentum. Despite having many other
obligations in Chicago, such as publishing the quarterly POMOST Magazine, the
monthly Bridge newsletter, broadcasting Radio POMOST, organizing demonstrations
against the State of War declared in Poland every 13th day of each month, organizing
concerts for well known Polish performers Jacek Kaczmarski and Waldemar Kocon, and
running other important committees, such as seeking support from the U.S. government
for more funding for Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, and the Voice of America,
POMOST activists were becoming increasingly involved on behalf of the Renounce
Yalta effort. Signatures under petitions were being collected outside of Polish churches
every Sunday, at work, and during functions held together with other ethnic groups.
POMOST Radio, under the leadership of Roman Koperski, also promoted the action
constantly.

Other POMOST locations also became very active in the Renounce Yalta petition drive,
such as POMOST New York, represented by Dariusz Szczepanczyk and Henryk
Ejchorszt. Ryszard Milewski was extremely active on behalf of POMOST Connecticut.
Supported by Father Fiedorczyk, several hundred signatures were raised at the Holy
Name of Jesus parish. In Detroit, Dr. Janusz Subczynski was involved in creating a
Polish-American radio program which promoted the action heavily. With the help of
local Veterans of World II, this became one of the most active Renounce Yalta centers in
the United States. Subczynski, himself, sent numerous letters to U.S. members of
Congress on his own. Alfred Znamierowski, of POMOST San Diego, created a coalition
of 14 different ethnic groups in support of Action Renounce Yalta. Virtually all
POMOST locations were now deeply involved.

Despite having a small Polish-American community to work with, PAC Phoenix,

Arizona, leader Victor Zielka sent a few hundred signatures on petitions. Beyond the
Polish-American community, more support started coming from other ethnic
organizations such as the Hungarian Freedom Fighters Federation, and the Romanian-
American Congress. The Chairman of the Los Angeles based “Coalition For A True
Peace” Nick Sorokin became a firm supporter. This group consisted of 12 ethnic
organizations, including POMOST. Sorokin, a Russian-American, reminded us that at
least 2 million Russians were murdered as a result of the Yalta agreement, which agreed
to repatriate, by force if necessary, those Russians who were imprisoned by the Nazis
during the war (and killed upon their return to Soviet Russia by Stalin).

On March 12th, 1983, POMOST Representative Janusz Szymanski and I attended a local
event sponsored the Baltic-American Freedom League, during which time we collected a
few hundred signatures under the Renounce Yalta petition. During this event I had the
opportunity to privately speak at length with the guest speaker, Deputy Director of the
U.S. State Department Robert W. Farrand.

While stating that “Renounce Yalta” was a good action, in that it will remind the United
States not to be so naïve when it comes to future agreements, Ferrand could not imagine
any President actually telling the Russians that Yalta “is out.” In the interest of preparing
myself for what the State Department position would eventually become towards our
action I mainly asked questions, and listened. Without being in a position to quote at
length directly, based on Farrand’s comments, I felt that despite the rhetoric coming out
of Washington, D.C., “détente,” unfortunately, was really alive and well, as I suspected. I
had the impression that Farrand considered the captive nations of the world a lost cause
for now, an unfortunate fact of life that will not disappear, and that the United States was
mainly concerned with finding a way to coexist with the Soviet Union.

“I know that you think we are too soft…” “I know that you would like us to take a firmer
position,” Farrand said. Alluding to Action Renounce Yalta at another point, Farrand said
more or less; “You have to be careful not to build up expectations too high for the people
in Poland, because it will then be harder when the disappointment comes.” He advised
that we could get underground Solidarity in trouble if we became too aggressive with
Yalta.

After Ferrand finished speaking, I advised him of the purpose behind this action. I told
him that the people of Poland and other captive nations want to enjoy democracy,
freedom, and independence as much as we, and that the struggle for these goals will
never end until they are achieved, thus virtually no action on our part will ever be too
strong on behalf of these goals. I advised that as a result of Yalta we, as the United States,
are partly responsible for the present position of captive nations, which makes us partly
responsible for ending the present suffering in the countries involved.

I told Ferrand that there were hundreds of actions that America could take on behalf of
freedom for Captive Nations. “We could tell the Soviets that if they don’t set the captive
nations of Central and Eastern Europe free, we will drastically increase funding for the
rebels in Afghanistan. We could drastically increase the strength of not only Radio Free
Europe and Radio Liberty but also beam television stations into these countries. We
could state that with each day of the “State of War” status in Poland there will be a week
of even stronger sanctions than we have in place now. The president could speak out
louder and more often on the subject constantly.” I reminded Ferrand that President
Reagan had not even initiated sanctions against the root of the problem- the Soviet
Union.

I told Ferrand that potential actions that could be taken on behalf of captive nations are
only limited by our imagination and lack of commitment. “The very least we can do is
express our sorrow about the present situation in captive nations sincerely, by admitting
the truth- that we are partially responsible for their current situation as a result of
positions taken at Yalta, and throughout World War II.”

I told Ferrand that we are getting support for this action most everywhere we turn. I
advised him that Americans of Central and Eastern European background are fed up with
seeing people enslaved for 40 years, and that our efforts will not cease until the United
States approaches the issue sincerely. At this point Ferrand looked to make sure he had a
copy of our Renounce Yalta petition, and with a sad face said that he would inform his
people at the State Department about our action.

I knew that sooner or later we would be in direct conflict with the State Department, and
probably the government as a whole. I knew how difficult it would be to carry out the
renunciation of Yalta from the start. To give POMOST the slightest chance of
accomplishing this goal I promised myself that I would never allow failure to ever enter
my mind. Instead, I would push this action everywhere, constantly, and I would judge
people by the amount of support that they gave to this Action. Every time anyone looked
at me, I wanted him or her to feel guilty if they did not lately contribute towards the
Renounce Yalta campaign.

I knew that if everyone were like me, pushing as hard for a single aim, which each person
thought was most important, there would be no organization. I knew that in a sense I was
being unfair in staking the reputation of POMOST on such a difficult single issue. I knew
that I was perhaps being unfair to people running other important committees, such as
James Zmuda and the Radio Free Europe committee. Perhaps if so much effort were put
into that committee there would be additional concrete funds, while Action Renounce
Yalta might not even end up as the moral victory that we were shooting for, with
thousands of dollars lost in the process.

The organization was filled with people who had plenty of good ideas. There were those
like Rac, Sromek, Koperski, and many, many, others inside Chicago and beyond who
consistently slept only a few hours per night to keep the organization running. I knew that
I was being unfair to ask them for more help to renounce Yalta, but I did, frequently,
even though they were already giving a lot of themselves towards this campaign. As
naïve as we may have been, fortunately, the organization as a whole was motivated by a
vision of a free Poland in the near future, and any unfair request made for this purpose
was forgiven. We were not afraid to all shoot for the moon to help in getting there, and
we knew that our only chance was approaching the action together. Being a part of
POMOST was a very comfortable feeling during those years.

By April 1983, there was a great deal written in the Polish-American press about the
Renounce Yalta action. Pomost had a full English page printed about all its activities in
the popular weekly, “Gwiazda Polarna.” “Nowy Dziennik,” the major Polish-American
daily based in New York, printed our petition. Smaller publications, such as “Letters To
Poles,” “Hejnal” in St. Louis, Missouri, as well as numerous others were preparing to
either print or enclose petitions with their mailings. Petitions and letters of support
continued to be received from all over the country, such as from Paul Radzewicz in
Jackson, Mississippi, Anne Pawelek in Cicero, Illinois, George Szmaj in Dayton, Ohio,
Janina Kulikowska in Lyndhurst, New Jersey. “Renounce Yalta” bumpers stickers, and
buttons, continued to be sold around the country as well.

Facing the limits of a 24-hour day, and having other responsibilities as well to take care
of, was frustrating. The only satisfaction was that virtually each and every day was used
to the full extent possible, and we were making progress. During an April 30, 1983,
dinner in San Diego, visiting Missouri Congressman Bill Emerson advised that there was
constantly more talk about tackling Yalta on Capitol Hill. He wore a Renounce Yalta
button, which San Diego POMOST Representative Alfred Znamierowski pinned on him,
during a speech delivered to 1,000 people on this occasion.

Donations from around the country began to also arrive, but they could barely keep up
with the printing costs of the action. Therefore time also had to be spent organizing fund
raising events. Much of the funds used to start the Renounce Yalta Action came thanks to
well known Polish satirist and author of the song “Let Poland Be Poland,” Jan Pietrzak.
He gave us the privilege and pleasure to organize concerts for him in the Los Angeles
area during March of 1982. During that visit he also attended our demonstration marking
the 3rd month of the State of War declared in Poland, and touched my life immensely.

During early 1983 Gwiazda Polarna writer Edward Dusza (Andree Poray) was kind
enough to visit Los Angeles and recite his poetry for a fund raising event. We also hosted
dynamic singing performer Waldemar Kocon, and the great, creative songwriter and
performer Jacek Kaczmarski.

On May 21, 1983, a major political banquet was held at the residence of Dr. and Mrs.
Adam Tyszkiewicz in Bel Air, California. The banquet honored former US Ambassador
to Poland Richard T. Davies for his work and dedication on behalf of our cause. While in
Los Angeles we arranged for Davies to be interviewed for a full hour on the national
segment of the Michael Jackson (not the recording artist) radio program. As requested,
Jackson left room for Davies to lash out against Yalta. Davies was also honored at a
dinner held at the Sheraton-Harbor Island Hotel in San Diego organized by that city’s
Pomost Representative Alfred Znamirowski. Thanks to Davies 4,000 more dollars were
raised, which was a great financial boost by our standards. Davies was also an honorary
and active member of our Renounce Yalta Committee, as well as our Radio Free Europe
Committee, and we could always count on his advice and help.

During those years the very patriotic Adam and Hanna Tyszkiewicz held numerous fund
raising events at their very beautiful Polish home, and elsewhere, which served as such an
important key to our political activity. A free and independent Poland could never thank
them enough for their frequent sacrifices made to finance so many of our political
actions.

While Los Angeles had a rather small Polish-American community it consisted of a very
high percentage of extremely dedicated and giving individuals that contributed to the
success of such fund raising events. Stefan Sznajder was one such person who rather than
focusing on his own life as a new immigrant to the United States, gave everything of
himself on behalf of the cause for a free Poland. While very articulate and intelligent, the
future medical doctor always took charge of the logistics in preparing for fund raising
events.

World War II veterans such as Mrs Grazyna Dabrowska, and Mrs. Popielarska could
always be counted on for any needed help. Krystyna Chodaczynski, as Treasurer,
watched our money closely. When asked to report for permanent concrete activity on July
29, 1982, more than 40 people arrived to declare their work in one committee or another.
They came and they gave not only with their time, but also with their work and money
throughout the years, without ever getting, or expecting to get, any credit. In many other
cities, especially Chicago, the same was taking place. This is what POMOST was all
about during those difficult years, as the organization continued to expand to new cities
such as San Francisco, and Cleveland.

In Chicago, POMOST continued to hold demonstrations in front of the Polish Consulate.

On June 13, 1983, marking a year and one half since martial law was declared in Poland
Congressman Tom Corcoran was the featured speaker. During the rally, POMOST leader
Krszystof Rac thanked Corcoran for joining our Renounce Yalta Committee, and
endorsed his candidacy for the U.S. Senate. Corcoran was now challenging Charles Percy
to be the Republican candidate for a senate seat from Illinois. Percy was Chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This was a key position for getting any potential
Yalta legislation passed in Washington, but we could not count on Percy’s support. To
the contrary, we expected him to stand in the way of our efforts.

On June 21, 1983, we sent out our 3rd mailing to all members of the U.S. Senate and
House of Representatives, who did not respond to our previous two letters. We now had
the benefit of computerized printing thanks to Yolanda Flanagan who had since joined
POMOST. Thus each letter was, in effect, a very professional looking original. Yolanda
was always ready and willing to do an enormous amount of very important work out of
her home in Alameda, California (near San Francisco) on short notice, and also never
looked for, or expected to receive, any credit in return. She was another extremely giving
person.
The above mailing included a letter from Andrzej Jarmakowski, who took part in the
Solidarity National Convention held in Gdansk, Poland, prior to Martial Law.
Jarmakowski had since joined POMOST upon his arrival in the United States, and
also severed as Co-Chairman of the Renounce Yalta Committee. In his appeal,
Jarmakowski wrote:

“The POMOST SOCIO-POLITICAL MOVEMENT is heading an action intended to

renounce the 1945 Yalta Executive Agreement.

“In international relations, we cannot allow, nor accept, the principles of deciding the fate
of entire nations, and large parts of the world, without the participation of the parties
involved. In the case of Yalta, the voice of our most loyal ally- Poland – was completely
ignored when determining her fate. Poland, where the tragedy of World War II began,
subsequently lost her independence again. The same consequences were shared by all
other captive nations of Central and Eastern Europe. Many of these nations actually lost
their statehood.

“During the Yalta Conference, postwar “cooperation” was established and based on an
unjust, and deathlike, foundation. An entire continent was ripped apart into two spheres
of influence, while failing to take cultural, geographical, and economic history into
consideration. This has and will continue to result in constant tensions and conflicts (East
Germany, 1953; Hungary 1956; Czechoslovakia, 1968; Poland, 1956, 1968, 1970, 1976,
1980-present, etc.).

“Recognizing the invalidity of the Yalta Executive Agreement would be of significant

and monumental meaning not only to the people of Europe, but Asia as well. Stating that
unjust agreements, which seek to artificially determine the fate of countries (without their
participation), cannot be recognized, or accepted, as a permanent historical fixture, would
serve as a moral victory for all the freedom-loving people of the world. It would also
allow numerous captive nations to look to the future with more faith.

“Thus, while the renunciation of Yalta will not change the present position of these
captive nations, it will serve as a gift of hope for a better, more just, tomorrow. History
can only condemn those leaders who take the gift of hope and faith away from freedom-
loving people everywhere.”

Despite the impressive mailing of June 21, 1983, the only additional positive response
came from Congressman Daniel B. Crane (brother of Congressman Philip Crane who
was already a member of our honorary committee), who wrote: “You can be assured that
I will vote to renounce the Yalta Agreement.” Other members of the House and Senate
were still trying to avoid the issue. Senator Lowell Weicker did not believe that
renouncing Yalta would serve the best interests of the United States. Senator Proxmire of
Wisconsin responded by stating: “Inasmuch as this is a complicated and difficult issue, I
will want to await the results of any Congressional hearings into this matter before
making up my mind as to how to vote.” Others, such as Ohio Senator Howard
Metzenbaum, simply stated that they had a policy of not responding to questionnaires.

Alabama Senator Jeremiah Denton stated that if brought to the floor he would “probably
vote for it,” but was not sure what such a move would accomplish. Senator Alan Dixon
from Illinois wrote; “I would carefully and compassionately review the recommendations
of the Polish-American community, the State Department and the Foreign Relations
Committee” [before deciding how to vote]. Congressman Steve Bartlett from Texas
wrote: “I look forward to reviewing it further as the matter comes before us for
consideration.”

A few offices called in response to the letter, including that of Senator DeConcini, and
Illinois Congressman Lipinski. Lipinski’s assistant advised me that he had become
fascinated with “digging into” Yalta but stated that no doubt other offices lacked the time
and desire to research the matter.

New York Congressman Mario Biaggi wrote what the vast majority probably thought:
“One would most prefer a vote calling for the strict enforcement of the Polish election
issue.” Besides considering this to be the easy approach, we questioned how much value
would yet another call for free elections have when one did not even need to revert to
Yalta for this. The purpose of this entire action was to attack status quo and serve as
pressure for firmer U.S. commitment on behalf of a free Poland.

The limited support we did have in Washington came from Congressmen representing the
conservative wing of the Republican Party. Not a single Senator had joined our Honorary
Committee. We even approached the camps of candidates seeking to win the Democratic
Presidential primary in the next election (Senator John Glenn & Vice President Walter
Mondale), but were also unable to get additional support here as well.

On June 23, 1983, President Reagan came to Chicago to meet with the Polish American
Congress. It was no doubt meant to coincide with the Pope’s visit to Poland, which was
ending the same day. Reagan expressed his support for “Solidarnosc” in general terms,
while offering economic help if reconciliation in Poland was reached. Mazewski
expressed his support for the President. This was all appropriate under the circumstances
but I wondered if the PAC ever used such an opportunity to push for more meaningful
commitment on behalf of Poland.

In the meantime POMOST joined the Washington D.C. based Freedom Federation, made
up of numerous captive nation organizations. On June 22, 1983, POMOST Coordinator
Krzysztof Rac, POMOST North Carolina Representative Magnus Krynski, and
businessman Wiktor Palulis, represented the Polish voice at a special conference to deal
with the situation in Central America, held at the White House. The Reagan
administration was very concerned about spreading communist influence, and was
looking for help to defeat the Zablocki- Boland Amendment in Congress, which wanted
to curtail U.S. financial support for forces fighting the communist Sandanistas. On June
26, 1983, POMOST Chicago issued an appeal to all POMOST Representatives to help in
this effort.

As a result of cooperation on the Central American issue, POMOST gained access to the
Reagan administration. On July 2, the Executive Board of POMOST held a meeting with
Special Assistant to the President for Public Liaison, Linus Kojelis. On July 19, Rac and
Krynski were invited to a Captive Nation conference during which President Reagan
delivered a speech. Led by Magnus Krynski, POMOST was also very active in always
seeking the broadest U.S. economic sanctions possible against the Soviet Union. And on
this occasion as well, Krynski and Rac spoke with government leaders pertaining to
sanctions against communist Poland.

I had always been a strong, active, supporter of sanctions against the communist world,
but now felt that this approach was a losing battle. It appeared that the existing sanctions
against communist Poland were too weak to make a meaningful difference, while the
Western World was not prepared to make the sacrifice of implementing sanctions that
could make a difference for the people in Poland. Even limited sanctions against the root
of the problem, the Soviet Union, were lifted. In addition, support seemed to be caving in
even for the weak sanctions that were still in place, pertaining to Poland. This is partly
why I became so focused on Action Renounce Yalta.

Krynski was equally sincere about the importance of continuing to focus on sanctions.
Being heavily involved with the Republican Party, he was also one who preferred to be
actively involved in supporting and defending the Reagan administration at all times. He
felt it was rather unrealistic to concentrate on the symbolic Renounce Yalta Action, as to
actually repudiate the agreement would mean to send marines into Warsaw and Krakow,
which nobody was prepared to do. He felt that POMOST was suffering as a result of my
obsession with Yalta, while communists were making advances in our own backyard
[Central America]. He was also concerned that Democrats could unduly receive good
publicity as a result of supporting the symbolic Renounce Yalta action, while remaining
liberal when it came to voting on more concrete, and practical, resolutions.

I joined POMOST out of motivation to work for a specific vision of a free Poland, and
that meant always pushing for more commitment towards this aim, regardless of who was
president. While a Republican myself, I saw less and less differences between the two
major U.S. political parties in terms of commitment towards a free Poland, and was not
hesitant about criticizing either side for lack of this commitment. If I wanted to mainly
focus on supporting the Republican Party, or getting involved in general U.S. foreign
policy, I would have worked through the Republican Party or some non-ethnic
organization. Feeling that there was not enough support on behalf of a free Poland, and
that if we did not accomplish anything on behalf of this goal nobody else would, I felt
that this is what POMOST should always concentrate on.

At the same time I appreciated the benefits that Krynski offered in opening a lot of doors
for the organization in Washington. On August 2, 1983, thanks to Krynski’s efforts,
North Carolina Senator John P. East presented POMOST’s political positions in the
Senate. This included Krynski’s proposed U.S. position on Poland in the Congressional
Record. On August 9, 1983, Marek Lesniewski-Laas represented POMOST in a meeting
with individuals nominated by President Reagan to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
On September 23, 1983, Krynski became head of Freedom Federation’s Trade
Committee, which prepared a report on possible sanctions that could be initiated against
the Soviet Union in case of another provocation by the U.S.S.R. Krynski’s work raised
the stature of POMOST and opened up channels of communications for the organization.

Thus while I was upset that Krynski was not doing enough to promote Action Renounce,
and he was upset that I was not doing enough to support Reagan, the administration’s
policy on Central America, and the issue of sanctions, we had a great deal of respect for
one another, and our ultimate goals were no doubt the same.
During August 1983, there was another attempt to seek cooperation with the Polish
American Congress, but this quickly came to an end. The Polish American Congress
announced the holding of a demonstration against the Jaruzelski regime in front of
communist Poland’s consulate in Chicago on August 30. This marked the birth date of
the free Polish trade union “Solidarnosc,” and the famous Gdansk Shipyard agreement.
POMOST, which held demonstrations on the 13th of every month, on New Year’s Eve,
and on other occasions since the state of war was declared in Poland, planned on holding
such a demonstration as well. POMOST therefore proposed that a jointly organized
demonstration be held. The PAC refused the offer, stating that as the central political
representatives of Polish Americans they would organize the demonstration on their own.
While POMOST supported the Polish American Congress demonstration it was now
more obvious than ever that the PAC could not be counted on to ever cooperate
politically as equals.

While support for the Renounce Yalta action continued to find more supporters, such as
the International Society for Human Rights, the Westchester Pulaski Association in New
York, a Polish National Alliance division in Los Angeles, the Slavic Village Voice in
Cleveland, Young Americans For Freedom, among others, raising the 100,000 signatures
that we wanted to collect on Renounce Yalta petitions was taking far longer than we
expected. Those who ever collected signatures under petitions know that raising the
20,000 signatures that we now had was not easy, but this would not be enough to make a
major impression on Washington.

As the big debate among Polish-American organizations involved whether to maintain or

gradually lift sanctions against the Polish communist regime in response to the partial
lifting of Martial Law [POMOST felt that the partial lifting of Martial Law was cosmetic
and did not deserve to be rewarded], and as the Renounce Yalta campaign involved little
more than the boring task of collecting signatures, it became obvious that we needed to
show some progress being made with the action, to regain focus and momentum.
 MAKING PROGRESS IN WASHINGTON D.C.

We needed to show that our efforts were producing results. We needed to show that the
boring task of collecting signatures under petitions was leading us somewhere. We
needed to show that we were capable of accomplishing much more than collecting
signatures (which was only meant to serve as evidence of support for our goal of
renouncing Yalta).

On September 21, 1983, Vice-President George Bush spelled out the U.S. government’s
position on Yalta. During a speech on U.S. foreign policy toward Central and Eastern
Europe, which was presented at the Hofburg Palace Hall of Ceremonies in Vienna,
Austria, Bush stated:

…. “We recognize no lawful division of Europe. There is much misunderstanding about

the substance of the Yalta Conference. Let me state as clearly as I can: There was no
agreement at that time to divide Europe up into “spheres of influence;” on the contrary,
the powers agreed on the principles of the common responsibility of the three Allies for
all the liberated territories. The Soviet Union pledged itself to grant full independence to
Poland and to all other states in Eastern Europe, and to hold free elections there. The
Soviet violation of these obligations is a root cause of East-West tension today.”

While this first comprehensive position stated by the Reagan administration about Yalta
was rather significant [for which Bush was attacked in the Soviet press], and this, in
itself, was a call for free elections in Poland, Bush’s statement fell far short of satisfying
our approach to the issue, and left us much room to push for more.

The first POMOST National Convention was scheduled to take place in Chicago on
October 8th, and 9th, of 1983. It was my intention to connect this event with a trip to
Washington, D.C. The aim would be to lobby senate and congressional offices for
support and, most important of all, to get a resolution renouncing Yalta introduced in
Congress.

I asked David Wilke, our public relations specialist in Chicago, to set up a schedule
(October 4th - 6th, of 1983) for me in Washington D.C., and as always he did a great job. I
requested that he do everything possible to arrange for a personal meeting with
Congressman Philip Crane who seemed like the logical choice to introduce a Renounce
Yalta resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives. He was the best-known
Congressman of those belonging to our honorary committee, and represented a district in
Chicago, where many Polish and other ethnic Americans resided.

A few days later, when reading the August 11, 1983 issue of Nowy Dziennik [Polish
Daily published in New York], on page 7, I noticed a large picture of Congressman Tom
Corcoran. There was also an article/interview in connection with Corcoran’s resolution to
make Lech Walesa an honorary citizen of the United States. Corcoran stated that he was
very interested in the activities of POMOST. When giving examples of various actions
that he had joined on behalf of captive nations, Corcoran first mentioned becoming an
honorary member of the Renounce Yalta Committee. As a result, the decision was made
to approach Corcoran, not Crane, about introducing a Renounce Yalta resolution in the
U.S. House of Representatives.

I first flew to New York to help in collecting signatures under Renounce Yalta petitions
during the annual Pulaski Day Parade (October 2nd, 1983). On the Friday prior to the
parade, I had lunch with Nowy Dziennik Editor & Publisher Boleslaw Wierzbianski.
While closely associated with the Polish-American Congress, Wierzbianski was not
among those involved in the Polish-American Congress/POMOST conflict, which we
both considered regrettable. Wierzbianski’s paper, however, gave the PAC a great deal of
positive publicity, although there were times when constructive criticism would also
appear. POMOST, in turn, received far less publicity, although positive articles
pertaining to the organization, on occasion, could be found. The aim of the meeting was
to convey to Wierzbianski that we were approaching the matter of Yalta very seriously,
that one way or another we would succeed, and that we could surely use his help. I felt
that Wierzbianski was very understanding, and I was pleased with the meeting. He agreed
to join our Honorary Renounce Yalta Committee.

After collecting numerous signatures under Renounce Yalta petitions during the Pulaski
Day Parade, Alfred Znamierowski, who came from San Diego, CA, and I, along with a
few hundred previously prepared packages containing “Yalta” articles and statements,
took off for Washington D.C. in a rented car. We arrived late that night and checked into
a cheap and dingy hotel. We hoped that nobody on Capitol Hill would ask where we were
staying.

While looking forward to the challenge of lobbying senate and congressional office
buildings, the mood was serious. I knew that our entire action was possibly riding on
what we accomplished during the next 3 days. If we failed to arrange for the introduction
of a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives, I was concerned that the action
might die.

We would not be seeing Congressman Larry McDonald, who was the first to join our
Honorary Renounce Yalta Committee. He was killed aboard “KAL 007,” the Korean
passenger plane shot out of the sky over the Soviet Union only a month prior. The plane
had strayed over the Kurile Islands and Southern Sakhalin, Japanese territory given to the
Soviets at Yalta. Our San Francisco Representative, Yolanda Flanagan, had a letter
published in the Wall Street Journal about this on September 19, 1983. We would use the
angle that renouncing Yalta now, would also serve as a timely response to this brutal
Soviet action. The downing of “KAL 007” produced an atmosphere of shock and anger
on Capitol Hill, which perhaps would help our action.

On the morning of October 3, 1983, Alfred and I dashed off to Capitol Hill. Besides
several appointments that were set up for us by David Wilke, we had a great deal of time
to walk from office to office in various buildings. In virtually each case a legislative aide
was quick to speak with us, and the average meeting lasted about 15 minutes. We would
introduce ourselves, advise of the purpose for our visit, and present a large POMOST
envelope containing various articles and literature supporting the renunciation of Yalta.
The aide would thank us for the visit, advise that the material would be reviewed and
presented to the member of Congress, would receive consideration, and a response would
be forthcoming.

I was surprised by how accessible U.S. government was to the people. My only regret
was that I did not live in Washington D.C. to lobby every day during the course of this
action. POMOST had a representative in Washington D.C. but professional work stood in
the way of such lobbying efforts. It was our goal to eventually have one paid full time
lobbyist but for now we only had three days to push Action Renounce Yalta on Capitol
Hill.

Among the offices we visited that Monday was one designated for the House Foreign
Affairs Committee. There we had the good fortune to run into George Berdes, a staff
consultant for the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the U.S. House of representatives, and
a close aide to Clement Zablocki, the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
We were told that while Yalta would be difficult to renounce, if ever there was a chance
to succeed, now was the time. When asked what would happen if such a resolution
reached the committee, the aide said that while Zablocki did not feel it would serve any
useful purpose, he would allow it to pass for a vote on the floor of the U.S. House of
Representatives.

No doubt the committee’s choice of words dealing with a Renounce Yalta resolution
would be far different than what we had in mind. Nevertheless I was stunned by what I
had heard. “Are you sure?” I asked a few times. “Yes, I am sure,” Berdes replied on each
occasion. “Why are you so sure?” The aide told us that Zablocki had received a few
letters [no doubt ours] on the matter and the issue of Yalta was discussed with him.
Zablocki decided that he would definitely allow a Renounce Yalta resolution to reach the
floor of the House for a vote.

On Tuesday, October 4, 1983, after meeting with N.Y. Congressman Mario Biaggi, we
proceeded to room 2447 in the Rayburn building for our 2:30 PM appointment with
Congressman Tom Corcoran. I had been preparing for this meeting for weeks, and had
acted out the coming conversation at least 100 times in my mind. Before long we were
sitting confidently in the Congressman’s office with Tom Corcoran and his legislative
aide Jackie Davis.

After our introduction I passed on best regards from Chris Rac, Roman Koperski, James
Zmuda, and David Wilke of POMOST Chicago. Corcoran was well aware of them and
POMOST’s activities. POMOST was in fact the first organization that endorsed his
candidacy for the U.S. Senate, against Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee Chuck Percy, who was running for re-election in Illinois. Corcoran had a
great deal of respect for our organization.

I thanked Corcoran for introducing his Lech Walesa resolution (offering honorary U.S.
citizenship), and for his “perfect” voting record. I told him how involved we were with
the campaign to renounce Yalta, and advised about what a popular action it had become,
not only for Poles but for many other ethnic Americans.

When telling Corcoran of the signatures collected under our petition, with more than
10,000 collected in Chicago, his eyes seemed to light up. I expressed our appreciation for
his support pertaining to Action Renounce Yalta, and told him that our various divisions
around the country would like to join POMOST Chicago in getting involved with his
campaign to unseat Percy in the Illinois republican senatorial primary. I suggested that
the best way of combining our efforts with regard to Yalta, and our desire to help his
campaign, would be for him to introduce a resolution renouncing Yalta in the U.S. House
of Representatives. Corcoran responded by stating that he would delighted.

Corcoran asked that we send him a letter with a formal request to introduce such a
resolution along with petitions and background information. The Congressman advised
that he would obtain background information on past attempts to renounce Yalta from the
Congressional Library. Listening to Corcoran describe how he would wave the petitions
on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives and “stick it” to Chairman of the House
Foreign Affairs Committee Clement Zablocki, by calling for hearings on Yalta in
Chicago and Wisconsin, one could sense the rebel in him.

Corcoran was not among the most influential members of Congress, nor among the most
liked. As an article in the October 6, 1983, issue of the Washington Post pointed out,
Corcoran single-handedly stalled a bill on behalf of AT&T in the Energy & Commerce
Committee. He did so by demanding that the clerk read the entire bill, which took two
days. He then orchestrated 100 parliamentary moves against the majority will and
presented a 100-page amendment to be read. Corcoran admitted to wasting hour after
hour getting fellow Republicans, as well as Democrats, frustrated and mad, but in the end
his bold tactics had won by killing the initiative.

Corcoran was given little chance to win the senate seat that he was seeking, and it was
felt by many that his candidacy would have the net result of unnecessarily weakening
Charles Percy in the general election against a Democrat. For this reason, also, fellow
Republicans did not consider Corcoran to be a team player. Thus while not the ideal of
candidates to enter a Renounce Yalta resolution, “Tiger Tom,” as he was called on
Capitol Hill, was a fighter, and perhaps this is what we needed most at the time. He was
not one to be afraid of challenging status quo and offered good access for us to influence
the course of events pertaining to this action. We were also not concerned about Charles
Percy being defeated at the time because he was not one to sympathize with renouncing
Yalta. And if Percy was not re-elected, there was a good chance that conservative
Republican Senator Jessie Helms would become the Chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. He would be far more understanding about our action.

After discussing many aspects of the Renounce Yalta action, Alfred and I left Corcoran’s
office feeling ecstatic. We felt a sense of taking part in a little “history.” We shook hands
and continued calling on more congressional offices. At least we would have a resolution
introduced in the U.S. Congress and a “tiger” on our side. During the remainder of our
stay in Washington D.C. we met with Congressmen William Lipinski of Illinois, Duncan
Hunter of California, Ron Paul of Texas, and Alaska Senator Murkowki, among others.

We kept marching non-stop from one office to another, now asking for support of a
resolution that would soon be introduced in Congress by Tom Corcoran. Alfred was a
great partner to have - very professional and articulated our position on sanctions and
many other matters so well. My only regret was that we could not be calling on these
offices on a daily basis all year round. Despite having an appointment with Congressman
Philip Crane, who we previously considered for introducing a renounce Yalta resolution
in Congress, he could not see us. This made me all the happier with our decision to join
forces with Tom Corcoran.

During our stay in Washington we met with the former Ambassador from communist
Poland to Japan Zdzislaw Rurarz, who had since defected to the United States. We had
already been working with him on Yalta and other matters. During this visit I also had the
pleasure of giving an interview for the Voice of America, largely focusing on POMOST
and the Renounce Yalta Action (which was broadcast into Poland).

On Thursday, October 6, 1983, I was off to Chicago for the POMOST convention. Alfred
left the day before. I was very pleased to physically meet with many of the people who I
had worked so closely with by phone and correspondence over the years. To me they
were folk heroes. We didn’t have the time or money to meet very often. We also didn’t
believe in long-winded meetings and conventions. Instead we were constantly involved in
concrete action. In fact this was our first convention, the main purpose of which was to
establish a Charter and By-laws for POMOST, which officially became a not-for-profit
organization in January 1983.

The convention officially started on October 8, 1983, with a welcoming speech from
POMOST leader Krzysztof Rac. The Deputy Special Assistant to President Reagan Linas
Kojelis followed by presenting a telegram of congratulations and greetings from
President Reagan. During his speech, Kojelis assured us that sanctions would not be
lifted against communist Poland until the lifting of martial law in Poland proved to be a
meaningful act, and not just words. Noted author Leopold Tyrmand, who was also vice
president of the Rockford Institute in Rockford, Illinois, and editor of the “Chronicles of
Culture,” spoke about “Who Is Who In America.” Melvyn Levitsky, deputy director of
the Voice of America, delivered the keynote address, advising of how important these
radio broadcasts were for the people living under Soviet occupation.

It was an exciting convention especially since it coincided with the announcement that
Lech Walesa had won the Nobel Peace prize. During the convention POMOST’s pro-
freedom and anti-totalitarian political declarations and ideological principles were also
officially established. The entire convention was very well organized, and well covered
by the Chicago media.

Despite the joy of being at the convention I deliberately did not show the full extent of
my emotions. Instead, virtually from the moment of my arrival, I promoted Action
Renounce Yalta and pleaded for the collection of more signatures under Renounce Yalta
petitions.

The organization responded in a very positive manner. A strong resolution appealing to

all concerned citizens to support this action was issued. New appeals to the media were
also promised. A paper was passed around the room with each POMOST representative
listing the number of signatures that they committed themselves to collecting. I was a
“pain in the ass” to the end, however, stating that I won’t be happy until I have the
signatures in hand. I looked forward to the day when the action would be successfully
completed and I could apologize for my behavior. While more than 30 years too late, I do
apologize. If just a handful of people were as insistent as I was about focusing on their
issue of preference, nothing ever would have been accomplished.

While not as insistent as me, our North Carolina POMOST Representative, Magnus
Krynski, as previously mentioned, also had an agenda of his own. A professor at Duke
University, Krynski concentrated virtually all of his efforts on trying to influence
POMOST to focus the maximum amount of time possible on maintaining sanctions
against the Polish communist regime until meaningful, concrete, and democratic changes
actually took place in Poland.

From my point of view, the United States, by itself, had the ability to strike a devastating
blow to the communist world with the use of sanctions, but shipments of grain would
have had to be included (which was not the case). Politically, the U.S. had several options
to apply truly strong and meaningful pressure for democratic change. The options
included declaring communist Poland bankrupt, cutting off diplomatic and cultural
exchanges with the Soviet Union, putting nuclear disarmament talks on hold, increasing
the power of Radio Free Europe constantly, beaming Television Free Europe behind the
iron-curtain, supplying Afghan freedom-fighters with much more and better weapons,
increasing tensions with communist Cuba, etc. This is not to say that I favored all of the
above, but I did not see much purpose to argue over fighting to maintain the existing
sanctions, which I thought of as being weak, and not very effective. The Western world
had to be brought to an entirely new and much stronger level of commitment, which
required penetrating post-war status quo, and the renunciation of Yalta, in my opinion,
addressed itself to this issue.

Krynski was also the main pusher of a Republican Party agenda for POMOST. While it
was nice to receive a telegram from President Reagan, and to have a Deputy Special
Assistant from his administration address the convention, I was not in favor of closely
aligning ourselves with any political party. While favoring Republicans and being one
myself, I did not want to give our full support to anyone without first trying to get
something specific in return.

During the convention Kojelis refused to state the Reagan administration’s position
pertaining to Action Renounce Yalta, and it was easy to sense that he was not in favor of
the action. When I pressed him hard for Reagan’s position, at one point, Kojelis answered
that the President is too busy to even think about “Yalta,” and at another point he said:
“Nobody is seeking the renunciation of Yalta except POMOST.” I was not very pleased
with these responses and told Kojelis that the American captive nation community as a
whole supported this action, and we would prove it with time.

Thus despite some disagreements within POMOST, the most influential leader within our
organization, Krzysztof Rac, as usual, kept us all together and tried to please everyone as
best he could. By Polonian standards we were a very united organization. We spent little
time arguing and a great deal of time on concrete work.

As obnoxious as I was about constantly pushing my agenda, I never forgot the truth about
POMOST. People such as Rac, Marian Sromek, Roman Koperski, James Zmuda, and
many others in Chicago continued to spend their sleeping time on POMOST activity.
They gave up much of their family life, vacations, and entertainment time for the cause of
a free Poland. They not only gave up careers and business opportunities for this cause,
but also contributed all the money that they could spare for this purpose. One could
always call another member at any time of day or night on matters pertaining to this
effort.

I was blessed with the opportunity to work with many good people in the Los Angeles
area such as Stefan Sznajder and Janusz Szymanski, who also attended the Chicago
convention. There were also many others such as Hanna & Adam Tyszkiewicz, Jan
Malek, and Stanley Garstka. We were blessed with many supporters who contributed
financially towards our actions again, and again. Many of our people, such as Sromek in
Chicago who typed and printed into the early morning hours, never even received any
credit for their sacrifice. They were all motivated by a feeling of obligation towards a free
Poland. At the same time all of us were always aware that our sacrifice was nothing
compared to those fighting for freedom on the front lines in Poland.

Upon my return to Huntington Beach, California, on October 12, 1993, I sent Corcoran a
formal letter asking him to introduce a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives
calling for the renunciation of Yalta. As requested, I also sent him a sheet listing all
possible arguments against this action with a proposed response. Along with the above I
drafted a letter appealing for support of the action, for Corcoran to use.

On October 17, 1983, Corcoran sent a letter stating:

“...The fate of Poland and other nations held captive by the Soviet Union should be
everyone’s concern because freedom is indivisible everywhere in the world, and the lack
of freedom anywhere in the world affects us all. The Polish people always understood
this and that is why they never hesitated to live up to their motto: “For Your Freedom and
Ours.” I also understand this and that is why I want to express my solidarity with the
people of Poland as best I can.

“I am very much aware of Yalta and its consequences for Poland, other captive nations,
and the rest of the world. While nothing can ever compensate the millions who have
already suffered as a result of Yalta, the time is long overdue to renounce this cynical
agreement with the hope of building a better world for the future.

“Although I have already announced my candidacy to represent the State of Illinois as a

senator, I would like to take full advantage of the remainder of my term as Member of the
U.S. House of Representatives. I will continue to support efforts as well as speak in
Congress to correct the tragic error of Yalta.

“At this time I am appealing to you and all freedom-loving Americans to support the
Pomost Socio-Political Movement and me regarding the above aim. I know that Yalta is
an extremely sensitive issue for Polish and other Americans, and that is why I ask for
your active support of our mutual goals. Together we can make a difference. You can be
assured that I, for one, will always remain committed to the ideals of freedom.”

Momentum for Action Renounce Yalta was again on the rise. Leopold Tyrmand, the
well-known Polish writer who was also at our POMOST convention, gave his support.
Many individual leaders of the Polish-American Congress also expressed their support,
such as well- respected World War II veteran Jan Moralewski in Chicago. Gwiazda
Polarna continued to publish articles of support and appeals for the collection of
signatures. Solidarity International and other groups supporting the Solidarity movement
in Poland also helped in promoting the action. One of the most politically active
individuals in the Los Angeles area, Jan Malek, printed Renounce Yalta postcards. Many
people all around the country continued contributing towards this effort.

On October 23, Los Angeles POMOST Representative Janusz Szymanski called for the
renunciation of Yalta during a rally held by the Hungarian Freedom Fighters Federation.
On October 29, I had the pleasure of doing the same at an event marking the 65th
anniversary of the Czech Republic, which was held under the theme of “Renounce
Yalta.” One speaker after another called for the renunciation of Yalta, including the
Chairman of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Michael Antonivich. On
October 30, 1983, during a rally in support of U.S. intervention in Granada, also held in
Los Angeles, I had the pleasure of calling for the renunciation of Yalta again. More
signatures under the Renounce Yalta petition were collected at all such events.

POMOST Chicago moved into action by collecting signatures in front of churches, and
Krzysztof Rac personally sent appeals asking for support. Radio POMOST in Chicago
frequently called for support of the action. Polish Veterans of World War II and
POMOST collected signatures under the leadership of Dr. Janusz Subczynski in Detroit.
Polish Veterans of World War II in Boston collected more than 700 signatures. Our new
dynamic Cleveland Representative David Domzalski started moving into action on
numerous fronts. A few hundred more signed petitions were received from the
Westchester Pulaski Association in Yonkers, New York, as well as from numerous other
organizations in the United States. Renounce Yalta petitions even started arriving from
Australia, Venezuela, and several countries in Europe.

At last Polish and other captive-nation Americans were not merely protesting, supporting,
or otherwise reacting to events. We were initiating a major drive to promote our own
agenda, and effectively applying pressure on its behalf. Besides the print media, Radio
POMOST in Chicago was promoting our action, and supporting Tom Corcoran’s
campaign, while attacking opponent Charles Percy, on a daily basis. One of the most
meaningful messages of support came from Krzysztof Rac. Recognizing that I was
disturbed by limiting our discussions with the White House to their agenda, while
omitting Yalta, he sent me a summary of his position taken at an October 31, 1983,
meeting in Washington with Deputy Special Assistant Linas Kojelis, and an advisor to
matters pertaining to Latin and Central America. One of Rac’s main points was that the
continuation of actions taken on behalf of Grenada should be the renunciation of Yalta.

On November 2, 1983, Congressman Tom Corcoran sent a letter of thanks for

background information on Action Renounce Yalta and stated:

“I am in total agreement with you that the signing of Yalta was one of the most tragic
moments in U.S. and world history, causing millions to live without freedom from Soviet
totalitarianism.” He went on to say that: “Because our nation should make clear to the
world that we believe Yalta to be a cynical, immoral agreement, I will be honored to
comply with your request to introduce legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives to
formally renounce the 1945 Yalta Executive Agreement.”
On October 24, 1983, the communist press in Poland launched an attack on POMOST
and the Renounce Yalta action, with an article that appeared in Warsaw’s “Express
Wieczorny”[Evening Express]. We were, of course, made out to be “West German
revisionists,” “fanatics,” and the like, that were “funded by the C.I.A.” This article was
followed up with similar untrue garbage that appeared in the November 4th 1983, issue of
“Perspektywy”[Perspectives].

We always welcomed the attacks of the Polish communist press because we knew that
the people in Poland could read between the lines and appreciated the support, while
attacks by the communist press upgraded our stature in the United States. Through
various means we were getting word to the opposition in Poland about our action, with
the request that, if possible, they express support for our action.

In response to a letter advising Vice President George Bush that the Polish American
community is pleased with his statement that “We recognize no lawful division of
Europe,” while criticizing his interpretation of Yalta, on November 10th, he wrote:

“ … The central purpose of the speech, and of my trip, was to extend encouragement to
the people of Eastern Europe, assuring them that we remember them and that we are
ready and willing to respond on a bilateral basis as they are able to move toward greater
self-expression and increased freedom…”

“My speech was highly critical of the Soviet Union, which seeks to hold the countries of
Eastern Europe under its stifling domination. We are not encouraging open revolution,
but at the same time we are not willing to acquiesce to a permanent and immutable
division in Europe which confines millions of people and a variety of cultures and
traditions under an intolerable form of subordination…”

In the meantime on November 10, 1983, the Polish Daily “Zgoda” [“Dziennik
Zwiazkowy”], the voice of the PAC published in Chicago, reported on their leader’s
efforts to approach the issue of Yalta. PAC President Alojzy Mazewski took part in a
meeting with Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Charles Percy.
Mazewski called for forming a special committee to examine the entire problem of Yalta,
beginning with looking into Soviet compliance of the agreement. While critical of Yalta
as an agreement, and Stalin, Mazewski seemed to place little if any blame on Roosevelt
and Churchill for entering into these agreements.

I had mixed feelings about the above development. On the one hand I was happy that the
issue of Yalta would get even more attention. On the other hand I was concerned that this
could lead to yet another “whitewash” ending up with calls on the Soviets to observe
Yalta, as opposed to renouncing the agreement. Indeed, word had reached us that the
purpose of Mazewski’s proposed committee would be to study how Yalta could be
“carried out” as opposed to “renounced.” I was saddened by the thought that perhaps,
strictly as a political move in view of the PAC/POMOST conflict, the PAC simply felt
the need to take the opposite and easier approach to this issue. Although I did not want to
enter into another conflict directly, I felt obliged to send Mazewski an open letter stating
that “Failing to take a renounce Yalta position, especially at this time, clearly is not in the
best interest of our cause and will open the P.A.C. to more criticism, while alienating
members within your own organization.”

On November 16th, 1983, “Nowy Dziennik” in turn printed a very supportive article
about our action. This meant a great deal to us as Nowy Dziennik had the largest
circulation of any Polish-American publication in the United States. Editor and Publisher
Boleslaw Wierzbianski had since joined our Honorary Renounce Yalta Committee. Over
the years he contributed by keeping this issue alive amid Polonia. While attending a
convention in Washington D.C., he put President Reagan on the spot by asking if Bush’s
speech touching upon Yalta signaled a change in U.S. foreign policy. Wierzbianski later
said that the President danced around the issue without giving a meaningful reply.

Corcoran accepted, and seemed to fully agree with our approach of placing as much
blame as possible on the U.S. for Yalta. The purpose of this was not to “bash” the country
that we all loved. The purpose was to place more responsibility on the United States for
freeing captive nations, for taking a stronger stand on their behalf, and for expressing a
meaningful sign of breaking with status quo. The purpose was to show that we were
approaching Yalta in a sincere manner. The purpose was to show that any agreement
made on behalf of nations not represented, and against their will, would sooner or later be
condemned by history so that such mistakes would not be repeated again.
 INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS IN U.S. CONGRESS

At the request of Tom Corcoran we drafted a proposed speech for him to introduce the
Renounce Yalta resolution in Congress. Below is how it appeared in the Congressional
Record (No. 161-Part IV Vol. 129 Friday, November 18, 1983 No. 161 Page E 5853)

“CORCORAN BILL RENOUNCES YALTA

HON TOM CORCORAN
OF ILLINOIS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, November 18, 1983

“• Mr. CORCORAN. Mr. Speaker, since World War II, Europe, the United States, and in
fact the entire world has been haunted by Yalta and the spirit of this 1945 executive
agreement. Yalta and other agreements signed by representatives of the United States
during and shortly after World War II did not bring about peace and security for the rest
of the world, but rather became a source of permanent unbalance and tension. Nor did
these agreements serve as the final satisfaction of Soviet claims, but instead as a
springboard for further Soviet expansion which has since spread over virtually all
continents.

“Yalta and other agreements were signed without the consent of representatives from
numerous countries whose fate was being decided. In this sense the agreements were
signed in clear violation of the Atlantic Charter and the principles on which our Nation
was founded. Yet we signed such cynical agreements with the Soviet Union at the
expense of Poland and several other countries, resulting in mass murder and the
enslavement of hundreds of millions of people. That is why to this day, for millions
around the world, Yalta still serves as a symbol of our betrayal of loyal allies. This
problem will not disappear until we show the courage to deal with it.

“I can assure you that while the people of central and eastern Europe appreciate our
words of solidarity, they often wonder about our sincerity. If indeed our expressed words
of solidarity are sincere, they wonder why the Western World has not yet renounced
Yalta after 38 years. That is why Polish-Americans and other captive-nation-Americans
are perhaps more vocal about Yalta now than at anytime before. Yalta is also associated
with a sellout by the American people in general.

“At present I am being flooded with petitions from all over the country asking the
Congress to deal with the issue of Yalta. Mr. Speaker, the spirit of Yalta will continue to
haunt us, and much of the world until we clear the air regarding it.

“At the request of tens of thousands of people representing the desires of millions here in
the United States and around the world, I am today introducing legislation calling for the
formal renunciation of the 1945 Yalta executive agreement.
“With the passage of such a resolution, we will have shown the world that we as a nation
are courageous enough to admit past mistakes. At the same time, we will be sending a
message to the people enslaved under Soviet totalitarianism that the United States
continues to stand for the principles of freedom and independence for all. By renouncing
Yalta, we will leave no question as to the sincerity of our expressed solidarity with the
peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, even while they are temporarily held captive by
the Soviet system of government.

“There should be no objections to renouncing Yalta, especially when considering that this
agreement was clearly violated with regard to the few positive aspects of the agreement,
such as the guarantee of free elections. In fact, the agreement was never honored by the
Soviet Union.

“I sincerely hope that we will not keep the freedom-loving people of the world waiting
much longer, and that the Members of this Congress from both parties will join in
expressing our unity with all captive nations of the world by supporting this resolution.•”

Corcoran requested that we draft the Renounce Yalta resolution. Feeling certain that
Corcoran and others would edit the proposed resolution, and that concessions would have
to be made to opponents with time, my objective was to initially make it as strong as
possible, and had it completed within an hour or two. Much to my surprise Corcoran
presented the resolution without any changes as follows:

“98th Congress
1st Session

“H.J. 435

“IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

“Mr. Corcoran introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs

“JOINT RESOLUTION

“To formally renounce the 1945 Yalta agreement.

“Whereas during World War II, representatives of the United States took part in secret
agreements and understandings concerning other peoples who were not represented;

“Whereas for millions around the world, especially those residing in Central and Eastern
Europe, the 1945 Yalta executive agreement is particularly associated with alleged
United States acquiescence in the enslavement of entire nations under a Soviet totalitarian
system of government;
“Whereas at the Yalta Conference, representatives of the United States gave recognition
to Soviet-backed groups, such as the Provisional Government of Lublin in Poland, which
had no widespread support or following among the peoples of the nations involved;

“Whereas at the Yalta Conference, representatives of the United States agreed to

repatriate all Soviet citizens who remained abroad after the war, irrespective of their
individual wishes and by force if necessary, resulting in mass death and suffering;

“Whereas the Yalta Conference and other conferences did in fact result in the creation of
a Soviet “sphere of influence,” while incorporating such nations as Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and the Ukraine within the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics by force;

“Whereas the Yalta agreement, resulting in the enslavement of half of Europe, did not
bring about peace and security for the rest of the world, but rather became the source of
permanent unbalance and tension;

“Whereas the Soviet domination of Central and Eastern Europe turned out to be not a
final satisfaction of Soviet claims but rather a springboard for further Soviet expansion
which is now spreading over all continents;

“Whereas the situation created in Central and Eastern Europe as a result of agreements
such as the Yalta agreement continue to be dramatically contested by its victims, as for
example in East Berlin in 1953, Poznan in 1956, Budapest in 1956, Prague in 1968, and
Poland in 1970 and again in 1980, 1981, 1982, and 1983;

“Whereas the outcome of the Yalta agreement threatens the peace and security of all
freedom-loving people;

“Whereas the Soviet Union clearly violated, and in fact never honored, the positive
aspects of Yalta such as the guarantee to allow for free elections in the countries
involved;

“Whereas it is appropriate for the United States, according to the principles on which this
Nation was founded, to respect the desires and aspirations of all freedom-loving people
around the world;

“Whereas it is appropriate that the United States express the hopes of the people of the
United States for freedom of people subjected to the captivity of Soviet despotism in
Central and Eastern Europe, as well as elsewhere around the world; and

“Whereas it is appropriate for the United States to reject any interpretations or

applications that, as a result of the signing of the 1945 Yalta executive agreement, the
United States accepts the present position of nations being held captive by the Soviet
Union as a part of status quo: Now, therefore, be it

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled, That the United States hereby expresses its sincerely felt solidarity
with the desires and aspirations of the peoples of Bulgaria, Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia,
East Germany, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, the Ukraine, and all
the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, as well as around the world, by formally
renouncing the 1945 Yalta agreement. The United States, after careful examination of the
facts, considers the renunciation of the Yalta agreement to be justified and proper, and
declares that the agreement officially should no longer be considered to be recognized or
binding.”

Leopold Tyrmand, and Professor J.K. Zawodny were, privately, highly critical of the
resolution. Tyrmand called it “shallow, lacking political scholarly muscle, politically
inept,” etc. I advised them that I agreed with their comments, and that ideally there
should be seminars, an exchange of ideas among scholars, and the development of
position papers, prior to drafting a resolution by experts in this field, but it was important
to have the resolution introduced as quickly as possible even if it had flaws that could
later be corrected.

Privately, I was not concerned with the criticism because of most importance to me the
resolution hit hard against status quo, and this would help insure getting the maximum
amount of support from the captive nation community. And very privately, I was
concerned that by the time scholars got together, exchanged opinions, and came to an
agreement, if such a time would ever come, momentum could have been lost forever, and
the strong wording of the resolution could have been pre-maturely compromised. I
preferred, at least initially, to try and move the American political system with passionate
force and signs of massive support, especially during the early phase of this action.

The political climate for introducing our resolution seemed favorable. The downing of
the Korean airliner over the Soviet Union was still remembered. U.S. election campaigns
were soon to begin. The Renounce Yalta campaign was gaining momentum, while
Poland was still in a state of crisis. Thus I considered it very important that the resolution
was introduced before the U.S. Congress closed for winter break.

During the same day that the resolution was introduced in U.S. Congress, Corcoran
issued a strongly worded press release advising of his action. This event, of course,
became front-page news for virtually all American captive nation publications. This in
turn generated more interest and support for the action. Besides more signed petitions
arriving from around the country we received additional petitions from South America,
South Africa, Australia, and Great Britain. Letters of support came from around the
world.

The London based Polish Government-In-Exile was excited and began planning actions
for England and other countries in Europe. The Renounce Yalta action began taking on a
life of its own. The key to maintaining momentum was simply to keep the flow of
positive news spreading among one another. The community was informed about every
action taken by Congressman Corcoran with articles, press releases, and copies of his
letters printed by the thousands. Corcoran was kept informed about how well each of his
actions was received by the community.

On November 22, 1983, Corcoran issued a statement in the form of a press release
advising that he had written a letter to House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman
Clement J. Zablocki, urging that hearings pertaining to his legislation be scheduled at the
beginning of 1984. He urged that field hearings be held both in Wisconsin and Illinois.
We printed and distributed the Corcoran letter with a request that the community send
letters to Zablocki asking him to honor the request. Unfortunately, Zablocki passed away
on December 3, 1983, after suffering cardiac arrest. Florida Congressman Dante Fascell
would soon take over as Chairman of this Committee.

In the meantime Corcoran’s office sent documents obtained from the Congressional
Research Service, The Library of Congress, pertaining to the extremely interesting 1953
hearings on Yalta. On February 20, 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower presented a
letter and draft resolution concerning the subjugation of free peoples by the Soviet Union.
Congressman John M. Vorys of Ohio introduced the draft resolution in the U.S. House of
Representatives as H.J. Res [House Joint Resolution] 200 [83ed Congress, first session].
Along with the above, Mr. Vorys presented other draft resolutions which were referred to
the House Foreign Affairs Committee where, following hearings, none were ever
reported out of the Committee for a vote by Congress.

During hearings of February 26, 1953, U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles pushed
hard for passage of Eisenhower’s resolution, which did not formally renounce Yalta, but
did reject the sphere of influence concept. The resolution stated that the U.S. never
acquiesced in the enslavement of other peoples, and proclaimed the hope that the right of
self-determination will prevail [in Eastern Europe]. Among other words in support of the
resolution, Dulles stated: “It is an act of great historical importance, and many
consequences will stem from it.”

Congressman Smith of Wisconsin asked: “Do you think it might do us some good if we
confess that some of the things that are going on today as a result of those secret
agreements is part of our doing also?” Dulles replied by stating, “Confession is always
good for the soul but the best place for a confession, I think, is in the privacy of one’s
communion with one’s God.”

For the most part members of Congress congratulated Dulles during the morning session
of this debate. From time to time questions arose whether the resolution should not be
stronger, as it did not actually renounce any of the agreements made during and shortly
after World War II, but rather gave the U.S. interpretation of them, as opposed to the
Soviet interpretation of them. Dulles maintained that it was difficult to make everybody
happy, but advised that the resolution, as formed, should win the support of the vast
majority, if not all, in the Senate and House of Representatives. He argued that this was
much more important than having a tougher resolution that barely passes. At the same
time he assured that Eisenhower’s administration would not come to terms with the
Soviets at the expense of captive nations.

Some representatives were still not sure of the approach that Dulles was proposing.
Congresswoman Church, for example, asked: “There is then in your opinion no reason
for an honest man who has protested against these secret agreements to fear his
conscience if he votes for this resolution in the present form?”

The afternoon session, which Dulles did not attend, saw more criticism of the resolution
being too weak. Many spoke of, and presented, resolutions calling for the renunciation of
Yalta. Robert Hale, of Maine, for example, reintroduced his resolution of March 12, 1950
calling for the renunciation of Yalta.
During the discussions Congressman Fulton stated: “As a matter of fact, the Yalta
agreement was in effect an agreement made in secret and even in the report to Congress
by the President it was not even disclosed that territories were tried to be bargained
away.” By the end of the debate most everyone started criticizing Eisenhower’s
resolution as being too weak, except for Congressman Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. who
made a half-hearted attempt to defend Yalta to no avail.

The documents which Corcoran forwarded included a statement presented by

Congressman Lawrence Smith of Wisconsin: “During the Presidential campaign on
Pulaski Day, October 11, 1952, in Denver, Colorado, Candidate Eisenhower conferred
with Polish-American leaders and said this to them: “the platform of the Republican
Party pledged repudiation of the Yalta agreement which through the violation of the
principles of the Atlantic Charter and through its unilateral violation by the Soviet
Government has resulted in the enslavement of Poland.” The statement went on to point
out that Eisenhower promised to renounce agreements such as Yalta during his state of
the Union message to Congress on February 12, 1953 (only a few weeks prior). The
statement concluded that Eisenhower’s resolution lets down millions of Polish-
Americans, and the people in Poland.

Finally, Congressman O’Konski sharply criticized the Eisenhower resolution by stating:

“What we are doing…is trying to find a scapegoat for all the mistakes and all the ills…
Now we are going to say to the world, “We are not apologizing for any hand that we had
in the Yalta, Teheran, or Potsdam agreements.” “We are not even telling you that we are
wrong…”

O’Konski went on to say that by failing to renounce Yalta, we are not fooling anyone but
ourselves. He concludes that we should be courageous enough to admit to our mistakes if
such a resolution is to have any value.

I was amazed at how strong some of the resolutions were such as H.CON.RES.13
presented by Representative Lawrence Smith of Wisconsin on January 3, 1953, which
stated:

“Whereas the private agreements concluded in 1945 at Yalta and Potsdam were based on
a complete disregard for the strategic interests of the United States and the free world,
and represent a denial of the free and democratic ideals, as expressed in the North
Atlantic Charter, which have always been cherished by the American people and for
which millions fought World War II; and

“Whereas specifically, the Yalta agreement sanctioned Soviet domination of Eastern

Europe and East Asia, the betrayal of Poland and the mutilation of its natural boundaries,
the transfer of the national allegiance of millions of persons without plebiscite or other
recognition of their rights to self-determination, and the uprooting of other millions of
persons;…

“…Whereas, although the Yalta and Potsdam agreements are the closest approach to a
peace settlement for World War II existing today, and although these two agreements, by
their inexpedient provisions, have cost the United States untold billions for defense,
occupation costs, and foreign economic support, and have led the free world to the brink
of another global war, these agreements were made in secrecy and without congressional
participation, approval, or ratification: Now, therefore, be it

“Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense
of the Congress of the United States that the private agreements concluded in 1945 at
Yalta and Potsdam should be forthwith repudiated by the United States.”

I was also surprised to learn that in a resolution of ratification of the Treaty of Peace with
Japan, on September 8, 1951, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in effect,
renounced Yalta as pertaining to decisions made that involved Japan. The resolution
stated:

…“Nothing in said Treaty, or the advice and consent of the Senate to the ratification
thereof, implies recognition on the part of the United States of the provisions in favor of
the Soviet Union contained in the so-called “Yalta Agreement” regarding Japan of
February 11, 1945.”

Reading these documents made me more determined than ever to proceed with the
renunciation of Yalta. A historian wishing to study all post-war efforts to renounce Yalta
should try and obtain:

1) 81st Congress Report 3135 (Background information Soviet Union and international
relations) -–lists 40 to 50 Soviet violations of World War II agreements.

2) Congressional Record of February 13, 1945 (includes statements praising Yalta the
day after the Yalta conference was concluded, and Congressman O’Konski’s
statement advising how time will tell that this was one of the worst agreements that
we ever got into.

3) Republican platform for 1952, which called for the renunciation of Yalta.

4) Eisenhower’s State of the Union message to Congress of February 12, 1953, which
promised the renunciation of Yalta.

5) Maine Congressman Robert Hale resolution renouncing Yalta, introduced on, or

approximately, March 12, 1950 [with possibly other resolutions entered around this
time].

There was not enough time for us to dwell too much on the past. We were too busy
remaining focused on the present campaign to renounce Yalta. POMOST activist James
Zmuda, in Chicago, was of great help in constantly contacting other ethnic groups and
organizations (Czechs, Romanians, Hungarians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, etc.) pertaining
to our action. POMOST radio in Chicago continued to support the action and Corcoran’s
election campaign. During one Sunday alone, POMOST members in Chicago collected
1,600 signatures on Renounce Yalta petitions. POMOST in Cleveland, Buffalo, and other
cities contributed as well.
I drafted letters for Corcoran in seeking support from various individuals, and helped
with the responses, while also sending out direct letters to captive-nation leaders,
publications, and everyone who came to mind around the world, including the Pope. This
was done on Renounce Yalta stationary containing a heading with two-colored print (blue
and red), which read: “HELP TOM CORCORAN RENOUNCE YALTA AND BUILD A
BETTER WORLD. SUPPORT H.J. RES. 435.” We had now collected approximately
40,000 signatures on petitions.

As it was getting harder to mobilize enough people to create effective demonstrations in

Los Angeles, we marked the 2nd anniversary of Martial Law in Poland by calling a press
conference in Los Angeles on December 13, 1983. In a press release we promised to
inform about “the launching of a new, massive, worldwide campaign on behalf of
freedom in Poland and other nations held captive by the Soviet Union.” This, of course,
pertained to the campaign to renounce Yalta. Later in the day our calls to renounce Yalta
were transmitted by the media in Southern California, along with informing the public of
Tom Corcoran’s resolution. During this press conference, also covered by the Voice of
America, we challenged the Jaruzelski regime in Poland to a public debate for
broadcasting on both sides of the “iron-curtain.”

In its December 17, 1983 lead editorial, “Gwiazda Polarna” called on all Poles to unite
their strength for the renunciation of Yalta. Upon hearing of Corcoran’s resolution, the
Polish Government-In-Exile invited immigrant representatives of Czechoslovakia,
Hungary, and Romania, as well as the Chairman of the British Solidarity with Poland
Campaign Sir Bernard Braine, to discuss widening the action to the British Parliament
and beyond.

In response to Polish priest Father F. Woloszyk, residing in Florida, who wrote that the
action to Renounce Yalta was an answer to his prayers, on December 18, 1983, I wrote:

“ I was extremely touched by your wish: “above all, that you will not run out of energy to
fight the whole world for the freedom of each individual.” You can rest assured that this
will be done. You can rest assured that your fine example has been passed on to another
generation and it will never die. We do not treat this as a game, nor are we active for the
purpose of simply being active. I think that the beauty in Pomost is that we are active for
the purpose of making a difference for Poland and other captive nations. We are active
for the purpose of winning and win we shall, because where there is a strong, sincere
will, there is always a way to get aims accomplished.”

Woloszyk, and many other veterans of the Polish Home Army, were among the most
active supporters of the Renounce Yalta campaign in every city that they resided in.
Veterans of the Polish Home Army (A.K.) continued to send a steady stream of
signatures under Renounce Yalta petitions from Detroit.

On December 19, 1983, while in Los Angeles on short notice, a meeting was quickly
organized for Congressman Corcoran at the home of Adam and Hanna Tyszkiewicz.
Corcoran gave a very effective speech showing that he was becoming well versed on the
subject of Yalta, and he appreciated the enthusiastic welcome. “…It is up to us who
understand and care about the enslaved nations of Central and Eastern Europe to speak up
on their behalf, constantly” stated Corcoran. This made for yet more news in the captive-
nation media. In addition money was raised for Corcoran’s election campaign, as well as
for the POMOST Renounce Yalta Committee.

While driving with Corcoran I told him that a great many Polish and other ethnic
Americans were not being reached by the ethnic press, yet would support his election
campaign if they knew about his resolution to renounce Yalta. I suggested that he
mention the resolution everywhere possible, even when addressing non-ethnic
Americans. I also asked him to come to Southern California once more, during which
time we would organize a dinner honoring him as “Congressman Of The Year.” He
agreed, and later we established Saturday, February 25, 1984, as the date for holding such
an event.

On December 21, 1983, we received the original signed petitions back from Corcoran’s
office, where they were previously sent. More petitions were still coming from Chicago
and other parts of the country, as well as from other countries. We added the signature
collectors (listed at the bottom of each petition) to our mailing list, so as to call on them
to write letters to the U.S. Congress, as needed, because we knew that we could always
count on their support.

Few people expected Corcoran to seriously challenge long term Senator Charles Percy
from Illinois. The latest polls, however, were showing Corcoran would get as much as
45% of the vote, and that he was catching up to Percy very fast. The primary election
would be held on March 20, 1983, thus Corcoran was taking some very important time
off from campaigning in Illinois to be with us in Los Angeles. The dinner would be held
in the Queen Salon of the Queen Mary Hotel in the port of Long Beach. In addition to all
the political activity already involved in, we needed to organize a good event.
Fortunately, good and caring people such as Adam & Hanna Tyszkiewicz, Stan & Gene
Stankiewicz, Jan Malek, Stefan Sznajder, and many others, could always be counted on
to help with fund-raising activities.

On December 22, 1983, the President of the Alliance of Friendship Dr. Alexander
Ronnett, a Romanian American, sent letters to Members of the House of Representatives
to co-sponsor H.J. Res. 435. The Alliance represented several captive nation
organizations based in Chicago. Dr. Ronnett was extremely active in the Renounce Yalta
campaign encouraging the participation of Romanians throughout the United States and
in many other countries. James Zmuda of POMOST worked closely with Ronnett in
promoting the action constantly.

On December 28, 1983, the American East European Ethnic Conference released a
position paper titled “The Ghost Of Yalta,” which was prepared for Counselor for the
United States Department of State Edward J. Derwinski. Member organizations of the
American East European Ethnic Conference included Bulgarian, Czechoslovak,
Hungarian, Lavian, Lithuanian, and Ukrainian organizations, as well as the Polish
American Congress. The position paper came to the following conclusion:

“Peace is indivisible, and so are freedom and justice. In a world divided where one half
lives free and the other half in slavery, peace is permanently threatened. Injustice
anywhere is the enemy of justice everywhere. If justice is absent or threatened, peace, we
mean a real, just and lasting peace, cannot exist either. Thus peace in Europe depends
directly on the degree of freedom and justice granted to the people living behind the Iron
Curtain. These millions of ordinary people, who look at the Western nations as their allies
are our friends, and our enemy’s Achilles Heel.

“The latent opposition in Central and Eastern Europe to the Soviet domination is
determined and deep and the United States should assure these friends of ours that it
firmly supports their quest for self-determination, freedom, independence and peace.”

Recommendations included:

“Our foreign policy should not be based on the continued acceptance of exclusive Soviet
interests in Central and Eastern Europe. This area is also a sphere of legitimate interests
of the United States and Western Europe.”

“…A practical, viable solution of the problems of East-Central Europe requires more
than theoretical, academic reevaluation of those illusions fostered by the Soviet Union
and the Yalta School of scholars, diplomats, and bureaucrats of the West. The recently
reaffirmed policy of differentiation is a commendable first step but it is not the ultimate
remedy for the ills of more than 40 years of neglect….”

“…The rejection of the “spheres of influence” theory drawn at Yalta, as implied by Alger
Hiss, should be made tangible in our relations with the Soviet Union and the victim
countries of the “Brezh-feldt Doctrine” [referring to the Sonnenfeldt doctrine, thought of
as one of appeasement] syndrome which was accepted by the Allies and effectively
promoted in their day to day relations with the controlled countries of East-Central
Europe.”

While the American East European Ethnic Conference position paper did not call for the
formal renunciation of Yalta, it tended to support, rather than conflict with our desire to
end status quo politics with the Soviet Union, as pertaining to Central and Eastern
Europe. It called on the U.S. government to focus on taking meaningful concrete steps to
obtain freedom for captive nations, and to hold the U.S. responsible for obtaining results
in this direction, as opposed to focusing on occasional proclamations, commemorations,
and merely protesting what was taking place behind the iron curtain. It seemed best,
however, to make the above point with loud, massive, and continuous calls to renounce
the Yalta agreement itself. Even the best of position papers could easily be agreed to,
filed, and forgotten, while limiting action to another proclamation that expressed our
sympathy and hope for the people of captive nations. Moving the American political
process into significant change tended to require the use of frequently repeated slogans
via petitions, letters, articles, phone calls, and demonstrations.

In late December I called Dr. Mackubin Thomas Owens, the Senior Legislative Assistant
for Defense & Foreign Affairs, for Senator Robert W. Kasten, Jr. of Wisconsin. I had met
with him during my trip to Washington, D.C. On this occasion I asked if Kasten could be
the one to introduce our resolution in the U.S. Senate. I explained that after reading a few
articles written by Kasten, I could tell that he and POMOST think alike. I told Owens that
in the midst of our campaign to renounce Yalta we made relatively unknown
Congressman Tom Corcoran the most popular Member of the House of Representatives
among Polish and other ethnic Americans. I told him that we could do the same for
Senator Kasten.

As Wisconsin had a considerable Polish-American population I advised that we would

probably make a good match. Owens asked that I send him background information on
the action. I did as he asked, and the mailing included a montage of headlines, articles,
and pictures involving Tom Corcoran. I could sense that it was now just a question of
time before we would also have a resolution renouncing Yalta in the U.S. Senate. Dealing
with a foreign affairs issue, the legislation would have to pass in both the House of
Representatives and the Senate to become law.

As 1984 arrived, the publicity surrounding Action Renounce Yalta increased with articles
frequently appearing in major ethnic publications led by Nowy Dziennik and Gwiazda
Polarna as usual. In addition, articles were included in many smaller publications and
bulletins around the country.

New Horizon, a quarterly paper publish by Nowy Dziennik in English, devoted more
than a full page on the subject of Yalta and published POMOST’s challenge to the
Jaruzelski regime to take part in a debate for broadcasting on both sides of the iron
curtain. The Lithuanian Elta Information Bulletin, sponsored by the Lithuanian National
Foundation, stated that Corcoran’s resolution “is as timely as it is pertinent.” It concluded
that the renunciation of Yalta “would clear the air, clarify the positions of the
superpowers, and give an enormous boost to the morale of the captive European
peoples.”

“Fighter,” the English language monthly of the Hungarian Freedom Fighter Movement
published in Cleveland, dedicated its front page to the Renounce Yalta campaign and
David Domzalski, the dynamic POMOST leader in that city. The popular Czech “Nedelni
Hlasatel,” published in Chicago, equally supported the Renounce Yalta campaign.

In an article smuggled out of a Polish communist jail and printed in the January/February
1984 issue of the respected” Kultura,” published in Paris, well known KOR (Worker’s
Defense Committee) opposition leader Adam Michnik wrote with Polish communist
junta leader Jaruzelski in mind:

…“He should also think over the new accents in U.S. politics. The criticism of Yalta
being increasingly taken on by U.S. leaders means, in effect, the criticism of political
order in Europe, based on the Stalinist interpretation of the division of a continent into
spheres of influence.

“The extraordinary nervous reaction of PZPR [Polish People’s Republic] leaders to every
American mention of Yalta is very revealing. For them Yalta is the base of legitimacy for
Soviet domination over Poland and communist rule in Poland. That’s why they feverishly
remind that it was Yalta, which decided about the Oder-Neisse border- in accordance
with Poland’s right to exist- reminding that the Western border was recognized as final
by both German countries.

“Does the criticizing of Yalta mean placing Poland’s western border in danger? I don’t
think so. Rather it is connected with a declaration that communist dictatorships in Europe
cannot draw any legitimacy from international understandings, especially when they
themselves do not respect the understandings.

“In a year the Yalta Conference will reach an anniversary. This will serve as a good
occasion to reflect on the balance of this understanding, during which the sinister Stalin
was able to wind a naive and pro-Stalin Franklin D. Roosevelt around his finger. Will the
U.S. government officially break off the Yalta understandings? I don’t imagine so. It is
more probable, I think, at least today, of reminding of the contents of those
understandings and determining that their essence was one-sidedly violated by Stalin.
Because, Yalta brought a guarantee that Poland will not be an enemy country to the
Soviet Union, but did not guarantee honoring communist totalitarian dictatorships over
Poland and half of Europe. The falsified elections of January 1947 were a violation of the
Yalta understandings, and not their realization. And this subject could become the
objective of new U.S.-Soviet understandings.”

In January 1984, the Polish-American Congress printed a brochure titled “Teheran-

Yalta- Potsdam-Helsinki What Next?” It contained a message from Aloysius Mazewski
stating:

“The Polish American Congress voiced strong objections to the Yalta Agreement ever
since its inception and continues to inform people and our government of the sellout of
Poland and Eastern European countries. Great Britain and the United States gave away
something that was not theirs to give.

“The present unrest, denial of human rights and terrorism stems from this infamous
agreement.

“We hope that this brochure will in a summarized form bring to mind this crucial period
in history.”

The brochure written by Jan Morelewski, who was a quiet supporter of the POMOST
Renounce Yalta action, clearly attacked all four agreements as a pattern of continual U.S.
and Western acquiescence to the Soviet Union at the expense of captive nations. It
appeared that, at this time, a general consensus was forming among not only all of
Polonia, but the entire American captive nation community.

A picture of Tom Corcoran appeared on the cover of the January- March 1984 issue of
POMOST Magazine. Included in this issue of POMOST was the text of Corcoran’s
Renounce Yalta resolution, as well as an article written by the former Ambassador of
communist Poland to Japan Zdzislaw Rurarz, who strongly condemned Yalta and
expressed the importance of renouncing the agreement. POMOST also took this
opportunity to publish its political platform, programs, and ideology.

On January 3, 1984, the Executive Vice-President of the National Confederation of

American Ethnic Groups Z. Michael Szaz advised that his organization, representing 16
different heritage groups, would send a letter to all members of Congress asking them to
co-sponsor Corcoran’s resolution. By the end of January, Romanian leader Alexander
Ronnet and James Zmuda of POMOST obtained the support of Dr. George Paprikoff,
representing the Bulgarian National Front, as well as other ethnic leaders. On January 3,
1984, we were also informed by Jackie Davis of Tom Corcoran’s office that she would be
having lunch with Mac Owens of Senator Kasten’s office. It now appeared to be just a
question of time before we would have our Renounce Yalta resolution in the Senate as
well.

On January 6, 1984, Polish Opposition leader Wojciech Ziembinski sent a letter to

President Reagan calling for the renunciation of Yalta. On January 12, 1994, Cleveland’s
largest newspaper “The Plain Dealer,” informed readers of Congressman Corcoran’s
resolution, and that ethnic Americans in that city would be seeking the repudiation of
Yalta. POMOST leader David Domzalski was just beginning to form a very major
Renounce Yalta campaign in Cleveland and other cities in Ohio. He called for a meeting
of various ethnic leaders on January 13, to plan for the Renounce Yalta drive.

To help with gaining more publicity, POMOST drafted an interview with Tom Corcoran,
which was quickly approved by the Congressman and published in “Gwiazda Polarna” on
January 14, 1984. Our mailing list now included approximately 60 ethnic papers and
many of them published information about the Renounce Yalta campaign constantly.
During the interview, Corcoran stated that the renunciation of Yalta “would send a clear
message to Moscow that U.S. cooperation with the Soviet Union cannot, and will not, be
built over the backs of subjugated peoples, nor can such a policy ever serve as an
adequate foundation for U.S. – Soviet relations.”

Sadly, amid all these positive developments, the Polish-American Congress/POMOST

conflict escalated into an all out war of words in January of 1984, in Chicago. Jan
Krawiec, the editor of “Zgoda,” the voice of the PAC, questioned POMOST competency
in his commentary of January 6-7, 1984. He mostly based this criticism on an interview
given by Los Angeles POMOST Representative Janusz Szymanski, to the Polish-
Canadian publication “Czas” [Time]. During the interview, Szymanski predicted that
Corcoran’s Renounce Yalta resolution would find itself on the agenda [“porzadku
dziennym”] of the U.S. Congress by the end of November, or sometime during December
of 1983, latest. Szymanski was not aware that Congress always closes for the year at the
end of November, and often sooner during election years. When informed that the
agreement was indeed introduced by the end of November, and that it was even reported
in his own newspaper, Krawiec stated there is a difference between the resolution being
“introduced” and being “on the agenda.”

Krawiec went on to criticize the Renounce Yalta Action as being naïve, advising that the
current order in the world came as a result of war and can only be changed by war. In his
January 13-14 commentary, he quoted from a very obviously forged POMOST document
(no doubt written by Polish communist agents working in the United States). And in his
January 20-21 commentary, Krawiec continued on with his attacks that were more
personal than political.

In a postcard from Paris, Polish Opposition leader Miroslaw Chojecki stated that Action
Renounce Yalta seemed to be one of the most sensible actions that could be undertaken
on behalf of captive nations, at this time. As Editor of the Paris based monthly
publication “Kontakt,” which was also reaching Poland, he offered to help by publishing
information about the campaign. We asked Chojecki to request that the opposition in
Poland, if possible, show support for the action, which would be of great help towards its
success in the United States.

On January 19, 1984, Corcoran took the initiative to send a letter to Secretary of State
George P. Shultz. The letter stated:

“Dear Mr. Secretary,

“I have followed with great interest your meeting with Mr. Gromyko and your remarks
made at the Stockholm conference this week. I was especially pleased with your
statement that “The United States does not recognize the legitimacy of the artificially
imposed division of Europe.” It was reported that you went on to say, “This division is
the essence of Europe’s security and human rights problem, and we all know it …”

“Mr. Secretary, our President just this week called upon our nation to approach relations
with the Soviets based upon three guiding principles, the first of which is “realism”. I
believe your reference to the division of Europe goes a long way toward this realistic
approach, and I would hope that you and the Administration will go a step further by
supporting efforts to formally renounce the 1945 Yalta executive agreement. I have
introduced H.J. Res. 435 to formally renounce this cynical agreement, and I hope the
Administration will join the Congress in a united statement to the world that the U.S.
indeed will not accept an artificially imposed division of Europe, which has caused
suffering for millions.”

Corcoran referred to a speech given by Secretary Shultz at the opening of the Conference
on Confidence- and Security-Building Measures and Disarmament in Europe, during
which time Shultz stated that since 1945:

“An artificial barrier has cruelly divided this continent—and indeed heartlessly divided
one of its great nations. This barrier was not placed there by the West. It is not
maintained by the West. It is not the West that prevents its citizen’s free movement, or
cuts them off from competing ideas. Let me be very clear: the United States does not
recognize the legitimacy of the artificially imposed division of Europe.”

By January 21, 1984, word reached us from Corcoran’s office that influential Illinois
Congressman and Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Henry Hyde, among
others, would co-sponsor H.J. Res. 435. On January 23, 1984, thanks to Yolanda
Flanagan in Alameda, California, another computerized personal letter was mailed to all
members of the U.S. House of Representatives asking each to co-sponsor H.J. Res. 435.
Enclosed in the mailing was a translated copy of Gwiazda Polarna’s December 17, 1983,
editorial supporting the action, and other information pertaining to the Renounce Yalta
effort. Yolanda’s unselfish time-consuming mailings served as a major contribution
towards bringing the Renounce Yalta action to light among leaders in Washington D.C. It
should be remembered that the entire Renounce Yalta campaign was promoted without
the benefit of personal computers, which were not available as yet.

On January 24, 1984, Tom Corcoran sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter to all members of
U.S. Congress, along with a copy of the November 18, 1983, speech introducing the
resolution in Congress. The “Dear Colleague” letter started off quoting an April 1945,
statement made by Joseph Stalin to Marshal Tito: “This war is not as in the past.
Whoever occupies a territory also imposes on it his own social system. Everyone imposes
his own system as far as his army can reach.” In the letter Corcoran wrote: “If we do not
speak up against U.S. support of Yalta, we are, in effect, endorsing this abhorrent
agreement which President Roosevelt signed along with Premier Stalin”.

In other positive news, on January 20, 1984, a conservative non-ethnic American

organization – “United States Defense Committee” in Fairfax, Virginia, informed us of
its commitment to seek support and co-sponsors for the resolution. Their support was
obtained by the very active efforts of Stanley Garstka, the head of our Los Angeles
“Letter Writing Committee.” And by the end of January 1984, underground publications
in Poland began printing articles in support of Action Renounce Yalta.

In a letter of response to Tom Corcoran dated January 6, 1984, former National Security
Adviser to the Carter Administration Zbignew Brzezinski registered several concerns
about the wording of the Renounce Yalta resolution. He advised that while he deplored
the incorporation of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukraine within the USSR it is
difficult to blame this on Yalta, especially with regard to Ukraine. And in referring to the
aspirations of various East European countries, he advised that Yalta had nothing to do
with Byelorussia, Russia, and Ukraine. He was strictly concerned that the inaccuracy
would leave the resolution vulnerable not only to rejection but even to ridicule.
Brzezinski was also concerned about the resolution not differentiating between Soviet
domination of Central Europe and the maintenance of post 1945 territorial arrangements.
He suggested that reference be made to honoring the Helsinki Accords, which recognized
post 1945 borders.

Brzezinski’s opinions were important to us because we often referred to his February 19,
1982, article in the Wall Street Journal as an indication of his support for the renunciation
of Yalta (knowing well that he was probably for renouncing the “legacy” of Yalta, as
opposed to the Yalta agreement itself). A prominent Democrat taking this stand was
important for our action. Brzezinski had easy access to the major U.S. media, and also
had the contacts to gain major support for this initiative.

We could fully understand why it would be difficult for Brzezinski to be associated with
our initiative, especially since it was being approached so aggressively from an ethnic
point of view. We were activists, while Brzezinski carried a great deal of influence and
stature inside Washington, D.C. on his own. While we did not agree with some of his
opinions, we had a great deal of respect for Brzezinski. It was believed that under the
Carter administration, he promoted a strong U.S. stand which may have played a role in
convincing the Soviets not to invade Poland during the initial stages of the Solidarity
revolution. Even if the Soviets never planned to invade, Brzezinski’s efforts were very
noteworthy.

With regard to Brzezinski’s specific comments about the Renounce Yalta resolution, I
knew from the start that we were stretching Yalta rather far by mentioning all the
countries named in the resolution. I did so using the justification that they were all
affected by the “spirit” of Yalta, if not directly by the agreement itself. The Romanians
had already complained that they were omitted accidentally from the original version of
the resolution, and we promised to change that in all future versions. Thanks to the help
of former U.S. Ambassador to Poland Richard Davies, several good corrections
pertaining to the resolution were made. We maintained the mention of the Baltic States in
the resolution on the basis that, “at the Yalta Conference and the other wartime
conferences, representatives of the United States failed to object to the forcible
incorporation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania into the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics.” The remaining countries were left in, and Yugoslavia was actually added, on
the basis that they were affected by the “spirit” of Yalta.

We also wanted to avoid Brzezinski’s suggestion that reference be made to honoring the
Helsinki Accords, which recognized post 1945 borders, in the resolution. While we at
POMOST were fully aware that a lasting peace in that region of the world could only be
built and maintained by accepting current borders, there were small pockets of some very
active supporters, including Hungarians, Romanians, and some Poles, who as a result
could have turned against the action if such a statement was included in the resolution.
And finally there were many among all the nationalities involved that were very critical
of Helsinki, as well as Yalta. In fact, there was a considerable amount of people who said
that we should be working for the renunciation of Helsinki as well as all World War II
agreements at the same time. We were aware that if the U.S. Congress would choose to
address the issue, no doubt many changes would be made to the resolution. For now,
however, we wanted to keep it as strong and “pure” as possible, so as not to lose the
support of any ethnic community prematurely.

Thus it became our position that it would be a contradiction to call for the renunciation of
Yalta, while accepting parts of it with which we might be in agreement now. The fact that
3 men agreed to changing borders on behalf of nations not represented did not make them
valid. We felt that for a statement about maintaining current borders to be meaningful, it
should be made by current democratic representatives of nations, outside of a resolution
dealing with Yalta. We drafted a letter of response for Corcoran with the hope that
Brzezinski would understand our position.

Besides taking the time to make corrections and other adjustments to the resolution,
former U.S. Ambassador to Poland Richard T. Davies was kind enough to seek honorary
members for the Renounce Yalta Committee, such as Russian dissident Vladimir
Bukovsky, who joined. Davies also supported the action with speeches to help raise
active and financial support for the action. We were most appreciative to the Ambassador
for his help, dedication, and warm support at all times during the course of Action
Renounce Yalta.

On January 17, 1984, the Davies changes to the resolution were forwarded to Tom
Corcoran, as well as to Mac Owens in Senator Kasten’s office.

On February 2nd 1984, Senator Robert Kasten of Wisconsin introduced S.J. Res. 226 in
the U.S. Senate. Below is an account of the proceedings, as registered in the U.S.
Congressional Record:

“By Mr. Kasten:

“S.J. Res. 226. Joint resolution to renounce the 1945 Yalta Agreement; to the Committee
on Foreign Relations.
“RENOUNCING THE 1945 YALTA AGREEMENT

“Mr. KASTEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that calls on Congress
to renounce an agreement that has plagued the conscience of this Nation for nearly two
decades. I refer to the Yalta Executive Agreement of February 1945, which had the
ultimate effect of establishing Soviet domination over Central and Eastern Europe, and
which resulted in the enslavement of millions of people in those regions.

“By introducing this joint resolution, I am acting in the spirit of President Dwight D.
Eisenhower, who stated in his message to Congress of February 2, 1953, that he would
ask that body in, “Making it clear that we would never acquiesce in the enslavement of
any people in order to purchase fancied gain for ourselves, and that we would not feel
that any past agreement committed us to any enslavement.” I am acting in the spirit of
Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security Advisor who, in the wake of
the 1981 Polish crackdown, called for a repudiation of the Yalta Agreements. And I am
acting in the spirit of Secretary of State George Shultz, who speaking at the Stockholm
Conference on European Disarmament earlier this month, said, “The United States does
not recognize the legitimacy of the artificially imposed division of Europe.” That division
of Europe has as its basis the Yalta Agreement.

“The intention of the Western leaders who signed the Yalta Agreements was to help bring
about peace and security in the post-war world. But, instead, the de facto division of
Europe that resulted from the Yalta Agreement became a major source of tension and
instability. This tension has been made worse by the fact that the Soviets massively
violated the Yalta Agreements from the beginning by not holding free elections in the
captive nations as promised, and the fact that they have used their conquest of Eastern
and Central Europe as a springboard by which to threaten Western Europe.

“I do not question the motives of the Western leaders who negotiated this agreement with
Stalin in 1945. After all, the Red army already controlled much of Eastern Europe at the
time of the meeting, and the Western leaders believed that by acquiescing temporarily to
Soviet control of this region, they could extract valuable concessions from Stalin. History
has proven them wrong. But the reasons for renouncing Yalta have less to do with
questioning these political judgments than with the fact that the agreements themselves
were contrary to both the Atlantic Charter and the great founding principles of this
Nation.

“Both the Atlantic Charter and the founding principles of this Nation stress the idea of
self-determination. There was no self-determination at Yalta. The representatives of the
peoples whose fates were being determined were not even consulted. Instead, the future
of millions of people was laid out on the basis of geographical location alone.

“The Soviet Union looks to Yalta to justify its subjugation of Central and Eastern Europe.
Therefore to renounce Yalta would make it clear that we do not accept the forcible
division of Europe. To renounce Yalta would make it clear to the Soviet Union- and to
our allies- that cooperation with the U.S.S.R. will not be at the expense of the subjugated
people of Central and Eastern Europe. And to renounce Yalta would send a message to
those subjugated people that we have not forgotten them.
“Mr. President, I believe that it is cynical and immoral to determine the fate of nations on
the basis of geography rather than on the aspirations and will of the people themselves. I
believe that the recent events in Poland- as well as events in Prague in 1968, Budapest
and Poznan in 1956, and East Berlin in 1954- make it clear that the desire for self-
determination is strong among the enslaved peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, and
that they certainly do not accept the bargain made for them at Yalta. I ask my colleagues
to support me in this effort to send a clear message to the people of Central and Eastern
Europe that we have not written off their hopes and aspirations for a better world.

“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my joint resolution be printed in
the RECORD at this point, along with several editorials on the subject and a memo from
the Polish Government-in-exile on the Yalta Agreements.”

“There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the record, as
follows:”

“S.J. Res. 226

“Whereas during World War II, representatives of the United States took part in secret
agreements and understandings concerning other peoples who were not represented;

“Whereas for millions around the world, especially those residing in Central and Eastern
Europe, the 1945 Yalta executive agreement is particularly associated with alleged
United States acquiescence in the enslavement of entire nations under a Soviet totalitarian
system of government;

“Whereas at the Yalta Conference, representatives of the United States recognized the
Soviet-backed Lublin Committee of National Liberation as the Provisional Government
of Poland, although it had no widespread support or following;

“Whereas at the Yalta Conference, representatives of the United States agreed to

repatriate all Soviet citizens who remained abroad after the war, irrespective of their
individual wishes and by force if necessary, resulting in mass death and suffering;

“Whereas at the Yalta Conference and the other wartime conferences, representatives of
the United States failed to object to the forcible incorporation of Estonia, Latvia, and
Lithuania into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics;

“Whereas the Yalta agreement, resulting in the enslavement of half of Europe, did not
bring about peace and security for the rest of the world, but rather became the source of
permanent unbalance and tension;

“Whereas the Soviet domination of Central and Eastern Europe turned out to be not a
final satisfaction of Soviet claims but rather a springboard for further Soviet expansion;

“Whereas the situation created in Central and Eastern Europe as a result of agreements
such as the Yalta agreement continues to be dramatically contested by its victims, as for
example in East Berlin in 1953, Poznan in 1956, Budapest in 1956, Prague in 1968, and
Poland in 1970 and again in 1980, 1981, 1982, and 1983;

“Whereas these results of the Yalta agreement threaten the peace and security of all
freedom-loving people;

“Whereas the Soviet Union violated the Yalta guarantee of free elections in the countries
involved;

“Whereas it is appropriate for the United States, according to the principles on which this
Nation was founded, to respect the desires and aspirations of all freedom-loving people
around the world;

“Whereas it is appropriate that the United States express the hopes of the people of the
United States for the freedom of peoples subjected to the captivity of Soviet despotism in
Central and Eastern Europe, as well as elsewhere around the world; and

“Whereas it is appropriate for the United States to reject any interpretation or application
that, as a result of the signing of the 1945 Yalta executive agreement, the United States
accepts the present position of nations being held captive by the Soviet Union. Now,
therefore, be it

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled, That the United States renounces the Yalta agreement, declares that
it is no longer binding, and hereby expresses its solidarity with the desires and aspirations
of the peoples of Bulgaria, Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Ukraine, Yugoslavia, and all the
peoples of Central and Eastern Europe.”

S.J. Res. 226 (Senate Joint Resolution 226) introduced by Senator Robert Kasten in the
Senate was basically the same resolution as H.J. Res. 435 (House Joint Resolution 435)
introduced by Congressman Tom Corcoran in the House of Representatives, with some
changes made by Ambassador Davies. The resolutions were designated as “Joint
Resolutions,” because in dealing with foreign affairs they required passage by both the
Senate and House of Representatives. If different versions of the resolution passed in the
House and Senate then a joint committee of the Senate and House of Representatives
would be required to resolve the differences, prior to sending on the legislation to the
President of the United States for signing into law. Along with Kasten’s speech, and the
resolution, a Wall Street Journal editorial from January 6, 1982, and a long memorandum
from the Polish Government-In-Exile, were included in the February 2, 1984
Congressional Record.
 SEEKING SUPPORT AMID RESISTANCE

Shortly after the introduction of S.J. Res. 226, POMOST initiated a major letter writing
campaign. A four-page leaflet was mailed out and distributed everywhere possible urging
people to:

1) Write or call the Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Dante B.
Fascell, to act on, support, and pass H.J. Res. 435 for a vote on the floor of the U.S.
House of representatives.

2) Write or call the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Charles H.
Percy, asking him to act on, support, and pass S.J. Res. 226 for a vote on the floor of
the U.S. Senate.

3) Write a letter to President Reagan asking for his public support of the above
resolutions.

4) Write a letter to their representative in Congress asking to co-sponsor H.J. Res. 435.

5) Write a letter to the two Senators from their state asking them to co-sponsor S.J. Res.
226.

The addresses and phone numbers for all the above, as well as draft letters for those who
wanted to make use of them, were included in the distribution.

In our letters to President Reagan, Senator Percy, and Congressman Fascell, we advised
that as evidence of support for this action they would start receiving signed petitions
calling for the renunciation of Yalta. Rather than send all the petitions at once, so as to
focus attention on our issue over an extended period of time, we mailed only a few
hundred signatures each day, every day, in large “Renounce Yalta” envelopes that stated
“HELP TOM CORCORAN AND ROBERT KASTEN RENOUNCE YALTA AND
BUILD A BETTER WORLD. SUPPORT H.J.RES 435 AND S.J. RES 226.” The
original signed petitions were sent to Congressman Fascell, while copies were sent to
President Reagan and Senator Charles Percy.

At the February 4, 1984, Chicago Inter-Ethnic dinner given in honor of Tom Corcoran,
POMOST Executive Committee Coordinator Chris Rac stated the following:

“It is being said that if free elections were held in Poland right now for the office of
president, President Ronald Reagan would get 85% of the vote. It is also being said that if
free elections were held for a senate seat in that country, 99.99% of the total vote would
go to Congressman Corcoran.

“…true progress can be seen when Congressman Corcoran introduces, as a leader and
representative of the American people, House Joint resolution 435 and declares that if we
want a peaceful world, we must do away with spheres of influence, we must do away
with the spirit of Yalta.”
Momentum continued to grow for Action Renounce Yalta. Most every day some good
information arrived in the mail. Tomasz Dudek, from Belgium, sent 197 signatures under
a petition expressing support for the POMOST Renounce Yalta Action with an appeal to
all Poles around the world to show their support, news of which was published in the
February 7 edition of Nowy Dziennik. Additional support was received from newspapers
such as Latvian Cikagas Zinas, and Slavic Village Voice in Cleveland. Congressman
Philip Crane of Illinois advised that he was co-sponsoring H.J. Res. 435, as did very
influential Illinois Congressman, Henry Hyde, California Congressman Duncan Hunter,
and Indiana Congressman Dan Burton. Thanks to the great work of Cleveland POMOST
representative David Domzalski, Congressmen Thomas Kindness and Lyle Williams of
Ohio, also co-sponsored Corcoran’s resolution. Congressman Larry Craig of Idaho
advised that he would vote for passage of the resolution.

On February 15, 1984, the State Department responded to Tom Corcoran’s letter of
January 19, 1984. Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs W.
Tapley Bennett, Jr. thanked Corcoran for his letter to Secretary of State Shultz. He also
wrote:

“The administration has not yet taken a position on your resolution calling for the
renunciation of the Yalta agreement. The administration has, however, expressed its
views very forcefully on the question of the division of Europe. Secretary Shultz’s speech
in Stockholm is the latest expression of those views.

“We do not and will not accept what the Secretary described as the “artificial barrier that
has cruelly divided” the continent of Europe. This barrier has deprived the citizens of
competing ideas. While the United States does not dictate to other nations what type of
social system they should choose, we will not recognize the legitimacy of the division of
Europe. We believe this division is at the core of Europe’s security and human rights
problems.

“The Helsinki process, which the U.S. has supported along with our allies since the Final
Act was signed in 1975, is an effort to ease and, we hope, over time to end the division of
Europe. We intend to work hard in order to help make this process, of which the
Stockholm Conference is an integral part, live up to the high aspirations with which it
was launched in 1975.”

Also on February 15, Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Dante
Fascell, responded to POMOST:

…“ I appreciate receiving the signed petitions in support of this resolution, and welcome
your kind words regarding my new position as chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs.

Please be assured that the views of POMOST on this question will be borne in mind
when H.J. Res. 435 is brought before the Committee or to the floor of the House for
debate and a vote.”

Senator Charles Percy responded with a letter dated February 29, 1984:
“Thank you for writing me in support of S.J. 226 and the national movement to renounce
the Yalta executive agreement.

“Senator Kasten’s February 2, 1984, Resolution has only just been referred to the
Committee on Foreign Relations, and Committee staff members are now studying it and
collecting opinions and recommendations. I am most happy to know of your support.”

On February 22, 1984, the head of public relations for POMOST David Wilke had an
article touching upon Yalta published in the Chicago Sun-Times. Wilke advised of the
Corcoran resolution and stated “Freedom and peace will prevail if democracy is prepared
to pay the price. The United States must continue to lead and police.”

On Saturday February 25, 1984, a dinner honoring Tom Corcoran was held aboard the
Queen Mary in Long Beach, California [famous British passenger ship now stationed as a
hotel in a harbor]. Thanks to Hanna Tyszkiewicz and Polonia of Southern California, the
dinner was a great success. While there were relatively few Polish-Americans in this part
of the country, I always considered Polonia of Southern California to be among the most
active, and most giving, anywhere to be found. We were also among the most united.

One speaker after another expressed gratitude and support for Congressman Corcoran’s
efforts to renounce Yalta. Representing the Baltic-American Freedom League, Tony
Mazeika stated that: “the issue of self-determination is being put back in the hands of the
people.” “Friends of Freedom” Chairman Gene Vosseler called Yalta “a sellout, a
betrayal of the freedom fighters of Eastern Europe.” Speaking in the name of the Polish
Government-In-Exile and Studium, the North American Study Center For Polish Affairs,
Dr. Zbigniew Dworak expressed his thanks to the Congressman for his “profound vision
of justice in international agreements.”

Representing the Czechoslovak National Council of America, Dr. George Breber called
Yalta “a symbol of evil and disaster.” He advised that Czechs compare the Yalta
agreement with the Munich agreement of 1938. Nick Sorokin, a Russian-American who
was Chairman of “Californians For A Strong America,” described Yalta as a “very
pivotal point of East-West relations,” while also calling for its renunciation. President of
the Southern California Chapter of the Polish-American Congress Christopher
Ciesielkiewicz said: “By becoming the Honorary Chairman of the Renounce Yalta
Committee, and by sponsoring a resolution in the House to renounce Yalta, you have
joined our effort going beyond just superficial talk and gestures. You have become our
friend.” In Los Angeles POMOST and the PAC worked very well together.

On behalf of C.I.D. (Movement for an Independent and Democratic Cuba), Dr. Fernando
Ruiz stated that: “The spirit of Yalta also affected us, because our country was also given
away. Our country is also a part of the Soviet sphere of influence which started at Yalta.”
He went on to express the Cuban-American community’s solidarity “in freedom and
dignity with our brothers and sisters in Eastern Europe.” Indeed, Cuban-Americans were
among the most active supporters of the Solidarity Movement in Poland. President Eva
Soreny represented the World Hungarian-Freedom–Federation. Mr. Stus and Mr.
Pikolycky, representing the Ukrainian-American community, also attended the dinner.
During the event, Master of Ceremonies Kazimierz Cybulski advised of several letters
and telegrams congratulating Congressman Corcoran. Letters from the Chairman of the
Joint Committee for Self-Determination of the Polish Nation Wojciech Ziembinski, and
the Editor of “Gwiazda Polarna” Alfons Hering, were read in full.

The introduction of Congressman Tom Corcoran brought with it a chorus of “Sto Lat”
(“May he live a hundred years”), and a prolonged standing ovation. Corcoran stated: “So
long as I have breath to breathe, so long as I serve in the Congress of the United States, I
will be your Representative.” Corcoran advised that he had introduced his legislation “for
Americans everywhere, because we all need to recognize that that was a grievous error, a
terrible mistake, and now is the time to correct it.” Corcoran added that the United States
must show “that we do not betray our friends and that we recognize for the future, that
our security in the free world depends on, first of all, our strength at home, and secondly
the relationship that we have and maintain with our friends, and that’s why Yalta is
important today.” After criticizing Yalta throughout his speech, the Congressman
predicted that “There will come a day when Poland will be free, when Hungary will be
free, Czechoslovakia, Cuba….” And the speech ended with another standing ovation.

After paying for the food, printing, mailing of invitations, orchestra, etc. there was a little
more than $6,000 in profits. We donated $3,000 towards Corcoran’s senate campaign,
and he also received some extra money in other contributions. This was not much money
for a senatorial race, but he seemed pleased with the event, and I don’t think he regretted
coming. We were very pleased to end up with $3,000 for Action Renounce Yalta (a
considerable amount of money to work with by our standards).

On the way to the airport the following day, Corcoran, understandably, was very focused
on his senatorial campaign. Polls showed him still running considerably behind in the
Republican primary election, which was less than one month away. He would still have a
televised debate with Senator Percy, which would be critical. Corcoran was still
absolutely convinced that he would win. I kept telling him to raise the issue of Yalta
during the debate with Percy, and whenever there was an opportunity to do so. I really
believed that this would not only help our cause, but his election as well. In my opinion,
he needed to engage Percy in a new issue to make more progress. While POMOST would
remain completely loyal to Corcoran until the end, I knew that a Percy victory could
work to our benefit as well. If Percy was to win the primary against Corcoran, which was
likely to happen, then POMOST could offer to support Percy in the general election, in
exchange for progress with our Yalta resolution in the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee.

On February 29, 1984, the Polish Government-In-Exile in London advised that it would
issue an appeal to Poles around the world to support the Renounce Yalta action. In the
meantime Waclaw Bakierowski from Michigan claimed that he was the real Deputy
Minister of the real Polish Government-In-Exile. Bakierowski started writing numerous
letters to Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate in support of the
Renounce Yalta resolutions. While POMOST recognized the London based Government-
In-Exile, it must be said that Bakierowski did a great deal of positive work on behalf of
the Renounce Yalta campaign.
The March issue of “Letters to Poles” informed that the Connecticut divisions of the
Polish American Congress, Solidarity International, and the Polonia Coordination
Committee, were sending joint letters to U.S. Congress in support of the Renounce Yalta
resolutions. In the March issue of their magazine, the Solidarity Support Committee of
Rhode Island asked readers to send letters to their members of congress. The “Polonian,”
in San Francisco, printed POMOST’s appeal for supporting the resolutions in Congress,
as did many others publications.

News quickly spread around the country that the city of Cleveland renounced Yalta on
March 3ed, 1984. A large picture of a demonstration with the words: “Call to renounce
Yalta,” appeared in the very center of the front page of the largest newspaper in the state
of Ohio (The Plain Dealer). Taking part in the demonstration organized by POMOST
representative David Domzalski were Cleveland City Councilmen John J. Lynch and
John M. Zayac. The Plain Dealer also published an article describing the demonstration
consisting of various groups.

During the demonstration there was a flag raising ceremony. The Honorable Dennis
Kucinich, Councilman for Cleveland’s Ward 12, raised the American flag. Other flags
were raised by Andreas Traks, representing the Estonians of Greater Cleveland, Linas
Jakobitias, representing Lithuanians of Greater Cleveland, Tibor Lovagi, of Hungaria
Freedom Fighters Movement, Halina Grabowska, representing Polish Home Army AK,
James Craciun, Romanians of Greater Cleveland, Peter Wengryn, representing
Ukrainians of Greater Cleveland, Mr. Karapandzic, representing Serbian Americans, Mrs.
Tatiana, representing Free Russia, and Maris Mantenieks, President of the Baltic
Committee of Cleveland, carried the Latvian flag. Perhaps most importantly, the
Cleveland City Council passed a resolution renouncing Yalta.

The Cleveland City Council Renounce Yalta proclamation read as following:

“City of Cleveland

“Resolution No. 360-84

“For Councilmen John J. Lynch, James Rokakis, and John M. Zayac

“By Councilmen Barnes, Bolden, Burten, Cannon, Ciolek, Forbes, Johnson, Jones
D. Kucinich, G. Kucinich, Lewis, Lynch, Miller, Polensek, Rokakis,
Smith, Turner, Westbrook, White, Woods, Zayac.

“WHEREAS, Cleveland City Council is most sincerely pleased to note that on Saturday,
March 3, 1984, the Renounce Yalta Committee has designated this date as Renounce
Yalta Day- Cleveland; and

“WHEREAS, during World War II, representatives of the United States took part in
secret agreements and understandings concerning other peoples who were not
represented. For millions around the world, especially those residing in Central and
Eastern Europe, the 1945 Yalta executive agreement is particularly associated with
alleged United Sates acquiescence in the enslavement of entire nations under a Soviet
totalitarian system of government; and
“WHEREAS, Pomost and the Committee in support of Solidarity denounce the negative
aspects of the Yalta Agreement and declare it should no longer be recognized or binding;
and

“WHEREAS, because the Yalta Agreement did not bring about peace and security for the
peoples of the world but instead resulted in Soviet enslavement of the unfortunate
peoples of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, the Ukraine and Romania; and

“WHEREAS, it is appropriate for the citizens of the United States who, in accordance to
the principles upon which this Nation was founded, to express their opinions of Soviet
despotism and renounces that which seemingly supports it; and

“WHEREAS, the suppression of the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, as well as
elsewhere around the world is deplored and castigated; and

“WHEREAS, manifestation of this protest to the terms of the Yalta Agreement will be
made dear by raising the flags of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Ukraine, Hungary,
Poland and Romania on March 3rd 1984, at 11:00 A.M., at Public Square; now therefore,

“BE IT RESOLVED, that Cleveland City Council declares March 3rd 1984, to be
Renounce Yalta Day in Cleveland, Ohio, and wishes Pomost and the Committee to
Support Solidarity success in their on-going struggle against the suppression and
enslavement of the peoples of the world.

“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk of Council be and she hereby is
requested to transmit a copy of this resolution of Congratulations to Councilman John J.
Lynch for proper presentation.

“Adopted February 23, 1984

George L. Forbes, President of Council”

While this resolution also interpreted Yalta very broadly, it served as a major morale
booster for the nationwide campaign to renounce Yalta. The Slavic Village Voice
reported that Ohio Congresswoman Mary Rose Oakar expressed support for Tom
Corcoran’s resolution. In addition to coverage from the print media, two local television
stations carried the story during their 6:00 PM and 10:00 PM newscasts. During the
ceremony main speaker David Domzalski was presented with the Cleveland City Council
Resolution. James Zmuda, who was doing such an excellent job of finding support
among other ethnic groups, came from Chicago to attend the event in Cleveland.

Cleveland POMOST activist George Bachalar and a representative of the Romanian

community, James Cracium, were invited as guests on a local radio program to discuss
Yalta. During another half-hour program Bachalar and Hungarian representative Dr. Eles
were the guests. Due to listener demand, discussion on Yalta was extended for an
additional 90 minutes beyond the scheduled time. Eles also had a radio program of his
own during which he often dedicated time to the issue of Yalta.
Radio POMOST in Chicago advised its listeners that as the demonstration in Cleveland
was coming to an end, Domzalski said: “This is what I think of Yalta,” and began
burning a copy of the agreement. As a strong wind allowed him to only burn a fragment
of the paper, Domzalski added: “I never said that renouncing Yalta would be easy. If
every city burns just a little part of this agreement, however, shortly it will no longer
exist.” And with these words Radio POMOST in Chicago issued another appeal for
support to renounce Yalta. “It must be renounced,” was the conclusion reached on several
occasions. It was people like Roman Koperski and Joanna Budzinski who worked
tirelessly night after night to get these broadcasts out to the Polish-American community
in Chicago.

By March 10, 1984, thanks to the great work of David Domzalski, we had a 3rd cosponsor
of H.J. Res. 435 from Ohio- Congressman Bob McEwen, to go along with Thomas
Kindness, and Lyle Williams. Other cosponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives
included: Dan Burton and Katie Hall from Indiana, Philip Crane and Henry Hyde from
Illinois, Duncan Hunter from California, and George Wortley from New York. We also
found three cosponsors in the Senate- Rudy Boschwitz from Minnesota, John P. East
from North Carolina, and James McClure from Idaho. Sadly enough, not a single Polish-
American Representative in Congress, or Senator, was on the list of cosponsors.

Mac Owens of Senator Kasten’s office advised that staff members from several senate
offices were calling him for more information. He told us to work as hard as possible on
convincing New York Senator Robert Moynihan to cosponsor the resolution. He felt that
accomplishing this goal would be of enormous help in getting the resolution passed
through the Senate. David Wilke of POMOST Chicago made a phone call and sent a
good letter to Moynihan’s office. POMOST New York was also working towards this
aim. I spoke with Mac Owens frequently, and noticed that he was very committed to this
action. I was extremely pleased that we placed the Senate resolution in his hands.

We asked Cuban poet Huber Matos, now Secretary General for CID (Movement For
Independent & Democratic Cuba), to appeal to Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee Dante Fascell to take action on the resolution. Based in Florida, and
representing a very large Cuban-American population in that state, we felt confident that
this would apply effective pressure on the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee. Another strong supporter of our action in Florida was a priest, Father
Franciszek Woloszyk. He was also asked to mobilize the local Polish-American
community to apply pressure on Fascell.

Sister Virginia, Chairperson for the Lithuanian Affairs Council 74 in Elmhurst,

Pennsylvania, was working on her Congressman Joseph McDade to become a cosponsor
of H.J. Res. 435. Besides sending letters to the U.S. Congress, some supporters started
writing their local newspapers such as Frank Ziemba who had his letter attacking Yalta
published in the March 17, 1984, edition of The Trenton Times, in Trenton, New Jersey.

By March 20, 1984, we obtained our 4th cosponsor in the Senate- Orrin G. Hatch from the
state of Utah. Senator Hatch stated that: “The Yalta agreements serve as the basis for the
artificially imposed division of Europe and as Soviet justification of their domination of
Central and Eastern Europe. Furthermore, these agreements are immoral as they are
contrary both to the Atlantic charter and to the great founding principles of the United
States. This resolution will make it clear that the United States does not accept this
forcible division of Europe.”

On March 20, 1984, Senator Charles Percy did beat Tom Corcoran in the Illinois
Republican primary, with Corcoran receiving approximately 37% of the vote. Percy
would now run against the winner of the Democratic primary Paul Simon in the
November general election. Corcoran would remain a Congressman until his term
expired in January 1985. In practical terms, however, we had until September 1984 to
pass H.J. Res. 435 and S.J. Res. 226, at which time the current session of Congress was
scheduled to come to an end. If the resolutions did not pass by this time, then they would
be dropped. They could be re-introduced during the following session of Congress but I
was concerned if we could continue to maintain momentum until then.

In the meantime petitions were still being sent on a daily basis to President Reagan,
Senator Percy, and Congressman Fascell. We knew that a great many letters were being
sent to Washington, D.C. because, without even asking, we received copies of many such
letters from the Polish-American community. Unlike many previous Polonian political
initiatives which issued an occasional appeal for action, in the case of Action Renounce
Yalta appeals were issued constantly. The ethnic press kept informing about each new
positive development as it occurred. Despite probably applying the most broad and
massive pressure ever felt by Washington, D.C. coming from the captive nation
community of the United States, resistance to our calls for the renunciation of Yalta
remained strong. Before the end of March 1984, we knew exactly why.

Southern California Polish-American activist Stanley Garstka was among many who sent
numerous letters to various political leaders constantly. On March 16, 1984, he was sent a
letter of response from Senator Percy who now made it clear that he was against our
resolution. Percy wrote:

…“I fully support the purpose of these resolutions, which is to reaffirm American support
for the national desires and aspirations of the peoples of Bulgaria, Byelorussia,
Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine.
But I don’t think these resolutions will accomplish this purpose. The Yalta Declaration on
Liberated Europe declared the principle that each nation should be free to decide its form
of government for itself. The problem with Yalta was that the Soviets violated the
agreements. The United States supports national self-determination, and, if we renounce
Yalta, we may inadvertently undermine that support. I believe it is more effective now to
speak out against Soviet pressure and aggression as it continues to occur. We must let the
world know the horrors perpetrated by Soviet communism.”

When looking for advice on what position to take on a given matter, members of the U.S.
Senate and House of Representatives often turn to the State Department. On January 31,
1984, Senator Alan J. Dixon of Illinois was kind enough to send Dr. Alexander Ronnett,
President of the “Alliance of Friendship” organization in Chicago, the State Department’s
response to his inquiry, which follows:

“January 26, 1984

“Dear Senator Dixon,

“Thank you for your letter of January 4, with enclosed correspondence from Dr.
Alexander Ronnett requesting that you support the formal renunciation of the Yalta
agreements.

“With regard to Dr. Ronnett’s contention that the decisions reached at Yalta “were clearly
a violation of the accepted norms of international diplomacy” and should be renounced,
we must respectfully disagree. The Yalta Declaration on Liberated Europe clearly
embodied the principle that each nation should be free to decide for itself the form of its
own government. The problem of Soviet expansion springs not from the Yalta
Declaration, but from the failure of the Soviet Union to implement the provisions of the
Yalta Declaration. It is the policy of the United States to support the right of national self-
determination, and it is our view that the action suggested by Dr. Ronnett—renunciation
of the Yalta agreements – would actually undercut, rather than further, this policy.

“As Vice President Bush noted on September 21, 1983 in an address at Vienna: “In
approaching the problems of the region, United States policy is guided by certain
constants: First, we recognize no lawful division of Europe. There is much
misunderstanding about the substance of the Yalta conference. Let me state as clearly as I
can: there was no agreement at that time to divide Europe up into “spheres of influence.”
On the contrary, the powers agreed on the principle of the common responsibility of the
three allies for all the liberated territories. The Soviet Union pledged itself to grant full
independence to Poland and to all other states in Eastern Europe, and to hold free
elections there. The Soviet violation of these obligations is the primary root of East-West
tensions today.... Let me stress here that the United States does not seek to destabilize or
undermine any government, but our attitude toward the region is formed by a sense of
history-- European history. For this reason we support and will encourage all movement
toward the social, humanitarian and democratic ideals which have characterized the
historical development of Europe.”

“I hope this information will be useful to you in preparing your response to Dr. Ronnett.
If we can be of assistance to you in this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to
contact us.

“Sincerely,

W. Tapley Bennett, Jr.

Assistant Secretary
Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs”

I was not made aware of the above letter until the end of March 1984. While the above
letter dated January 26, 1984, advised that the State Department is against the resolution,
on February 15, 1984, the same gentleman sent a letter to Corcoran advising that: “The
administration has not yet taken a position on your resolution calling for the renunciation
of the Yalta agreement.” The State Department position was to be expected but it was
another matter to actually see their position in writing.
Besides the negative State Department position, we had to take other problems into
consideration. On March 18, 1984, POMOST had endorsed Ronald Reagan for President
in his re-election campaign. I was against doing this, at least so quickly, until we tried to
get something in return. I saw less and less of a difference between the two major
American political parties- more a difference in image than anything else. I did not want
to spend time campaigning for a candidate unless that candidate offered something
special for my cause – a firm commitment to work for a free Poland. If working for a
candidate were my priority instead, I would join that candidate’s political campaign
instead of joining POMOST.

The above stated position did not mean that I was right. I did feel more comfortable with
Reagan as President, and the entire organization was more in line with the Republican
Party. Thus Reagan was endorsed. The problem now was applying public pressure on the
candidate that one’s organization endorsed.

In addition, word had reached us that one Lithuanian group – Lithuanian-American

Community of the U.S.A., Inc. was also undermining our efforts. Their position was that
“the Soviet domination of Central and Eastern Europe has been established not because
of the Yalta agreements but in violation of them.” The group stated that: “The only
decisions of the Yalta Conference that have been implemented and still remain in force
are its territorial clauses” [Curzon line- dealing with Poland’s eastern borders]. They
further stated that: “The aspirations of our people do not include an exchange of an alien
Soviet rule for just as alien Polish one.” Paranoid perhaps, but one could understand
where they were coming from. Many Poles were concerned about Poland’s western
borders, and would not be likely to support an action only calling for the renunciation of
the Potsdam agreement [where Poland’s western border was decided].

Besides the above problems, we needed to deal with Corcoran’s defeat in the election.
We also needed to somehow get our resolution past Charles Percy who sided with the
State Department. We needed to do this as an organization, which in support of the
Corcoran campaign criticized Percy on a daily basis for months. And finally, we needed
to maintain active support coming from the community amid all these problems.

Despite knowing that President Reagan and the State Department maintained the same
position on Yalta, attacks would be limited to the State Department, while appeals would
continue to be made to President Reagan to change their “wrong” way of thinking. Thus
on March 30, 1984, I wrote an open letter to the State Department as follows:

“Dear Mr. Bennett,

“We have been advised of your position that the 1945 Yalta executive agreement, itself,
was a good agreement. We are also aware of your efforts, in the name of the State
Department, to encourage members of the House and Senate not to support Renounce
Yalta legislation in the Congress (H.J. Res. 435 and S.J. Res. 226).

“May I remind you Mr. Bennett, that at Yalta President Roosevelt, Prime Minister
Winston Churchill, and Marshall Stalin determined governments, borders, and other
matters, for several countries not represented or even consulted. For example they
decided to recognize the Lublin Committee of National Liberation as the Provisional
Government of Poland. This small band of Soviet puppets, with no popular support in
Poland, was also given the responsibility of expanding and holding “free elections”
(which in fact guaranteed that free elections would not be held in Poland).

“Not even taking into consideration that the decisions taken by Mr. Roosevelt and Mr.
Churchill were in accordance with the wishes of Mr. Stalin at the expense of the wishes
of countries whose fate was being decided, by what legal or moral right were any
decisions made pertaining to countries not represented, nor even consulted (while
ignoring the protests of legally elected representatives of these countries). This alone, Mr.
Bennett, is a clear violation of the Atlantic Charter, the most basic of international law,
and the principles on which this nation was founded.

“Your position that Yalta was conducted along the accepted norms of international
diplomacy shows either a complete lack of knowledge with regard to Yalta, or a complete
lack of commitment towards the captive nations of the world. In either case the advice
that you are passing on with regard to Yalta (an agreement that had much in common
with the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact of 1939 signed between Nazi Germany and Soviet
Russia) does a great disservice to the President, other U.S. political leaders, the citizens
of this country, and freedom-loving people around the world. I can assure you that
millions in the United States and around the world will be shocked by your present stand
pertaining to Yalta and will expect an immediate reevaluation of your position.”

The following letter was sent to President Reagan:

“Dear Mr. President,

“As you know the Pomost Socio-Political Movement, as a national organization,

supported you unconditionally during the last election, and throughout your first term in
office. Recently Pomost unanimously endorsed you again and has been hard at work
planning strategy to insure your reelection.

“During the past two years Pomost, together with numerous organizations and
publications, has also been working hard in developing support for renounce Yalta
legislation in the Congress. We were most pleased when Congressman Tom Corcoran
introduced H.J. Res. 435 and Senator Robert W. Kasten introduced S.J. Res. 226, both
renouncing Yalta. The renunciation of Yalta played a prominent role, for example, on the
1952 Republican Platform. Many ethnic and other freedom-loving Americans are in fact
surprised that to date you have not publicly expressed your support for H.J. Res. 435 and
S.J. Res. 226.

“Recently we were absolutely shocked when hearing that Mr. W. Tapley Bennett, Jr., of
the State Department, has been undermining the above mentioned resolutions by
encouraging members of the House and Senate not to support them (please see copy of
letter to Mr. Bennett enclosed).

“So as not to leave the impression that you agree with, or support, the immoral and
invalid position being presented by the State Dept, with regard to this issue, we
respectfully request that you, Mr. President, express your support for H.J. Res. 435 and
S.J. Res 226 at this time.
“Thanking you in advance for your help in resolving this very serious and unfortunate
matter.

“Wishing you our very best.”

To maintain Corcoran’s commitment, and to maintain momentum among the captive

nation community, the following statement was drafted for the Congressman and released
by his office:

“Message From Rep. Tom Corcoran To The American Captive Nation Community

“During the past several months, I have been involved in a difficult, up-hill campaign for
the Republican nomination from the state of Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Despite the fact
that my bid failed on March 20, I do not regret my decision to take on such a well-
recognized and well-financed opponent as the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, Charles Percy.

“During my campaign, I had many opportunities to raise the issues, which concern me
most deeply. Furthermore, I was privileged to work closely with those who shared these
values, and who were willing to stand up for them even in the face of difficult odds. I
refer especially to the American captive nation community, whose support I felt
throughout my campaign.

“The Pomost Socio-Political Movement was the first organization to endorse my

candidacy. On the last day of my campaign, they were still working hard on my behalf,
not only in Chicago but also in Cleveland, Detroit, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San
Diego, and so many other cities. I am also most appreciative for the help and support I
received from the Czechoslovakian, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian,
Romanian, Ukrainian, and other American captive nation communities. With great
interest I read translations of articles appearing in “Denni Hlasatel, “Elta,” “Gwiazda
Polarna,” “Listy Do Polakow,” “Nowy Dziennik,” “Szittyakurt,” and many other captive
nation publications. I was most impressed with the festivities organized in connection
with “Renounce Yalta Day” in Cleveland and the captive nation dinners organized in
Chicago and Los Angeles.

“While being honored during a most memorable evening in Long Beach, California, I
made a promise before leaders of several captive nation organizations, which I will
always keep. I stated that as long as I serve in the U.S. Congress, “I will be your
representative.” We still have five months left to work together for the renunciation of the
1945 Yalta executive agreement. I propose that all of us work harder than ever to
accomplish this important goal and bring captive nations one-step closer to obtaining
freedom. As your representative, I will continue to do everything in my power to
renounce Yalta.”

We needed more support now than ever before. On March 30, 1984, we informed more
than 100 captive nation mass media outlets [radio programs as well as the printed media]
about the State Department position on Yalta, and issued an appeal for help. We wrote:
“As you know, in a democratic country such as ours, letters have the force of bullets on a
battlefield.” With regard to the battle of Yalta, …“the amount of letters sent can decide
the fate of H.J. Res. 435 and S.J. Res 226.”

Previously, Congressman Edward Feighan of Ohio sent a letter stating that he would not
support H.J. Res. 435 based on the same arguments presented by the State Department.
When meeting with a delegation consisting of James Craciun, Dr. Geza Eles, and David
Domzalski, representing the Romanian, Hungarian, and Polish communities in
Cleveland, on April 2nd, 1994, Feighan advised that the letter sent by his office was a
mistake, that he had just cosponsored the resolution, and that he would actively support
the initiative. Congressman Don Young from Alaska, and Congresswoman Nancy
Johnson of Connecticut also became cosponsors of H.J. Res. 435. Senators Steven D.
Symms of Idaho and Jessie Helms of North Carolina, became the latest cosponsors of S.J.
Res. 226. The highest-ranking Republican in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Jesse Helms wrote:

“I am a staunch supporter of Senator Kasten’s bill on Yalta. This disastrous agreement

continues to cast its shadow over the lives of millions. I think we are bound in honor not
to consign these millions to servitude forever.”

The positions taken by most members of Congress, however, reflected those stated in a
letter to POMOST sent by the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Charles Percy, no doubt influenced by the State Department position. In his letter of April
6, 1984, Percy wrote:

“… I fully support the purpose of these resolutions, which is to reaffirm American

support for the national desires and aspirations of the peoples of Bulgaria, Byelorussia,
Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine.
But I don’t think these resolutions will accomplish this purpose.”

In the April 13/14, 1984, issue of “Zgoda” (voice of the Polish-American Congress)
Editor Jan Krawiec wrote: “It was not difficult to foresee that the action to renounce
Yalta by the U.S. Congress would end in a fiasco.” He stated that political circles, which
have meaningful influence on Washington politics, and forming political opinion, believe
that Roosevelt’s wartime agreements were not bad, and became the root of misfortune
only because the Soviets did not uphold them. He concluded that instead of wasting time
and energy on renouncing Yalta, which did not have any chance of success and only
resulted in quarrels between the Polish-American community, we should have supported
President Mazewski’s initiative of calling for hearings by the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. This, Krawiec stated, would have brought the matter to the attention of
society, and perhaps it would have been determined that the agreements were not good.

While POMOST expected to find heavy resistance from the American political
establishment to the renunciation of Yalta from the beginning, this of course did not
make it right. Part of the reason why the American political establishment maintained this
resistance was because the Polish American community was too shy in presenting its case
forcefully and effectively.

What Krawiec did not understand was that the massive action to renounce Yalta could
only help in bringing about hearings, and to increase the chances that Yalta would be
found to be a bad agreement. It would seem odd to call for hearings for the purpose of
merely holding hearings, or even calling for hearings to determine how Yalta was carried
out, when in fact we wanted to see it renounced. In the meantime each call to renounce
Yalta served as additional pressure for a firmer commitment on behalf of captive nations
and an end to status quo politics at the expense of these nations, while influencing public
opinion in our direction. Thus in our opinion, no call to renounce Yalta was ever wasted.
Instead of criticizing POMOST, PAC leadership could have put our work to good use by
stating that: “Because of the interest in Yalta, hearings should be held.”

The battle to renounce Yalta continued on, which included the support of many
individual members of the Polish-American Congress. W.J. Milan-Kamski, an active
member of the PAC Maryland division, wrote the following to Mr. W. Tapley Bennett Jr.
of the State Department on April 12, 1984:

“…These views are in direct contradiction to the views expressed by Mr. Arthur Bliss
Lane, United States Ambassador to Poland 1944-1947. I quote from his book “I saw
Poland Betrayed”: “As for the Poles…they have no hesitation in terming the Yalta
decision the betrayal of Poland. To them it was the negation of their hopes for
independence and for the restoration of the territory, which their enemies had confiscated
in 1939 in the face of non-aggression treaties. But this time it was not the enemies but the
allies of Poland, members of the United Nations, who gave the coup de grace to the
aspirations of the Polish people for a restoration of their liberty and democracy.

“Your views are particularly dangerous because they clearly suggest that such
agreements as the ones made in Yalta between the United States and the Soviet Union
may be made again. The possibility of the United States again entering into agreements
similar to the Yalta agreement will frighten countries threatened by the Soviet Union,
such as Germany or India, into establishing direct cooperation or alliance with Russia
before their countries are left to the mercy of the Soviet Union on the basis of deceptive
promises similar to the ones made in Yalta. Furthermore, failure to renounce Yalta will,
without any doubt, convince the captive nations that the United States supports the Yalta
agreements, therefore, they have no choice but to abandon all resistance to become loyal
allies of Russia.

“I sincerely hope that you will reconsider your position concerning Yalta and support
actively passage of Tom Corcoran’s House Joint Resolution 435 and the Senate Joint
Resolution 226 sponsored by Senator Robert W. Kasten.”

Milan-Kamski also sent copies of the letter to President Reagan, Congressman Fascell,
his Representative in Congress, as well as to Maryland Senators Paul Sarbanes and
Polish- American Barbara Mikulski.

Among many others who responded to the State Department with a forceful letter was
Alexander Ronnett, the hard working Romanian Chairman of “Alliance for Friendship”
who wrote to President Reagan, Vice-President Bush and various senators and members
of Congress on April 13, 1984:

“The letter of Mr. Tapley Bennett, Jr., putting forth the position of the Department of
State that the Yalta Declaration was honorable, reflects a misunderstanding as to the
intent of the action to renounce the Yalta Agreements and, indeed, little awareness of
political realities and of history by the people presently in the Department of State…”

To show that the struggle to renounce Yalta had only just begun, the following appeal
was published in the quarterly POMOST magazine, 2nd issue (April-June), of 1984:

“ACTION RENOUNCE YALTA

“Due to growing interest in the Renounce Yalta campaign Pomost has been receiving
numerous inquiries pertaining to this subject. We hope that this detailed paper will serve
adequately in answering many of the questions raised about the action’s beginning, the
logic behind it, its objectives, and how they can be accomplished. Most important of all
we hope this paper will motivate all patriotic Polish-Americans to become actively
involved in the action.

“BACKGROUND

“Action Renounce Yalta began during the spring of 1982 when it became apparent that
the latest “State of War” declared against Poland would be maintained indefinitely and
that the Western world, despite the good intentions of some, would once again limit its
response to one of basically symbolic protest. At such time we felt that it was Polonia’s
obligation to become more vocal and aggressive than ever in seeking support, especially
among Western governments, on behalf of those being brutally silenced in Poland.
Recognizing that freedom is the only long term solution for the captive nations of the
world, and recognizing that Washington, D.C. represents the only potentially effective
counter-force to continued Soviet domination of these countries, the time seemed long
overdue for Polonia to form a massive lobby action on behalf of those suffering in Poland
and other countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Who was to fulfill the responsibility
of applying pressure on the only visible force that has the potential of freeing Poland
from Soviet slavery if not we, voters and residents of the U.S.? In fact the future of
Poland to a great extend, if not almost entirely, may depend on Polonia of the United
States, whether we accept this responsibility or not.

“WHY YALTA?

“In picking an action on behalf of a free Poland (which automatically should be equated
with freedom for all the countries of the region) “Renounce Yalta” seemed like the
logical choice for numerous reasons:

1) By pointing out the U.S. government’s partial responsibility for Poland’s present
position we would also be pointing out our government’s moral responsibility
towards a free Poland, perhaps in the most effective way possible.

2) Raising Yalta very clearly points out the negative strategic effects from a policy of
appeasement.

3) Raising Yalta would serve as a strong attack on the global “sphere of influence”
concept (or protecting against it if one believes that it is no longer being practiced),
 which stands for the suffocation of Poland and other captive nations in Central and
Eastern Europe.

4) By calling for the renunciation of Yalta, despite the fierce objections of the Soviet
Union, the U.S. government would be asked to take a strong stand on behalf of
Poland at the expense of “status quo” diplomacy with the Kremlin.

5) Showing present leaders that history will always sooner or later condemn such moral
and strategic blunders/crimes as Yalta, is perhaps the best way to assure that such
mistakes will not be repeated again.

“For these and many other political reasons it became clear that Action Renounce Yalta
stands for perhaps the maximum commitment that we could realistically expect the U.S.
to show towards Poland at this time. Does Poland deserve anything else?

“In addition there were many important technical reasons, which supported using Yalta
as an issue to push for firmer U.S. commitment on behalf of captive nations, among
them:

1) Because there was always a general consensus on the need to renounce Yalta among
Polonia, this action had the best chance of gaining the massive support that would be
needed to present our point effectively.

2) Because Yalta has traditionally served as a very sensitive issue for Polonia, it had the
best chance of gaining active support.

3) Because Yalta, and the spirit of this agreement, affected several countries the action
had the potential of obtaining support outside of Polonia.

4) Well-documented historical facts clearly support the renunciation of Yalta while

making it difficult for anyone to defend this cynical and immoral agreement.

5) As Action Renounce Yalta questions the degree of U.S. commitment towards Central
and Eastern Europe in general, it would serve as pressure for a stronger U.S. stand on
all specific issues relating to this region such as: sanctions, credits, funding for Radio
Free Europe, demands for the release of political prisoners. Refugee status, etc.
Action Renounce Yalta calls for more resolve on the part of the U.S. when dealing
with these and other issues.

6) Often being too slow, too weak, and too divided to mobilize a strong united front in
reaction to current events, Action Renounce Yalta offered Polonia an opportunity to
create an event of its own while being able to control the timing of developments to
our advantage.

7) Instead of almost always defending against world developments unfavorable to our

cause, Action Renounce Yalta offered the opportunity for Polonia and other freedom-
loving people to take an offensive position for a change (on our terms, with our
strongest issue).
“For all of the above reasons and more, Action Renounce Yalta presented an opportunity
for all those truly concerned about the fate of Poland to become actively involved. Action
Renounce Yalta would satisfy Polonian activists (in terms of potential for finding
support), historians (in terms of having all the arguments on their side), and all of Polonia
(in terms of objectives and results). It was becoming very evident that Polonia could not
afford to remain divided, nor strong enough to apply effective pressure on several given
issues at the same time. And while Polonia refused to unite under any leader or
organization, but rather started becoming more fractionalized, it became even more clear
that a meaningful action which all organizations could (should be able to) relate to, and
contribute towards, was needed if we ever were to give ourselves the chance of making a
meaningful difference for Poland.

“At one time or another virtually every Polonian organization, and politically aware
individual, has taken a stand for the renunciation of Yalta. The question now remained if
it was possible for active Polonia in general to take the same stand, on the same issue, at
the same time, for the purpose of making our joint call to renounce Yalta effective? Was
Polonia capable of showing solidarity in action for a change, as opposed to everyone
shouting empty calls for solidarity from under each of numerous banners without offering
anything concrete to unite under?

“OLDER POLONIA SHOULD BE PROUD AND SUPPORTIVE

“Based strictly on logic and merit, it was proposed that Polonia unite under an action
initiated by the Polish Government-In-Exile and the Polish-American Congress
immediately after, in fact even before, the cynical and immoral Yalta Conference took
place. The freedom fighters of that time, many of who are still alive today, should be
happy and proud that their efforts, under the most difficult of circumstances, had not been
forgotten by younger generations of Poles around the world. It was precisely their
example, and the information that they passed on, which aroused the curiosity of younger
generations to find out what Yalta stood for and to decide that for the cause of a Free
Poland this struggle must continue on until victory is achieved, no matter how long it
takes. And who is to give younger Polonian activists the encouragement, support, and
understanding for this difficult yet just and necessary struggle if not those who witnessed
the betrayal of Poland and other captive nations.

“U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT AGAINST

When becoming involved in Action Renounce Yalta, Pomost, as well as numerous other
organizations, had no illusions about the difficulty involved in renouncing Yalta. The
present U.S. State Dept. position – that Yalta was a good agreement with the only
problem being the failure of the Soviet Union to implement its provisions- is not very
surprising. Tragic but true, this is the same body of government which during the war
deliberately withheld information pertaining to the mass extermination of Jews and other
Europeans (as passed on by the Polish underground and other sources). This is the same
body of government, which played a leading role in creating Yalta while withholding
information on it from the American public. The present position of the State Dept. on
Yalta is consistent with the position taken by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles during
Congressional hearings on Yalta in 1953. When asked if the U.S. should confess to the
role it played in World War II agreements such as Yalta, Dulles answered: “Confession is
always good for the soul but the best place for a confession, I think, is in the privacy of
one’s communion with one’s God.” Referring to such a position during the same
hearings, Wisconsin Congressman Alvin O’Konski stated: “it will fool nobody but
ourselves.”

“Congressman O’Konski went on to say:

“Without their voice in any manner, shape, or form, [the captive nations of Central and
Eastern Europe] we handed them over to Soviet despotism and said “Here they are; take
them. They are going to become part of the Soviet Union. We did that. There was no
perversion insofar as the Yalta agreement was concerned in that action. That was
acquiesced in and agreed to by the United States of America. Do not make any mistake
about it.”

“The State Dept. attitude is not only based on the lack of courage to admit a past mistake.
It is also based on an unwillingness to increase commitment towards the freedom of
captive nations, which the renunciation of Yalta would imply. Knowing the State
Department’s position on Yalta it is our obligation to challenge it, as opposed to
accepting it for an instant. We cannot and should not compromise the call to renounce
Yalta for one of several ineffective resolutions condemning the Soviets, and expressing
solidarity with the people of Poland. It would seem better to exert pressure for a
meaningful commitment towards freedom for captive nations via a Renounce Yalta
resolution even if it were not to pass, than to accept watered-down resolutions that are
easy to pass but have no practical meaning. If we are to accept present U.S. policy
without applying pressure on firming up U.S. commitment towards captive nations then
we no longer serve a useful purpose as a lobby and are only fooling ourselves about
working for a free Poland.

“CAN YALTA BE RENOUNCED?

“A few months prior to the death of Congressman Clement Zablocki, Pomost received a
guarantee that the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee would pass
Renounce Yalta legislation out of Committee for a vote on the floor of the U.S. Congress
(where it would undoubtedly pass, especially with his support). Regardless of who was
Chairman, if 1% of Polonia had become actively involved in this action, collecting
signatures under petitions, writing letters to Senators and Representatives of Congress,
taking part in demonstrations and making a financial contribution towards the action,
Yalta could have been renounced a long time ago.

“The fact that Yalta can be renounced should be evident by the rapid progress that we
have already seen with regard to Action Renounce Yalta. Two years ago there was virtual
silence. Now there are two strong resolutions in the U.S. Congress, with several
cosponsors in both the House and Senate. Strong speeches in support of renouncing Yalta
are being presented on the Congressional floor. The opinions of U.S. leaders, such as
Congressman Edward Feighan (Democrat and Member of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee) are being changed (from against to cosponsor, due to pressure applied by the
captive nation community). There is constantly more talk about the resolutions on Capitol
Hill. Even the fact that the State Department has broken its silence (with a position open
to ridicule) for the purpose of actively working against the resolutions is a sign of
progress. This and much more shows that we are applying effective pressure on
Washington, D.C. that is being felt. Washington, D.C. is getting the message that captive
nation Americans want status quo policy changed to one of a stronger commitment
towards captive nations.

“The reason for this drastic change and progress is that there was enough people who
cared enough to produce 60,000 signatures under renounce Yalta petitions – a powerful
sign of support by U.S. standards. Now a massive letter writing campaign is in effect.
Senators and Representatives of Congress are being called and visited by their
constituents. Other renounce Yalta actions are being planned and organized constantly.
These are the fundamentals of effecting political change in the United States.
Numerous Polonian organizations and publications are taking part in this action. The
membership of the Polish-American Congress recently passed yet another resolution
renouncing Yalta and several divisions are playing an important role in this effort. The
A.K., Solidarity International, Committee in Support of Solidarity, among others, have
contributed enormously towards this effort. More support than we ever expected is
coming from Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Romanian, Russian, and
other captive nation publications and organizations.

“Pursuing the renunciation of Yalta is no longer a Polish-American Congress Action, a

Polish Government-In-Exile Action, a Pomost Action, or that of any one organization or
group of individuals. It has become a movement of many organizations and individuals
who are determined not to see the captive nations of Central and Eastern Europe betrayed
again, who are determined to make a difference for captive nations, and who understand
what is needed to give our cause our only chance – taking the right position on our
strongest issue at the same time, and working actively for it. As long as all of us,
together, continue to make progress it is not a question of can Yalta be renounced, or will
Yalta be renounced, but when will Yalta be renounced.”

The lead article in the same issue of POMOST also advised of how ironic it was that the
Polish American Congress [leadership], which was founded to fight the Yalta
agreements, is not taking part in this action. The article stated that one would assume that
Mazewski would follow in the footsteps of former PAC President Karol Rozmarek, and
become one of the advocates in the anti-Yalta campaign, would be one of the 60,000
people who signed the petition to renounce Yalta, and would speak out on behalf of this
action, especially since many members of the Polish American Congress were actively
supporting the action.

The article went on to express the positions of both organizations on various issues such
as pertaining to sanctions. The Polish American Congress supported the U.S. government
decision to lift sanctions against Polish fishing rights in American waters, and granting
Lot Airlines landing rights for 80 charter flights. The PAC also saw the possibility of
allowing Poland into the International Monetary Fund. POMOST, on the other hand,
believed that economic sanctions should be maintained until meaningful political change
takes place in Poland. The article gave credit to Pomost’s efforts in Washington to
maintain the existing stronger sanctions that remained, and advised of its efforts to
gradually limit trade with the Soviet Union. The article also mentioned areas where
POMOST and the Polish American Congress held the same position, such as support for
increased funding for Radio Free Europe, and expressed belief that the two organizations
should cooperate, especially with regard to issues pertaining to Poland.

To pay tribute to the people that gave our action a strong foundation, during April, 1984,
Pomost sent out a press release with a full account of signatures collected during the
campaign. We advised that as of April 21, 1984, 621 organizations and individuals in 37
states and 9 other countries collected a total of 58,317 signatures.

Illinois accounted for 17,419 signatures followed by Michigan with 6,105, California
5,446, New York 5,168, Ohio 3,856, Connecticut 2,099, Massachusetts 1,984, New
Jersey 1,372, Pennsylvania 1,289, and Wisconsin 1,020. Twenty-seven other states
combined to produce 10,554 signatures.

Roman Byrczek of Chicago, Illinois, turned in the best individual effort by collecting
2,016 signatures. Other outstanding individual efforts included: Witold Szawlowski in
Chicago, 1,743, Janusz Szymanski, Los Angeles, 1,430, Stefan Sznajder, Los Angeles,
1,190, Franciszek Krys, Boston, 836, and Richard Milewski of Stamford, Connecticut,
662.

After the downing of the Korean jetliner flight 007, the small Los Angeles based Baltic
American Freedom League set up a “Ban The Soviet Coalition.” The purpose of this new
effort was to ban the Soviets from attending the coming 1984 Los Angeles Olympics.
When the Soviets used this group as an excuse for possibly not coming to the Olympics,
an enormous amount of publicity was received. The national press from all over the
country would attend the coalition’s press conferences. Coalition spokesmen would
appear on many national television and radio talk shows. Articles would appear
frequently in many of the major national magazines. Interviews were booked with the
press for two weeks in advance.

In an attempt to develop major sustained publicity for our action, we scheduled

nationwide Renounce Yalta demonstrations for June 24, 1984. We suggested to the
underground in Poland, that they try to support the campaign by painting the numbers
435 and 226 (Corcoran and Kasten resolution numbers) on walls of buildings throughout
Poland. If nothing else worked, some members of POMOST were prepared to go on a
hunger strike until action on the resolutions was taken.

During April 1984, Congressman Dante Fascell referred H.J. Res. 435 to the
Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East, with Representative Lee H. Hamilton
serving as Chairman. It was obvious to us that such a move simply served as a delay
tactic, and was not bringing us any closer to our goal.

In the meantime a growing number of responses from U.S. Representatives in Congress,

and Senators, indicated that they would not support the renunciation of Yalta. No doubt
many were influenced by the State Department’s position.

Despite POMOST New York’s efforts, key New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
did not cosponsor S.J. Res. 226. Even rather conservative Republican Senators, such as
Alfonse D’Amato, also from New York, avoided the issue. D’Amato stated: “Despite the
Soviet Union’s repeated profession of support for the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the Helsinki Final Act, they continue to deny basic human rights to the
citizens of the nations under Soviet control. Repression of dissident factions in these
nations shows no signs of abating; nevertheless, the peoples of these nations have not
given up the struggle for independence. They continue to fight against Soviet repression.
As a member of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I have and will
continue to speak out in opposition to the blatant disregard for human rights displayed by
the Soviet leadership.”

At the beginning of April I called the office of Senator Percy, Chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, and spoke with Mary Jane Hatcher. I told her that we
supported Corcoran in the election but now it would be natural for us to support Senator
Percy, and we would like to, but S.J. Res. 226 stood in the way. She advised that she
would pass on the news and someone would get back. As nobody did get back, on April
17, 1984, I sent a letter to Senator Charles Percy with attachments showing the effective
work that we did for Tom Corcoran to try and defeat him. It explained that we did this
largely because of his active support for the renunciation of Yalta. The letter went on to
state:

“…It would only be natural for Pomost to endorse and actively support your campaign at
this time, and we would like to, but a serious problem continues to stand in the way- your
position on S.J. Res. 226.”

“…As much as we would like to endorse and actively support your campaign Senator
Percy, please be advised that we have been working on the renunciation of Yalta for two
years now, and are fully committed to this action. We consider S.J. Res. 226 to be among
the most important resolutions ever introduced in the U.S. Congress and our efforts will
not cease until this legislation is passed. If need be we will hold worldwide
demonstrations and hunger strikes to focus attention on S.J. Res. 226 in the coming
months. In the interest of all concerned it is our hope that you will reconsider your
position on S.J. Res. 226 and will give us the opportunity to make sure that you are
reelected in the general election.”

There was a little desperation in the air as two years of our lives were heavily invested in
this action. The work of so many people was invested in this action. The underground in
Poland expressed support for this action and we did not want to let them down. This was
one action that truly challenged status quo and demanded freedom for Poland now.
Senator Percy did send a letter of response dated April 27, 1984 as follows:

“I very much appreciate having your candid letter of April 17 in regard to S.J. Res. 226. I
understand the purpose of the resolution, and I do not in any way oppose it, but I feel it
puts too much blame on the United States when the fault lies primarily with the Soviet
Union, which grossly and blatantly and deliberately violated the Yalta agreements. In our
national interest, I think we should make an issue of the Yalta agreements, but in a way
that denounces the Soviet Union without embarrassing the United States.

“You may feel that the resolution you support is already too far along to make changes in
it, but if you would rather work with me than against me, I would be pleased to discuss
with Bob Kasten, whom I know and like very much, ways in which the resolution could
be modified to achieve maximum support for it. For myself, I can state unequivocally that
I want to work with you.”

We were aware that even if Percy was sincere about his offer to negotiate the wording of
the resolution, it was highly unlikely that words could ever be found to satisfy both sides.
This, however, appeared to represent our chance to move the resolution forward. On
May 3, 1984, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Dante Fascell sent Tom
Corcoran a copy of the latest response from the State Department. It again stated: “The
Department of State opposes this resolution,” and the letter went on to now quote from
Bush’s Vienna speech as well as Shultz’s Stockholm speech in support of taking this
position.

I knew that we could fully trust Mac Owens of Senator Kasten’s office to negotiate on
behalf of POMOST, and he would not concede to anything without our approval. At the
same time it was becoming apparent that we needed to bend to some degree to have any
chance of passing our resolution. Therefore, while we would continue to run Action
Renounce Yalta full force, I responded to Senator Percy’s letter on May 10, 1984, as
follows:

“…We are prepared to accept and support most any change(s) with regard to S.J. Res.226
providing the legislation renounces Yalta and places some blame on the United States
(while focusing on Soviet violations of the agreement as you propose). The reason why
the resolution should satisfy the above two points is to show that we are dealing with the
subject sincerely. At such time we will rid ourselves of this issue forever, and will
immediately regain the trust and respect that we have lost as a result of Yalta. Thus, such
an approach would be in the very best interest of the United States.

“Criticism of U.S. involvement with regard to Yalta can be brief and subtle but clear
enough for the people of Central and Eastern Europe to understand that we are sorry…”

“…In appreciation for passing an acceptable resolution out of Committee for a vote on
the floor of the U.S. Senate we will immediately endorse you, and actively campaign on
your behalf, not only in Illinois but also on a national basis. Despite enormous direct and
indirect pressure, we have thus far avoided making any other commitments only because
it is our desire to work with you…”

The active Polish American community remained hard at work showing support for the
renounce Yalta resolutions. Some expressions of support could be found in non-ethnic
newspapers. A member of the Los Angeles community Zbigniew Wardas, had his letter
printed in The U.S. World Daily News, based in Southern California. It presented the
issue as one that should be of concern to the general American public, underlining that
the spirit of Yalta (our continued policy of seeking détente), was responsible for building
a colossal Soviet military machine, which threatened the United States as well. Wardas
constantly called for directing the action in such a manner to the general American
public, but this was easy to say, while the general American public was so difficult to
move into active support. While liberal causes were capable of organizing massive
visible actions, conservative causes were rarely capable of doing the same.
In a letter written to her constituent Eugeniusz Wrona, Connecticut Congresswoman
Nancy Johnson wrote: “Many of you have written me recently expressing your support
for H.J. Res. 435, which renounces the 1945 Yalta agreement at Yalta, signed by the
United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union. I am pleased to lend my support to
this important resolution.”

In commemoration of Poland’s Constitution Day, on May 3, 1984, in London, Polish

Government-In-Exile President Edward Raczynski, called upon help to condemn and
renounce Yalta.

In the meantime we kept hearing that leaders of the Polish-American Congress were
planning to take a different approach to Yalta, which would undercut our efforts. Thus
one evening I called the former head of the Polish section of Radio Free Europe and
World War II hero Jan Nowak, who was now a PAC Director. I was surprised to hear the
extent of his criticism pertaining to our resolutions, and our approach to this action,
especially after having signed our strongly worded Renounce Yalta petition. He stated
that we were putting Poland’s western borders at risk, and that Germans were getting all
excited about this action, as they were at the time of Eisenhower’s approach to Yalta.
Nowak pointed out that Yalta guaranteed the right to free elections, and that he planned
to present a compromise resolution to Senator Percy based on Vice-President George
Bush’s Vienna speech.

I listened to what Mr. Nowak had to say and then sent my response in a rather lengthy
and harsh letter on April 17, 1984.

I questioned Nowak if we really need a cynical and immoral agreement to use as a basis
for Poland’s right to hold free elections when this right is covered by so many other
documents. I asked if we really need to point to Yalta as a base for maintaining Poland’s
Western borders when in fact they were not even established at Yalta but were covered
by Helsinki and by the 1972 quadripartite agreement on West Berlin.

While advising that a Renounce Yalta approach served as perhaps our best way of
applying pressure on Western leaders for more commitment towards captive nations, I
asked: “Why use it as one of the 1,000 condemnations of the Soviets when we are never
short of reasons for condemning them?” I also pointed out that morally we have no more
right to cover up U.S. blunders at the expense of Poland and other captive nations,
anymore than we have the right to cover up the Soviet crimes committed at Katyn [where
thousands of Polish soldiers were massacred by the Soviets during World War II].

Since Eisenhower’s resolution was attacked as being weak and a sellout, I asked Nowak
why he would want to base a resolution on, and praise, Bush’s Vienna speech, which
represented a far weaker approach. I also questioned the purpose of supporting a position
that had already become a part of U.S. policy as opposed to seeking a stronger
commitment on behalf of Poland.

I asked Nowak if it was right of the PAC to offer compromises pertaining to an action
that POMOST had developed, was working hard towards, was running effectively, and
was supported by Polonia and the captive nation community in general, including the
membership of the PAC, (despite the criticism of PAC leadership). And finally I asked
Nowak that even if he considers all these arguments to be invalid, “would it still not
make more sense to show solidarity with the vast majority so as to present a united front
as opposed to undermining this effort?”

It became clear that my appeal to Nowak had no impact during a Polish American
Congress convention held in Chicago on May 3, 4, 5, and 6th, 1984. I was informed that
on May 3rd, during a general meeting, the issue of Yalta was discussed. POMOST’s
James Zmuda reported that Professor Wienczyslaw Wagner advised that after reading the
text of the resolution prepared by PAC Vice-President Mr. Lukomski, one would think
that Yalta was a good agreement, as opposed to a scandal. He also expressed surprise that
the PAC was drafting another position on Yalta, as the PAC’s position had been voted on
at last year’s meeting.

As reported by Zmuda, PAC Director Jan Nowak aggressively argued that Yalta is very
complicated, that there was a need to be very careful, and that Germans want Yalta
renounced so that they can regain Poland’s Western territories. He stated that many
Germans were quick to support Eisenhower’s efforts to approach Yalta in the 1950’s for
this purpose.

Nowak advised the delegation that the State Department was against renouncing Yalta
and that the action had no chance of succeeding. Thus, he said, the PAC should instead
think in terms of abolishing the spirit of Yalta [as opposed to the Yalta agreement itself].
Finally, Nowak proposed that the PAC should express recognition for Bush’s position as
expressed in Vienna. Nowy Dziennik Editor & Publisher Boleslaw Wierzbianski
expressed support for Nowak’s position stating that to think in terms of renouncing the
agreement was “nonsense.” Another gentleman, Marcinkowski, also expressed concern
for Poland’s western territories and suggested seeking the implementation of the good
parts of Yalta, while renouncing the bad parts.

Jan Morelewski attempted to refute the argument that there needs to be concern about
Polish Western territories in relationship to dealing with a Yalta resolution. Professor,
and Editor-In-Chief of Studium Papers published in Ann Arbor, Michigan Andrzej S.
Ehrenkreutz supported the position presented by Professor Wagner, that it would not be
right to leave the impression that the PAC considers Yalta to be a good agreement. Amid
the confusion Lukomski appointed a committee, which included Nowak, Wierzbianski,
Morelewski, and Ela Wasiutynska, to draft a new resolution.

Later we were informed that under pressure from within the PAC the resolution, which
was presented by the committee, was strengthened somewhat. As reported in Nowy
Dziennik on May 8th, 1984, the PAC was calling on the United States to initiate decisive
politics [policy] intended to renounce spheres of influence in Europe.

Certainly, there was nothing wrong with taking precautions and gaining assurance from
the German nation that they would not contest current borders in a future undivided
Europe. If the need came to defend borders against an aggressive Germany again, and if
appealing in the name of Helsinki, the 1972 Quadripartite agreement on West Berlin,
Potsdam, and above all, common sense, was rejected, however, then an un-renounced
Yalta would certainly be of little comfort. To sacrifice a strong renounce-Yalta action at a
time when Poland was enslaved under communism, with jails full of political prisoners,
in the name of protecting borders, did not seem to make sense at this point, especially
since such matters could be approached outside the renounce Yalta Action and resolution.

Perhaps most difficult of all for me to understand was the willingness by some to
sacrifice a strong resolution for one that simply repeated the already stated U.S. view on
the division of Europe. What was the purpose of a Polish Lobby if it was to merely repeat
U.S. stated positions, rather than applying pressure for a constantly stronger stand on our
behalf? Even if Yalta were not to be renounced, and the action was to fail, it is precisely
because of our calls to renounce Yalta that American leaders repeated that the U.S. does
not believe in the division of Europe more often, with more regularity, than ever before.
Thus while holding a great deal of respect for Nowak’s stature and past, I could not
understand, nor accept, his position pertaining to Yalta, at least not at a time when much
of the captive nation community was prepared to fight on for the renunciation of this
agreement.

To explain our position on Poland’s Western borders as pertaining to Action Renounce

Yalta, POMOST issued the following statement:

“HOW ACTION RENOUNCE YALTA RELATES TO THE ODER-NEISSE BORDER

“On occasion expressions of concern are raised that the renunciation of Yalta would
endanger Poland’s western borders. Prior to forming an opinion on this issue Pomost
SPM believes it is important to first examine the facts.

“The protocol of proceedings signed at Yalta on February 11, 1945 states the following
with regard to Poland’s borders:

“The three Heads of Government consider that the Eastern frontier of Poland should
follow the Curzon line with digressions from it in some regions of five to eight
kilometers in favor of Poland. They recognize that Poland must receive substantial
accessions of territory in the North and West. They feel that the opinion of the Polish
Provisional Government of National Unity should be sought in due course on the extent
of these accessions and that the final delimitation of the Western frontier of Poland
should thereafter await the Peace Conference.”

“While the agreement mentions that Poland “must receive substantial accessions of
territory in the North and West” the Oder-Neisse border was not established or
recognized, nor even mentioned, at Yalta. The “Peace Conference” which was to
determine the “final delimitation” of Poland’s western border never took place. Poland’s
western border was established shortly after the war and finally recognized by the United
States at the 1972 Quadripartite Agreement on West Berlin, and again during the Helsinki
Conference.

“CONCLUSION

“In practical terms as long as Soviet Russia controls and dominates the countries of
Central and Eastern Europe, only the Kremlin is in a position to change borders in that
region of the world (regardless of what resolutions are passed by Western governments).
Even if Soviet Russia found it to be practical and desirable to change Poland’s western
border the renunciation of Yalta would certainly not be used as a pretext for pursuing this
aim. Yalta established several favorable borders for the Kremlin while the agreement did
not establish, recognize, or even mention the Oder-Neisse border. The Western world in
turn has become accustomed to present borders in Central and Eastern Europe and has
officially accepted them at Helsinki (which is not being challenged). Thus one would
clearly be mistaken to equate the renunciation of Yalta with changing Poland’s western
border, in practice or in theory.”
BLANK BACK PAGE
 CLASH WITH ENTIRE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION

In a letter from the White House dated May 11th, 1984, we received more bad news,
which was expected. It came from the Associate Director for the Office of Public Liaison
Linas Kojelis (the same person who attended the POMOST convention the previous year
and refused to give any indication of how the administration viewed the Renounce Yalta
Action). Responding on behalf of the President, Mr. Kojelis advised that: “The views
expressed by Assistant Secretary of State Bennett on the subject of Agreements represent
the position of the entire Executive branch of the United States Government, not just
those of the Department of State.” The letter included the usual quotes from Vice-
President Bush’s Vienna speech.

Prior to even getting a chance to consider how, and if, to change our tactics in view of the
official news that the entire Reagan administration was against our action, our response
came swiftly. On May 14th, 1984, the city of Garfield Heights, Ohio, renounced Yalta.
Pomost Representative David Domzalski had once again produced another important
accomplishment. The resolution read as follows:

“RESOLUTION NO. 39-1984

“INTRODUCED BY: Mayor J. Longo AND THE ENTIRE COUNCIL

“A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT TO THE PASSAGE OF H.J. RES. 435 RELATIVE

TO THE FORMAL RENUNCIATION OF THE 1945 YALTA AGREEMENT

“WHERAS, during World War II, representatives of the United States took part in secret
agreements and understandings concerning other peoples who were not represented; and

“WHERAS, the outcome of the Yalta agreement threatens the peace and security of all
freedom-loving people; and

“WHERAS, it is appropriate that the United States express the hopes of the people of the
United States for freedom of people subjected to the captivity of Soviet despotism in
Central and Eastern Europe, as well as elsewhere around the world; and

“WHERAS, H.J. RES. 435 would formally renounce the 1945 Yalta agreement.

“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Garfield

Heights, Ohio, that:

“SECTION 1. This Council, on behalf of the citizens of Garfield Heights, hereby

officially voices its support for the passage of H.J. Res. 435 relative to the renunciation of
the 1945 Yalta agreement.

“SECTION 2. The Law Department be and it is hereby authorized and directed to

transmit a copy of this Resolution to the local Solidarity organization, Congressman
Louis Stokes, Congresswoman Mary Rose Oakar, State Senator Ben M. Skall, State
Representative Frank Mahnic, Jr., and to the local news media.
“SECTION 3. This Resolution shall be in effect from and after the earliest period allowed
by law.

“PASSED: May 14, 1984

“APPROVED: Thomas J. Longo Michael A. Bednar

MAYOR PRESIDENT OF COUNCIL”

To take full advantage of our position with Congressman Corcoran, we previously

prepared a very harsh speech for him to deliver before Congress. This is how it appeared
on Page E 2170 in the May 15, 1984, Congressional Record:

“RENOUNCE THE YALTA

EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT
_________

“HON. TOM CORCORAN

OF ILLINOIS

“IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

“Tuesday, May 15, 1984

“• Mr. Corcoran. Mr. Speaker, on November 18, 1983, I introduced House Joint
Resolution 435 renouncing the 1945 Yalta Executive Agreement. On February 2 of this
year, Senator ROBERT KASTEN introduced Senate Joint Resolution 226 renouncing
Yalta in the Senate. I have since been informed that thousands of signatures calling for
the renunciation of Yalta from all across the country are being sent to the House Foreign
Affairs Committee. The distinguished chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee,
MR. DANTE FASCELL, can surely confirm the receipt of these petitions.

“Actions in support of renouncing Yalta are being organized in various parts of the
country- in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin,
Washington, California, Ohio, and many other States. During dinners in Illinois and
California, I heard one captive nation representative after another call for the renunciation
of Yalta. In Cleveland, Ohio, the city council unanimously proclaimed March 3, 1984,
Renounce Yalta Day in that city. Six different ethnic groups took part in festivities that
day, all calling on the U.S. Congress to renounce Yalta.

“To understand how much the renunciation of Yalta means to these freedom-loving
Americans one need only look to a few of the many U.S. captive nation publications.
These newspapers constantly print articles and editorials calling for the renunciation of
Yalta.

“Anyone even remotely familiar with Yalta is well aware that this agreement was a
sellout, a tragic error, a disgrace, and a very dark chapter in the history of this country.
This blunder is being magnified because now, 39 years later, many still do not have the
courage to deal with it. Some of us in this Government have even gone so far as to say
that Yalta was a good agreement. Frankly, this shows either a complete lack of
knowledge about the agreement, or a complete lack of commitment towards freedom for
captive nations.

“At Yalta, representatives of the United and Great Britain recognized governments and
borders, according to the wishes of Jozef Stalin, for countries that were not represented
and whose leaders were not even consulted. For example, at Yalta, a small band of Soviet
puppets, with no popular support, was recognized as a base for forming a new
government in Poland, and was given the responsibility of expanding and holding free
elections. This, in fact, guaranteed that there would be no free elections in Poland, and
that instead Poland would be placed under Soviet domination. In the meantime, the
protests of freely elected democratic Polish leaders who served as our loyal allies
throughout World War II were completely ignored. Yalta determined the fate of several
countries which were not represented, nor even consulted, and whose protests were
completely ignored. For Stalin, indeed this was a good agreement, but not for
representatives of democratic countries who believe in the principles of freedom,
independence, and self-determination for all nations.

“I also understand that some Representatives in the House argue that, while Yalta may
have been a bad agreement, we should not cancel agreements. If that is the case then this
shows that we do not honor our Constitution, the Atlantic Charter, or basic international
law, because Yalta serves as a complete contradiction to such documents and principles.

“If Yalta is to be upheld by our votes, or even by our silence, during this session of
Congress, then I submit that the captive nations of this world have been betrayed again. I
also believe that it will represent a defeat for all the people of this world who believe in
the right to freedom, independence, and self-determination.

“As I have mentioned before, I consider House Joint Resolution 435 to be a bipartisan
resolution. While it was a democratic administration that signed Yalta, hardly a
Republican leader voiced objection to it at that time. Now that the opportunity has come
to correct the tragic error committed at Yalta both Democrats as well as Republicans
should express support for the fundamental values and principles that all of us share.

“Czechoslovakian, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Romanian, and

many other captive nation Americans- as well as many other freedom-loving Americans
– are waiting for our answer. The people presently suffering in these captive nations also
await our answer. Freedom-loving people around the world await our answer. They are
waiting to see if we truly believe in the principles of freedom, independence, and self-
determination, or if we believe in the spirit of Yalta, and the suffering that it has left
behind.

“The Polish-American community, the struggling people of Poland, the entire American
captive nation community, and the people of every captive nation are not asking for our
blood or any personal sacrifice. All they are asking for is to hear the U.S. Government
say that America believes in freedom, independence, and self-determination for all
nations, without exception.
“On behalf of the Pomost Socio-Political Movement, and the numerous other political
and human rights organizations, which have been raising this issue throughout the
country, I appeal to each and every one of my colleagues who have not already done so to
cosponsor House Joint Resolution 435. I also urge the distinguished chairman of the
House Committee on Foreign Affairs to hold hearings soon on House Joint Resolution
435.

“At this time, if there are no objections, I request that the Cleveland City Council
resolution proclaiming March 3, 1984, as Renounce Yalta Day in Cleveland be entered
into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD as an example of sincere concern for the captive
nations of the world. Thank you.”

The Cleveland City Council resolution renouncing Yalta was also entered into the
Congressional Record.

Other actions in support of “Renounce Yalta” continued. Gwiazda Polarna published our
most recent press release, which gave a full accounting of signatures collected under
Renounce Yalta petitions, in their May 19, 1984, edition. Captive nation publications
continued to give the campaign much coverage. A letter writing campaign to President
Reagan was initiated in Toronto, Canada, with a form letter that stated:

“Since 1945 certain articles of the Yalta executive agreement continue to be remembered
by the nations of Central and Eastern Europe as a serious crime against humanity, since
by virtue of this agreement all those nations have been abandoned by the Western Powers
to the cruel domination of the USSR.

“Together with countless thousands of Americans and Canadians I am in full support of

the actions taken by Senator Robert Kasten and Congressman Tom Corcoran, namely S.J.
Res. 226 and H.J. Res. 435 renouncing Yalta. I feel that the time is long overdue to pass
such legislation, and I think that it would be greatly appropriate for you, Mr. President, as
the leader of the free world, to publicly support the renouncing of Yalta.”

In the meantime, the “Ban The Soviet” coalition continued to experience success in
getting major publicity because the Soviet press was attacking them constantly. No doubt
this was partly due to the Coalition sending numerous mailings into the Soviet Union,
which probably irritated Kremlin leaders. Thus Moscow publicly attacked the Coalition,
which in turn generated more attention for the Coalition from the U.S. and other foreign
media. This ended quickly, however, when the head of the Los Angeles Olympic
Committee made a statement implying that the entire organization was so small, it could
fit in an old Chevrolet.

POMOST obtained the names of some 30 diplomats working out of the Soviet Embassy
in Washington, D.C., and addresses for the largest publications, as well as radio and
television stations, throughout the Soviet Union. We obtained the names of ambassadors
and addresses for numerous embassies in Moscow (including China, Poland, Hungary,
Czechoslovakia, Romania, etc). Similar addresses were also collected for the media, and
communist leaders in Poland. We sent them all information about the campaign to
renounce Yalta in large two-colored envelopes, with the logo “HELP TOM CORCORAN
AND ROBERT KASTEN RENOUNCE YALTA AND BUILD A BETTER WORD.”
Our intention, frankly, was to get under the skin of the Soviet world, and draw the
maximum amount of criticism directed against us, which in turn would hopefully draw
the maximum amount of attention for the renounce Yalta campaign from the Western
media. If this activity were to contribute in helping to create additional tension in U.S.-
U.S.S.R. relations, and hinder the chances of gravitating towards détente again, we would
consider this to be a benefit to our cause as well.

We wondered how much of our mail was being intercepted by communist censors,
despite many of the envelopes being addressed to communist leaders and foreign
embassies. We wondered if communist authorities could comprehend that the mailings
involved were coming from a group of citizens, as opposed to being sponsored by any
U.S. government agency. Sending out our press releases to the communist world was
almost as much fun as continually sending out our signed Renounce Yalta petitions to the
House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and
President Reagan, day, after day, after day.

In the meantime Nowy Dziennik published the final text of the Polish American
Congress position on Yalta in its June 2-3, 1984 edition, as follows:

“THE YALTA AGREEMENT

“The specter of the Yalta Agreement casts a dark shadow on the post World War II
world. Its provisions concerning Poland violated the rights of the Polish nation, in
particular by endorsing Soviet annexation of extensive Polish territories in the East, and
by recognizing the puppet communist government set up in Moscow as a provisional
government of Poland subject to only largely insignificant adjustments.

“Subsequent Soviet violations of its provisions, such as holding of free elections and non-
interference in the internal affairs of Poland and other countries of East Central Europe,
in which the Western democracies tacitly acquiesced, led to the establishment of the
Soviet-controlled, Communist dictatorships in East Central Europe and encouraged the
Soviets in their policy of world domination.

“In this context we welcome Vice President George Bush’s statement in Vienna on
September 21, 1983, in which he stated unequivocally, that the United States does not
recognize the division of Europe into spheres of influence and rejected any such
interpretation in the Yalta and other wartime agreements with the Soviet Union.

“Accordingly it is recommended that a Joint Resolution to this effect is formulated and

submitted to the United States Congress by its House and Senate Foreign Relations
Committees.

“Concurrently, the United States government should initiate a determined policy aimed to
eliminate the existing system of the division of Europe into the spheres of influence.

“Such actions by the U.S. Congress and government would clearly indicate to the
subjugated nations of East Central Europe that we have not written off their just
aspirations and re-affirm their inherent right to freedom and independence.”
We, as POMOST, considered this to be a much-improved position on Yalta expressed by
the Polish-American Congress. In fact we were very pleased with the PAC resolution.

Led by “Rzeczpospolita” in their June 5, 1984 edition, the communist press in Poland
blamed POMOST, in large part, for the Polish Olympic Committee’s decision not to
attend the summer games in Los Angeles. The communist press reported that this was a
logical decision in view of several provocative actions threatening the safety of athletes,
which POMOST had planned. The only action that POMOST’s Olympic Committee,
headed by Janusz Szymanski, actually announced, was to help those athletes wishing to
defect.

The communist press in Poland also pointed to Action Renounce Yalta as another
example of our “radical” work. Along with this information came the usual absurd
charges that we were working with German revisionists to take back Polish western
territories, and were being financed by the CIA and FBI. We felt sure that the people of
Poland knew better than to believe these charges, and it often appeared that the articles
were deliberately written in such a foolish way as to make sure of this.

By June 12th, 1984, the highest-ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs
Committee William S. Broomfield of Michigan, became a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 435 and
wrote to POMOST’s Detroit Representative Dr. Janusz Subczynski stating:

“I am pleased to cosponsor this worthwhile legislation by Congressman Corcoran, as I

feel that the agreement that was made at Yalta in February of 1945 should formally be
denounced. As you know, this bill has been referred to the Subcommittee on International
Security and Scientific Affairs, and you can be assured that I will do what I can to see
that it is passed out of the committee and sent to the Floor of the House of
Representatives for a vote.”

Getting Broomfield to cosponsor H.J. Res. 435 was largely accomplished by the work of
Subczynski. In the meantime Subczynski continued using Radio POMOST in Detroit to
appeal for help to renounce Yalta on a weekly basis.

Letters requesting Renounce Yalta petitions, bumper stickers, envelope stickers, and
buttons continued to be received from all around the country. On May 24, 1984, for
example, Reverend Anthony Kopka, of St. Joseph’s Polish National Catholic Church in
Bridgeport, Connecticut wrote:

“Your appeal for the formal renunciation of the Yalta agreement by the United States
government serves to point out an initial step in correcting an injustice.

“Please send me draft letters that I may copy and distribute to my parishioners and fellow
members of local Polish American organizations in support of H.J. Res. 435 and S.J.
Res.226.”

Copies of letters forwarded to U.S. leaders, such as those written by Chairman of the
Polish National Fund in Ottawa, Canada, George Korwin, were also being received,
including from Polish-American organizations previously unknown to us, such as the
Jersey Shore Polish-American Association.
On June 9th, Gwiazda Polarna re-printed our major Yalta position paper appearing in the
2nd 1984 issue of POMOST Magazine. The Polish Daily in London was among many
publications outside of the United States, which was very supportive of our action. Paul
Anthony Radzewicz of Jackson, Mississippi paid for a full-page advertisement appearing
in the Post Eagle (New Jersey) on June 13th, promoting the Renounce Yalta letter writing
campaign.

By now, besides Assistant Secretary, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs W.

Tapley Bennett, Jr., the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and Department
Spokesman John Hughes, as well as the Acting Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and
Acting Spokesman Alan D. Romberg, were answering a growing number of letters being
sent to President Reagan calling for support of the Renounce Yalta resolutions. Each of
the responses included the following:

“… We recognize no lawful division of Europe. There is much misunderstanding about

the substance of the Yalta conference. Let me state as clearly as I can: there was no
agreement at the time to divide Europe up into “spheres of influence;” on the contrary,
the powers agreed on the principle of the common responsibility of the three allies for all
the liberated territories. The Soviet Union pledged itself to grant full independence to
Poland and to all other states in Eastern Europe, and to hold free elections there. The
Soviet violation of these obligations is the primary root of East-West tensions today…
Let me stress here that the United States does not seek to destabilize or undermine any
government, but our attitude toward the region is informed by a sense of history—of
European history. For this reason we support and will encourage all movement toward
the social, humanitarian, and democratic ideals which have characterized the historical
development of Europe.”

The voice of the Polish American Congress, Chicago’s “Zgoda” (Dziennik Zwiazkowy)
once again criticized the Renounce Yalta action. In a June 15-16 editorial, Jan Krawiec
stated that the art of politics is to obtain that, which can be obtained in a given situation.
He wrote that under more favorable conditions Eisenhower could only find the courage to
proclaim that he did not recognize the division of Europe. Mr. Krawiec stated that the
action to renounce Yalta only divided the Polish-American community.

The editorial went on to say that even if by miracle Yalta were to be renounced by the
U.S. Congress, it would not change anything. He questioned why, instead, POMOST
does not work for more important things such as against the liberal establishment, which
works for “détente” with the Soviet Union and wants to trade with the Soviets. He asked
why the money used to finance this action was not used for more important causes such
as food for children and medicine in Poland, as well as paper and printing ink in Poland.

Mr. Krawiec ended his article by recommending that new immigrants distinguish
POMOST’s demagoguery from political and social programs, which are possible to
achieve and are advantageous to the Polish nation. He warned that they should not allow
POMOST to take advantage of them because, in his words, Pomost cares about personal
fame, not about Poland.
On June 18, 1984, the third city in Ohio, Parma, renounced Yalta. Besides giving support
for H.J. Res. 435, it was resolved that a copy of the Parma resolution be forwarded to
President Reagan, and Ohio Senators John Glenn and Howard Metzenbaum. Similar to
resolutions passed by Cleveland and Garfield Heights, Ohio, the resolution passed by the
Parma, Ohio, City Council, also stated:

“WHEREAS, June 24, 1984, has been declared National Renounce Yalta Day in the
United States; and

“WHEREAS, the City of Parma, with its broad ethnic roots is particularly aware of the
negative impact the 1945 Yalta Agreement has had upon the people of the Eastern
European Countries; and

“WHEREAS, it is only fitting that Parma support Resolution 435 and also support the
June 24, 1984 declaration of National Renounce Yalta Day;

“BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARMA, STATE OF

OHIO:

“Section 1. That this Council hereby supports House Resolution 435 for the formal
renunciation of the 1945 Yalta Agreement by the United States Congress…”

David Domzalski had done it once again by mobilizing Parma, the 9th largest city in Ohio
with a population of more than 100,000 people, to renounce Yalta. This resolution was
also declared “as an emergency measure necessary for the immediate preservation of the
public health, safety, and welfare of the City of Parma,” to underline the significance that
was attached to this legislation.

POMOST declared June 24, 1984, National Renounce Yalta Day, and San Diego,
California Representative Alfred Znamirowski was working hard on coordinating
preparations, which were scheduled for various cities.

News about our campaign also started penetrating the main stream American press, such
as a generally favorable editorial, which appeared in the June 13th, 1984, edition of the
Denver, Colorado, “Rocky Mountain News.”

On June 21, 1984, The Detroit News printed a very long and favorable article about Dr.
Subczynski and the Renounce Yalta campaign. It described preparations for the
nationwide demonstrations, and gave background information on the resolutions in U.S.
Congress. The article informed readers of the massive support for the action being
displayed on a national basis and went into great detail on the numerous reasons given for
renouncing Yalta. The article also quoted Subczynski as saying: “The Yalta Agreement is
the cornerstone of Soviet imperialism that denies freedom to 150 million people…The
Soviets never honored it, Congress never approved it and even Eisenhower tried to
denounce it. It is never too late to admit a mistake. Eventually we will.”

In response to the letter informing me that “the entire Executive branch of the United
States Government” is against renouncing Yalta, on June 21, 1984, along with a
statement that we would never stop calling for the renunciation of Yalta, I sent the
following reply to White House Associate Director, Office of Public Liaison Linas
Kojelis:

“…As you know, Yalta is an extremely sensitive issue for many Captive Nation
Americans, especially Polish-Americans. They are also very well informed about the
agreement and for this reason the State Department view on this subject is enraging
members of our community. Frankly, President Reagan can lose a great deal of support in
the coming elections by being associated with the position taken by the State Department
on Yalta.

“One must take into consideration that most Polish-Americans are democrats (if not other
Captive Nation Americans), and it is no coincidence that virtually all Polish-American
members of the House are democrats. These as well as other Polish-American voters who
we want to vote for President Reagan are now seeing Renounce Yalta legislation being
rejected under a Republican administration. This is extremely unfortunate, especially
when considering that the entire Polish-American vote could be won instantly with
support of S.J.Res. 226 and H.J. Res. 435.

“For these and many other important reasons, as outlined in our enclosed statement on
Yalta, perhaps it would be worthwhile for the administration to reconsider its position on
Yalta? Knowing that you understand the importance associated with this legislation I am
confident that you will see to it that the President has an opportunity to personally study
this matter…”

“…I deeply regret that Action Renounce Yalta has come in conflict with this year’s
election campaign. As you know Pomost has always associated itself with the Republican
Party and it was our desire to fully concentrate on re-electing President Reagan at this
time. I am sure that you can understand however, why we cannot abandon our
commitment to work for the renunciation of the 1945 Yalta executive agreement. It is
still my hope that President Reagan will resolve this matter in the best interest of the
United States, all Captive Nations, and the Republican Party. ….”

On June 22, 1984, Hanna Tyszkiewicz held her first annual, and spectacular, Polonaise
Ball in Los Angeles (Riviera Country Club, Pacific Palisades, California). During the
evening Howard Martin Kessler was honored as a World War II hero for having saved
more than 200 civilians. Substantial profits from this event were donated to the Pomost
Olympic Committee. This money would be used to stage various pro-Solidarity and
Renounce Yalta actions during the Olympics.

On June 23, 1984, The San Diego Union printed a story about preparations for the
Renounce Yalta demonstration in that city. It mentioned that the demonstration had the
support of Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter and County Supervisor Paul Eckert.
The article quoted from statements made by POMOST San Diego Representative Alfred
Znamierowski at a press conference: “You can’t undo years of history in a moment. It
could have political effects in the future. We can’t resign ourselves to having our
children’s children living under Communist domination.”

On June 24, 1984, demonstrations took place in Denver, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York
(in front of the United Nations), Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Toronto,
and of course Chicago (held on June 23rd). Numerous other ethnic groups took part in all
of the demonstrations. The remaining signed petitions, which we had in our possession,
were mailed to Washington, D.C. on this day. Dedicated Veterans of World War II in
Detroit, Priests in St. Petersburg and other cities in Florida, and POMOST members in
San Diego and other cities, collected a few thousand additional signatures on Renounce
Yalta petitions that day.

The demonstration in Toronto, Canada, which received extensive press coverage in the
printed and electronic media, was held in front of the American Embassy. During the
demonstration a letter written to President Reagan, expressing support for Congressional
resolutions calling for the renunciation of Yalta, was presented to the American Vice-
Council. Affiliates from all three major networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) covered the
demonstration in Denver.

Despite differences of opinion on how to approach Yalta, Editor-In-Chief & Publisher of

Nowy Dziennik Boleslaw Wierzbianki gave good front- page coverage to the
demonstration in New York.

On page 2 of the Monday, June 25th, 1984, Los Angeles Times, the following report
could be read:

“About 300 Polish-American supporters gathered outside Los Angeles City Hall to
protest the “tyranny of the Soviet Union” over their homeland and to call for
Washington’s renunciation of the 1945 Yalta agreement. “The (Yalta) agreement
between Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of
millions of people and for continuing rule of Moscow over Eastern Europe,” said a
spokesman for Pomost, which, in Polish, means “bridge.” Joining Pomost were
representatives of other ethnic groups calling for liberation of their homeland, including
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Leaders of the demonstration said the protest was one of
10 held in major cities across the country and urged all Americans, not only those of
Polish ancestry, to write their elected representatives and urge passage of two resolutions
now under consideration in Congress that would nullify the Yalta agreement.”

The Los Angeles Herald Examiner and The Orange County Register printed similar
stories. Besides coverage from the three largest newspapers in Southern California, news
of the demonstration was reported on two television stations, including the local NBC
affiliate. At least two radio stations also reported on the story, including KNX radio (a
CBS affiliate), which reported news of the event twice an hour during the evening of June
24th, and the morning of June 25th, 1984.

Speaking at the Los Angeles rally was George Breber, representing the Czechoslovakia
National Council of America, Noor Delawari of the Afghan Freedom Organization, Tony
Mazeika of the Baltic-American Freedom League, Gene Vosseler, the Executive Director
of Friends of Freedom, and Dr. Fernando Ruiz, a leader of the Cuban organization C.I.D.,
as well as representatives of FDN (a Nicaraguan organization). Other organizations, such
as the Hungarian Freedom Fighters, were also represented. As in some of the other cities,
the local Polish-American Congress leader Chris Ciesiolkiewicz, also presented a very
supportive speech at the rally.
A former Congressman, who was now running for this position again, Robert Dornan
also took part in the festivities. He called on “every last vestige” of the post-World War
Yalta agreement to be renounced. Dornan called Yalta a “sellout of magnificent
proportion.” Behind the speaker’s podium was an enormous banner showing Roosevelt,
Churchill, and Stalin painted as if on a wall that was about to crumble. Very talented
local painter Marek Stabrowski created this beautiful work of art.

During the event I was presented with one of the best gifts I have every received in my
life from the Chairman and Executive Director of Californians For A Strong America
Nick Sorokin. It was a beautiful scroll from the County of Los Angeles Board of
Supervisors, representing the most populated county in the United States. The county of
Los Angeles, with numerous cities included under its jurisdiction, had proclaimed June
24, 1984, as NATIONAL RENOUNCE YALTA DAY, while calling for the formal
renunciation of this agreement as follows:

“WHEREAS, THE POMOST SOCIO-POLITICAL MOVEMENT HAS ANNOUNCED

THAT AS OF APRIL 21, 1984, IT HAS RECEIVED COMPLETED RENOUNCE
YALTA PETITIONS TOTALING 58,317 SIGNATURES; AND

“WHEREAS, THE POMOST HAS MAILED THE COMPLETED PETITIONS TO THE

CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, AND COPIES
TO THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE AND PRESIDENT
RONALD REAGAN; AND

“WHEREAS, DURING WORLD WAR II, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED

STATES TOOK PART IN SECRET AGREEMENTS WHICH RESULTED IN SOVIET
DOMINATION OF PEOPLES WHO WERE NOT REPRESENTED, AND

“WHEREAS, THE YALTA EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT STANDS OUT AS

PERHAPS THE MOST CYNICAL AND IMMORAL ATTEMPT TO DIVIDE THE
WORLD INTO WESTERN AND SOVIET SPHERES OF INFLUENCE, AND
CLEARLY VIOLATES THE ATLANTIC CHARTER WHICH GUARANTEED SELF-
DETERMINATION FOR ALL PEOPLE; AND

“WHEREAS, THE POSITIVE ASPECTS OF YALTA, SUCH AS FREE ELECTIONS

IN POLAND, WERE CLEARLY VIOLATED BY SOVIET LEADERS:

“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SUPPORTS JUNE 24, 1984 AS NATIONAL
RENOUNCE YALTA DAY AND ALL RESIDENTS ARE URGED TO PARTICIPATE
AND EXPRESS OUR SINCERELY FELT SOLIDARITY WITH THE SUFFERING
PEOPLES OF BULGARIA, BYELORUSSIA, CZECHOSLOVAKIA, ESTONIA,
HUNGARY, LATVIA, LITHUANIA, POLAND, RUMANIA, RUSSIA, UKRAINE,
AND ALL THE PEOPLE OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE BY FORMALLY
RENOUNCING THE 1945 YALTA EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT.

“ADOPTED BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF

LOS ANGELES STATE OF CALIFORNIA”
Chairman of the Board Dean Dana, and all four other Board Supervisors, signed the
resolution. This included Michael Antonovich, a good friend to the captive nation
community, who introduced the motion to prepare the document. We later heard from a
reliable source that this resolution greatly disturbed the Reagan administration.

On June 25th 1984, Congressman Corcoran wrote another letter to Chairman of the House
Foreign Affairs Committee Dante Fascell, as follows:

“I wanted to take this opportunity to remind you of my concern that hearings be held
soon on H.J. Res. 435. I am anxious for it to reach the floor of the House so it can be
presented for the consideration of our colleagues.

“My resolution for the formal renunciation of the 1945 Yalta Agreement has generated
increasing support among the ranks of American citizens of central and eastern descent. I
have received a constant stream of correspondence from concerned people all over the
world who urge that the U.S. face its mistakes and make its position indisputably clear. In
many parts of the country, demonstrations are being held on behalf of the nations
relegated to Soviet tyranny by the Yalta Agreement. City councils are passing resolutions
in support of H.J. Res. 435. I would like to point out that it now also has the support of
the ranking minority member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman
Broomfield of Michigan, who has recently decided to cosponsor this legislation.

“Because public interest is so high, I am writing you to request your cooperation in

moving this resolution out of committee as soon as possible. I feel my bill is both urgent
and timely. Therefore we should act quickly on it before the end of this session of
Congress. I will be looking forward to hearing from you soon.”

In the publication “Citizen,” on June 28, 1984, Father Franciszek Woloszyk again issued
one of his touching appeals calling on everyone in the Polish-American community to
send letters to the White House, Senators, and members of the House of Representatives.

I had since anonymously received a copy of a letter to the Baltic American Freedom
League from Jonas Urbonas, Chairman, Public Affairs Council, of the Lithuanian
American Community of the U.S.A., Inc. In the 4-page letter dated March 2, 1984,
Urbonas asked the Estonian, and Latvian representatives of the coalition to work against
the Renounce Yalta campaign. The letter mentioned that various atrocities were
committed by Poland against Lithuania prior to World War II, and stated: “Lithuanian,
Byelorussian, and Ukrainian peoples are engaged in a protracted and difficult struggle to
regain their freedom and independence, not to revert to the situation they have
experienced forty-five years ago during the Polish occupation of Vilnius and Polish rule
of Western Byelorussia and Western Ukraine. Their desires and aspirations do not
include an exchange of an alien Soviet rule for just as alien Polish one.”

I was greatly disappointed with this letter for several reasons. Urbonas was not only
mistaken about a future free Poland’s intentions as pertaining to Lithuania, but he and the
Lithuanian-American Community were quietly working to defeat an action that was
intended to benefit Lithuania, and all the captive nations of the region, as much as
Poland. While the Lithuanian-American Community of the U.S.A. Inc. was a small
organization, I knew that U.S. leaders against the renunciation of Yalta in Washington
D.C. would appreciate being able to say that there are captive nation Americans who are
also against the Renounce Yalta resolutions. And rather than first approach us about his
reservations, Urbonas was seeking the support of other ethnic groups to take a stand
against the Renounce Yalta campaign with a position that I did not think even represented
the majority of Lithuanian-Americans. I also noticed that Juozas Kojelis, the father of the
Associate Director for the Office of Public Liaison Linas Kojelis, was a part of this
organization.

In late June I invited Juozas Kojelis, the father of the White House Associate Director,
Office of Public Liaison Linas Kojelis, and dynamic Lithuanian-American leader Tony
Mazeika, to the house for dinner. Both were active in the local Lithuanian-American
Community of the U.S.A., Inc., which was a member of the Baltic-American Freedom
League Coalition. They seemed very honest in admitting that their organization was
against the Yalta action out of concern for their borders, which were established at Yalta,
and that they tried to convince the Baltic American Freedom League to take the same
position but were rejected by the Estonians and Latvians.

I told them that while I could understand raising the same concerns that some Poles were
expressing about future German intentions, as pertaining to Poland’s western borders,
hopefully one thing that all of us have learned during the past 40 years was that status
quo borders must be maintained to achieve a lasting peace. I advised of the need to trust
each other when it comes to this, because otherwise we were detracting from each other’s
chance of attaining freedom. I explained that there should be no reason for concern
because the vast majority of Polish-Americans and, more importantly, the people in
Poland, have no intention of ever questioning existing borders.

I advised that the very small minority of those who still believe that borders need to be
changed were older people who were gradually fading away. I told them that we as
POMOST are certainly for maintaining current borders. Being certain this position
represents the will of the people, I advised that we would be willing to issue such a
statement on our behalf, but prefer to work this in at an opportune time with the Polish-
American community. Juozas Kojelis and Tony Mazeika expressed the hope that we
could do this with a big meeting, and much publicity, as well as eventually forming a
tight coalition, but made it clear that we should not feel rushed.

I thought about how sad it would be if any action for freedom of Captive Nations suffered
in the slightest, and delayed the day when these countries would be free, due to a false
perception of each others intentions after freedom is attained.

Thus after discussing the matter within POMOST internally, I sent the following letter on
June 29, 1984, to the Chairman of the Public Affairs Council for the Lithuanian
American Community of USA:

“Dear Mr. Urbonas,

“A few days ago I had the pleasure of seeing Mr. Juozas Kojelis and Tony Mazeika to
discuss matters that are of concern to you and the Lithuanian Community. I wish to
advise you that Pomost fully agrees with and supports your position as do the vast
majority of Poles around the world, including in Poland.
“Action Renounce Yalta was never intended to question Lithuanian or Ukrainian borders
nor do we believe that it does in practice or in theory. We believe that using Yalta is the
best way of applying pressure to change “status quo mentality” for the benefit of all
Captive nations and that is why we are so deeply involved in this action.

“While I know that there is no reason for concern on your part I can certainly understand
the reasons for it. That is why we intend to prove where we stand, with deeds, in the
coming months. We will do this even if you do not support, or work against, Action
Renounce Yalta.

“I look forward to continuing our dialogue and expanding it to the Ukrainian community
as well. We all need to do our share in establishing a firm, tight, alliance based on trust
and cooperation among our people. We need to break with the past and look to the future
to prepare for the future liberation of our former homelands. This is not to say that the
past should be forgotten for which we as Pomost, closely associated with Solidarity in
Poland, ask for forgiveness.”

Attacks against Action Renounce Yalta by the communist press in Poland continued with
an article written by Andrzej Bujnicki published in the June 30, July 1st, 1984 edition of
“Glos Wybrzeza.”

Stalin and Hitler along with the words “RENOUNCE YALTA,” appeared on the July
cover of “Chronicles Of Culture,” published in Rockford, Illinois. Under pages marked as
editorial commentary, Editor-In-Chief Leopold Tyrmand presented his case on how the
moral surrender that contaminated Western history can be traced back to Yalta. In a much
longer and more detailed article, Professor J.K Zawodny documented how President
Roosevelt lied to Polish leaders and the American Congress, about his clear betrayal of
the Polish people. With regard to arguments that Roosevelt “meant well” at Teheran and
Yalta, Zawodny wrote:

“These arguments defy logic. Neither Roosevelt nor Churchill had any right to grant the
Soviet Union 40 percent of the Polish territory and to change her frontiers, nor to change
the Polish Government, nor to impose Soviet tutelage over the Polish election. They dealt
directly with Stalin on all four issues. In making these decisions they bypassed the legal
Polish Government-In-Exile. This was betrayal of an ally, and the heart of the problem.”

While many Poles condemned Yalta for decisions made pertaining to Poland’s Eastern
borders, without Polish representation, there were, indeed, very few who were prepared,
or desired, to question those borders now. Copies of the excellent Renounce Yalta articles
written in the July “Chronicles of Culture” by Editor Leopold Tyrmand and Professor
Zawodny, were sent to several leaders in Washington D.C.

The first 30 pages of the July issue of “Listy Do Polakow” [Letters To Poles] were
dedicated to Yalta and the need to struggle on without making any concessions. Yalta
was a terrible agreement and needs to be renounced, the magazine stated. The
“Polonian,” published in San Francisco, gave good coverage of the demonstration held in
that city on June 24th. Two hundred fifty people, representing 14 different nationalities,
attended. The Romanian “New York City Spector,” as well as the TPE Newsletter
(published by The American Society For The Defense Of Tradition, Family & Property)
also became involved with the Renounce Yalta campaign.

Pomost issued additional appeals to keep on sending letters to Washington, D.C. A steady
stream of requests for petitions, and suggested draft letters, were still being received.
Signatures were being collected on such occasions as the Czechoslovak-American
Festival in Wyandotte, Michigan.

On July 8th, 1984, the Denver Rocky Mountain News published our long letter under a
headline stating: “U.S. should renounce 1945 Yalta agreement.”

One very long and critical article about our action appeared in the July 11th, 1984, issue of
“Nowy Dziennik.” Author Wojciech Wasiutynski stated that renouncing Yalta, if it were
realistic, would mean rescinding all borders and governments set up by the superpowers
since 1944. He stated that this would make sense only as a step towards declaring war.
The article went on to state that renouncing Yalta would result in big economical losses
for the West, and would free the Russians of all brakes in carrying out acts of diversion in
the West and repression in the East.

Wasiutynski wrote that those demanding the renunciation of Yalta were kids making
noise in their own backyard. To start something realistic, he stated, the opposite demand
should be made – for the United States to press for carrying out Yalta.

Wierzbianski, the Publisher and Editor of Nowy Dziennik, gave me an opportunity to

respond but, being that my letter was written in English, it was published in Nowy
Dziennik’s English monthly “New Horizon” [August, 1984 edition]. My letter expressed
that Mr. Wasiutynski was exaggerating the implications and possible effects of the
symbolic action to renounce Yalta. It also questioned why we would want to use a
cynical, immoral, and illegal agreement as a base for demanding free elections, especially
while so many positive documents, the most basic of international laws, and even the
present Polish [communist] constitution, guaranteed this right.

On July 12th, 1984, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Dante Fascell,
responded to Corcoran’s last letter by stating:

“As you have pointed out in your letter, American citizens of Central and East European
descent have expressed strong interest in this legislation. Support, as well as opposition,
to this measure has been voiced by various groups representing these American citizens.

“H.J. Res. 435 had been referred to the Subcommittees on International Security and
Scientific Affairs on Europe and the Middle East for appropriate consideration. In
addition, comments have been received from the Reagan Administration. Those
comments express opposition to the resolution and point out that….”

“…As such, the outcome of Committee consideration on H.J. Res. 435 is uncertain.
Nonetheless, I will keep your interest in mind.”

Questioning the above statement about letters of opposition to the resolution being
received, I first called the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. A staff member admitted
to receiving an “enormous” amount of mail in support of the legislation and added that
there is a “fair” amount of support in the Congress itself. When calling the House Foreign
Affairs Committee on July 13th, 1984, I spoke with a gentleman who also stated: “There
is an enormous amount of mail coming in supporting H.J. Res. 435. From the standpoint
of grass roots support you couldn’t ask for anything more.” He suggested that I call back
Monday, July 16th, to speak with a John Brady about the chances of hearings.

I called Brady, who was extremely negative to the legislation. He told me that the
resolution would not accomplish anything, and that Tom Corcoran “doesn’t give a damn
about Poland.” He said that the resolution was just used as an attempt to win an election.
I advised that Corcoran introduced the resolution because we asked him to do so.

I suggested to Brady that even if the legislation will not accomplish anything, why not let
it pass, if only because the people of Central and Eastern Europe, as well as Captive
Nation Americans, desire this. Brady advised that he was Polish, that he had visited
Poland, and that he does not get that impression. I advised that I had spent a total of 5
years in Poland, and could assure him that this is definitely the case. I told Brady that
POMOST is closely associated with the Solidarity Movement, that leading opposition
leaders in Poland support this action, as for example Adam Michnik who smuggled an
article out of jail expressing such support. I told him that Walesa was planning to raise
the issue of Yalta during his planned trip to Washington a few years ago. Brady was also
informed that numerous people at POMOST would not be spending 8 or more hours per
day of free time after work, and their own money, on a project that the people of Poland,
and Polish-Americans, did not support.

When advising of all the support behind this action, Brady responded by saying:
“Between two Poles, you can collect signatures until your faces turn blue, but what about
cosponsors?” Indeed Ron Paul of Texas became only our 15th cosponsor in the House of
Representatives, and we still only had 6 cosponsors in the Senate.

At another point Brady stated that we should have carried out this action through
Mazewski. It became clear to me at this point that the Polish American Congress was
undermining our efforts here. I asked Brady if he could set up a meeting for me to see
Fascell but he was not willing to be of any help. With his disposition, I did not bother to
ask if there were many letters in opposition to the legislation. I knew that there could not
have been many compared to letters of support for the resolution, as only one captive
nation group – The Lithuanian American Community of the U.S.A., Inc – was actively
working against the resolution. I knew that they, and any other excuse possible, however,
would be used in an effort to kill our efforts.

I informed the Corcoran office about the above exchange with Brady hoping that the
comments made about Tom would mobilize him to take the matter up with Fascell
directly. By this time his Executive Assistant Jackie Davis had been accepted for a job at
the State Department, and Corcoran seemed concerned about finding a job for himself as
well. I was told that he had lunch with Linas Kojelis about possibly getting a job at the
White House.

Time was running out for this session of Congress and things were not looking good until
July 19th, 1984, when a Captive Nations Press Conference, in connection with Captive
Nations Week, was held at the Federal Dirkson Building in Chicago. Senator Charles
Percy was in attendance. David Wilke, James Zmuda, and Andrzej Jarmakowski
represented POMOST.

Polish-American Congress President Al Mazewski gave a speech which mainly focused

on Yalta. On this occasion he again basically maintained the U.S. administration position
that Yalta was a good agreement, except that it was not carried out by the Soviets. He
again appealed for a committee to study the agreement in terms of how it was carried out.

James Zmuda had an opportunity to address the meeting and strongly emphasized that the
Yalta agreement took place behind the backs of the nations whose fate was being
determined. He referred to Professor Zawodny’s article appearing in “Chronicles of
Culture,” which stated that President Roosevelt did not inform the American people
about the contents and true meaning of the agreement. Zmuda then turned to Senator
Charles Percy and firmly asked what will be the fate of the proposed Renounce Yalta
resolution presented by Senator Robert Kasten, which was sitting in his committee?
Before approximately 300 people, Zmuda stated that we are waiting for this resolution to
be passed on for a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

The Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Charles Percy responded by
saying that a vote on the resolution pertaining to Yalta was just a question of time,
implying that it would take place soon. He later confirmed this position during a private
conversation with Dave Wilke.

On July 22nd, 1984, during a report from Poland shown on the nationwide CBS Evening
News, Warsaw reporter John Sheahan ended his story by saying: “After 40 years of
communism, the Polish people remain the most religious and least communist in the
Soviet bloc. And though they are also the most pro-Western, they have never forgiven
Roosevelt and Churchill for giving their country away to the Russians at Yalta.” A letter
was sent to John Brady, at the House Foreign Affairs Committee, advising him of this.

Also on July 22nd, in a story received from Times Wire Services, the LA Times (and no
doubt many other papers around the country) reported from Poland on the arrival of a
Soviet delegation to take part in ceremonies marking the 40th anniversary of the “Lublin
Committee.” This so-called committee of Moscow-backed Polish communists was set up
as the government of Poland in 1944, and recognized at Yalta.

The report quoted Russian Premier Nikolai Tikhonov as stating that opponents of the
Communist system were…“mounting an unprecedented large-scale ideological
aggression and making every effort to wrest Poland from its true friends and allies.”
The article informed readers that Tikhonov said the Warsaw Pact, and Comecon, wanted
a return to détente, adding that this did not mean tolerating a challenge to post-war
realities.

During this time discussions were taking place over what, if any, additional sanctions
should be lifted by the United States in view of the more than 600 political prisoners
released by the Jaruzelski regime. POMOST urged President Reagan to still retain the
most important of the sanctions that were imposed on communist Poland following the
“State of War” crackdown in 1981. “We first want to see if the regime fully honors
human rights; permits freed political prisoners the right to address political issues, and
permits a dialogue between itself and the legitimate representatives of workers and
professional associations,” stated POMOST leader Krzysztof Rac.

One could now find yet more articles pertaining to Yalta in the major U.S. mass media,
such as an editorial appearing in the July 24, 1984, issue of The Wall Street Journal.
Questioning West German policy towards the communist world in terms of Yalta, the
Wall Street Journal wrote:

“It can be plausibly argued that greater political instability in the East Bloc would be
dangerous for Europe. But if West Germany is bribing East Germans to accept
communist rule and not make waves, it is merely submitting to communist blackmail:
Help us maintain order or there’ll be hell to pay. Bonn might want to ask itself at some
time whether it is willing to wait another 40 years and lend billions more in search of
improvement, or whether it might be worthwhile to risk a tougher approach, just to see
what happens.”

On July 28th, 1984, I sent a letter to Zbigniew Brzezinski asking him to publicly renew his
call to renounce Yalta. In a letter dated July 30th, 1984, Brzezinski responded by stating
that… “At an appropriate point, closer to the anniversary, I do intend to take a public
position on the matter…” Brzezinski also forwarded his suggested approach to Yalta, as
expressed during an international conference, “Contemporary Poland in Historical
Perspectives,” held at Yale University on May 23-25, 1984. It read as follows:

“I think the issue of Yalta is clearly important politically, and symbolically, but it is also
a very complicated issue. For one thing, Yalta, with its many negative attributes also
involves the sanction for the present frontiers of Poland on the Oder-Neisse. If the United
States were to disassociate itself from Yalta in some fashion, it ought to at the same time
reaffirm its recognition of these frontiers, particularly as legitimized by the Helsinki
Accords which were designated to provide reassurance to the East Europeans, while at
the same time establishing a legal sanction for Western concern with civic, political, and
human rights of the East. I think that at some moment, and I said this myself right after
the imposition of martial law, it would be appropriate for the United States to indicate in
some form, through some statement, that it does not view the division of Europe, which is
seen in a general sense as a legacy of Yalta as improper, as something which has to be
rectified, as something that the United States seeks to undo. A statement of that sort, I
think, will be a useful reaffirmation of our commitment to the shaping of a Europe which
gives the East Europeans far greater opportunity for self-expression. Anything more than
that will be very difficult to structure because it was not a treaty, it really has no binding
force in a legal sense today, it was not ratified by the Senate. It was an executive
understanding, which wasn’t even labeled as an agreement. It was, in effect, a political
statement representing a certain misleading consensus, which existed among the great
powers of the time. We are dealing in effect with a historical legacy that we ought to
disassociate ourselves but making it very clear at the same time that this disassociation
does not reopen the question of territory, because if we were to leave that issue
ambiguous you can be certain that the Soviets, the communist government in Poland and
the others would exploit it to argue that the closest subordination of Poland to the Soviet
Union is necessary to preserve and to protect the territorial status quo. Hence, it is on this
general historical, symbolic level that I think we should renounce Yalta but be very clear
as to how we do it.”

While Brzezinski’s position pertaining to Yalta was different than ours, he had the ability
to raise the issue in the public media on his own. We did not expect of him to address the
issue from an aggressive ethnic point of view, even if he agreed with our position (which
I do not believe was ever the case). Brzezinski had an important position of authority
among American society to protect as a result of his stature, while POMOST’s political
role was to serve as a lobby for rather specific narrow interests. We, as activists, could
afford to be dreamers and call for the seemingly impossible on behalf of captive nations.
Thus it was our hope that the benefits of Brzezinski raising the issue of Yalta, such as
opening it up to much broader public debate, would far out weigh the negative
consequences for us at POMOST in hearing Brzezinski promote an approach that was
different than ours.

In response to an article appearing in U.S. News & World Report we had the following
letter printed in the July 30, 1984, issue of this major national weekly:

“Your article on “Growing Voter Blocs Flex Their Muscles” [July 16] did not mention
one of the largest and fastest growing voter blocs in the country- the American captive-
nation community. Polish Americans alone include as many as 8 million people of voting
age. Together with Cuban, Czechoslovak, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian,
Romanian, Russian, Ukrainian and other captive-nation Americans, these ethnic groups
are pursuing freedom for their former homelands perhaps more aggressively than ever
before. The present joint, massive effort to pass legislation in the U.S. Congress that
would renounce the 1945 Yalta executive agreement stands out as a primary example of
this ethnic political power.”

A few days after James Zmuda obtained a public commitment from Charles Percy, I
received a call from Senator Kasten’s office. Mac Owens told me that he nearly fell off
his seat when approached by the Percy people to negotiate the Renounce Yalta resolution.
On July 31, 1984, Percy also finally responded to my letter as follows:

“I was most pleased to receive your May 10 letter offering to work with me to achieve a
Yalta Resolution broadly acceptable to both the Renounce Yalta Committee and to a
majority of the Congress.

“Since receiving your reply, as you are aware, my staff has been trying to work out
broadly acceptable language. We are now in touch with Senator Kasten’s office on
specifics. I am hopeful we can achieve a result acceptable to all of us.

“I very much appreciate your willingness to work with me.”

The problem was that the resolution which was proposed by Percy’s people to Mac
Owens, that same day, neither renounced Yalta nor accepted any U.S. responsibility
whatsoever for American “mistakes” made at Yalta. It read as follows:

“A JOINT RESOLUTION TO RENOUNCE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE 1945

YALTA AGREEMENT
“Whereas, the Soviet Union violated the Yalta guarantee of free elections in the countries
involved, specifically the Yalta agreement commitment “to form interim
intergovernmental authorities broadly representative of all democratic elements in the
population and pledge to the earliest possible establishment to free elections of
government responsive to the wills of the people and to facilitate where necessary the
holdings of such elections.

“Whereas, millions of people around the world, especially those residing in Central and
Eastern Europe believe the 1945 Yalta executive agreement involved alleged United
States acquiescence in the enslavement of entire nations under a Soviet totalitarian
system of government;

“Whereas, the situation created in Central and Eastern Europe as a result of agreements,
such as the Yalta agreement, continues to be dramatically contested by its victims as for
example in East Berlin in 1953, Poznan 1956, Budapest in 1956, Prague in 1968, and
Poland in 1970 and again in 1980, 1981, 1982, and 1983;

“Whereas, it is appropriate for the United States, according to the principles on which this
nation was founded, to respect the desires and aspirations of all freedom loving people
around the world;

“Whereas, it is appropriate that the United States express the hope of the people of the
United States for the freedom of the people subjected to the captivity of despotism in
Central and Eastern Europe as well as elsewhere around the world;

“Whereas, it is appropriate for the United States to reject any interpretation or application
that, as a result of the signing of the 1945 Yalta executive agreement the United States
accepts the present position of the nations being held captive by the Soviet Union, now
therefore, be it

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of America in Congress

assembled, That the United States has never recognized any legitimate or exclusive
spheres of influence in Europe and that it affirms its refusal to recognize such spheres at
the present or in the future.

“The United States hereby expresses its solidarity with the peoples of Central and Eastern
Europe as well as around the world in their aspirations for freedom, self-determination,
and genuine independence.

“That the United States renounces the consequences of the Yalta agreement, violations of
the terms of the agreement resulting in the enslavement of millions of people in Central
and Eastern Europe.”

Senator Kasten’s aide Mac Owens was one person that I fully trusted. I again explained
the historical importance of what we were doing. I told him that besides Captive Nation
Americans, the underground in Poland was watching this action closely now, and we
could not let them down. I told him that it’s better not to have any resolution passed
rather than selling out the cause. I felt that Owens not only understand our cause, but also
felt our cause in his heart and soul. As the days went on he consulted with me about all
aspects of the negotiations, and asked for our approval before making any concessions. In
the meantime Percy continued to respond with letters that he was against S.J. Res. 226 to
those who asked for his support, while we kept calling for the renunciation of Yalta.
 REAGAN RESPONDS TO CONTINUING PRESSURE

August 10th, 1984, marked the start of “Festiwal Nad Rzeka” (Festival by the river)
organized in Detroit by a gentleman named Sobieraja. Invited to speak at the event was
Jan Rabs, the Polish Consul from the Polish communist consulate in Chicago. Those
representing the Polish communist regime were happy to speak anywhere they were
invited as there were very few such invitations extended. Angered by this invitation,
POMOST Detroit, as well as Polish Veterans of World War II, organized an effective
protest under the leadership of Dr. Janusz Subczynski. To register their disapproval of
fraternizing with representatives of the Soviet regime occupying Poland, leaflets were
distributed calling for the renunciation of Yalta. Above the crowd was a rented helicopter
pulling a large sign, which stated: “RENOUNCE YALTA.” As a result of the protest, the
official part of the festival was delayed by 40 minutes.

To mark the start of the Los Angeles Olympic Games, the Pomost Olympic Committee
launched its first banner on Friday, July 27th, 1984 which read: “SOLIDARNOSC,
POLAND’S MARATHON TO FREEDOM.” It was attached to a plane flying up and
down 50 miles of the California coast, from Santa Monica pier to Newport Beach.
Between the hours of 12:00 noon and 3:00 PM the plane flew over California’s most
popular beaches. After Sunday, July 29th, the plane was hired to fly the same course
during the next two weekends (August 4,5,11, and 12th). The plane would rotate three
different banners prepared for this occasion. Another banner, which was used, stated:
“USSR- OBSTACLE COURSE FOR POLISH OLYMPIANS.” And a third banner (my
favorite) stated: “SUPPORT SOLIDARNOSC- RENOUNCE YALTA.” Janusz
Szymanski was the head of the POMOST Olympic committee. He worked closely with
Adam and Hanna Tyszkiewicz to make this project a great success. Thanks to the money
raised by Adam and Hanna, millions would view the banners during each weekend of the
Olympics.

In addition, artist Jan Sawka presented POMOST with a painted poster to mark the Los
Angeles Olympic Games. It showed the word “Solidarnosc” resting in the Hollywood
hills. Hundreds of copies were made for posting throughout the Los Angeles area.
“Solidarnosc” bumper stickers were also printed and distributed by the hundreds. As the
Olympics went on, Szymanski thought of an even better idea.

Some 25 people began working on an enormous sign, which stated “SOLIDARNOSC

LIVES RENOUNCE YALTA.” It would take some 20 people just to hold various parts
of the sign. It was being prepared to hold in front of the large and famous “Hollywood”
sign, which could be seen from great distances, on August 12th, the morning of the final
day of the Olympics. At the same time a rented plane would fly with a banner stating the
same words over the “Hollywood” sign. And finally, helium filled balloons with
“Solidarnosc” printed on them would be released from cars.

Many hours of work were put into creating the sign at the home of Janusz Szymanski.
Szymanski also scouted the terrain around the “Hollywood” sign to develop a plan on
how to reach the area without being noticed. We knew that this was an illegal act, but the
plan was to discreetly carry the sign (in parts) over a hilly terrain under cover of night.
For this action to succeed we needed the press to cover the event. At least some of the
press would virtually always attend our press conferences, but there was never any
guarantee that this would occur. There would also be a limited amount of time that we
would have to keep the sign up before the group, made up largely of former
“Solidarnosc” members from Poland, would be forced to take it down, and possibly be
arrested. To hopefully get the press, and have the sign in place at the right time, we
notified the media of an August 12th 1984, 9:00 AM press conference at the Los Angeles
Press Club, which was not far from the Hollywood sign. In our press release we promised
“that Solidarity’s salute to the Games of the XXIII Olympiad will be most interesting, if
not spectacular.”

During the night of August 11th, 1984, the group made its way up the hill leading to the
Hollywood sign. Near the sign they took cover under a tree where they waited until
morning. Prior to 9:00 AM I met Stefan Sznajder at the Los Angeles press club who said
that everything seemed to be going fine. He was in touch with the group at the
Hollywood sign by means of a “walkie-talkie”. At 9:00 AM a few members of the press
arrived, including two camera crews from network affiliates. They were given copies of
the following statement:

“STATEMENT OF AUGUST 12, 1984 PRESENTED ON BEHALF OF

SOLIDARNOSC AND THE PEOPLE OF POLAND
“Everyone should be well aware that athletes from Poland, and other captive nations,
were prevented from attending the 1984, Los Angeles Olympic Games by Soviet
leaders in the Kremlin. Polish athletes, for example, did not hesitate in stating
publicly that they wanted to attend, and that reasons given for boycotting the Games
were completely absurd. Unfortunately, however, once again the dictators of Soviet
Russia imposed their force over the will of their people, and those of other countries,
which they control.

“We know that Polish athletes, and the people of Poland, are in complete solidarity with
the Games of the XXIII Olympiad. We also know that Poles are in solidarity with the
American people, and with a strong, free, and independent United States of America,
which they helped in building prior to, during, and after the revolutionary war.

“Unfortunately the athletes from Poland, and other captive nations, cannot be here to
congratulate Los Angeles on holding these very successful Games, which are rapidly
coming to an end. The Warsaw puppet government may have been able to prevent
Poles from attending the 1984 Olympics but this regime never has, and never will be
able to kill the spirit of solidarity and goodwill among people in Poland and around
the world. In fact the spirit of Solidarnosc has also been with us here in Los Angeles
throughout the entire Olympic Games. As evidence of this we can point to the signs
flown by planes up and down the Southern California coastline which read:
“Solidarnosc, Poland’s Marathon To Freedom,” “USSR Obstacle Course For Polish
Olympians,” and “Support Solidarnosc, Renounce Yalta”.

“Today, the spirit of Solidarnosc bids farewell to the 1984 Olympic Games from the
Hollywood sign overlooking Los Angeles. This spirit also calls on the American
people not to forget Solidarnosc in Poland, and to renounce the spirit of Yalta, which
is responsible for the enslavement of Poland and other captive nations since 1945.”

After the press conference we all drove to the “Hollywood” sign arriving shortly after
9:30 AM, at which time our sign was to go up. There were numerous police cars driving
back and forth around the foot of the long hill leading up to the “Hollywood” sign. There
were a few policemen speaking with supporting members at the bottom of the hill. I
joined in the conversation and, as planned, told them that we had a permit from the city to
hold up the sign. I told them that Alfred Znamierowski, from San Diego, had the permit
and I could not understand why he had not yet arrived. An officer said that such permits
are not given, and after checking on this occasion they were told that no such permit was
given. I asked the officer to give us an hour to find Znamierowski. If not found, within an
hour, we would take down the sign. After some further negotiations filmed by one of the
camera crews, we were given 30 minutes to find Znamierowski, as I recall. If not found,
and if our people came down, there would be no arrests.

I left in my car looking for Stefan Sznajder, my POMOST partner in Los Angeles from
the time we set up this division of the organization. Upon reaching him I broke into pro-
longed laughter rejoicing about the success of this action. Via walkie-talkie I spoke with
Dyzio Rewicki in Polish, one of the Solidarnosc members holding a part of the sign.
“You look beautiful up there, we pulled it off…” During this time I kept laughing and
laughing about how we fooled the police. Those carrying out the action were not in a
joking mood, however, as the sign was heavy, and the strong sun shining upon them
made it very difficult to hold. From time to time, up above the “Hollywood” sign, the
plane flying our banner passed by. From 6 or 7 cars the helium balloons were released.
The camera crews kept filming. Either “Radio Free Europe” or “Voice of America” was
also there, thus we knew that news of the event would quickly reach Poland. Dyzio stated
that the people holding the sign could not last much longer. I pleaded with them to last
until the police gave orders to take the sign down, so that we could show our cooperation
with them.

I drove back to meet again with the police officer, with whom I had the initial
conversation and agreement. After the allowed time had elapsed to look for Alfred, I rode
together with the officer along a very narrow road to reach an area above the sign from
where it would be possible to speak with those holding the sign. An officer had done this
previously but the group holding the sign said that they did not speak English. We knew
about this narrow road, which passed a gate that we initially planned to put a lock on.
When reaching the area above the “Hollywood” sign, those holding our sign had already
left. In the meantime I was having a very pleasant conversation with the police officer.

Upon driving back down the narrow winding road we came to a stop when reaching
another police car that was driving up the hill. The police officer in the other car said:
“we need to arrest these people.” The police officer driving the car I was in responded by
saying: “They are really nice people and I told them, in front of cameras, that if they
cooperated there would be no arrests.” The other policeman then stated: “But you did not
hear what they said over the walkie-talkie about us.” Apparently the officers had found
someone who spoke Polish to translate our apparently monitored conversation over the
“walkie talkie.”

Adam and Hanna Tyszkiewicz arrived at the bottom of the hill with cash to bail anyone
out of jail who would be arrested. There were no arrests, however, and we simply
rejoiced some more about the success of the action before parting. Information about the
event was the first story on the television news in Los Angeles that evening (on at least
one major station). United Press International also reported on the event, thus news of it
quickly spread to various parts of the country. I was told that when news of what had
taken place was transmitted to the Olympic press center, a cheer was heard from those
representing “Radio Free Europe.” Thus while President Reagan attended the closing
ceremonies of the Olympic games at the stadium, another call to renounce Yalta was
made nearby.

In the state of Ohio, David Domzalski continued obtaining resolutions and proclamations
from various cities calling for the renunciation of Yalta. On August 15th, the Village of
Boston Heights proclaimed its full support for H.J. Res. 435. Domzalski obtained such
support from approximately 10 cities.

In a letter dated August 15th, 1984, the Chairman of the Public Affairs Council,
Lithuanian American Community of the U.S.A., Inc. Jonas Urbonas expressed his
concern that the abrogation of Yalta by the United States would reopen the question of
frontiers between Poland on one side and Lithuania, Byelorussia, and Ukraine on the
other. He stated that the proposal to abrogate Yalta would be acceptable if the resolutions
would be modified, or new resolutions substituted, so that they would reaffirm legitimacy
and continued recognition of present boundaries between Poland and Lithuania,
Byelorussia and Ukraine. He advised that Mr. Algimantas Gureckas, was designated to
represent the organization in discussions on Yalta and Lithuanian-Polish relations in
general.

There was no question in our minds, at POMOST, that changing existing borders would
not become an issue when freedom returned to the area, at least in the case of Poland. We
knew that it could not become an issue if the region was ever to enjoy true peace and
stability. We were prepared to state this position, fight for it if need be, lose the support
of very few people who thought otherwise, but we did not want it included it in our
resolution for several reasons:

A) It would imply agreement with parts of Yalta, while our position was that this
agreement had no validity

B) We did not want to complicate negotiations on the current resolution between

Kasten’s Office, and Percy’s Office

C) We did not want to take a chance on antagonizing the Romanian, or Hungarian

communities, if not others, which perhaps would have objections to accepting
status quo borders

D) We did not want to take the responsibility of changing the resolution to this
degree without first making sure that all the various ethnic groups and
organizations which had collected signatures had no objections, for which there
was not time.

E) We did not want to pretend that we speak for, and are making decisions on behalf
of a future free Poland

F) We did not want to lose any support for the action, with our priority being that we
must focus on setting these nations free before becoming concerned about
borders, which undoubtedly would not be contested

The problem of dealing with the above issue was overshadowed by perhaps the most
important event to this date, related to the Renounce Yalta campaign.

President Reagan addressed a gathering of Polish-American leaders invited to the White

House on August 17, 1984. During the luncheon commemorating the 40th anniversary of
the Warsaw Uprising, President Reagan gave a speech honoring Poland’s struggle for
freedom then and now. It was a rather strong and touching speech during which the
President said: “Of those who fought for freedom, and those who put their lives on the
line for human liberty, I can think of none who should be prouder than those who can
say, “I fought in the Polish Home Army”. During the event, three World War II Polish
Generals who died in battle or under suspicious circumstances in Moscow (Stefan
Rowecski, Tadeusz Bor-Komorowski, and Leopold Okulicki), were honored as heroes by
being given the Legion of Merit, the highest military award that can be given to a foreign
national.
After presenting the Legion of Merit to the families or representatives of the above three
generals, the President went on to say:

“If there’s a lesson to be learned from the history books, it is that Poland may be beaten
down, but it is never defeated. It may be forced into submission, but it will never give up.
It may be pressured to acquiesce, but it will never accept foreign domination and the
suppression of God-given freedom. After two decades of brutal foreign domination, we
witnessed, just a short time ago, a resurrection of the indomitable spirit of the Polish
people. And I assure you we have not forgotten and will never forget Solidarity and the
freedom of the Polish people.

“There are some, of course, who seem all too willing to turn a blind eye to Soviet
transgressions, ostensibly to improve the dialogue between East and West. But those who
condemn firm support for freedom and democracy - who, in order to prove their sincerity,
would project weakness- are no friends of peace, human liberty or meaningful dialogue.
Our policies toward Poland and other captive nations are based upon a set of well-
established principles. First, let me state emphatically that we reject any interpretation of
the Yalta Agreement that suggests American consent for the division of Europe into
spheres of influence.

“On the contrary, we see that agreement as a pledge by the three great powers to restore
full independence and to allow free and democratic elections in all countries liberated
from the Nazis after World War II, and there is no reason to absolve the Soviet Union or
ourselves from this commitment.

“We shall continue to press for full compliance with it, and with the Charter of the United
Nations, the Helsinki Final Act, and other international agreements guaranteeing
fundamental human rights.

“Passively accepting the permanent subjugation of the people of Eastern Europe is not an
acceptable alternative. In 1981 when it appeared that Poland would suffer a similar fate to
that of Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968, we raised our voices in support of
the Polish people. And we did not remain passive when under intense Soviet pressure
martial law was imposed on them.

“Many credit, trade, and fishing privileges extended to Poland due to its somewhat
broader degree of freedom than other Eastern European countries were suspended. At the
same time, we have assisted voluntary organizations to provide humanitarian aid through
the Polish church to avoid hurting the very people we want to help.”

The President’s speech went on to mention the U.S. plan for the lifting of sanctions, one
by one, in response to meaningful improvement of human rights. He spoke of U.S. help
to fund a Polish church program to assist individual farmers, modernization of “Radio
Free Europe,” “Radio Liberty,” and the “Voice of America.” He also mentioned The
National Endowment for Democracy program established to encourage democratic forces
throughout the world.

At one point Reagan said:

“The free peoples of the world are in ideological competition with the followers of a
doctrine that rejects the basic tenets of freedom and declares the worship of God to be a
social evil. As important as this competition is, until recently, the democracies, including
the United States seemed paralyzed by uncertainty and lacking the will to compete.

“In the last three and a half years, we’ve quit apologizing, and at long last, we’re standing
up and being counted. As our United Nations Ambassador, Jeane Kirkpatrick, said, we’ve
taken off our “Kick me” sign.

“We’re proud of our way of life; we’re confident that freedom will prevail because it
works and because it is right. We believe the free peoples of the world should support all
those who share our democratic values…”

On behalf of former underground Home Army soldiers, Mr. Dziekonski thanked the
President for numerous things said, including his “understanding of Yalta.” There was the
usual singing of “Sto Lat” [May he live to be one hundred years], and other expressions
of complete appreciation for the President’s speech.

Assuming that Reagan’s speech, delivered during an election year and during a time of
friction with the Soviet Union, was completely sincere, how could one be sure that a
strongly stated commitment would be maintained throughout the future? How could one
be sure that President Reagan would be firm on demanding freedom for Poland during a
second term, during perhaps another period of détente, during a time of negotiating the
arms race or wishing to gain some other important concession from the Soviets? How
could one be sure that the State Department might not advise taking a weak position
during such moments and that this President, or any other, would not accept such advise?
How could we be sure that at no point would the stated interest in Poland’s freedom ever
be compromised again?

For various reasons, via various means, a strong U.S. commitment for freedom of captive
nations was compromised, or at least overlooked, during many of the past 40 years.
Rarely, if ever, during the past 40 years was there ever a gathering of Polish-Americans
with a President that did not end up with praise, the singing of “Sto Lat”, the expression
of thanks for whatever kind words were said. It seemed as though the complete
confidence of Polish-American leadership could always be gained in exchange for a
meeting, a hand- shake, and a good speech. It seemed as though Polish-American
leadership was always satisfied and never asked for anything more, at least not publicly,
and never in a forceful manner. It seemed as though many Polish-Americans, especially
immigrants, considered it anti-American to call for more support, and issue demands.

I did not wish to criticize Reagan, but I knew there was always more that could be done.
When Reagan asked all Americans to light candles in their window when the “State of
War” was declared in Poland, we thanked the President during television interviews but
some of us at POMOST said that we need to do more than show symbolic gestures of
support. When sanctions were imposed on the Polish communist regime some of us
stated that we could do more by imposing some sanctions against the root of the problem
as well - the Soviet Union. The U.S. could have told the Soviets that; “If you don’t allow
the people of Poland to choose their own destiny we will double our assistance to
Afghanistan.” The President could have written weekly letters to the Kremlin stating that
he is under constant pressure to demand the implementation of free elections in Poland.
The fate of Poland and other captive nations could have been tied into arms negotiations.

This is not to say that the above initiatives, nor hundreds of other possible initiatives,
should have been all carried out. This is not to say that the Polish-American community
should have realistically expected U.S. foreign policy to revolve around freedom for
Poland. The point is, however, that it was the Polish-American community’s obligation to
point out that more could be done for a free Poland, and that this was what we desired.
Whose obligation was it to get this issue as high up as possible on America’s list of
priorities, against numerous competing lobbies of domestic and international concern?

Among the great benefits of living in a democracy such as the United States, and what
keeps it strong, is the freedom for everyone to express their desires and present their list
of priorities to the U.S. Government against numerous competing interests. Action
renounce Yalta called for the utmost in U.S. commitment towards freedom in Poland. It
said to the U.S. Government: “You are not just responsible for supporting Poland’s quest
to regain freedom. You are partly responsible for gaining Poland’s freedom because you
are partly responsible for Poland’s loss of freedom.”

Thus I wondered if the Polish Veteran of World War II, who responded to President
Reagan’s comments at the White House, really believed that Yalta was a “good”
agreement as Reagan implied. If not, why would a man of courage be afraid to condemn
an Agreement that was responsible for the death and suffering of millions while standing
in a free country, even if it contradicted the President of the United States at a difficult
moment? Contradicting the President’s interpretation of Yalta, at that moment, would
have made news around the world and accomplished more than what hundreds in the
United States were working towards for a few years. Why would a man praise the
President for his understanding of Yalta rather than at least omit this topic in his “thank
you” remarks? Why would Polish-American leaders applaud after hearing the President’s
incorrect interpretation of Yalta?

By bending to a false interpretation of Yalta to contradict the legitimate grass root calls of
the Captive Nation community, and the Polish Underground now struggling for freedom,
I could not understand the purpose of being involved in the Polish cause. If one were just
prepared to follow a U.S. President and promote his views, why would they simply not
join the Reagan re-election committee?

Three Pomost leaders were invited to the above event. Pomost Executive Committee
Coordinator Krzysztof Rac did give the President a “Sto Lat” car bumper sticker with a
Renounce Yalta label on the back, and was one of the few who did not applaud his
remarks pertaining to Yalta. As this was an event for Polish World War II veterans, it
would have been difficult to take a firmer stand in this situation. Organizers of the White
House affair knew better than to invite me for this occasion.

After contemplating all of the above I decided that even if there is something wrong with
my logic, and even if I was just a “radical” element of the Polish-American community,
there should be room for Action Renounce Yalta to continue among our ranks, along our
existing approach. There should be at least one action that continues to apply pressure on
the American political establishment to do more, while openly stating that enough is not
being done for our cause. There should be at least one voice that states we want freedom
for Poland, and we want it now. I was not a historian, professor, or politician to be
concerned about my reputation. I saw my role as simply being an activist who was
perhaps dreaming of the impossible while knowing that the seemingly impossible will
never come unless one dreams first.

Reagan’s speech, with reference to Yalta, made major headlines in the press throughout
the United States. A New York Times headline read “Yalta, After 4 Decades, Is Still a
Disputed Topic,” The July 19th, Chicago Tribune wrote their story on the President’s
speech under the headline: “Reagan rejects a Soviet “sphere.” Even in papers that did not
mention “Yalta” or “Spheres of Influence” in the headline, Reagan’s comments on Yalta
were included in virtually every article about the President’s meeting with the Polish
American community. National weekly magazines also wrote about the President’s
references to “Yalta.”

While Reagan was in fact defending Yalta as a good agreement, against the campaign to
renounce it, Moscow immediately condemned the President for “distorting history and
defaming both the Soviet Union and Poland,” as reported in The N.Y. Times and
virtually every major newspaper in the country on the following day. Articles printed in
major U.S. newspapers throughout the country on August 19th, and 20th, advised that
Tass, the Soviet news agency, was accusing Reagan of trying to “challenge the postwar
political setup in Europe.” The Tass reports stated that the President’s statements “strike
the same notes” as demands that were being made by some people in West Germany for a
reunification with East Germany.

During this time Moscow was also viewed as being nervous about East German leader
Erich Honecker visiting West Germany. The Soviet Union was also still upset over
President Reagan’s joke during a microphone test a few days earlier, when he said the
United States was about to bomb the Soviet Union. The Tass story went on to say that the
600,000 lives of Soviet soldiers used “to liberate Poland” did not matter to Reagan. And
that the President showed his true lack of concern for Poland “by grossly intervening and
continuing to intervene in the internal affairs of that sovereign state.”

On August 20, 1984, Public Affairs Council, of the Lithuanian American Community
Representative Algimantas Gureckas sent us a letter stating that after his communications
with KOS (Social Defense Committee) in Poland, his organization was prepared to
support our Renounce Yalta resolutions but wanted the existing “Curzon line” boundary
honored in our resolutions. Also, prior to giving active support, the Lithuanian
organization wanted us to clarify:

1) Why we were renouncing just Yalta as opposed to Teheran and Potsdam as well?

2) Concern that the action might contribute to an unintended rehabilitation of Nazi

Germany

3) Why absolve the Soviets from their obligation to facilitate free elections?

4) Why did we not include guerrilla wars of 1944-1952 & present resistance in the
Baltic countries and Ukraine in the resolution?
Along with his letter, Mr. Gureckas sent a portion of resolutions and declarations made
during the Sixth Lithuanian World Congress convened in Chicago on June 26-30, 1983,
as follows:

“II A.4. On the Yalta Agreements

“The Congress wishes the best success to the Polish workers in their struggle in defense
of their rights and to the whole Polish nation in its struggle for freedom and independence
of Poland.

“While the Polish workers and the whole Polish nation are engaged in a difficult and
complex struggle, certain Polish emigree circles and some groups in Poland raise the
question of restoration of the pre-war eastern boundaries of Poland and urge abrogation
of Yalta agreements which have determined the present eastern frontier of Poland. The
abrogation of Yalta agreements would result in recognition of Polish claims to Vilna and
large territories of Western Ukraine and Western Byelorussia.

“Yalta agreements have prescribed free elections in all countries liberated from the
German occupation. Eastern Europe came under the Soviet domination not because of the
Yalta agreements, but because the Soviets violated them. Yalta agreements did not deal
with Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia at all. Their fate was decided in Teheran, and
Lithuania Minor was assigned to the Soviets in Potsdam.

“The Congress upholds Lithuania’s rights to Vilna and endeavors to sustain good
relations with a friendly Ukrainian nation. Therefore, it rejects any proposals to abrogate
Yalta agreements. The Congress demands that the Soviets comply with these agreements
and that free elections be held in all East European countries.”

I began writing a long, detailed letter of response but wondered if perhaps this group, to
which the father of Associate Director for the Office of Public Liaison, Linas Kojelis
belonged, was not simply trying to kill the resolution on behalf of Linas Kojelis and the
White House.

Frankly, I was disappointed with this organization. Prior to working against a united
Captive Nation action that challenged status quo on behalf of the entire region, including
Lithuania, with many Lithuanians supporting the action, it would seem reasonable to first
check carefully into the purpose and intentions of our action. In their declaration they
made it sound as though the purpose of Action Renounce Yalta was to change borders.
The declaration dated June of 1983, states that “certain emigree circles and some groups
in Poland raise the question of restoration of the pre-war eastern boundaries….” Which
émigré circles and groups in Poland was this Lithuanian group referring to? I was not
aware of a single Polish group calling for a change in borders. And did this Lithuanian
organization think that we were renouncing Yalta because we did not want free elections
in Captive Nations?

I think this group did a great disservice to captive nations, including Lithuania, pertaining
to this action. This of course did not change my opinion of the courageous people of
Lithuania who deserved freedom and independence every bit as much as Poland and all
the captive nations of the world. And many Lithuanians, if not the majority, if not the
vast majority, supported our campaign.

On August 31, 1984, Leopold Tyrmand had his excellent article on Yalta published in the
Washington Times:

“Poison of surrender has infected us since Yalta

“In hindsight, we may claim, with a reasonable amount of certitude, that the Yalta
Agreement was accepted and approved because President Roosevelt succeeded in
convincing both the American people and the American establishment of that pact’s
beneficiality for America. Even those who then spoke of its moral speciousness came to
see in it some pragmatic advantage or American interest, or saw it as an exercise in
realpolitik.

“Four decades later, we know that Mr. Roosevelt’s intentions proved to be in error, his
reasoning a calamitous ineptitude, and his assurance a lie. History has disproved every
one of his assumptions and hopes. In retrospect, Yalta appears to be the first debacle – a
Dunkirk of sorts – in the subsequent showdown with forces of totalitarian tyranny that
inevitably followed in Hitler’s bloody footsteps, forces that are waging a ferocious
assault on our beliefs, our institutions, and our very existence.

“Yalta was a monumental concession to the stubborn Soviet demand that the postwar
world should not be ordered by the victors according to some superior political and
ethical principle, but structured on and divided into autonomous, impenetrable spheres of
influence. Accepting the Soviet postulate, Mr. Roosevelt fell into a trap: only the
autonomy of the Soviet sphere was assured to be hermetic by dint of the nature of
communist power. The a priori vulnerability of our sphere was a foregone conclusion, a
factor built into Soviet plans, the trump card of their calculations. Without Yalta, there
would have been neither a war in Korea nor in Vietnam.

“The peaceful coexistence between two contradictory socio-moral systems, especially

when violence constitutes the philosophical essence of one of them, is a futile endeavor.
A failure to recognize this was Mr. Roosevelt’s personal mistake. He chose to ignore that
Yalta neutralized America’s military superiority and freed the Soviets to use their might,
which at the time was inferior to ours, for a neo-imperialist drive.

“Our repugnance for any use of arms except in the defense of our own territory, or of our
citizens' legitimate interests overseas, foreclosed a firmer American response to Soviet
expansionism. Of course, we could not make war then because the very idea of war
against a putative ally would have been the gravest offense to our fundamental moral
sensibilities, to our very notion of integrity and honor – and they knew it. Nevertheless,
our choice and our decision, their inevitability and nobleness not withstanding, were a
cardinal error if only because those making the policy never seemed to suspect that our
implacable enemy would not have hesitated one second if he had a monopoly on the atom
bomb, and would perceive and capitalize upon the slightest chance of instantly making
the world safe for communism, Russian style.
“The postwar era of “peace” has sufficiently documented that whenever the Kremlin
sniffed the scantiest smell of our vincibility, it put its proxies in motion and triggered
wars – that is, the Soviets created those woes that Mr. Roosevelt hoped to eliminate
through the spheres-of-influence arrangement. Consequently, our vulnerability to the
threat of the ultimate solution became increasingly palpable. Now, our vacillations make
it look as if our demise is only a matter of time – and time and patience are weapons with
which a totalitarian state can arm itself at the lowest cost.

“Since 1945 we have amply demonstrated to the world (including their part of the
world) that though we are not perfect, we are a morally superior society and polity, better
suited to provide an example for mankind. The post-Yalta American reality, however,
makes it clear that our worst enemy is not perhaps even the Soviet Union and its
ideology, but our incertitude and self-doubt.

“All those among us who deny us the right to act as humanity’s best friend, all those who
fanatically insist that our commitment to decency and fairness and rationality and respect
for the law is actually an empty promise, and that we have no moral right to claim any
moral primacy over the Soviet crime of genocide, subjugations of entire nations, and
cruel abuses of entire societies, including their own, are a bleeding ulcer in our body.

“This subversion of faith in our own value, which is so meticulously documented by

history, is our worst disease, one which pushes us toward suicide. Its germ can be found
in the ideological climate of Yalta, in the act of moral surrender that contaminated our
history and made life for two generations more difficult than it should have been.”

On Monday, September 4th 1984, Labor Day, Reagan officially started his re-election
campaign for a 2nd term as President of the United States. His first speech would be given
at Mile Square Park in Fountain Valley, California, approximately 3 miles from my
home. For the occasion, POMOST and local Solidarity members prepared several very
large banners, including ones stating “RENOUNCE YALTA.” Some 60,000 people
converged on the park. We told security guards that “Renounce Yalta” was one of
Reagan’s favorite actions and he would be delighted to see the banners. They were only
concerned with the sticks that the banners were attached to, so we quickly began ripping
them off.

Upon entering the area partitioned off for the crowd to observe the president speak, we
split up into a few groups, each taking one of the signs. Janusz Szymanski nervously
looked around for a good spot to display the largest banner, which he was holding.
Without sticks to hold the banner it would not be very visible, and people immediately
behind the banner would complain that their view was blocked. There was only one hope.
In the center of the field, not very far from the speaker’s podium, there was a rather long
and large truck selling hot dogs and other food items. Szymanski convinced the driver to
allow him and a friend to climb on top of the truck for the purpose of displaying the
banner.

During the afternoon, Charlton Heston, Gene Autry, and other actors spoke on behalf of
Reagan. California Governor George Deukmejian, California Senator Pete Wilson, and
other state and national officials did the same. Finally, it was President Reagan’s turn to
speak as the crowd chanted: “four more years.” During the entire event, the most
prominent banner in the entire crowd stared each speaker in the face. Anyone looking at
the crowd from the podium could not miss seeing the very long, wide, and visible
“RENOUNCE YALTA” sign, measuring at least 5 meters in length and 1 meter in width.
Reagan must have been very disappointed again.

The “Renounce Yalta” sign was so constantly visible that it could be seen in most
television reports covering the event, and was mentioned in many newspaper reports. On
ABC Network news seen across the country, the report began with the Renounce Yalta
banner in the background. As well known reporter Sam Donaldson described Southern
California as “the bastion of American conservatism,” the camera slowly zoomed in to
focus on the “Renounce Yalta” banner. Donaldson made it sound as though everyone at
the rally was in favor of renouncing Yalta. It was seen on the CBS network news, and
every half hour it was shown on CNN’s network coverage of the rally as well.

After seeing some of the coverage from the California rally, Dariusz Szczepanczyk of
POMOST New York called to advise that at the end of the week, on Sunday, September
9th, 1984, Reagan would be speaking before a Polish American crowd in Doylestown,
Pennsylvania. He asked that we air freight the banners immediately so that POMOST
New York could display the signs on that occasion as well. We, of course, sent off the
banners the following day.

I had a feeling that Reagan might mention “Yalta” in his speech before the Polish-
American audience in Doylestown, Pennsylvania (America’s “Czestochowa”). I knew
that the vast majority of the large Polish-American crowd that would be there was not
aware of Action Renounce Yalta and what exactly this represented. These were largely
2nd 3rd and 4th generation Americans who besides having Polish names and being proud of
their heritage were very far removed from the political struggle for a free Poland. We had
often tried to get this, by far the largest segment of the “Polish-American” population,
politically involved without much success. I knew that if Reagan mentioned “Yalta” in
connection with demanding free elections in Poland they would cheer and express
approval. I knew it would be difficult, but I asked Dariusz to see if he could get the crowd
chanting “Renounce Yalta” shortly before Reagan started speaking, to line up the crowd
on our side.

September 9th arrived and being impatient to find out how things went at the Doylestown
rally, I turned on the radio to catch the network news. As soon as I did so, I heard one of
the important news stories of the day. “Before a Polish-American crowd in Doylestown,
Pennsylvania, Reagan again raised the issue of Yalta”. It was reported on all the
television networks as well, some showing the “RENOUNCE YALTA” banner again.

On this occasion the President had no intention of mentioning Yalta, but after seeing the
large “Renounce Yalta” banner in the crowd again, Reagan put down the text of his
speech and responded to it with his interpretation of Yalta in an angry tone of voice. The
following day, September 10th, 1984, newspapers all across the country highlighted the
President’s response as well. The New York Daily News, for example, wrote:

“President indicts Soviets on Yalta

“Campaigning for votes at a Polish-American shrine, President Reagan yesterday said
that the Soviet Union had “violated” the 1945 Yalta agreement by continuing its
domination over the nations of Eastern Europe.

“Reagan injected the comment about Yalta when he saw a banner declaring “Renounce
Yalta” in the crowd gathered on a grassy slope at the Shrine of Our Lady of
Czestochowa, which stands as a symbol of Polish religious faith and freedom.

“LET US NOT be tempted into giving Yalta as coverage to those who have violated that
agreement,” he ad-libbed to applause.

“That agreement never gave them the power to dominate the countries of Eastern Europe
and Poland as they have.”

“Reagan had made similar remarks in a speech last month when he said that the U.S.
“rejects any interpretation of the Yalta agreement that suggests American consent for the
division of Europe into spheres of influence.”

“But, at that time, he did not use the word “violate” to describe Soviet behavior following
the 1945 agreement, under which the Western allies and the Soviet Union divided Nazi
Germany into zones of occupation and set up a provisional government in Poland.

“REAGAN SAID in the earlier speech that the Soviets violated Yalta’s stipulation of free
elections in the affected European nations.

Moscow reacted angrily to Reagan’s previous Yalta remarks, adding new frost to U.S.
Soviet relations. …”

On September 11th, 1984, U.S. newspapers informed Americans of another angry

response from Moscow. These attacks continued into the following weekend with
charges linking President Reagan and West German Chacellor Helmut Kohl to Hitler and
his plans for war. They accused Reagan of trying to alter the wartime agreements reached
at Yalta in combination with criticizing the deployment of new U.S. missiles in West
Germany, Britain, and Italy.

Unfortunately, it was not possible for POMOST New York to begin a “Renounce Yalta”
chant among the crowd in Doylestown, Pennsylvania. Nevertheless, we considered the
results to be a great success. As a result of such actions the issue of Yalta was given yet
more publicity in the U.S. press.

I was amazed at how easily international misunderstanding came about. Here was Reagan
defending Yalta against our calls to renounce it, while the Soviets would then attack him
for even mentioning the issue. Then there was the U.S. press, which fueled this
misunderstanding by not knowing what was going on. In an attempt to bring about more
meaningful national debate, we sent background information to major publications about
what was taking place behind the scenes.

Reagan was soon to have a meeting with Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko. I wondered
if the President would discuss his statements concerning Yalta. If so, I wondered if
Reagan would tell Gromyko that he is just trying to defend himself against some “Polish-
American radicals” who wanted the agreement renounced. Or would the President state
that after 40 years people are justly becoming more fed up with Soviet treatment of
captive nations, and these countries needed to be given their independence back before
there could ever be a truly good relationship between both superpowers.

I could not help but think again of the opportunities that a President of the United States,
truly concerned about the fate of captive nations on a priority basis, had to promote this
cause. The President was in a position to deliver a major public speech directed at the
Soviet Union. He could state America’s good intentions frequently. He could express
America’s desire to live in peace with each nation in the world as Americans live in
peace with all nationalities represented in the United States. He could state that we don’t
want to expand our influence in the world against the Soviet Union but merely desire to
see each nation follow its own free destiny, because Americans care when seeing
injustice imposed on others, in the United States or around the world.

A President of the United States could have challenged Soviet Russia and the communist
world constantly to allow for truly free elections, under international supervision, with no
means of determining which citizen voted for which candidate, while agreeing for the
same to take place in any nation that the Soviets challenged as not maintaining a
government representative of its people. The U.S. could have pressed this issue on a
monthly basis, while tying this position into its foreign and trade relations with the Soviet
Union.

Such initiatives stated simply, and sincerely, would have gone a long way towards better
exposing the Soviets for whom they were. Keeping such challenges on the front burner,
repeating them frequently, and truly linking them to arms and other negotiations could
have been used to effectively maintain pressure on the Soviets to loosen the reigns around
the necks of captive nations. The initiatives that could have been taken on behalf of
Captive Nations were only limited by the U.S. Government’s imagination, concern, and
priorities. Each call to renounce Yalta was telling the U.S. government that after 40 years
we were fed up waiting for freedom in captive nations. For this reason, and because the
sensitive issue of Yalta was the only one strong enough to mobilize the captive nation
community into prolonged action during a time of frustration and despair, we always felt
justified in pushing this effort forward.

From New York, the “RENOUNCE YALTA” banners were sent to Cleveland where they
were also displayed, but not close enough for Reagan to see. While there was no publicity
received from the banners in Cleveland, David Domzalski had a major article
prominently published in the Thursday, September 13, 1984, issue of THE PLAIN
DEALER (largest paper in Ohio), which read as follows:

“Reagan should renounce Yalta

“The recent national campaign, especially among Polish and other captive nation
communities across America, calling on Congress to formally renounce the 1945 Yalta
executive agreement, has been heard by the highest office in our nation. While millions
around the world were no doubt pleased to hear Ronald Reagan address himself to this
issue, the president’s statements on Yalta are totally unacceptable to the new generation
to which the baton of freedom has been passed.

“Speaking to an older Polish audience at the White House on Aug. 17, the president said:
“We reject any interpretation of the Yalta agreement that suggests American consent for
the division of Europe into spheres of influence.”

“Although his remarks may have been well received by the audience, mostly older
immigrant Americans, it does not reflect the mood of the new, younger voice now being
heard on behalf of captive nations.

“After almost 40 years the tragedy of Yalta continues to haunt the United States and will
continue to do so until our government declares that however good our intentions in
entering into this agreement, the interpretation of Stalin and the Soviet Union, from the
very beginning, was not what we had envisioned.

“It was only a month after the Yalta conference that Prime Minister Winston Churchill
expressed to President Franklin Roosevelt his belief that the agreements at Yalta were
breaking down and there would be serious consequences unless something were done to
change the situation. On April 1, 1945, less than two months after the Yalta conference,
Roosevelt sent a message to Stalin stating: “I cannot conceal the concern with which I
view the development of events since Yalta.”

“He further stated his regrets at the “lack of progress made in carrying out, which the
world expects, of the political decisions which were reached at Yalta.”

“Some suggest that to renounce Yalta would be a step toward war and we should
therefore work to enforce this agreement. The opposite may be true. Almost immediately
after the Yalta conference, it appears both Roosevelt and Churchill realized that the only
way in which they could enforce the Yalta agreement would be to go to war with the
Soviet Union. If, after almost 40 years we still have not realized this tragic fact, God help
the remaining free world.

“And what if our government did renounce Yalta? Of course it would have little if any
effect over the Soviet grip on Eastern Europe.

“It might, however, send a formal message to the Soviet Union, that not now and ever
again will we accept its handling of affairs in this part of the world. Also, it would send a
signal of hope to the millions of people who now suffer the consequences of that meeting
in 1945. Don’t we owe them this?

“Reagan is not the first U.S. president to be challenged to renounce the 1945 Yalta
agreement. The 1952 Republican Party platform contained this promise: “The
government of the U.S. under Republican leadership, will repudiate all commitments
contained in secret understandings such as those of Yalta which aid Communist
enslavements.”

“Shortly after being elected, President Dwight Eisenhower prepared legislation dealing
with Yalta and other World War II conferences, but stopped short of renouncing them or
placing any blame on the United States for the consequences of such agreements. For
whatever reasons, members of the House and Senate never passed the legislation out of
committees.

“Today both the House and Senate have similar renounce-Yalta resolutions in their
respective foreign affairs committees. Today a new and more enlightened “American
born” ethnic is emerging and watching. It might be wise for our elected officials to take
note of this trend and keep in mind that no longer are they dealing solely with the
immigrant American.”

There were several letters published in response to Domzalski’s article, most of them
very favorable. He was now working on the Ohio State Legislature to renounce Yalta.
BLANK BACK PAGE
 FATE OF SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 226

At the beginning of September 1984, negotiations pertaining to S.J. Res. 226 between
Senator Percy’s staff and Senator Kasten’s staff had concluded. Mac Owens was great.
There was one aspect of the resolution, which we as POMOST were even prepared to
bend on but Mac Owens absolutely refused. Unfortunately, the compromise resolution
would no longer renounce Yalta. Instead it would renounce “the consequences of Yalta.”
It would also maintain some U.S. responsibility for this immoral agreement. Recognizing
that the renunciation of Yalta was not in the cards for us, at least not during this session
of Congress, we wanted to leave the wording in a manner that would justify the
renouncing of Yalta at a future time. This was done to our satisfaction. After the
negotiations were completed, however, on September 7th, 1984, I received a call from
Diana Smith of Senator Percy’s office.

Diana Smith stated that it made little sense for them [Percy’s office] to make one group
happy at the expense of antagonizing another group. She, of course, had the Lithuanian
American Community, Inc. in mind. I told her that this was a small group, that the vast
majority of captive nation Americans supported current legislation, and much stronger
legislation, as shown by the more than 60,000 signatures collected under our “Renounce
Yalta” petition, and the numerous letters that were sent to her office. I told her that even
the majority of Lithuanian organizations supported this action. She did not deny this at
all. I therefore concluded that the Lithuanian American Community Inc. was simply
being used as an excuse to reject legislation that was still unacceptable to Percy, the
White House, and perhaps other forces that were working against us. Nevertheless, I was
given an ultimatum to either reach a compromise with the Lithuanian group or Senator
Percy would not be supportive of the legislation.

During the course of Saturday, September 8th and Sunday September 9th, 1984, I had
several conversations with Mr. Algimantas Gureckas of the Lithuanian American
Community, Inc. I pleaded with him to understand that he was working against perhaps
the most meaningful legislation ever to be passed on behalf of freedom for captive
nations, including Lithuania, because of concern for borders, which were not being
challenged. I told him that Helsinki, other agreements, and common sense would
preserve existing borders. I told him that we were prepared to declare this over and over
again, help in passing separate legislation to support this position, help in working for the
renunciation of the Teheran agreement, etc. but this did not belong in an agreement
pertaining to Yalta.

I told Gureckas that if he had any unnecessary concerns about Lithuanian borders, it
would be best to get the world accustomed to them without “Yalta,” as the fact that Stalin
wanted these borders, actually undermined the reasons for having them maintained. I
pointed out that Yalta is no longer a legally binding agreement, if it ever was. I reminded
him that the U.S. Senate never ratified it, while Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin, who
were now dead, signed the agreement as individuals and not as heads of state. I told him
that Poles were concerned about their Western borders but it was not right to hold up
progress for freedom on behalf of those suffering, out of fear that borders are going to be
later challenged.
Feeling a considerable amount of responsibility for this action I needed to follow my
conscience even if my views conflicted with those of Brzezinski and others. If our
position was that the agreement was not valid and immoral from the start, we could not
then turn around and accept any decisions that were made at Yalta. We were also not
prepared to comment on one border while Romanians, Hungarians, and perhaps others,
who worked so hard on supporting this resolution, may have also wanted a statement
made about their borders, but for the common good refrained from requesting this.

As renouncing the “negative” consequences of Yalta was also not acceptable to

Gureckas, negotiations broke down and I simply stated that we would therefore not have
a resolution at all. In frustration I consulted with my father, Stanislaw Kiernik, who
retired as Chief of the Peace Treaty Section in the Office of Legal Affairs at the United
Nations [part of the neutral Secretariat Department]. Thanks to his advice both sides
became acceptable to renouncing nothing in this resolution, while instead ending the
resolution with an expression of solidarity with the peoples of Central and Eastern
Europe.

After discussions, on September 9th, 1984, Mr. Gureckas and I ended up with “Draft E,”
which would hopefully represent the final version of the resolution, reading as follows:

“JOINT RESOLUTION

“To reaffirm United States solidarity with the aspirations of captive nations in Central
and Eastern Europe in relationship to the 1945 Yalta executive agreement.

“Whereas, during World War II, representatives of the United States, Britain, and the
Soviet Union took part in agreements and understandings concerning other peoples who
were not represented;

“Whereas, the Soviet Union violated the Yalta guarantee of free elections in the countries
involved, specifically the Yalta agreement commitment “to form interim
intergovernmental authorities broadly representative of all democratic elements in the
population and pledge to the earliest possible establishment through free elections of
governments responsive to the will of the people; and to facilitate where necessary the
holding of such elections;”

“Whereas, at Yalta it was decided that a new Polish government should be formed using
an unpopular Soviet backed Provisional Government as a base which was to expand on a
broader democratic basis with the inclusion of democratic leaders from Poland itself and
from Poles abroad, and was to hold free elections, provisions which the Soviets violated
by arresting or executing democratic leaders while holding fraudulent elections;

“Whereas, at the Yalta Conference, representatives of the United States agreed to

repatriate all Soviet citizens who remained abroad after the war, irrespective of their
individual wishes and by force if necessary, resulting in much tragedy and suffering;

“Whereas, millions of people around the world, especially those residing in Central and
Eastern Europe believe the 1945 Yalta executive agreement involved alleged United
States acquiescence in the enslavement of entire nations under a Soviet totalitarian
system of government;

“Whereas, the nations of Central and Eastern Europe continue to resist Soviet domination
as for example in guerrila wars after World War II in Lithuania, Ukraine, and other
countries, in East Berlin 1953, Poznan and Budapest 1956, Prague in 1968 and in Poland
in 1970 and again since 1980;

“Whereas, it is appropriate for the United States, according to the principles on which this
nation was founded, to respect the desires and aspirations of all freedom-loving people
around the world;

“Whereas, it is appropriate that the United States express the hopes of the people of the
United States for the freedom of the people subjected to the captivity of Soviet despotism
in Central and Eastern Europe as well as elsewhere around the world; and

“Whereas, it is important for the United States to reject any interpretation or application
that, as a result of the signing of the 1945 Yalta executive agreement the United States
accepts the present position of nations being held captive by the Soviet Union. Now,
therefore, be it

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled,

1. That the United States does not recognize any legitimate spheres of influence in
Europe and that it reaffirms its refusal to recognize such spheres in the present or in
the future.

2. That the United States proclaims the hope that the people who have been subjugated
to the captivity of Soviet despotism shall again enjoy the right to self-determination
within a framework that will sustain peace; that they shall again have the right to
choose a form of government under which they shall live, and that sovereign rights of
self-determination shall be restored to them in accordance with the pledge of the
Atlantic Charter The United States hereby expresses its solidarity with the peoples of
Central and Eastern Europe as well as around the world.”

While the above resolution did not renounce Yalta, or its “consequences,” any longer, we
still felt that it was very worthwhile. By passing this resolution the United States would
still accept some major blame for an agreement that still showed elements of cynicism
and immorality. And by passing this resolution on the floor of the U.S. Senate, it would
give us more ammunition to attempt renouncing Yalta, perhaps together with other World
War II agreements, hopefully together with the Lithuanian American Community, at a
future date.

The important question that remained was; if the forces of power (Percy, and no doubt
the Reagan administration), that used the Lithuanian American Community as an
additional excuse to weaken the resolution further, would find the compromise reached to
be acceptable. As reference to partial U.S. responsibility for Yalta was still maintained in
the compromise resolution, it was very likely that even if Percy dropped objections, they
would still be maintained by the Reagan administration.

The plan was that on September 19th, 1984, Percy would move the resolution out of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee for discussion and vote on the floor of the U.S.
Senate. According to Senator Percy’s office, however, the Reagan administration
requested that the matter wait until after Reagan’s planned meeting with Soviet Foreign
Minister Andrei Gromyko. To me this symbolized yet another example of U.S.-Soviet
diplomacy taking priority over the interests of captive nations.

On September 24th, 1984, Reagan had his first good opportunity to publicly press for full
compliance of Yalta, which is what he had stood for and had earlier promised, when
speaking before the United Nations General Assembly. The following day’s Nowy
Dziennik editorial expressed disillusionment that not a word was said about American
commitment, or that of the Soviet Union of course, to the restoration of full independence
for Poland or allowing free and democratic elections in East-Central Europe. There was
also no indication that Reagan had raised the issue during his September 28th, 1984,
meeting with Gromyko.

On September 25, 1984, in New York, The Assembly of Captive European Nations
convened for their annual meeting. A letter signed by representatives of various Captive
Nation groups belonging to the organization, including Chairman Stefan Korbonski, was
sent to President Reagan. The letter reminded the President of his August 17, 1984,
speech and called on him to “press for compliance with the provisions of the Yalta
conference guaranteeing free, democratic elections to all nations now under Soviet-
Communist domination as agreed by the three great powers”[in accordance with his
interpretation of Yalta].

On October 2nd, 1984, the fate of our legislation for this session of Congress was decided.
News of it was sent in an angry press release as follows:

“YALTA LEGISLATION DERAILED BUT OPTIMISM PREVAILS

MATHIAS PREVENTS YALTA LEGISLATION FROM REACHING SENATE

FLOOR IN 1984.

“Efforts to pass Yalta legislation during the 98th Congress were effectively killed in the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee by three-term Maryland Senator Charles McC.
Mathias. During an October 2, meeting Committee Chairman Charles Percy presented the
legislation for passage onto the floor of the Senate but Mathias promptly called for
hearings. Senator Percy expressed regret that this would not leave time to pass the
legislation during the remaining days of the 98th Congressional session.

“REAGAN ADMINISTRATION & STATE DEPARTMENT AGAINST

LEGISLATION

“The legislation presented before the Foreign Relations Committee was a modified
version of S.J. Res. 226 introduced by Wisconsin Senator Robert W. Kasten on February
2. The legislation, actively supported by captive nation Americans on a national basis,
initially called for the renunciation of Yalta. In an effort to overcome opposition from the
Reagan administration and State Department, Kasten and Percy negotiated a compromise
resolution. The legislation presented before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on
October 2, reaffirmed U.S. solidarity with the aspirations of captive nations in Central
and Eastern Europe in relationship to Yalta, as opposed to renouncing the 1945
agreement.

“According to the Pomost Renounce Yalta Committee, officials in the Reagan

administration and State Department even found the modified version of S.J. Res. 226
unacceptable. “They fought us all the way and were never interested in approaching the
issue sincerely,” stated Renounce Yalta Committee Co-Chairman Adam Kiernik. “They
wanted to eliminate any reference to U.S. blunders committed at Yalta while we simply
could not support such a whitewash of history”.

“Kiernik advised that at one point the administration asked members of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee to delay introduction of discussions on Yalta because of the
Gromyko visit to the United States. “We also have good reason to believe that in the end
the administration used Mathias to kill the legislation.” A spokesman for Senator Mathias
denied the charge while blaming the failure to pass the legislation on “those who waited
so long to introduce it.” In commenting on the obvious reference to Senator Percy
Pomost Renounce Yalta Committee officials admitted that the Chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee was initially slow in reacting to the legislation but was
eager to see it passed once a compromise had been reached. “There was no legitimate
reason for Mathias to hold up the resolution,” stated Pomost representative Alfred
Znamierowski. “Mathias clearly delivered a major blow to the captive nations of the
world, and to all Americans concerned about the fate of captive nations.”

“When asked if the Reagan administration’s attitude towards Yalta would influence his
vote on election day, Renounce Yalta Committee Co-chairman Adam Kiernik said “no.”
“Pomost has endorsed Reagan and besides, we have nowhere else to go at the present
time. Recent developments pertaining to the Yalta legislation have proven, however, that
the captive nations of the world will be betrayed over and over again until we do more to
influence the entire political establishment as a whole.”

“KASTEN PRAISED

“As a result of the Yalta campaign Wisconsin Senator Robert W. Kasten has established
a strong following among the country’s captive nation community. “Fortunately we have
strong allies like Kasten in the U.S. Senate” stated Pomost representative David
Domzalski, who also heads up Cleveland’s Committee In Support of Solidarity. “Kasten
is our voice in the Senate” said Domzalski, who was recently thanked by Lech Walesa for
his “staunch support on behalf of the oppressed Polish nation.” Domzalski inspired ten
cities in Ohio, including Cleveland, to pass legislation in support of S.J. Res. 226
introduced by Senator Kasten, as well as in support of H.J. Res. 435 introduced by
Illinois Congressman Tom Corcoran. A resolution calling for the renunciation of Yalta
has recently been introduced in the Ohio State Senate. “We are proud to have Senator
Kasten representing our state” said Pomost Milwaukee Representative Ryszard
Konikowski.
“OPTIMISM PREVAILS

“Despite the disappointment in failing to get Yalta legislation passed spirits remain high
at Pomost. “We are going to march on until victory is attained” said Dr. Janusz
Subczynski. The Pomost representative recently launched a plane flying a Renounce
Yalta banner over Detroit, which delayed a Polish Consulate official’s speech during a
ceremony in that city. “Our message will remain very visible” stated Dariusz
Szczepanczyk who greeted President Reagan with “Renounce Yalta” banners when
visiting Doylestown, Pennsylvania. “I have faith in this campaign” added James Zmuda
who pursued the issue of Yalta with Senator Percy during a “captive nation” meeting in
Chicago.

“Renounce Yalta Co-chairman Adam Kiernik expressed his appreciation for the support
received from so many publications and other organizations. “Above all we thank our
many friends- Cuban, Czech, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Romanian, Russian,
Ukrainian, and other Americans for their solidarity in this effort. As long as all of us,
together, continue to make progress victory is just a question of time.”

“Those wishing to contribute towards this action, or would like to receive more
information pertaining to it, should write to: POMOST RENOUNCE YALTA
COMMITTEE, P.O. BOX 1506, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92647”

I quoted myself in the above press release because I wanted to take full blame for the
harsh criticism of the Reagan administration, especially since I did not consult with
anyone prior to sending it out. Fortunately, the rest of the organization was made up of
better team players than me. And fortunately there was enough trust and understanding
among us that we all stuck together, even with Krynski who was focused on little else
than to get Reagan re-elected. And it was Krzysztof Rac, who played such an important
role in keeping us all together.

Mac Owens, of Senator Kasten’s office, attended the October 2nd meeting of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee. He advised that Senator Percy seemed very sincere about
getting the legislation passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and seemed
genuinely disappointed when Senator Mathias called for hearings on the legislation.
Normally, hearings would be great for such a resolution. Experts would be called on to
testify and such hearings would get a considerable amount of publicity. It was obvious in
this instance, however, that the motion was taken to kill the legislation because there was
no more time left to hold hearings during this session of Congress.

Percy’s office stated that the Reagan administration put Mathias up to calling for the
hearings, and they sounded convincing. Mac Owens advised that the Reagan
administration had used Mathias to kill other resolutions, previously. Why did Percy back
down after reaching an agreement with Kasten’s office? It seemed difficult to believe that
Percy’s staff would specifically blame the Reagan administration for killing the
resolution, if this were not the case. Thus it appeared that the Reagan administration,
indeed, continued to apply pressure against the resolution, long after Percy was prepared
to accept compromise.
 The office of Senator Mathias blamed everything on Percy for holding the resolution so
long before presenting it for a vote before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Of
course, the entire proceedings could have been jointly staged to leave everyone with an
excuse. At very least, however, the Reagan administration and Mathias were definitely
responsible for killing the legislation.

Although extremely disappointed it was time to regroup, and start preparing for the next
session of Congress. We needed to have Percy on our side, as he would remain the
Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee if re-elected as a Senator from the
State of Illinois. We also wanted a written commitment that he would pursue Yalta
legislation in such a situation. Therefore we drafted a statement for Percy and told his
staff that this would help in getting him some additional votes from the Polish-American
community. Percy’s people released the statement to the press, with minor changes, on
October 17th, 1984, as follows:

“STATEMENT BY SENATOR CHARLES PERCY ON THE YALTA AGREEMENT

“WASHINGTON—Following is a statement by Senator Charles H. Percy (R-Ill.),

Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

“During the 98th session of the U.S. Congress my colleague, Senator Robert Kasten,
introduced legislation dealing with the 1945 Yalta executive agreement. While I had
reservations about the initial wording of this resolution, I supported its principles and
aims.

“I deplore the fact that the Soviet Union violated this agreement so blatantly, resulting in
the enslavement of nations throughout Eastern and Central Europe. I also recognize the
need for the United States to reaffirm its commitment towards captive nations in
relationship to this agreement. Indeed it should be made very clear to everyone concerned
that we do not recognize a Soviet ‘sphere of influence’ in Europe or anywhere else in the
world, and that we will never accept a divided Europe as a basis for cooperation with the
Soviet Union.

“This is why my staff and I worked long and hard in trying to reach a mutually
acceptable resolution for passage during the 98th session of Congress. Thanks to the
efforts of Senator Kasten an agreement was reached which was found acceptable by all
concerned. On October 2, I presented this legislation to the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee to approve for a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I was greatly
disappointed when a procedural issue precluded passage of the resolution during this
session of Congress.

“In view of this unfortunate development I sincerely hope that I will have the opportunity
to work for the passage of this legislation during the next session of Congress. Americans
concerned for the captive nations can be assured that I will have a continuing interest in
addressing the 1945 Yalta executive agreement and will do what I can to pursue this
legislation effectively. I appreciate the support and assistance of all who have worked
with me toward this end.”
Percy also sent a personal letter stating that he was disappointed that he was not able to
get the Yalta resolution favorably reported out of the Foreign Relations Committee in this
Congress. “I thought that the compromise resolution,” wrote Percy “was a useful
resolution, and I had hoped it would find support from a majority of Committee
Members. The feelings of disappointment and frustration of millions of people now
living in Central and Eastern Europe and of their kinfolk elsewhere, including in this
country, deserve official U.S. government recognition and support. I want you to know
that those sentiments certainly have my sympathy, encouragement, and active support…”

POMOST as an organization, which had been previously attacking Percy on a daily basis in favor of
Corcoran, now endorsed him in the general election against Democrat Paul Simon.
 YALTA REMAINS UNDER ATTACK

As the presidential election campaign continued, Democratic candidate, and former Vice-
President, Walter Mondale promised to relieve U.S.-Soviet tensions with more frequent
meetings and a closer working relationship. The former U.S. Ambassador to Poland
Richard T. Davies wrote an article about his view on how both Presidential candidates
were approaching the concerns of the Polish-American community in an article published
on October 11th, 1984, in the Opinion/Commentary section of the Baltimore Sun, which
read as follows:

“Polish-Americans and Broken Promises

“SINCE World War II, presidential candidates of both parties have followed the
precedent set by President Roosevelt and have tried to manipulate the “Polish vote.” This
year, President Reagan’s simultaneous efforts to win both the Polish-American vote and
the “peace vote” have entangled him in a contradiction. So far, Walter Mondale has
chosen neither to enter the manipulation sweepstakes nor to point out the evident
confusion to which his opponent’s bid has led.

“At a White House ceremony August 17 commemorating the 40th anniversary of the
Warsaw Uprising, President Reagan committed himself to “continue to press for full
compliance with” the Declaration of Liberated Europe, approved at the 1945 Yalta
Conference. He accurately defined the declaration as “a pledge by the three great powers
[the United States, Great Britain and the Soviet Union] to restore full independence, and
to allow free and democratic elections in all countries liberated from the Nazis after
World War II.”

“At a rally at the “American Czestochowa” in Doylestown, Pennsylvania, September 9

the president reaffirmed this commitment in the presence of John Cardinal Krol of
Philadelphia.

“But when he got his first chance to “press for full compliance” (his September 24 speech
to the U.N. General Assembly), Mr. Reagan said nothing about the American
commitment or that of the Soviet Union to the restoration of full independence to Poland
or allowing free and democratic elections in East-Central Europe. And, so far as we
know, the subject also was absent from his much-touted meeting with Soviet Foreign
Minister Andrei Gromyko September 28, unless it was raised during their minute tete-
a-tete. If it was, it presumably will remain his secret and Mr. Gromyko’s. As such, it is
not likely to influence events in East-Central Europe or anywhere else.

“Commenting on the U.N. speech, the leading Polish American daily, Nowy Dziennik,
said, “It brought disillusionment. That is how the majority of Polish-American society
will view it. If one wishes to solve a problem of some sort, one speaks of it openly, puts it
on the agenda of negotiations, and doesn’t drown it in a flood of words and generalities.
The problem of Poland and East-Central Europe is and will remain open and cannot be
passed over in silence or treated as merely one of many aspects of the great ideological
complex of human rights.”
“Can it be the case,” the editorial went on, “that the subject of Poland is supposed to be
raised only in closed circles, in meetings with Poles and representatives of Polish-
Americans? We had expected from President Reagan a clear and unequivocal posing of
the problem of the abolition of the division of Europe and the restoration of the
sovereignty and right of self-determination of the peoples forced into the Soviet bloc,
with the agreement of the United States.”

“The reference to “the agreement of the United States” recalls the agreement of President
Roosevelt - and Churchill – at Yalta to replace the Polish government, then (and still) in
exile in London, with the Soviet- sponsored Lublin “Committee of National Liberation”
and to confirm the cession to the U.S.S.R. of one-third of Poland’s pre-1939 territory,
despite the Atlantic Charter’s pledges to the contrary. Flying directly in the face of these
historical facts, Mr. Reagan and Vice President Bush have denied that the U.S.
government ever agreed at Yalta to the establishment of a Soviet sphere of influence in
East-Central Europe. Hence Nowy Dziennik’s inclusion of this phrase.

“The proverbial Man from Mars would no doubt be struck by the sheer nerve with which
the president swept under the rug the “commitment” he had made so recently to
“continue to press” for fulfillment of the Declaration on Liberated Europe. (The Man
from Mars might wonder what the word “continue” means in this context, since there has
been no news that the subject has ever been raised with the Soviets by officials of the
present administration).

“Such an impartial observer might also assume that Mr. Reagan had opened himself up to
a telling counterattack from his Democratic opponents.

“In fact, though, the Democratic candidates have been silent on the issue, which raises
questions about their support for the Democratic Platform’s eloquent language on Poland.
The platform calls for continued “effective international sanctions against the Polish
regime until it makes satisfactory progress towards” the objectives of “recognition of the
free trade union Solidarity, and the resumption of progress towards liberty and human
rights in that nation.” There is no reason to believe that Mr. Mondale raised these issues
with Mr. Gromyko when he saw him September 27. That silence also stimulates the
suspicion that the Democratic candidates have simply resigned themselves without a fight
to the loss of votes of Polish-Americans, many of whom belong to the crucial bloc of
blue-collar workers.

“Significantly, the “disillusionment” of the Nowy Dziennik editorial leads not to a call
to readers to think again about a commitment to the Reagan-Bush ticket, but to this loyal
conclusion: “We must, however, accept without reservations the proposal for negotiations
with the U.S.S.R. on the subjects of disarmament in the sphere of conventional weapons,
the numbers of troops on both sides in Europe, and nuclear weapons. Proposals in this
area have been realistic and receive from Polish-Americans such support as the president
requires from us and – we do not doubt – expects.”

“The connoisseur of the cynical manipulation of the Polish-American vote that has filled
American electoral history over the past 50 years cannot help recalling the endorsement
given Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944 by Charles Rozmarek, the president of the Polish-
American Congress, who had been duped into believing that at the impending Yalta
conference the American president would stand firm for a Poland “reconstituted after this
war, undiminished in area, strong and truly independent,” in accordance with the
principles of the Atlantic Charter.

“The parallel is all the more compelling because, like his quondam idol, FDR, in 1944,
Mr. Reagan appears to regard himself as so unchallengeable as not to have to worry about
making promises, which evidently he has no intention of fulfilling.”

On October 14, 1984, The Orange Country Register (2nd largest newspaper in the Los
Angeles, California, area), published my article in the commentary section as follows:

“Captive nations are still waiting for America to renounce Yalta

“Recently there has been an outcry, especially among Polish and other captive – nation
Americans, calling on the United States to renounce the 1945 Yalta executive agreement.
While millions around the world were no doubt pleased to hear Ronald Reagan address
this issue, the president’s statements on Yalta left much to be desired.

“Speaking to a Polish-American audience at the White House on Aug. 17, Reagan said
that “we reject any interpretation of the Yalta agreement that suggests American consent
for the division of Europe into spheres of influence.” Anyone familiar with the 1945
conference, attended by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston
Churchill and Marshal Josef Stalin, has reason to question this conclusion.

“At Yalta the Big Three took it upon themselves to determine procedure for creating new
governments in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. It was decided, for example,
that the Provisional Government in Poland should “be reorganized on a broader
democratic basis with the inclusion of democratic leaders from Poland itself and from
Poles abroad.” This new Polish Provisional Government of National Unity was to hold
free and unfettered elections as soon as possible.

“In fact, the “functioning” Provisional Government of Poland (Lublin Committee of

National Liberation), which was chosen as a base for establishing a new government in
Poland, was little more than a handful of Soviet puppets with no broad support. It was
obvious that this government would not expand to include meaningful democratic
representation, nor show any interest in holding democratic elections. The elections in
January 1947 were anything but free and unfettered. Numerous Polish democratic leaders
were either arrested or executed.

“At Yalta it was decided that Russian citizens remaining in Western Europe after the war
would be repatriated. This amounted to a death sentence for 2 million people, who were
shipped in cattle cars, against their will, back to Soviet Russia.

“Upon agreeing to these and other demands made by Stalin, at the expense of the people
and nations of Central and Eastern Europe, President Roosevelt, it can be accurately
stated, did consent to establishing a Soviet sphere of influence. These decisions were
made on behalf of nations that were not represented or consulted, and whose
democratically – elected leaders were completely ignored. The Yalta declaration was
signed in clear violation of our Constitution, the Atlantic Charter and basic international
law.

“Some argue that the fate of Central and Eastern Europe had already been sealed with
Soviet tanks prior to the Yalta Conference, and that Western leaders had no choice but to
accept the demands presented by Stalin. Many historians, such as Australian Chester
Wilmot, respond by stating that “the real issue for the world and for the future was not
what Stalin would or could have taken, but what he was given the right to take.”

“One should keep in mind that Stalin and Roosevelt started assigning East-Central
European countries to a Soviet zone during the November 1943 Tehran Conference,
when the Red Army was still fighting deep inside Russia. During the October 1944
Moscow Conference it was Churchill, not Stalin, who suggested a “sphere-of-influence”
concept by presenting a concrete plan with regard to the Balkan countries. Thus Yalta
finalized a policy of Western acquiescence in creating a Soviet sphere of influence,
exhibited throughout World War II.

“After protesting in vain over the U.S. decision to allow the Red Army to reach Prague
and Berlin first, Churchill wrote of the last days of World War II:

“The United States stood on the scene of victory, master of world fortunes, but without a
true and coherent design. Britain, though still very powerful, could not act decisively
alone. I could at this stage only warn and plead.”

“Ronald Reagan is not the first U.S. president challenged to renounce the 1945 Yalta
executive agreement.

“The 1952 Republican Party Platform contained the following promise: “The
Government of the United States, under Republican leadership, will repudiate all
commitments contained in secret understandings such as those of Yalta which aid
communist enslavements.” President Eisenhower prepared legislation dealing with Yalta
and other World War II conferences, but stopped short of renouncing them or placing any
blame on the United States for what transpired. When asked if it would not be good to
confess our part in World War II agreements, Secretary of State Dulles answered:

“Confession is always good for the soul but the best place for a confession, I think, is in
the privacy of one’s communion with one’s God.”

“Due to the lack of public sincerity in approaching the issue, members of the House and
Senate never passed the legislation out of committees.

“After almost 40 years, the spirit of Yalta continues to haunt the United States, Europe
and many other parts of the world. On Feb. 11, 1985, millions of victims of Yalta will
commemorate the 40th anniversary of this agreement. During a recent report from
Warsaw (July 22), CBS correspondent John Sheahan said:

“After 40 years of communism the Polish people remain the most religious and least
communist in the Soviet bloc. And though they are also the most pro-Western, they have
never forgiven Roosevelt and Churchill for giving their country away to the Russians at
Yalta.”

“During the past year tens of thousands of Polish and other captive-nation Americans
have petitioned Reagan to support legislation (S.J. Res.226, H.J.Res.435) that would
renounce the Yalta agreement. The president’s Aug 17 response was hardly adequate.

“Reagan said that the United States views Yalta “as a pledge by the three great powers to
restore full independence and to allow free and democratic elections in all countries
liberated from the Nazis after World War II.”

“For millions in the United States and beyond, this conference continues to symbolize the
division of Europe and the betrayal of captive nations. After 40 years the United States
continues to defend an agreement involving the people of other countries who want no
more part of it now than they did when it was signed. If for no other reason, Yalta should
be renounced out of respect for the will and self-determination of captive nations.

“Millions around the world hope that U.S. leaders will show the courage to renounce
Yalta, and base their calls for free elections in Central and Eastern Europe on more
dignified documents.”

The Captive Nation press kept constantly writing about our progress and continued to
serve as an important part of the Renounce Yalta campaign. Along with copies of the
angry press release about the failed attempt to have Yalta legislation passed in the 98th
Congress, I sent letters on October 28th, 1984, to the following:

Senator Charles McC. Mathias Jr:

“…..I can assure that the people of Poland and the Polish-American community, the
people of other captive nations and captive nation Americans, will look upon your action
as one of the greatest blows to the cause of freedom in Central and Eastern Europe during
our time…”

Mackubin T. Owens/Sr. Legislative Assistant (Senator Kasten’s office).

“…We deeply appreciate your efforts and one day a free Poland will salute you for
them.”

Senator Charles H. Percy

“… Please keep in mind that the vast majority of captive-nation Americans in Illinois are
Democrats. Of those who we do not reach, many will vote for Simon. Everyone who sees
the press release is a guaranteed vote with very few exceptions. Getting the message out
via the major media could make a great difference.”

The aim was always to encourage others to speak out louder and more often to create
more public debate on the issue of Yalta.
In a letter dated November 1st, 1984, Senator Mathias wrote back: “As you may know,
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee customarily holds hearings on matters of
consequence before it. Senate Joint Resolution 226 is a significant piece of legislation
and as such deserves the Committee’s careful consideration…”

On October 16, 1984, Nowy Dziennik informed about a meeting of the Directors of the
Polish-American Congress. During that meeting several resolutions were agreed to,
including one pertaining to Yalta. It appeared that the PAC had now taken a much
stronger stand on Yalta again. The PAC resolution mentioned that Roosevelt and
Churchill gave into Stalin’s demands. It criticized the agreement for violating
international law by dictating a Polish government set up by Moscow, and announcing
that Poland’s eastern territories should belong to the Soviet Union. It encouraged PAC
state divisions and others to point out the bad points of the Yalta agreement and that the
Soviets did not live up to the positive aspects of Yalta – such as holding free elections in
Poland. It was our hope that based on the above news perhaps the PAC would share our
position on Yalta for the next session of U.S. Congress.

Nowy Dziennik’s November English monthly “New Horizon” was kind enough to print
my article, “Reagan Interpretation Of Yalta Leaves Much To Be Desired,” alongside
Senator Percy’s press release, and Vice-President Bush’s comments on Yalta in response
to questions posed by Jan Nowak. Bush maintained the administration’s position while
adding that: “The agreements signed in Yalta include many provisions, such as the status
of Berlin, the renouncement of which would benefit nobody.” Bush also stated that: “Our
statements renouncing the postwar results of the Yalta agreement have been occasionally
misinterpreted as implying a wish to change the frontiers in Europe. This is not our
agenda.” Bush renounced the doctrine of ‘spheres of influence’ and renounced any
interpretation of Yalta, which would suggest that the U.S. wishes to abandon Eastern
Europe.

We were very touched and motivated by hearing of support coming from the
Underground in Poland. My big fear was having them come to the conclusion that the
U.S. does not really care at all about their fate. To accept status quo resolutions was not a
viable alternative for us. I was very touched when on October 21st 1984, POMOST was
presented a “medal of freedom” by the Co-Chairman of the Hungarian Freedom Fighters
World Federation, Tibor Tollas. We received this great honor at Mindszenty Square in
Los Angeles during the 28th Anniversary Celebration of Hungary’s 1956 Fight For
Freedom.

By October 23rd, news had reached the world that Father Jerzy Popieluszko was
kidnapped.

The U.S. general election was held on November 6th, 1984. Reagan beat Mondale in a
landslide. Simon narrowly defeated Senator Percy. This made room for Senator Jessie
Helms, who was a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 226, to become the Chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee. Helms’ was probably the most conservative anti-Soviet
member of the Senate. The State Department was petrified about the possibility of his
becoming the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, while the N.Y.
Times quoted a Soviet watcher as saying that this would be a “koshmar” (nightmare).
The Reagan administration feared that he would block arms control agreements with the
Soviets. He was already known for opposing confirmation of State Department officials
who favored dealing with communists. Thus if Helms were to accept the position of
Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, we would probably introduce our
initial strong resolution calling for the formal renunciation of Yalta, during the next
session of Congress.

It was generally thought that Senator Jesse Helms wanted to be the Chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Being involved in a close election in the state of
North Carolina with a thriving tobacco industry, however, he promised voters that, if
elected, he would look after their interests and remain the Chairman of the Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry Committee. He made this promise because if he failed to remain
the Chairman of this Committee then Richard Lugar of Indiana, who did not support
Federal aid for tobacco farmers, would replace him. A senator could be chairman of only
one committee.

Mr. Lugar was next in line, behind Helms, to be chairman of both above committees, but
he wanted to become the Senate Majority Leader (since Republicans were the majority
party in the Senate). Thus if Helms remained Chairman of the Agriculture Committee,
and Lugar became the Senate Majority Leader, then Charles McC Mathias would become
the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which would have been a
devastating blow for our cause. The election for Senate Majority Leader was held on, or
approximately, November 27, 1984, after which time the above matters were resolved.

Helms, unfortunately, decided that he must accept becoming Chairman of the

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, while Lugar became Chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Lugar supported the administration’s position on
S.J. Res. 226. His response to our appeals was: “Please be assured that I support Polish
efforts to insure a free Poland. I share views expressed recently by Vice-President Bush
that no East European nation is legitimately within the Soviet sphere of influence.”

On November 17th, 1984, “Gwiazda Polarna” lashed out against Yalta, as perhaps never
before, giving examples of the protests that took place when the agreement was made
public (December 12, 1945). General Anders called it “the greatest tragedy of our
nation.” Karol Rozmarek, President of the Polish-American Congress at the time, stated
that:

“In return for its heroism and sacrifice, for millions of murdered patriots, for the
destruction of Poland’s land, Poland’s only reward: sanctioned rape committed against
Poland and the legal Polish Government ignored by the United States and Great Britain.
We are not in a position to accept this decision. It serves not only as a threat to Poland,
but also to America’s honor, which we must always defend…”

The Gwiazda Polarna article went on to advise that 27 members of Churchill’s own party
in the British Parliament condemned him for his actions. One such Member of Parliament
received a telegram of protest signed by 90,000 Poles in Argentina.

James Zmuda in Chicago initiated a contest challenging poets to write the best poem on
Yalta. On November 25, 1984, POMOST in Phoenix, Arizona, held a demonstration
expressing outrage at the murder of Father Jerzy Popieluszko. Calls to renounce Yalta
received some press coverage as well. The Chairman of the Polish National Fund in
Ottawa, Canada George Korwin wrote Reagan a letter expressing disappointment with
the president’s interpretation of Yalta. David Domzalski in Cleveland advised, via his
contacts in London, that several hundred people would take part in a Renounce Yalta
demonstration at a statue dedicated to the victims of Yalta in that city during the 40th
anniversary of the agreement in February.

In the November 27th 1984, issue of Nowy Dziennik, a detailed position paper by the
Polish Government-In-Exile was printed. It stated that as during the past 40 years, their
position remains the same. Decisions at Yalta were not only made without Polish
representation, but also without their consent. The statement went on to say that the
Polish Government-In-Exile could accept that Yalta was an agreement among 3
politicians, rather than an international agreement. The Government could not accept,
however, the opinion of those who state that since repudiating Yalta is not realistic, we
should demand free elections via this agreement. The position paper stated that free
elections cannot take place in an un-free country, and this is unrealistic. Free elections
come with independence and there is no reason to use Stalin’s promise for this purpose.
The Polish Government-In-Exile concluded that calling for free elections based on Yalta
was accepting the decisions at Yalta such as taking away Poland’s freedom and her
eastern territories, which is a matter to be determined by the countries involved.

During November 1984, Zbigniew Brzezinski had a long and much publicized article
titled “The Future Of Yalta” published in the “Winter 1984/85” edition of the prestigious
magazine – “Foreign Affairs.” Brzezinski, from his point of view, eloquently separated
facts from myths pertaining to Yalta’s past. He pointed out that Roosevelt and Churchill
conceded Eastern Europe to Stalin as early as 1943, during the Teheran Conference,
while at Yalta the two leaders had some halfhearted second thoughts about the
concessions made. In the ensuing clash between Stalinist power and Western naïveté,
however, power prevailed. “The provisions regarding free elections in Poland were at
best a transparent fig leaf for outright Soviet domination.” As a result of these and other
concessions, Brzezinski stated, Yalta became the symbol of betrayal.

Brzezinski stated that by failing to construct an agreed-upon world, while in effect

sanctioning the concessions made earlier at Teheran, Yalta also became the symbol of
Europe’s partition, and initiated the postwar struggle for gaining influence in all of
Europe. The Soviets aggressively initiated the conflict from the start, and much more
persistently sought to achieve a geopolitical breakthrough. This had since included
issuing challenges on Berlin, exploiting “peace movements,” creating tension over anti-
Soviet rhetoric, demanding that the U.S. dismantle and remove Pershing II’s and ground
launched cruise missiles, all in an effort to humiliate and remove U.S. influence from the
continent.

Brzezinski stated that the Soviet Union’s failure to achieve influence in all of Europe had
more to do with the crudeness of their tactics, rather than to the resilience of Western
Europe. While these heavy-handed Soviet tactics actually played a role in the U.S.
becoming implanted on the continent, and continued to consolidate the Atlantic alliance,
this did not guarantee that a more subtle Soviet approach might not achieve their goals in
the future. This was especially the case since Europe had not “emerged politically,”
which could be considered a partial Soviet victory at Yalta.
“America cannot undo the partition of Europe without in effect defeating Russia” stated
Brzezinski. He wrote that “America does not have the power or the will” to change the
situation in Eastern Europe. Whether more could have been done to help the revolutions
in East Germany in 1953, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, “is debatable, but
that not much was done is undeniable.”

With both the Soviets, and U.S. firmly committed to their interests in Europe, and not in a
position to resolve the issue, Brzezinski stated that “there must be a better option for both
Europe and America than either a partitioned and protracted Europe that perpetuates the
American-Soviet collision, or a disunited Europe divorced from America acquiescing
piecemeal to Soviet domination over Eurasia.”

Brzezinski suggested approaching the unfinished business at Yalta by gradually

eliminating the direct U.S.-Soviet confrontation, by seeing to it that a stronger, less
threatening Europe emerges on its own “as a consequence of a deliberately but subtly
induced process of change, by historical stealth so to speak, which can neither be quickly
detected nor easily resisted.” With this in mind, Brzezinski proposed a five-point program
for the United States and Western Europe:

1) Publicly repudiating the partition of Europe and expressing commitment to a

restored Europe, free of extra-European control as the symbolic starting point,
suggesting that the 40th anniversary of Yalta coming in February, 1985 might be a
good time to do this.

2) Simultaneously with the renunciation of Yalta’s legacy, reconfirm commitment to

the Helsinki Final Act so as to disarm expected Soviet propaganda that this action
has anything to do with changing territorial status quo.

3) Strive to create the maximum number of opportunities for East European

participation in various all European functions, meetings, seminars, conferences,
etc

4) Intensify aid to those East Europeans who are struggling actively for the political
emancipation of Eastern Europe, which plays an important role in bringing about
evolutionary change.

5) While NATO and America’s military presence was needed in Europe to deter the
Soviets not only from military aggression but also from political intimidation,
Europe should be encouraged to play a more direct role in its own defense. A
more coordinated European military where possible, with less U.S. presence,
would be less threatening to the Soviets. This would reduce the Superpower angle
to the conflict, serve as pressure on the Soviets for a commensurate redeployment,
and establish a more flexible political situation for Europe to be left to the
Europeans.

We, as POMOST, had mixed feelings about Brzezinski’s article. On the one hand his
well written, and well presented position paper, had a very positive effect in creating
further publicity for the topic that we were so involved in. Focusing attention on Yalta’s
future, and how to resolve the situation, was also a very positive contribution in our
opinion.

While Brzezinski’s proposal involved a very long-term logical approach to Yalta,

POMOST’s approach reflected the deep frustration felt in Poland, and elsewhere, which
we felt was either going to somehow end in victory or in awful suffering, very shortly.
Thus while perhaps simplistic and naive, especially in view of seeing every Eastern and
Central European movement for freedom and independence fail during the course of
short-term uprisings during the past 40 years, we felt there was no patience left in Poland
to give a long- term solution a chance.

We also did not see a subtle, long term, gradual approach as being realistic. If the people
of Poland were to win some basic democratic rights as, privatization of economy, more
freedom to travel, or more freedom to assemble, they would use these gains immediately
to make such demands as free elections and complete democracy, if the rights gained
were to have any meaning at all. If the communists lost control over most any additional
aspect of society they would seek to regain it at the first opportunity.

As frustrated innocent victims jailed under a foreign imposed communist occupation over
four decades, we did not expect the people of Poland to ever be satisfied with gradual
gains. Instead they would use each gain immediately to break out of their foreign
imposed jail. In our opinion, there was no room to ever reach compromise in this
situation, or to make a gradual transition under an acceptable arrangement over a
prolonged period of time. And to suggest that there was, we felt, only clouded the vision
that we wanted to project- a completely free, independent, and democratic Poland, and
region of the world, now.

As stated in our position papers at the time, we tended to believe that the situation in
Eastern and Central Europe would never change until enough people, at the same time,
suddenly demanded their freedom forcefully enough to make it happen. It was our hope
that perhaps the opposition in Poland could maintain its independent political structures,
underground and otherwise, long enough to hopefully await similar activity in other
captive nations. As expressed in POMOST and other publications, however, we felt that
Poland had already passed the point of no return, and we had to give them all the support
that we could muster up now, because shortly the Solidarity uprising would either end in
a great victory, or a very miserable defeat. And thus we felt there was no choice other
than to call for “freedom now,” aggressively and immediately.

Many of us also felt that the chances for an escape from the Soviet system, however
difficult, were better in the relatively near term future, as opposed to some future decade
when the world would only become more accustomed to existing status quo, when the
people of captive nations might be more beaten down, hungry, resigned, less confident,
and when other factors such as more advanced suppressive technology could prove more
difficult to overcome. While it was difficult to project how close the Soviet Union was to
collapsing despite evidence of serious problems resulting from its inefficient economy,
and military extension, it was obvious at this point that the Polish communist economy
could not stay afloat much longer. It was also obvious that throwing Western loans,
credits, etc. in the name of stability, into the bottomless pit of Poland’s economy, would
not be able to sustain the communist economy there for any significant length of time.
This further increased the chances of an extreme result coming very shortly- either a
complete victory or a brutal crackdown, with the possibility of slave labor type
conditions.

We needed to prepare for the coming February 1985, 40th anniversary of Yalta as best we
could. It was now getting harder and harder to bring out people for demonstrations in the
streets of the United States. We therefore started issuing appeals for all people of
goodwill, everywhere around the world, to hold church masses and pray for the victims
of Yalta, as well as for the renunciation of Yalta, on Sunday, February 10, 1985. While
the press virtually always presented our street demonstrations in a positive light,
mourning the victims of Yalta in churches would avoid any risk of showing only limited
support (after all the time invested into effectively showing massive support in the past).
It would also increase pressure on the U.S. administration to act. It also left open the
possibility, however small, that people residing in other captive nations would take up the
battle cry to spread the movement throughout the region, so that Poland would not stand
out alone in this effort.

By early December a newly organized POMOST division in Sacramento, California,

advised that they already had 4 churches in their city that would celebrate mass for the
victims of Yalta on the 40th anniversary of the agreement. Edmonton, Canada, was to
hold a mass and demonstration in front of the U.S. Consulate. London promised to have a
large demonstration at the Victims of Yalta Memorial in South Kenstington, and there
would even be a demonstration in Tokyo.

Also in early December, Janusz Szymanski obtained audio tapes from Father Jerzy
Popieluszko’s last mass for the Homeland, from his funeral, speeches on his behalf, and
other important events connected with the patriotic priest. He advised that the tapes were
specifically passed on to us from the Polish underground to help finance the Renounce
Yalta Action. He spent countless non-stop hours editing the tapes, designing a cover for
use in packaging a finished cassette, as well as designing a small brochure to be included
as part of a complete package in memory of the beloved Polish priest.

David Domzalski was preparing a program in Cleveland, which included the initiation of
a lawsuit by the Ohio Section Committee In Support Of Solidarity VS United States
Government on behalf of family members remaining captive behind the “iron curtain.”
A Conference addressing Yalta was being organized by the ruling Canadian Republican
Party in Toronto. Czeslaw Maliszewski, the editor of “Listy Do Polakow” published an
English language brochure titled “The Curse Of Yalta.”

On December 5th, 1984, POMOST Los Angeles received some media coverage of its
demonstration honoring Father Jerzy Popieluszko after a mass for his intention, which
included calling for the renunciation of Yalta, and dedicating the action to the murdered
priest. On December 8th POMOST Los Angeles held an open meeting attended by many
on the subject of renouncing Yalta.

There was always support coming from unexpected sources. A magazine published by
the Faith Baptist Church in Louisville, Nebraska, for example, published a lengthy article
about our efforts under the title “Repentance Yalta.” The church’s “Today” magazine
encouraged parishioners to collect signatures under petitions calling for the renunciation
of Yalta.

Senator Kasten confirmed that he would introduce a new resolution in the U.S. Senate to
mark the 40th anniversary of Yalta. While advising that California Congressman Robert
Dornan, now re-elected, would love to introduce Renounce Yalta legislation in the House
of Representatives, we left the decision as to who should introduce the resolution in the
House of Representatives to Mac Owens.

Amid all the serious work involved there were always comical incidents, which took
place. The Post Eagle in New Jersey was a newspaper which never seemed to print
anything against the Polish communist regime. Paul Anthony Radzewicz, residing in
Jackson, Mississippi, would constantly write the editor, Chester Grabowski, complaining
about this. At one time he paid to have a full-page Renounce Yalta advertisement
published in the paper. On December 6th, 1984, Radzewicz wrote another letter to
Grabowski as follows:

“… Thank you for placing the “Renounce the Yalta Agreement Proclamation” from Los
Angeles in your paper. The only trouble, it was reduced too small and I could hardly read
it. If you would like to run it again full size, I’ll pay for half of it.

“This is also to advise you that I would like to run an ad in your paper. Please place the
following quote in a short blocked out section four times through out the paper. Thank
you for doing this; and, bill me the cost.

“TO ALL GOOD POLES

“LET ALL OF US, FOR THE HOLIDAYS, TIE A RED AND WHITE RIBBON
AROUND ALL TREES TO REPRESENT THE POLITICAL PRISONERS IN JAIL
AND LET THEM REMAIN ON THE TREES UNTIL THE PRISONERS ARE FREED
AND POLAND IS FREE OF RUSSIAN RULE AND PERSECUTION.

“…I hope you all have a happy holiday. I wish I could say the same for the Poles in
Poland, but I’m sure they will not until we kick the Russians out like we did in Grenada.”

We had the good fortune to have the support of such kind, helpful, and supportive people
as former U.S. Ambassador to Poland Richard T. Davies, who understood the aims of our
action completely and on December 6th, 1984, he wrote:

…“ I know how tough this effort of yours is. But I continue to believe it is very
important. As we see, even this Administration, which makes such a big thing of being
anti-Communist, is not prepared to call into question the document and the act that, after
all, laid the foundation for the current status quo. Before Western policy can begin to find
the right path, we are going to have to make a public confession of the root causes of its
post-War mistakes. Unless we do that, there will be no turn-around in policy. I strongly
believe that such an act, if carried through with conviction, in and of itself would shake
the Soviets. We see how frantically the controlled media in Poland have reacted to your
effort. But a lot is riding on this for all those who have a stake in the status quo: grain
farmers, brokers, shippers, businessmen, diplomats, and politicians. So it will not be
easy.”

One of our most important bases of support throughout this action remained the Polish
weekly “Gwiazda Polarna,” which published virtually everything we ever sent. Editor-In-
Chief Alfons Hering and Editor Edward Dusza believed in us, and never let us down.
They were responsible for maintaining much of the interest among the community that
remained. On December 19th, I wrote Mr. Hering and Mr. Dusza the following:

… “Regardless of what happens in the future, please stay with this action until the end. I
would be absolutely devastated if you walked out on me after all this work. We could not
possibly make up for your loss of support. Other publications might quickly become
silent and our final message to the U.S. government would be- “Sell us out all you want
because we have neither the strength or the will to resist”. I am also afraid that it might
not be possible to ever repeat such an action again…. Not even the Popieluszko murder
has done much to revive us. Fortunately this action was started shortly after the
imposition of Martial Law when there was still relatively high interest and concern which
enabled us to develop a relatively firm foundation to build on so this action could grow.”

We were surprised to receive another nice personal letter dated December 21, 1984, from
defeated Senator Charles Percy:

“Although my election, as you know, did not turn out as I had hoped, I do want to take a
moment to thank you for being so cooperative in our mutual work to get a Yalta
Resolution passed in the 98th Congress, and for your personal efforts and those of others
interested in the Renounce Yalta project on behalf of my candidacy in Illinois.

I personally very much appreciate your energetic and sincere efforts, and it has been a
pleasure for me and my staff to work with you this past year. I wish you all the best in
your future efforts.”

With time there was a growing amount of anonymously written leaflets with false
charges issued against POMOST. There were forged documents criticizing the Polish-
American Congress, local priests, and others, written in our name. There were a few
death threats. It was obvious to us at POMOST that this was the work of either very
unbalanced people, and/or those working directly for the Polish communist regime.

In response to David Domzalski’s letter, on December 27th, 1984, Zbigniew Brzezinski

responded as follows:

… “To be effective, I think it is very important to be clear in one’s own mind as to what
one is renouncing, and it is not so much a matter of the Yalta agreement as such as of the
legacy of Yalta, namely the partition of Europe. That is the central issue, and I suggest
that your activity be concentrated on that aspect of the problem.”

On December 27th, 1984, a partial re-print of Brzezinski’s Foreign Affairs article under
the title “To End Yalta’s Legacy” appeared in the commentary section of the New York
Times along with a drawing of the shadows of Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin over a
map of Europe.
Yalta was now becoming something a little different for each person working on it. There
were those who maintained that it was a good agreement, to be used as reference for
demanding Soviet compliance. There was the Brzezinski camp, which believed in just
using it for the purpose of gaining reaffirmation that the West does not accept the
division of Europe while moving forward into a long-term plan that would gradually chip
away at Europe’s division. There were those like POMOST who insisted that before
Western policy could begin to find the right path, a public confession to the mistakes
committed at Yalta was needed, in combination with a new firm commitment to
aggressively work towards the reunification of Europe, and freedom for captive nations,
immediately.

I felt that each of the approaches, at least to some extent, complimented one another for
the benefit of our mutual cause and ultimate goal- freedom for captive nations. I was only
disappointed in the “good agreement” approach, however, because giving up partial U.S.
responsibility for Yalta in exchange for a tool to call for free elections seemed like a very
poor, un-needed trade-off. As the Polish underground began pointing out, independence
and free elections are guaranteed fundamental human rights.

During this time, POMOST Seattle Representative Zbyszek Pietzyk received a direct
appeal from the Polish underground organization K.O.S. [Committee In Defense of
Society] to officially state our position on maintaining territorial status quo in a post-
Yalta Europe. As expressed to the Lithuanians previously, we fully accepted this
position. We also had no doubt that the vast majority of all nationalities concerned about
Polish borders accepted this position as the only reasonable vision for a peaceful, stable,
and united Europe. We did not believe, however, that this position should be legitimized
in connection with Stalin or Yalta, but rather by other, more legitimate agreements and,
above all, by people of goodwill accepting current realities for the common good.

Any hesitancy involved with presenting a separate statement on borders was due to
questioning if we had a right to speak on behalf of the Polish nation. The vast majority of
POMOST Representatives were now Americans. Some of us, such as I, were born in the
United States. There was also the question of possibly antagonizing other nationalities
with regard to such a statement. And we did not want to antagonize the very small
minority of Polish-Americans who were politically active and still did have hopes of one
day visiting a Polish Lwow before they passed away. But even among these people it was
more of an issue that such statements should only be made by the nations involved, once
they become free. And one reason for stating this position was out of a desire to include
the freedom to travel into these territories, as part of a final agreement. There was also the
question of what would happen if a united Germany began aggressively pursuing
Poland’s western territories.

By December 1984, however, other underground organizations in Poland (“Wolnosc-

Sprawiedliwosc-Niepodleglosc” [Freedom-Justice-Independence], “Niepodleglosc”
[Independence], and “Wola”[Will]) issued a joint declaration recognizing territorial status
quo, while asking other organizations to accept this position as well. In the meantime Dr.
Herbert Czaja, of the German Bundeshaus, sent a letter wishing us well. While not
mentioning “borders” in his letter he was known for representing the German minority,
which was prepared to question existing territorial status quo as pertaining to Poland’s
western borders. Thus in consultation with Krzysztof Rac and Andrzej Jarmakowski in
Chicago, we felt it was now appropriate to issue a statement on borders and believed that
the positive aspects of doing so far out weighed any unexpected negative consequences
that might result. This would perhaps present an even clearer vision of a united Europe
and would help convey that its realization is close enough to start getting prepared for
such a day.

On December 27th, 1984, in the name of POMOST, we issued the following statement:

“STATEMENT ON POLAND’S BORDERS AS RELATING TO ACTION

RENOUNCE YALTA

“February 4-11, 1985 will mark the fortieth anniversary of the Yalta executive
agreement. In preparing to commemorate this event, the Pomost Socio-Political
Movement takes this opportunity to clearly state its position with regard to the issue of
Poland’s borders in relationship to Yalta.

“We do not claim to represent Poland, or any other country, and for this reason have
avoided stating positions that are the sole responsibility of the nations and people
involved to voice. However, as a result of a request initiated by leaders of Poland’s
underground, and after being assured that their views reflect those held by Polish society
as a whole, Pomost is pleased to state the following:

“We accept and fully recognize the present territorial status quo of Poland as a just and
necessary solution towards creating a permanent peace and understanding between the
peoples of Byelorussia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine. Furthermore, we look upon this
position as a foundation for needed cooperation among these peoples to help liberate and
then preserve freedom and security for the region as a whole.

“We call upon the people of Germany to also fully accept this position as a lasting and
permanent solution towards burying the past and offering much hope for the future.
The acceptance of this solution should not be viewed as a concession towards the spoils
of war, or history, but rather as a contribution towards the vision of a truly peaceful,
stable, strong, and permanently united Europe.

“We call upon Russian patriots to commit themselves towards releasing the independent
nations of Byelrussia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukraine from bondage and
recognizing the right to self-determination for all people in the region and beyond. We
call upon the United States to begin meaningfully pursuing this solution while sincerely
rejecting the “sphere of influence” concept as a necessary base for peace and cooperation
among all the people of the world.

“Our calls to renounce Yalta have always been carried out with the intention of
contributing towards the freedom, peace, and security of all captive nations and people
including the citizens of Russia. On this basis we call upon all people of goodwill,
especially those particularly concerned about the fate of captive nations, to actively
support and aggressively pursue the renunciation of the 1945 Yalta executive agreement.”
Besides mailing the above statement to all of the American captive nation press, and
various American leaders, numerous copies were sent to the official communist press in
Poland, the Baltic Republics, and elsewhere in the “Soviet Union.” An individual copy
was even sent to Jaruzelski. We looked forward to seeing how they would attack us after
this latest mailing (revisionists in disguise?), and always enjoyed getting under their skin.

My last letter of 1984 was sent on December 31st to Editor-In-Chief of “Gwiazda

Polarna” Mr. Alfons Hering, which included the following:

…“I don’t know how far we will get with renouncing Yalta, although we have every
intention of continuing the struggle until victory is achieved, but what we will continue to
accomplish is mostly thanks to you and Gwiazda Polarna. This, I, and others, will never
forget as long as we live.”

By the beginning of 1985, voices calling for the renunciation of Yalta were on the rise
again. Most touching were those coming from the Underground in Poland. On January
15th, 1985, KOS issued an appeal to a Yalta Heritage Conference in Berlin. Much space
was also dedicated towards specifically supporting the POMOST approach to Action
Renounce Yalta in this group’s publication (issue #67).

In the January- February 1985 issue of the Polish underground publication

“Niepodlegosc” [Independence] an appeal was issued by numerous organizations and
publications calling on the United States and Great Britain to take action leading to the
revision of Yalta. Miedzyzakladowy Komitet Koordynacyjny [Interdepartmental
Coordinating Committee], Miedzyzakladowy Komitet Wspolpracy “Solidarnosc”
[Interdepartmental Partnership Committee “Solidarity”], Ruch Polityczny
“WYZWOLENIE” [Political Movement “Liberation”], Grupa Polityczna “WOLA”
[Political Group “Will”], Liberalno-Demokratyczna Partia “Niepodleglosc” [Liberal-
Democratic Party “Independence”], Federacja Mlodziezy Walczacej [Federation of
Fighting Youth], redakcja “WOLI” [Editors of “Wola”], redakcja niezaleznego
miesiecznika “BAZA” [Editors Independent Monthly “BASE”] pisma Klubow Mysli
Robotniczej [Periodicals of Worker’s Thought Clubs], redakcja “GLOSU WOLNEGO
TAKSOWKARZA” [Voice of Free Taxi Drivers], Polska Socjalistyczna Partia Pracy
[Polish Socialist Party of Work], redakcja “ROBOTNIKA” [Editors “Of The Worker”],
TKZ-y Szczecina, Koszalina i Slupska, [Temporary Institutional Committee of Szczecin,
Koszalin, and Slupsk], redakcja pisma GP“W” – NAPRZOD” [Editors of periodical
GP”W”- “FORWARD”], redakcja CIN – “GLOS WOLNEGO ROBOTNIKA” [Editors
CIN- “Voice of the Free Worker”], Miedzyzakladowy Robotniczy Komitet
“Solidarnosci” [Interdepartmental Workers Committee “Solidarity”], Komitet Oporu
Spolecznego [Committee In Defense of Society], redakcja “KOS”a [Editors, Committee
In Defense of Society], called on public opinion in all European societies to express
solidarity with efforts leading to the revision of the Yalta agreements in the spirit of
developing peace in Europe. “There’s no European peace without the freedom of her
nations” they stated. The document also called upon the nations of Eastern and Central
Europe for activity in building independent societies and supporting the Polish appeal.
The above issue of the magazine “Niepodleglosc” also specifically expressed support for
the POMOST approach to Yalta, treating it as an illegal and non-binding agreement that
should be renounced, while specifically rejecting the Brzezinski approach of getting away
from Yalta through a process of gradual change, which would not be easily recognizable.
Brzezinski’s proposed plan was widely published and widely accepted by the American
political establishment, especially since it proposed gradually shifting the responsibility
of uniting Europe to the Europeans themselves. The fact that focus was even placed on a
vision of working towards uniting Europe was an important contribution. As a person
holding considerable authority in the United States, it was probably better for the cause of
a free Poland that Brzezinski offered a plan which was acceptable, and that was accepted
as being workable, by the American establishment.

While no call to renounce Yalta was wasted because it was equivalent to calling for
action and commitment on behalf of freedom for captive nations, we recognized that
POMOST was now at, close to, or may have even passed peak performance in showing
massive support for this purpose. We were no longer confident about being able to draw
an impressive amount of people for a demonstration. While we could refer to the tens of
thousands of signatures already collected under petitions, this part of the action had now
slowed to a trickle. While we had played a major role in bringing Yalta out of obscurity
to the point where it was being widely discussed in Washington D.C. and other capitols
in the world, we recognized that this too could be short lived, especially without being
able to show sustained massive support. As with any action it would become harder and
harder to sustain interest over a prolonged period of time and, after two years, and the
coming 40th anniversary of Yalta, we were concerned that virtually all active support
might come to an end.

We also recognized that the United States was not yet prepared to renounce the Yalta
agreement itself, and such resolutions would simply continue to sit in the U.S. Foreign
Relation committees of the Senate and House of Representatives. Therefore, while
continuing to publicly call for the renunciation of Yalta agreement itself it would be our
aim to have the United States accept at least some blame for what took place at Yalta. It
was hoped that this, in turn, would create a better foundation for a future effort to
renounce the Yalta agreement itself. If the U.S. House or Senate were to go on record
admitting that Yalta was a bad, immoral, and illegal agreement for which we, as
Americans, share the blame, then it would only make logical sense to renounce Yalta
sooner or later.

The Polish Government-In-Exile was making preparations for observing the 40th
anniversary of Yalta (February 4-11, 1985). It would include press a conference,
including in the British Parliament, and masses in Polish churches throughout Britain.

POMOST constantly issued appeals to all organizations that came to mind to call upon
the governments of the United States and Great Britain to renounce Yalta. One church
after another agreed to hold masses for the victims of Yalta on Sunday, February 10,
1985. Once again, other captive nation organizations joined the effort. The President of
the Romanian-American National Congress Alexander Ronnett, for example, issued an
appeal to Romanian Orthodox churches to hold such masses. St. Steven King of Hungary
Church was to hold such a mass in Chicago along with several Polish churches.

Articles pertaining to Yalta still appeared frequently in major publications. Several

expressed interest, if not considerable support, for Brzezinski’s proposal, such as an
article written by Stephen Rosenfeld of the Washington Post. At the request of the Polish
Underground, and POMOST Cleveland Representative David Domzalski, well known
American political commentator and also Washington Post columnist George Will
published an article titled “Time to dump Yalta” in the January 10, 1995, issue of the
Cleveland Plain Dealer. Will took the position that the Helsinski Accords, as well as
“Yalta,” should be denounced because no agreement with the Soviets served any useful
purpose and each ended as a “fraud.”

In a letter dated January 5, 1985, the Editor of “Letters To Poles” sharply criticized our
statement accepting “territorial status quo” borders for the future of a free and undivided
Europe. Mr. Czeslaw Maliszewski expressed his anger and pain with our position “to
play Santa Claus in handing out, left and right, Polish land.” I felt terrible because as a
well-meaning active patriot, Mr. Maliszewski still dreamed of one day returning to a
Polish, Polesie (Ukraine), where he was raised as a child. Criticism would also come
from the Polish Government-In-Exile, and a few individuals. This still amounted to far
less criticism than even we had expected. I was pleased that the vast majority of Poles,
even larger than we had expected, indeed recognized that preserving territorial status quo
was a necessity for building a peaceful, stabile, and united Europe.

The reaction of Mr. Algimantas Gureckas of the Lithuanian American Community was
again disappointing. While welcoming our statement on borders in his letter of January
21st, 1985, Mr. Gureckas was still not prepared to support the renunciation of Yalta
without mentioning the preservation of territorial status quo in the resolution itself. In his
proposed Draft F of January 20, 1985, it would be resolved:

“ That the United States renounces the Yalta agreement except its territorial clauses on
boundaries of Poland, which established the eastern frontier of Poland along the Curzon
line with minor digressions and provided that Poland must receive substantial accessions
of territory in the North and West, and declares that other provisions of the Yalta
agreement are no longer binding;”….

Mr. Gureckas also still wanted to approach the resolutions from President Reagan’s point
of view, avoiding any reference to the agreement being made on behalf of nations “not
represented,” or finding any U.S. or British fault in the decisions made at Yalta (placing
no blame on Roosevelt or Churchill, and thereby eliminating the justification to renounce
Yalta).

Mr. Gureckas also sent a paper which he had written, titled “Suggestions for Polish-
Lithuanian Reapproachment,” dated April 12th, 1984. The paper, which constantly dwells
on Polish acceptance of Lithuania’s borders, concludes as follows:

“Lithuanians have to see convincing evidence that the great majority of the Polish people
including the influential Polish Catholic Church have given up any claims to Vilna,
before their distrust will dissipate and they will be ready for friendly relations and
genuine cooperation.”

My letter of response to Mr. Gureckas, dated January 31st, 1985, included the following:

“…. I must admit that I am a little disappointed with your position on this matter. We are
prepared to deal with issues that rightfully concern you a thousand times over but this
should not be done at the expense of working for the freedom of all captive nations,
including Lithuania, most effectively.

“Yalta points out partial Western responsibility for the past, as well as the present
position of captive nations. For the Soviet Union it represents justification, and consent,
to dominate our peoples. For many people most everywhere in the world Yalta stands out
as the leading symbol for the status quo division of Europe. It is therefore in the interest
of Eastern Europe (and ultimately the world, for reasons that we know all too well) to
destroy it, as opposed to protecting it in any way.

“…Yalta represents an immoral and illegal agreement, and it is in the interest of Eastern
Europe’s future to state this. It is not in the interest of Eastern Europe’s future to give it
validity, and to build on it….

“…In your proposed legislation you are asking people to accept borders based on an
agreement reached by three people neither of whom represented any of the countries
involved. How can Poles possibly accept anything on the basis of a despised conference
at which they were not represented? If the vast majority of Poles have since accepted
their Eastern border(s) as a permanent one based on their consideration of history, new
realities, common sense, and goodwill, do you want to tell them that they must accept this
border because it is based on Stalin’s desire?

“…Have you taken into consideration that for Poles, if not others, the legislation that you
propose would raise the only invalid reason why territorial status quo should not be
maintained?

“…Other captive nations and captive nation Americans…would also like to receive such
assurances. You will surely agree that Poland’s Western borders face the greatest
potential danger of all. Undoubtedly most every nation in the area has their own real or
imagined fears, which they would like specifically addressed at every opportunity
possible. It seems wrong however to press for this at the expense of weakening a
resolution on behalf of Eastern Europe…

“...From your correspondence it is quite evident to me that you do not understand, and
lack trust, in the reasons for our initiative and the attitude of people in Poland, and Poles
around the world. While I understand the reasons for your cautious approach,
unfortunately it clouds and delays the vision of a free Europe without validity…

“…We do not look at the issues involved as a Lithuania and/or Ukraine vs Poland affair.
We believe and we are convinced in our belief that a Lithuanian Vilna and a Ukrainian
Lvov are as much in the interest of Poland as they are in your interest. To think otherwise
would only endanger the chances of gaining and then preserving permanent freedom and
security for the region as a whole, from which we will all benefit in the ultimate way
possible.

“…In reality it appears that you cannot support legislation renouncing Yalta without the
mention of borders. In feeling responsible for this action not only towards Poles, but
various groups, I hope that you can understand why we cannot accept this…. Therefore,
it is with some regret, that we will go along with the compromise legislation reached last
year.”

Thus, for many reasons it was now our intention to introduce the same resolution agreed
to on September 9th, 1984, in the Senate, which would neither renounce Yalta, nor contain
any mention of borders in the resolution itself.

We would remain satisfied in continuing to place as much blame as possible on the

Western powers, especially since, realistically, at this stage of the action, it was becoming
obvious that the U.S. government was not yet prepared to renounce the Yalta agreement
itself. If the U.S. were to accept at least some blame during the coming session of
Congress, then it would make it a little easier to seek the renunciation of Yalta during a
future session of Congress. But sadly it became obvious even to me that this could not be
all done at once, no matter how hard we tried. And at the same time it seemed important
that some result was obtained while there was still interest in the Yalta campaign.

It should be stated that while I was very disappointed in the approach of Mr. Gureckas, it
appeared that the vast majority of Lithuanian Americans were very supportive of Action
Renounce Yalta, contributed a great many signatures under petitions, accepted our good
faith at face value, appreciated our statement on borders, and recognized the significance
of working together in this effort for the common good of the region as a whole. Some
people told me that Mr. Gureckas did not even speak for the majority of the organization
that he was representing.

On January 28th, 1985, the Washington Post published an article stating that 11 million
West Germans claim the eastern territories of Hitler’s defeated Reich as their original
homeland. The article stated that they have a fierce loyalty to the vision that someday
their lands will become German again. The slogan of these people was “40 years of
banishment: Silesia remains ours.” It was also stated that a magazine representing
Silesian refugees ran an article suggesting that the West German Army should sweep into
Eastern Europe and reunify Germany. It imagined that the army would meet only token
resistance because the “overwhelming part of the population” would hail the West
Germans as liberators. Obviously, reading such an article with regard to Poland’s western
borders, concerned us at POMOST, but this could still not justify doing other than
working in the most effective way possible on behalf of those who were deprived of
freedom for decades.

At the same time we welcomed calls for the reunification of Germany, which obviously
had to be a part of a fully united Europe. A united democratic Germany would also give
Poland a common border with a nation outside of the communist system, a necessity to
make a comfortable permanent break from Soviet occupation.
 NEW RESOLUTIONS FOR YALTA’S 40TH ANNIVERSARY

On January 30th, 1985, Polish-American Congress President Aloysius Mazewski sent out
a statement to leaders of his organization pertaining to the coming 40th Anniversary of the
Yalta Agreement. It was a position paper titled “Yalta After Forty Years,” prepared by
Professor Venceslaus Wagner. Professor Wagner wrote that the only decision warranted
at Yalta was the return of the former Polish western provinces (annexed by Prussia little
by little) to the mother country. He stated that this should also be treated as a partial
compensation for the pain and suffering caused Poland during World II. The remainder of
the paper was critical of what took place at Yalta, especially compared to previous PAC
statements, and suggested that the American government could announce that this
agreement is no longer operative, along with issuing a statement that the present Polish-
German border must be considered final.

During an interview printed in the February 1, 1985, issue of The Washington Times,
Mazewski was quoted as follows:

“…Now, with the 40th anniversary of the Yalta Agreement – which was mainly the cause
of the position of the countries behind the Iron Curtain- this again will bring out a lot of
commemorations, as well as protests, as well as informing the public of the terrible treaty
that was signed – an unofficial treaty between President Roosevelt and Stalin where they
gave away the countries behind the Iron Curtain.”

Mazewski’s comments on Yalta were very welcomed and we considered the Polish –
American Congress statement on the “40th Anniversary Of The Yalta Agreement,” which
completely echoed Brzezinski’s position, to be an improvement over past PAC
statements. While it fell short of calling on the U.S. Congress to include accepting U.S.
blame for Yalta in a Joint Resolution to repudiate the sinister legacies of Yalta, the PAC
statement itself contained such criticism of Roosevelt and Churchill as for example:

“Western leaders, naïve and beguiled by their wishful thinking about Soviet intentions, in
fact acquiesced in their willful violations by the ruthless might of the Soviets.”

Thus as the 40th anniversary of Yalta rapidly approached, positions in the Polish-
American community became more united.

Brzezinski, the Polish-American Congress, and POMOST all pointed out that Yalta, and
other World War II agreements, involved U.S. acquiescence in the Soviet domination of
captive nations. Brzezinki pointed this out very strongly and clearly, yet very eloquently,
making it more palatable to the U.S. political establishment. The PAC aligned itself
completely with this position now. Both wanted to renounce the legacy of Yalta
symbolically, without embarrassing the United States, while focused with moving on to
the long-term plan of creating conditions within Europe itself that would allow for the
gradual unification of Europe.

Having doubts that a long-term plan of gradual interaction and cooperation between
Eastern and Western Europe would ever lead to an acceptable life for the people of
captive nations, POMOST remained focused on seeking support for an aggressive
“freedom now” policy. Thus POMOST would remain far more aggressive in pointing out
U.S. blame for Yalta, and responsibility to aggressively push for the end to the division of
Europe now.

Most importantly, the American political establishment would no longer hear many, if
any, Polish-American voices stating that Yalta was a good agreement, with the only
problem being that the Soviets did not live up to their commitments.

One of several appeals issued by POMOST pertaining to the 40th Anniversary of Yalta
read as follows:

“Some believe that the postwar peace was lost at Tehran rather than at Yalta. While
perhaps the agreement indeed projected a more positive image of the parties involved, it
can be said that the 1945 Yalta Conference had more in common with the Soviet-Nazi
Molotov- Robbentrop Pact than with any meaningful display of Western commitment on
behalf of captive nations.

“The Pomost Socio-Political Movement views Yalta as the finalization of the Western
World’s policy of appeasement towards the Soviets, at the expense of captive nations,
exhibited throughout much of World War II, especially at Tehran. While the burden of
Yalta will probably be carried by the Western world, particularly the United States and
Great Britain, until the captive nations of Central and Eastern Europe are set free, the
renunciation of the Yalta agreement would at least serve as a sign of moral commitment
towards this goal.

“The Helsinki Accords and other treaties, regardless of what is thought of them, as well
as goodwill and common sense, should leave no one with a bias for considering Action
Renounce Yalta as a challenge to maintaining territorial status quo among the Captive
nations of Central and Eastern Europe. To use this action for such a purpose now, or in
the future, would serve as a great injustice towards all those who have already been
enslaved for forty years, and who must depend upon the united efforts of the captive
nation community as a whole to help bring, and then preserve, freedom for this entire
region of the world.

“Yalta serves as a symbol for the division of Europe and the building of post-war U.S.-
Soviet cooperation at the expense of all the freedom-loving people in Central and Eastern
Europe. The Soviet Union looks upon Yalta as justification to permanently dominate,
enslave, and terrorize hundreds of millions of people within its so called “sphere of
influence.” To this day Yalta continues to serve as a symbol of Western acquiescence in
the enslavement of captive nations.

“We believe that it is cynical and immoral to determine the fate of nations by
geographical position, as opposed to the will of the people in each given country. We
refuse to accept that each child of every generation born in Eastern Europe should be
condemned to living an entire life under Soviet occupation and totalitarian rule. We
recognize our responsibility towards the victims of Yalta who continually contest the fate
that the Western world took part in creating for them.

“February 4-11, 1985, will mark the 40th anniversary of the infamous Yalta executive
agreement. Therefore, we call upon all those concerned about the fate of captive nations
to honor February 4-10, 1985, as RENOUNCE YALTA WEEK. We appeal to all captive
nation leaders and organizations to commemorate this tragic event by calling on their
respective governments to renounce Yalta. We call upon all people of goodwill to hold
services on Sunday, February 10, 1985, for the victims of Yalta and to pray for a united
Europe and true peace around the world. May all freedom-loving people unite on this day
so that our voices can be heard together around the globe.”

Besides mailing such statements to the American Captive nation press, they were also
sent to many of the major U.S. non-ethnic publications throughout the country.

On January 28, 1985, the following letter signed by Senator Robert W. Kasten, Jr. was
sent out to all members of the Senate:

“Dear Colleague,

“February 4th, 1985 marks the fortieth anniversary of the beginning of the Yalta
Conference. Out of this Conference emerged the executive agreements that to this day
serve as the symbol of the division of Europe. On this date, I will reintroduce my
resolution calling upon Congress to repudiate the consequences of the Yalta agreements.

“The Yalta agreements serve as the legal basis for the artificially imposed division of
Europe. While the intention of the Western leaders who signed the Yalta agreements was
to help bring about peace and security in the post-war world, these agreements, by
causing the division of Europe, have themselves been a major source of tension and
instability. This tension has been made worse by the fact that the Soviets massively
violated the Yalta agreements from the beginning by not holding free elections in the
captive nations as promised, and by the fact that they have used their conquest of Eastern
and Central Europe as a springboard by which to threaten Western Europe. For these
reasons alone, the Yalta agreements should be repudiated. But the most important reason
for repudiating the Yalta agreements is that these agreements are immoral: they are
contrary to both the Atlantic Charter and the great founding principles of this nation.

“Both the Atlantic Charter and the founding principles of this nation stress the idea of
self-determination. But there was no self-determination at Yalta. The representatives of
the peoples whose fates were being determined were not even consulted. Instead, the
future of millions of people was laid out on the basis of geographical location alone.

“The Soviet Union looks to Yalta to justify its domination of Central and Eastern Europe.
Therefore, to repudiate Yalta would make it clear that we do not accept the forcible
division of Europe. To repudiate Yalta would make it clear to the Soviet Union- and to
our allies – that cooperation with the U.S.S.R. will not be at the expense of the subjugated
people of Central and Eastern Europe. And to repudiate Yalta would send a message to
those subjugated people that we have not forgotten them.

“I believe that recent events in Poland – as well as events in Prague in 1968, Budapest
and Poznan in 1956, and East Berlin in 1953 – make it clear that the desire for self-
determination is strong among the enslaved peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, and
that they certainly do not accept the bargain made for them at Yalta.
“The repudiation of Yalta is, of course, a symbolic act and it should not be seen as a
substitute for substantive economic and political pressure on the Soviet empire. But the
renunciation of Yalta is an important symbolic act in much the same way that the
Emancipation Proclamation was an important symbolic act. Just as the Emancipation
Proclamation gave hope to those who languished in slavery before they were actually
freed, so the repudiation of Yalta is intended to give hope to the people of the Soviet
bloc.

“Last year the Foreign Relations Committee was on record as calling for hearings on this
resolution. I concur: I hope that hearings can be held at the earliest moment possible and
that the Senate can send a clear message to the people of Central and Eastern Europe that
we have not written off their hopes and aspirations for a better world. I hope you will join
me in this effort.

“If you wish to cosponsor this resolution, please contact Mac Owens of my staff at 4-
5323. I enclose a copy of the resolution and an article on this topic by George Will.

Best regards,

Robert W. Kasten, Jr.”

On Monday, February 4th, the 40th anniversary of the start of the Yalta Conference, a
Solemn Ecumenical service for the victims of Yalta was held at Brompton Oratory in
London followed by a rally at the Victims of Yalta Memorial. Members of the British
Parliament joined ethnic leaders in condemning Yalta. In Cleveland, Ohio, a “Renounce
Yalta” seminar, well covered by local media, was held. Over National Public Radio well
known Polish opposition leader Jacek Kuron’s voice was heard from Warsaw. He
forcefully stated: “We were sold out to the Soviets at Yalta.”

During the 40th anniversary of Yalta major U.S. publications addressed the issue, along
with the Captive nation press. In its February 4, 1985 editorial the conservative
Washington Times wrote:

“Yalta: harvest of shame

“Forty years ago today the leaders of the Big Three met at Yalta to hash out postwar
continental policy. For all practical purposes, the war against Nazi Germany had been
won, and in the Pacific the sun was setting on the Empire of Japan. But the gains of the
democracies seized on the battlefield were about to be yielded up in the grand ballroom
of a Crimean palace.

“The word Yalta,” writes Harvard’s Adam Ulam in The New Republic, “has a sinister
ring, just like Munich. As at Munich in 1938, Western democracies at Yalta in 1945
retreated under pressure from a totalitarian power, and pusillanimously abandoned their
friends and principles.” Sinister is precisely the word; it was at Yalta that the United
States lost the peace so much blood had been spilt to gain.

“Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin met there ostensibly to
hammer out a central European settlement on boundaries, and to perfect plans for the
United Nations. Roosevelt, preoccupied with pulling off the U.N., was prepared to go to
extravagant lengths to win Stalin’s support. Churchill, worried about a Europe living in
the shadow of the Red Army, bowed to Roosevelt’s leadership. It was a profound
mistake.

“Jovial and seemingly eager to please, Stalin had other things on his mind: Poland, in
particular, and the rest of Eastern Europe. “Uncle Joe,” the mobster who presided over
the deaths of tens of millions of Russians, proved to be a Dutch uncle when it came to
bargaining. He kept for the Soviet Union all the land it had won by treaty with the Nazis
in 1939, plus carte blanche to establish Communist dictatorships throughout most of
Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and along the Baltic littoral. The quid pro quo was – the
United Nations.

“Yalta was not, as is commonly thought, the site of the Great Betrayal. The seeds of
political defeat were planted at Teheran in November 1943; Yalta was merely the harvest
of shame. Today the results of what happened there are readily apparent. What is less
apparent are the lessons, which succeeding American presidents, in their own dealings
with the Soviets, have demonstrated such an inability to grasp. With a new round of
arms-control talks about to begin, the 40th anniversary of Yalta is a useful reminder of
truths the Reagan administration can hardly afford to forget.”

On February 5, 1985, The White House released the following statement from President
Reagan:

“Forty years ago this week, the leaders of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet
Union met at Yalta, to confer on the approaching end of World War II and on the outlines
of the postwar world. The agreements they reached, including the Declaration on
Liberated Europe, committed all three governments to the reconstruction of a democratic
continent.

“Since that time Yalta has had a double meaning. It recalls an episode of cooperation
between the Soviet Union and free nations, in a great common cause. But it also recalls
the reasons that this cooperation could not continue – the Soviet promises that were not
kept, the elections that were not held, the two halves of Europe that have remained apart.

“Why is Yalta important today? Not because we in the West want to re-open old disputes
over boundaries. Far from it. The reason Yalta remains important is that the freedom of
Europe is unfinished business. Those who claim the issue is boundaries or territory are
hoping that the real issues, democracy and independence, will somehow go away. They
will not.

“There is one boundary which Yalta symbolizes that can never be made legitimate, and
that is the dividing line between freedom and repression. I do not hesitate to say that we
wish to undo this boundary. In so doing, we seek no military advantage for ourselves or
for the Western alliance. We do not deny any nation’s legitimate interest in security. But
protecting the security of one nation by robbing another of its national independence, and
national traditions, is not legitimate. In the long run, it is not even secure.
“Long after Yalta, this much remains clear: the most significant way of making all
Europe more secure is to make it more free. Our forty-year pledge is to the goal of a
restored community of free European nations. To this work we recommit ourselves
today.”

On February 5, 1985 Kasten introduced his resolution, which read as follows:

“99THCONGRESS
1ST SESSION
S.J. RES. 37

“To reaffirm United States solidarity with the aspirations of captive nations in
Central and Eastern Europe by repudiating the negative consequences of the
1945 Yalta executive agreements.

“IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

“FEBRUARY 5 (legislative day, JANUARY 21), 1985

“Mr. KASTEN introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and
referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

“JOINT RESOLUTION
“To reaffirm United States solidarity with the aspirations of captive nations in Central
and Eastern Europe by repudiating the negative consequences of the 1945 Yalta
executive agreements.

“Whereas, during World War II, representatives of the United States, Britain, and the
Soviet Union took part in agreements and understandings concerning other peoples who
were not represented;

“Whereas the Soviet Union violated the Yalta guarantee of free elections in the countries
involved, specifically the Yalta agreement commitment “to form interim
intergovernmental authorities broadly representative of all democratic elements in the
population and pledge to the earliest possible establishment of free elections of
government response to the wills of the people and to facilitate where necessary the
holdings of such elections;”

“Whereas at Yalta it was decided that a new Polish Government should be formed using
an unpopular Soviet backed provisional government as a base which was to expand on a
broader democratic basis with the inclusion of democratic leaders from Poland itself and
from Poles abroad, and was to hold free elections, provisions which the Soviets violated
by arresting or executing democratic leaders while holding fraudulent elections;
“Whereas at the Yalta Conference, it was agreed to repatriate all Soviet citizens who
remained abroad after the war, irrespective of their individual wishes and by force if
necessary, resulting in much tragedy and suffering;

“Whereas millions of people around the world, especially those residing in Central and
Eastern Europe believe the 1945 Yalta executive agreements involved alleged United
States acquiescence in the enslavement of entire nations under a Soviet totalitarian
system of government;

“Whereas the nations of Central and Eastern Europe continue to resist Soviet domination
as for example in guerilla wars after World War II in Lithuania, Ukraine, and other
countries, in East Berlin 1953, Poznan and Budapest 1956, Prague in 1968, in Poland
1970, and again since 1980;

“Whereas it is appropriate for the United States according to the principles on which this
nation was founded to respect the desires and aspirations of all freedom-loving people
around the world;

“Whereas it is appropriate that the United States express the hopes of the people of the
United States for the freedom of the people subjected to the captivity of Soviet despotism
in Central and Eastern Europe as well as elsewhere around the world; and

“Whereas it is appropriate for the United States to reject any interpretation or application
that, as a result of the signing of the 1945 Yalta executive agreements the United States
accepts the present position of nations being held captive by the Soviet Union: therefore,
be it

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representative of the United States of America in
Congress assembled, That the United States does not recognize as legitimate any spheres
of influence in Europe and that it reaffirms its refusal to recognize such spheres in the
present or in the future, by repudiating the negative consequences of the Yalta executive
agreements of 1945.

“That the United States proclaims the hope that the people who have been subjected to
the captivity of Soviet despotism shall again enjoy the right to self-determination within a
framework that will sustain peace, that they shall again have the right to choose a form of
government under which they shall live, and that the sovereign rights of self-
determination shall be restored to them in accordance with the pledge of the Atlantic
Charter.

“The United States hereby expresses its solidarity with the peoples of Central and Eastern
Europe.”

Senator Kasten introduced the resolution in the Senate as follows:

“Mr. KASTEN. Mr. President, 40 years ago yesterday, a meeting began in the Crimean
resort city of Yalta that was to have immense consequences for the freedom of Eastern
Europe, and the security of the West.
“The Yalta conference produced a series of executive agreements that, in effect,
established Soviet domination of Eastern and Central Europe, resulted in the enslavement
of millions of people, and even today provides a justification for inaction in the face of
Communist offenses against human rights in those regions.

“In commemoration of this anniversary, I am reintroducing my legislation from last year

that calls upon Congress to repudiate the consequences of the Yalta executive
agreements. By reintroducing this Joint resolution, I am acting in the spirit of President
Dwight D. Eisenhower, who stated in his message to Congress of February 2, 1953, that
he would ask that body to join “in making it clear that we would never acquiesce in the
enslavement of any people in order to purchase fancied gain for ourselves, and that we
would not feel that any past agreement committed us to any enslavement.” I am acting in
the spirit of Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security Advisor, who has
called for a repudiation of the Yalta agreements in a recent Foreign Affairs article. And I
am acting in the spirit of Secretary of State George Shultz, who, speaking at the
Stockholm Conference on European Disarmament last year, said, “the United States does
not recognize the legitimacy of the artificially imposed division of Europe.” That division
of Europe has as its basis the Yalta agreement.

“I do not question the motives of the Western leaders who negotiated this agreement with
Stalin in 1945. After all, the Red Army already controlled much of Eastern Europe at the
time of the meeting, and the Western leaders believed that by acquiescing temporarily to
Soviet control of this region, they could extract valuable concessions from Stalin. History
has proven them wrong. But the reasons for repudiating Yalta has less to do with
questioning these political judgments than with the fact that Yalta has become, like
Munich, a symbol of the inability of liberal democracies to stand up to a totalitarian
power, and a willingness to abandon friends and principles.

“Equally important, the Yalta agreements are contrary not only to the great founding
principles of this Nation, but also to the Atlantic Charter which established the goals of
the Allies in World War II.

“Both the Atlantic Charter and the founding principles of this Nation stress the idea of
self-determination. But there was no self-determination at Yalta. The representatives of
the peoples whose fates were being determined were not even consulted. Instead, the
future of millions of people was laid out on the basis of geographical location alone.

“The Soviet Union looks to Yalta to justify its domination of Central and Eastern Europe.
Therefore, to repudiate Yalta would make it clear that we do not accept the forcible
division of Europe. To repudiate Yalta would make it clear to the Soviet Union – and to
our allies – that cooperation with the U.S.S.R. will not be at the expense of the subjugated
people of central and Eastern Europe. And to repudiate Yalta would send a message to
those subjugated people that we have not forgotten them.

“The repudiation of Yalta is, of course, a symbolic act and it should not be seen as a
substitute for substantive economic and political pressure on the Soviet Empire. But the
renunciation of Yalta is an important symbolic act in much the same way that the
Emancipation Proclamation was an important symbolic act. Just as the Emancipation
Proclamation gave hope to those who languished in slavery before they were actually
freed, so the repudiation of Yalta is intended to give hope to the people of the Soviet
bloc.

“Mr. President, last year the Foreign Relations Committee was on record as calling for
hearings on this resolution. I concur: I hope that hearings can be held at the earliest
moment possible and that the Senate can send a clear message to the people of Central
and Eastern Europe that we have not written off their hopes and aspirations for a better
world. I hope that all my colleagues will join in this effort.

“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my resolution be printed in the
RECORD at this point, along with copies of articles by George Will, Adam Ulam, and
Zbigniew Brzezinski; and a memorandum on Yalta by the Polish Government-in-exile.”

“There being no objection, the material, was ordered to be printed in the RECORD…”

Kasten’s people were well aware that there were several contradictions in the senator’s
speech, as well as pertaining to the literature he had printed in the Congressional Record.
George Will was in favor of renouncing Yalta, as well as Helsinki, as well as probably
every agreement ever made with the Soviets. He considered any agreement made with the
Soviets to be worthless, because they could never be counted on to honor them. The
Polish Government-In-Exile, wanted the Yalta agreement, itself, repudiated [as did
POMOST]. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Eisenhower, and George Shultz, mentioned in Kasten’s
speech, were all interested in renouncing the “legacy” of Yalta, alone. Professor of
History and Political Science at Harvard University” Adam Ulam merely presented
another good historical account of Yalta for the purpose of pondering over its lessons that
“are relevant today when the United States is about to embark on yet another predictably
complex series of negotiations with the Soviet Union.”

Kasten filled up more than 10 full pages of the February 5, 1985, Congressional Record,
making it difficult for the issue to be ignored.

As it turned out, Kasten had accidentally introduced a version of the resolution that was
negotiated during the last session of Congress between his staff and Senator’s Percy staff,
as opposed to the final version that I had negotiated with Mr. Gureckas of the Lithuanian
American Community. Thus on February 6, 1985, I sent a letter advising Gureckas of
this, with the hope that it would gain his understanding on this occasion.

As far as introducing a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives, Mac Owens

suggested asking well-known and well-respected New York Congressman Jack Kemp, to
which we quickly agreed. Mac committed himself to taking care of this matter, and
before long advised that Kemp had agreed to introduce the same resolution.

On February 6, 1985, Ohio State (not Federal) Representative Barbara Pringle wrote
David Domzalski in Cleveland that she would reintroduce a resolution renouncing Yalta
in the Ohio legislature.

On February 7, 1985, Polish-American Senator David F. Durenberger gave a strong

endorsement to Brzezinski’s approach to Yalta, and had the article written by the former
National Security Advisor published again in the Congressional Record.
Durenberger blamed the Soviets entirely for the consequences of Yalta, while explaining
U.S. blunders on naivety, as opposed to any lack of concern for the future captive nations
of the world. Durenberger did, however, state that: …“Contracts are not valid if one party
fails to live up to their terms. The contract we thought we had signed at Yalta has never
been effective, for the Russians set out immediately to break its terms. Under the
circumstances, we are foolish to continue to treat the Yalta agreement as anything more
than a broken artifact of other times.”

Durenberger concluded his speech by stating:

“If we repudiate Yalta’s legacy while bolstering our commitment to the vision of
Helsinki, we can begin, however slowly, to move toward the time when President
Roosevelt’s belief that the world should be free of spheres of influence is fact, not
fantasy. The process will take time, but if we do not begin to invest that time, we are
doomed to live in a world divided and to pour our national treasure into the means by
which to keep it so. There is really no choice. We owe it to ourselves, and to our brethren
in the Eastern European countries, to come up with a better vision of the future…”

While rather ironic that Mr. Durenberger would somehow mix up renouncing Yalta’s
legacy to fit President Roosevelt’s dreams, even such statements that failed to address
Yalta accurately, called for focusing on a united Europe, which was good.

Articles pertaining to Yalta could now again be found frequently in the U.S. press, such
as one titled “The Ghosts of Yalta Haunt Us Still” written by Paul Johnson, appearing in
the February 7, 1985, edition of the Wall Street Journal. Johnson wrote:

“Looking back, it seems almost incredible that Yalta could have happened. How could
the U.S. and Britain, with their enormous military and economic power – and with the
U.S. about to achieve a monopoly in nuclear weapons – have handed over to the Soviet
Union the whole of Eastern and much of Central Europe, plus huge territories in the Far
East, in return for nothing except paper promises?”

“…Churchill therefore demanded that any Polish elections should be held under
international supervision. But it was here that Roosevelt deserted him, decisively. He
opted instead for a typical piece of Roosveltian rhetoric, a “Declaration on Liberated
Europe,” with vague and unenforceable commitments to “the right of all peoples to
choose the form of government under which they will live.” For Poland itself, Roosevelt
settled for Soviet agreement to unsupervised elections in which “All democratic and anti-
Nazi parties shall have the right to take part.” Stalin was happy to subscribe to both these
points, knowing that they were meaningless and that Eastern Europe was now his.”

“He [Stalin] must have also been gratified, and perhaps astounded, by the generosity of
the terms the Western Allies allowed him in return for an eventual Soviet declaration of
war on Japan. The U.S. and Britain were totally committed to the principle that none of
the Allies should seek territorial gains at the end of the war. This was stated plainly in the
Atlantic Charter (August 1941), the United Nations Declaration (January 1942) and the
Anglo-Russian Treaty of Alliance (May 1942). Yet at Yalta, in return for a vague Soviet
promise to enter the war against Japan “two or three months after Germany has
surrendered,” Stalin demanded, and received, recognition of the Soviet possession of
Outer Mongolia, southern Sakhalin and nearby islands, concessions in Manchuria and
China, and the outright annexation of the Kurile Islands. Once again, Roosevelt gave
Stalin what he asked almost without argument, and Churchill had to go along since he
saw the Far East as largely “an American affair…”

In the following day’s edition of the Wall Street Journal, February 8, 1985, Staff Reporter
Frederick Kempe wrote an article titled “Losing Sway, Fortieth Anniversary Of Yalta
Conference Finds Soviets Uneasy.” The article mentioned how failing Soviet ideology,
and economics, was causing concern about captive nations. It mentioned how the various
captive nations were challenging the system to some degree, such as East German
officials laying claim to Martin Luther and assorted Prussian heroes as their own, while
striking deals with West Germany, allowing 40,000 disenchanted people to emigrate in
exchange for West German credits.

The same article, however, also quoted an East German official as stating; “We are an
integral part of the Warsaw Pact, and one should separate oneself from the illusion that
we will be anything else…” “It is only wishful thinking of some in the West that they can
undermine the Soviet empire by bringing Eastern Europe closer to Western Europe.” And
the article stated that; “West European officials generally believe that such a repudiation
of Yalta, [as proposed by Brzezinski] would at worst cause the Soviet Union to guard
more closely its empire from outside influence and at best have no practical effect.”

“Whoever would renounce Yalta today would discover that it wouldn’t change anything,”
says Egon Bahr, one of the primary architects of West Germany’s Ostpolitik, the policy
that opened Bonn’s relationship with Eastern Europe. “The troops of NATO and the
troops of the Warsaw Pact are where they are. The Warsaw Pact will remain in the
Warsaw Pact. All that will change is that the individual (East European) countries will
express their own interests more.”

The same edition of the Wall Street Journal included a letter to the editor (which were
published more frequently) written by a reader (and supporter of POMOST’s Renounce
Yalta action) Elmar Lipping, who wrote:

…“This conference [Yalta] of the “Big Three” has to be remembered with sorrow and
irony – irony because we heard a lot about the Atlantic Charter and the Declaration of
Liberated Europe, both of them forgotten at the conference table and both Stalin’s to
dominate.

“The belt stretching from the Gulf of Finland to the Black Sea was given to the Soviet
“orbit.” The peoples of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary,
Romania, and Bulgaria did not lose only their independence, but also their social fabric.
Their societies had to be “rebuilt” by the Kremlin, at a cost of millions of lives, the so-
called Ice Box Holocaust…”

On Sunday, February 10th, Hungarian, Romanian, and other ethnic churches around the
world held services to commemorate the victims of Yalta. From Tokyo (St. Ignatius) to
New York, St. Petersburg, Florida (St.Mary’s), to Edmonton, Canada, thousands offered
prayers for Yalta’s victims.
At Our Lady of the Apostles Polish Church in Hamtramck, Michigan, 1,000 worshippers
saw a coffin draped with a “Solidarnosc” flag and crepe placed before the alter. To the
left of the coffin stood fifteen large crosses, each draped with a flag of a different captive
nation. To the right stood a large portrait of Father Jerzy Popieluszko, considered to be
among the latest victims of Yalta. Prayers were offered for the millions of Estonians,
Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, and other captive nation people who
suffered, or were murdered, as a result of Yalta. Prayers were also said for those who
perished in East Germany in 1953, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, as well as
for American soldiers killed in Korea and Vietnam, all considered victims of the 1945
Yalta executive agreement. During the moving ceremony, banners stating “Renounce
Yalta” and “Katyn+Yalta” were unfurled.

During a mass celebrated at Transfiguration Church in Cleveland, Ohio, Father Marian

Kenciek called upon captive nation organizations to work together for the cause that they
believe in. For the first time in Cleveland the Polish-American Congress and
POMOST/Committee in Support of Solidarity organized an event jointly. Local PAC
President Joe Ptak advised that the PAC would continue working with the CSS/POMOST
to renounce Yalta.

At Our Lady of Czestochowa Polonian Pastoral Center in Sacramento, California, Father

Leon Juchniewicz asked his congregation to pray for those who struggle for the ideals of
truth, sacrificing their time, energy, and strength for this purpose. Masses in Sacramento
were also held at St. Ann’s, St. Filomeny, and Holly Spirit Church. Masses for the
victims of Yalta were also held in such cities as Anaheim, California (John Paul II
Center), Buffalo (St. Stanislaus), El Cerrito, California (St. Jerome’s), Minneapolis,
Minnesota (Church Of The Holy Cross), New Britain, Connecticut (Holy Cross), New
York (St. Stanislaw’s- organized by the PAC, besides those organized by POMOST) and
Phoenix, Arizona (St. Agnes). In Chicago alone, six churches held masses in connection
with the worldwide day of mourning and recommitment to the struggle for freedom.
Among them were: St Steven King of Hungary, St. Hyacinth, Polish Jesuit Father’s
Home, Carmelite Monastery, and Holy Innocents. In several cities, programs were held
after mass, such as one organized by the Polish Government-In-Exile in Los Angeles
(Our Lady Of The Bright Mount).

There were no reports of statements coming from captive nations outside of Poland in
support of Action Renounce Yalta at this time. On February 12, 1985, however, members
of K.O.R. and Solidarnosc activists from Poland met with Charter 77 members from
Czechoslovakia, at the Polish-Czechoslovakian border. Both groups signed a joint
statement advising of their decision to fight for honoring Human Rights and the freedom
of civilization. They expressed the desire to continue the battle for democracy,
independence, and freedom of their countries. They appealed to the world to join in a
united effort to free political prisoners in Poland, and Czechoslovakia. The joint
statement concluded that if human rights continue to be violated, there would be no peace
in Europe or in the world. One month later, opposition leaders in Hungary signed a
statement in support of the KOR/Charter 77 statement. POMOST Detroit activist Janusz
Subczynski kept POMOST radio listeners advised of such news, and used such
information to support the Yalta action. In this case he stated that if people had the
courage to sign such statements in captive nations for the purpose of working together for
an important cause, then all listeners should follow their example by writing letters in
support of Yalta legislation to Washington D.C.

In the meantime the communist press in Poland started a new wave of attacks against the
“Anti-Socialist & Anti-Polish Coalition” asking the question “Who and why is against
Yalta?” In a long article written in Poland’s communist paper “Zolnierz Wolnosci”
[“Soldier of Freedom”] author Henryk Kawka lashed out against the Paris monthly
“Kultura” and POMOST for trying to undermine this foundation of peace and stability in
Europe, which also protected Poland’s current borders. The article also quoted from
General Jaruzalski’s speech marking the 40th anniversary of communist Poland delivered
to the “Sejm.”

Jaruzelski spoke of Yalta and other agreements as a requirement for peace on the
European continent. He stated that those “who take a position against these principles are
playing with fire, and stand in line as an enemy of our country…” During this time
several POMOST representatives again received threatening anonymous phone calls and
letters, including death threats.

On February 12, 1985, James Zmuda, POMOST organizer of the contest for the best
poem on Yalta, announced the winner. Amid numerous entries, Czeslaw Seyfert’s poem
was the winner:

“THE AGREEMENT

“Cigars, signatures, and jest

while millions are sacrificed
to the west
of the Oder, Neisse, Vistula and Dnieper

“In the Atlantic Charter

the world had spoken
empty phrases and slogans, just hot air,
The East –
Katyn, gulags, chains, and dispair,

“The years pass away

But not the pain, nor the fetters,
The treacherous agreement does stay,
Apparent are the letters
Y-A-L-T-A.”

Mr. Seyfert donated the $200.00 prize for the poem to the POMOST Renounce Yalta
Committee.

Despite the many articles published in various major U.S. publications that exposed the
“shame of Yalta,” there were still a few that were coming to the defense of the
agreement, such as one written by Washington Post columnist Edwin M. Yodor, Jr.,
which appeared in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, if not elsewhere, on February 12, 1985.
Yodor wrote:
“If Roosevelt and Churchill were overwhelmingly concerned to procure Stalin’s
participation in that war, who now can blame them? They did not, and could not, foresee
the role of the atomic bomb. The successful test at Alamogordo, New Mexico, was still
six months away.

“Placing Yalta in that context may not excuse the miscalculations, if such they were,
about Poland’s future. But this exercise in mere history does not render it contemptible if
not pointless to moralize about the outcome – as if alternatives were obvious and to be
easily seized.

“What alternatives were there? Perhaps to revoke the “unconditional surrender” call,
reaffirmed at Yalta, and seek a negotiated peace with Japan? That, after Pearl Harbor? To
send Gen. George Patton bolting far beyond his supply base to Prague, or somewhere else
in central Europe? That, after the near fiasco in the Ardennes? What would American
opinion have said about sending American boys to do what it seemed Russian boys were
doing well enough, and at incalculable cost of life, and even then, perhaps to settle down
as occupation armies in places most Americans had never heard of?”

On February 12, 1985, Algimantas Gureckas of the Lithuanian-American Community

wrote pertaining to Senator Kasten accidentally introducing the wrong version of the
Yalta resolution: “Errors, however, can be corrected, in this case rather easily, by
introducing a corresponding resolution into the House of Representatives that omits the
words: “…by repudiating the negative consequences of the Yalta executive agreements
of 1945.” He also advised that the “Lithuanian American Community will, of course,
oppose Senator Kasten’s resolution S.J. Res. 37.” In the meantime others in the
Lithuanian-American community continued to advise me that our statement on borders
was published throughout the Lithuanian-American press, was very well received with
expressions of thanks, and the Renounce Yalta Action was fully endorsed.

In a letter dated February 13, 1985, the Polish Government-In-Exile wrote that the
position taken by POMOST pertaining to Poland’s borders found their disapproval,
considering this to be a very serious political mistake from which they have to decidedly
disassociate themselves. This was soon followed by a protest letter from the London
based “Zwiazek Ziem Wschodnich” [Union of Eastern Lands]. We simply wrote back
that as a Polish-American organization our position on borders carries no weight, but it is
obvious that our position represents the only solution, and the opinion of the vast
majority of Poles in Poland. We reminded that the position taken was outside of the
Renounce Yalta Action, thus nothing should prevent everyone concerned from
continuing to work together for the most important goal – freedom for Poland and other
Captive Nations.”

On February 13, 1985, I wrote Mac Owens in Senator Kasten’s office:

“…Developments with regard to this action must be torture for our liberals. They are
having the whole postwar mess shoved in their faces with no good defense for them to
use. And even if in their blindness they think that they have a plausible defense…
"…How can these “democratic” leaders possibly justify, within reason, standing behind
an agreement which captive nation people (who were and are effected) want no more part
of now than on the day it was signed? And they claim to stand for the self-determination
of nations? Yalta forces these people to deal with reality. It shows exactly the practical
historical effects of their present (and past) policies built on “logical and progressive
theories.

“…Those nations need to work together in practical terms to regain freedom but this
process cannot be started effectively until they are given hope and a vision of such a
future, along with a meaningful sign that the U.S. indeed stands for such a future, as
opposed to accepting what is (while thinking in terms of their freedom as a far distant
cloud that will drop during some century).

“…Thank God there are still people like Kasten and you around because in the end we
will win.”

Yalta continued to be a live issue as the main U.S. weekly news magazines wrote on the
subject, such as Newsweek in their February 18, 1985 edition. In an article titled “VE
DAY: Divided Anniversary” Newsweek Moscow correspondents Russell Watson and
Robert B. Cullen, and Scott Sullivan in Paris, wrote:

“…Last week’s Yalta anniversary had the superpowers sniping at each other again. In a
statement issued to mark the occasion, Ronald Reagan said that he still would like to
erase “the dividing line between freedom and repression” in Europe. In Moscow, Soviet
Foreign Ministry spokesman Vladimir Lomeiko charged that “certain circles in the
U.S.A. and other NATO countries are trying to wipe out the decisions” made in Yalta by
Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin. “Only political fools,” said Lomeiko “would raise a
hand against [an agreement that] has been the basis of European and world peace for 40
years.”

This article as well mentioned Brzezinski’s proposed plan but speculated that: “neither
superpower wants to change the status quo in Europe- unless it can do so at the other’s
expense.” The article pointed out how Moscow blocked recent efforts at reconciliation
between East and West Germany, with attacks and warnings about West German
“revanchism,” while advising of U.S. concerns that: “A gradual, European solution to the
Yalta dilemma might weaken NATO’s military capabilities, “decouple” the United States
from its allies and leave all of Western Europe vulnerable to Soviet intimidation.”

In a letter to President Ronald Reagan on February 22, 1985 we wrote:

“Dear President Reagan,

“With regard to the recent anniversary of the 1945 Yalta executive agreement, we
welcome your pledge to the goal of a restored community of free European nations. We
consider this to be of utmost importance. We could not help but notice, however, that
once again you neglected to place any responsibility on the U.S. administration involved
which contributed to the tragedy of Yalta.
“At Yalta it was decided that the Lublin Committee of National Liberation, representing
little more than a handful of soviet puppets with no broad support, would in effect serve
as a base for forming a new postwar government in Poland. At Yalta President Roosevelt
also agreed to repatriate 2 million Russian citizens remaining in Western Europe after the
war, irrespective of their will and by force if necessary. Such decisions were made on
behalf of nations and peoples who were not represented, nor consulted, and whose
democratically elected leaders were ignored (in clear violation of the Atlantic Charter and
basic international law). It is also well known that Yalta finalized a policy of Western
acquiescence in creating a Soviet sphere of influence exhibited throughout World War II,
especially at Teheran.

“Mr. President, we respectfully request that you reflect and project the concern of the
American people to face our past mistakes with courage, thereby leaving no room for the
world to question our sincerity in dealing with Yalta. Leading underground organizations
in Poland such as K.O.S. (Social Defense Committee), “Niepodleglosc” (Independence),
KSN (Congress of Nation’s Solidarity), among others, are on record as calling for the
renunciation of Yalta. It is clear that the vast majority of people in captive nations want to
see Yalta renounced by the U.S. government. Therefore, we again request that you honor
the right to self-determination for captive nations by rejecting the Yalta agreement itself,
and by supporting Senator Kasten’s S.J. Res. 37.

“Thank you for your consideration.”

In a yearly address to the German Bundestag, Federal Republic of Germany Chancellor

Kohl spoke of German unification within the concept of a united Europe.

In the February 27, and 28th, 1985 editions of Nowy Dziennik, published in New York,
we learned about meetings held by the Directors of the Polish American Congress in
Washington, D.C. on February 22, 1985. Nowy Dziennik informed that Alaska Senator
Frank Murkowski and New York Congressman Jack Kemp would introduce Yalta
resolutions, prepared by PAC leadership, in the Senate and House of Representatives.

We became concerned that alternative resolutions, simply reflecting the position of the
U.S. administration, would easily pass through the U.S. Congress putting an end to the
action. In the meantime letters and articles of support to push on with the renunciation of
Yalta continued to be received not only from the United States, but from England,
Australia, South American countries, and most importantly, from the underground in
Poland.

One article published in the Polish underground press by an author who wrote under the
pseudonym Jacek Zaleski, stated:

“…The horror of these agreements lies in the fact that they accepted the will of the great
powers as sole and sufficient basis for designing world order. Such a situation did not
even present itself after World War I. Then the delegations of a dozen nations aspiring to
regain their independence were at least listened to. Yalta meant a step backwards of one
hundred and thirty years, to the times of Maetternich. And, as did the Viennese order, so
the Yaltan one must ineluctably crumble down, hopefully not in the wake of a new global
cataclysm.
“Last year the American Vice-President, Bush, and President Reagan, made speeches in
which they stated that the USA never recognized any zones of influence, and that the
Yalta Agreements should be interpreted in that manner. We can, however, consider that,
at best, an expression of the opinion of the current administration in Washington. We
appreciate these declarations, but they cannot be considered sufficient. After all, it was
the American ambassador to Moscow at the time of the Yalta Conference, Averill
Harriman, who advocated the determination of an “honest division of zones of
influence,” non-interference into the zones of influence of other powers, and the defense
of one’s own zone. After all it is by loyally abiding to these decisions that the British
gave Tito a free hand in crushing his anti-communist rivals. In turn, still having these
decisions in mind, the British did not tolerate communist activity in Greece – for Soviet
operations in that country was illegal according to them. After all, not later than a few
years ago, at the time of the Carter administration, the Sonnenfelt doctrine was in force.
Tacitly accepted by both superpowers, it maintained that the USA should not interfere in
the Soviet zone of influence in Europe, in return for Soviet recognition of American
interests in the Middle East, and in particular their restraining themselves from attacking
Israel. Of course, the Soviets did as they pleased anyway. After all, the Brezhniev
doctrine of the limited sovereignty of East European states, also tacitly accepted by both
sides complemented the Sonnenfelt doctrine. The heritage of Yalta was, till recently,
entirely accepted and determined the binding model of European relations. And this
conviction of the legitimacy of zones of influence is what must be destroyed, for if not it
will be revived once again, at the next vault of Western policy. It would be difficult to
overemphasize the harmfulness of this doctrine for all of Europe, and Eastern Europe in
particular.

“Therefore, the Renounce Yalta Campaign aims, first of all, at the rejection of the
principle according to which sufficiently strong powers are entitled to determine zones of
influence independently of the will of the nations which live in these zones and should do
as they please. This refers, of course, first of all to the USSR. But the West’s tacit
acceptance of the status quo is what gives the Soviets a free hand and enables them to go
on oppressing so many nations. A clear statement to the effect that the West, although
powerless to change this state of things, does not recognize the Yalta decisions and the
kind of political principles they had tacitly sanctioned, that it condemns them, would be a
great victory for us and for all of Europe. This is why we look with hope at the efforts of
the Polish émigré organization Pomost in the United States and at those of Senator
[Congressman] Corcoran, although their chances of success seem slight so far. We are of
the opinion that their efforts should gain the support of the widest efforts of the Polish
opposition, especially as the fortieth anniversary of the Yalta conference falls this
February…”

“…It is high time for this common achievement [“Zones of influence”] of the
superpowers to be dismantled. The soviets cannot be counted upon here – Yalta is the
cornerstone of their imperialistic policy. We may, however, apply pressure on the least
interested party – the USA – to repudiate Yalta as a symbol of a certain kind of policy.
Through that, the USA would reconfirm its acceptance and support for the norm of
international law, which states, that decisions relating to third parties made in default are
illegal and void. This would help to cleanse the international atmosphere, depriving
cynicism and violence of their mask of law-abidingness.
“The abrogation of the Yalta Agreements would give us a better chance to win our
independence, but we should not delude ourselves that the mere fact of their being
repealed would automatically change anything in our situation. We ourselves, through
our actions, we must win sovereignty and democracy for our nation. The post-war history
of strivings for independence in the Eastern bloc has convincingly demonstrated,
however, that it is all but impossible for an isolated attempt by one nation alone to be
crowned by success. This must be a common action and a common striving of at least
several of the nations concerned. And as only unity of action can bring about success,
anything that breaks up that unity of the enslaved nations of the bloc is unfavorable for
us…”

On March 4, 1985, the Polish communist press in Poland led by the official voice of the
Polish Communist Party, “Trybuna Ludu (“Tribune of the People”), and “Zycie
Warszawy” (Life of Warsaw), published a communiqué from the Prosecutor General’s
office advising citizens who travel abroad to be aware of “dywersyjnej dzialalnosci”
[deviant activity]. Naming Radio Free Europe, Literature Institute “Kultura” and the
monthly “Kontakt” published in Paris, Solidarity Coordinating Bureau in Brussels, and
Pomost in the United States, the articles advised that these centers:

“…hit against the constitutional system of the country and its leading organs, spread
lying, slanderous, news, undermining and inspiring to actions which hit against civil
peace. From their inspiration, and thanks to financial, and material-technical support they
also organize insulting actions that threaten the security of people and institutions of the
Polish People’s Republic abroad.

‘The General Prosecutor’s Office reminds that working with enemy centers of Poland
abroad is a crime and is subject to foreseen punishment in law regulations, and warns
against not showing responsibility, which – in the defense of the interests of the country
and citizens – will be harshly carried out with the full consequences of the law.”

On March 5, 1985, The Washington Times, if not other newspapers, published an article
by nationally syndicated columnist John Chamberlain who wrote:

“Kasten’s Yalta resolution

“A simple repudiation would fall short of the mark
“ Sen. Robert Kasten Jr. of Wisconsin was very scrupulous in choosing his words when,
on the 40th anniversary of the Yalta agreements, he proposed a joint congressional
resolution condemning Soviet actions in Central and Eastern Europe. What he did was to
ask for a repudiation by the United States of the “consequences” of Yalta.

“Use of the word “consequences” puts the whole lamentable business of Yalta in
perspective. The Yalta agreements actually guaranteed free elections throughout Eastern
and Central Europe. There was a commitment, accepted by Stalin as by Winston
Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt, “to form interim intergovernmental authorities
broadly representative of all democratic elements of the population and pledge to the
earliest possible establishment of free elections of governments responsive to the will of
the people…”
“If these words had been lived up to Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Romania
would still be free – in the way Finland and Austria are free, making their own internal
policies while observing a strict neutrality as between Moscow and the West on foreign
policy.

“But when the guns ceased firing in World War II, Stalin’s armies were in possession of
Eastern and Central Europe all the way to the Elbe River.

“The cynical Stalin then proceeded to behave like any Marxist-Leninist. He took over the
territory east of the Elbe in the name of the proletariat, imposing totalitarian regimes
despite the plain language of the Yalta text.

“In asking that the “consequences” of Yalta be repudiated, Mr. Kasten is following an
honest course. But if the West should take his advice it will not be a victory of any great
practical value.

“What we really need is an exposure of agreements made well before the end of World
War II, which set specific limits to the eastward sweep of the Eisenhower and
Montgomery armies. These agreements, which were in keeping with Harry Hopkin’s
advice to Mr. Roosevelt that it would not be polite to rile the soviets, resulted in calling
Gen. George Patton back as he was about to conquer Prague and the Bohemian
highlands. If the agreements hadn’t been made, the Montgomery and Eisenhower armies
could have taken Berlin while Stalin’s armies were still moving across the Polish plain.

“In short, Mr. Kasten should add another clause to his joint resolution, one repudiating
the Yalta preliminaries as well as the Yalta consequences. What we need is a repudiation
of the habit of mind that fails to see Marxism-Leninism as a continuing process of
conquest by subversion.

“What happened to Eastern and Central Europe was less a “consequence” of Yalta than it
was of the Lenin-Trotsky concept of morality as anything that helps Marxism spread its
tentacles. If lies will facilitate Red advances, they will be told.

“The Soviet conquest of Eastern and Central Europe was part of a process that began in
1917, when the Bolsheviks falsely promised land to the Russian peasants for support in
the revolution against the Kerensky social democratic parliamentary government. The
process has been going on ever since. It conquered Cuba, where Castro lied to his middle
classes. It continues to this day in Afghanistan, in Yemen on the Red Sea, in Ethiopia,
Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Angola, and other African states, and in Central America, now
menaced by Castrolite Cuba.

“The Kasten joint resolution about Yalta will remain a moral gesture in a vacuum if
Congress lets it go at that. Adoption of a resolution will look a little silly if it is done by a
Congress that refuses to fund the Contras in Nicaragua, or to help defeat the guerrillas in
El Salvador. And it will look positively idiotic if the Clark amendment, which makes it
illegal to help anti-Marzist Jonas Savimbi in Angola, is not erased from the books. Mr.
Kasten’s heart is in the right place, but he needs a consistent Congress if his resolution is
to impress anybody.”
On March 12, 1985, a letter written by Edwin Kulawiec was published in the Washington
Times in response to the above article:

“John Chamberlain raises good questions in his March 5 column, “Kasten’s Yalta
Resolution.” There have been other stirrings over Yalta of late – Rep Tom Corcoran’s
House proposal to renounce the Yalta agreements outright and President Reagan’s
remarks in Chicago before election day disavowing the division of Europe into “spheres
of influence,” a direct result of Yalta.

“Evidently the moral anguish over Yalta persists in the West to this day – otherwise why
all the fuss some 40 years after the event? Can it be because two countries affected by the
Yalta agreements, Poland and Czechoslovakia, were ardent allies of the West in World
War II and whose troops fought and died against the common enemy only to be found on
the losing end of the victory parade at war’s end?

“To repudiate the Yalta “consequences” without giving some assurance to Poland, say,
regarding possible German revanchism over the so-called Polish “recovered Western
territories,” would be tantamount to setting up conditions for the next big war in Europe
which would be identical to those in 1939.

“If we can’t do more than give assurances, then let us at least do so with the firmest of
resolve and conviction. After our performances following the crushing of the Hungarian
revolt, the putting down of the Prague uprising, and the imposition of martial law in
Poland, we’re beginning to appear a bit silly with our brand of support to the enslaved,
Soviet-dominated folks there.

In response to another letter from Dr. Herbert Czaja of the Deutschen Bendestages of the
Federal Republic of Germany, who wanted to keep open the issue of Poland’s western
borders, on March 12, 1985, after explaining that Poland’s acceptance of her Eastern
borders was a necessity, I wrote:

“…I believe that most Germans, as the vast majority of Poles, accept present territorial
status quo despite the pain involved. In coming years, for many reasons, this attitude will
rapidly become even more predominant. Regardless of how I, or others, might feel as
individuals, I believe that already it is no longer possible for nations in the region to
change borders without the use of force. Therefore without the use of force, which is a
suicidal long-term alternative for every country in the region, borders cannot be changed.
Therefore why not accept territorial status quo now, which could play a role, perhaps a
very significant role, in advancing the vision, and perhaps reality, of a free Eastern
Europe?

“In practical terms the only factor that prevents Poles (as a nation) from totally embracing
Germans is the fear connected with borders. Without this fear I believe that the Polish
underground, with whom we are in contact, would call for a united Germany and
significant cooperation to the benefit of both peoples could begin.

“I can certainly understand why for Germans it is far more difficult to accept this
solution. I can also understand why Poles feel that their present Western borders should
be preserved. The reality however, is that people have adjusted to a new set of
circumstances which have become the norm.

“Can you accept such a solution at the expense of land lost by Germany – a country
whose people also suffered during the war, continue to suffer from it, and have graciously
made reparations for a dictator who could have been born anywhere in the world? Is it
worth resisting acceptance of territorial status quo even if from your point of view, only
Germany has to pay a serious price?

“It is easy for me to state that the solution is worth the sacrifice and that Poles would
accept such a solution by now, if the situation were reversed. It is understandably far
more difficult for you to reach the same conclusion. In fact I fully recognize that for you
to take such a position would serve as an enormous act of courage. This is why such a
statement issued by you would have an enormous impact on the people of Poland and
indeed on many people around the world. It would also serve as an enormous blow to the
Jaruzelskis of the world who use “German revisionism” to suit their purposes. Such a
statement could perhaps eventually lead to a joint press conference held by Lithuanians,
Ukrainians, Germans, Poles, among others, at the Berlin Wall. It could then be stated that
we have a united vision of a free Europe, while calling on the world to accept territorial
status quo, the vision of a united Germany, and the renunciation of Yalta as a solution to
the problems of Europe. While perhaps officially such a settlement must wait for the
post-Yalta era to end, such a solution can be accepted and promoted by individuals right
now, and it will not be difficult for people of the nations involved to judge if the
statements involved have adequately laid the ground work for official future acceptance
of this vision.

“I truly feel that it is not Poles but the present state of world affairs which from your
point of view has singled out Germany, once again, to sacrifice for the benefit of all. At
the same time this solution does offer an opportunity for Germans to make by far the
most meaningful contribution in 40 years towards a free, peaceful, and stable Europe of
the future, and would be recognized as such around the world.

“Please forgive me for being so directly candid, and for perhaps asking the impossible. I
hope you understand that this solution is not presented with the intention of trying to take
advantage of Germany. In practical terms there simply is no other meaningful alternative
on which to build a truly strong, united, and peaceful Europe.”

During this time we were hard at work looking for cosponsors for Senator Kasten’s S.J.
Res. 37. Being Polish-Americans, we hit hard on Democratic Senators Murkowski and
Durenberger with phone calls and letters. They would constantly ask, however, who else
has cosponsored? “We would prefer to first wait to see who else comes aboard” they
would say. We knew that in such matters it was important to simply get two or three
important targets to co-sponsor, after which time there would be a ripple effect, with
others who usually vote the same then joining in. Getting those first few Democrats was
the hard part, and apparently the resolution was still too controversial for them.

One Polish-American who always understood that letters had the power of bullets in the
American political system, was Jan Malek, who, among many others, sent a letter to
Murkowski as follows:
“Reading the text of Senate Joint Resolution 37, I find it of great moral and political
significance that may open new options for shaping a better, just, and more stable future
for Central-Eastern Europe and for the whole continent…”

…“I would respectfully urge you, Sir, that you support that resolution with all your
authority, power, and influence.”

We put such pressure on Murkowski that he designated a member of his staff to handle
Polish Affairs. We still, however, could not get him to cosponsor S.J. Res. 37.

Malek also designed a special postcard for the “anniversary of betrayal,” which showed
one person fitting the image of Roosevelt and Churchill shaking hands with another
person representing Hitler and Stalin standing over the names of captive nations.
Between the two, the word Yalta was written in red, and around the two was written
“Ribbentrop-Molotov 1939, Churchill-Roosevelt-Stalin 1945, and then the words”
“restore freedom.” It was a copy of an earlier sticker that Malek had designed.

In terms of Republican cosponsors, we had John East and Jesse Helms of North Carolina,
James McClure and Steven Symms of Idaho, Dan Quale of Indiana, and Malcolm Wallop
of Wyoming, who all represented the conservative wing of the Republican Party.

On March 19, 1985, influential Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, from Delaware, made
the following speech before the Senate:

“Mr. President, it has been four decades since President Roosevelt, Prime Minister
Churchill, and Premier Stalin met at Yalta and signed the Yalta agreements.

“Recently, two leaders of the Polish-American Congress of my State of Delaware-

Angela C. Turochy, honorary president and Jesse W. Samluk, president – expressed to
me their continued concern that 40 years later both the spirit and the letter of the 1945
Yalta agreements have not been carried out…”

“The Yalta agreements “Declaration On Liberated Europe,” stated…”

“…I wholeheartedly empathize with and understand the frustrations of my friends in the
Delaware Polish Congress. We in the Senate must continue to do all we can to push each
successive administration to pressure the Soviet Union to fulfill its neglected promises
made at the Yalta Conference. Fostering legitimate democracies in Eastern Europe should
be a high priority of every administration. Sovereign rights and self-government should
be restored to those people who have been forcibly deprived.

“At every opportunity and at every international forum, including the recently convened
arms control talks in Geneva, the administration should be raising with the Soviets the
issue of the Yalta agreements, thereby showing our solidarity with the peoples of Eastern
Europe.

“This is not a partisan matter. The administration should use all means available to press
the Soviets to carry out its commitments under the Yalta agreements. The peoples of
Eastern Europe must be allowed – in the words of the Yalta Conference Declaration – to
solve “by democratic means their pressing political and economic problems.”

Even though coming from the point of view of enforcing Yalta, as opposed to renouncing
Yalta, one could still appreciate the positive effects of raising the entire controversy of
Yalta in Washington D.C.

In the meantime POMOST was not neglecting other obligations such as taking part in
demonstrations in support of Nicaraguan Freedom Fighters, and applying pressure on
U.S. leaders to maintain sanctions against the Polish communist regime at a time when
leaders of Solidarnosc were still being arrested. In a March 20, 1985 letter from new
Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Richard Lugar to POMOST
Executive Committee Coordinator Christoper Rac, he wrote:

“Dear Mr. Rac,

“Thank you for your kind words upon my assumption of the chairmanship of the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations. I am, of course, aware of POMOST’s important work
on behalf of Captive Nations, and your worthwhile efforts are most deserving of support.

“I share your feelings that, in view of Poland’s continuing lamentable human rights
record as well as the regime’s evident hostility toward the United States, remaining U.S.
sanctions against the Polish regime should stay in effect.

“Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me, and I look forward to working with you
in the future.”

On March 22, 1985, at a Symposium cosponsored by the Washington Metropolitan Area

Division of the Polish American Congress and Polish Veterans Association of
Washington, D.C., at George Washington University, former U.S. Ambassador to Poland
Richard T. Davies gave a speech titled “Three Lies – The Yalta Agreements And Their
Consequences.”

Davies stated:

“The first Lie is that Western Allies could have done nothing during World War II to
prevent Soviet domination of East-Central and Eastern Europe.

“It is quite true that the Western Allies did nothing to prevent that domination. But there
was a great deal they could have done. For example, a British historian of the period,
John Grigg, has pointed out that the cross-Channel invasion could have taken place in
1943 instead of 1944. If that had happened, the Allied forces could have occupied
Germany and at least some of the territory of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary,
while the Soviet Army was still fighting inside the borders of the USSR. This is only one
of the things, if the most important, that the Western allies could have done, if they
wanted to, to inhibit, if not forestall, Soviet occupation and satellization of East-Central
and Eastern Europe…”
“…A second Lie about Yalta is that the division of Europe was not agreed to there by the
Western Allies...”

“And here we come to the third great Lie about Yalta which has been swallowed in the
West...”

“…Superficially, Hopkins’s mission to Moscow in May-June, 1945, “succeeded,” to the

extent that a Polish government was formed containing not only members from the
Lublin committee, but also democratic leaders from Poland and from London. This was
the fig leaf that covered the ugly fact of Communist control and enabled the governments
of the United States and Great Britain to recognize this government on July 5, 1945.

“The fig leaf lasted for less than two years, until the rigged election of January 1947.”

Ambassador Davies went on to question American Ambassador to Poland Arthur Bliss

Lane’s recommendation to replace him as soon as possible, upon resigning. In retrospect,
Ambassador Davies expressed that it would have been better to replace him with a charge
d’affaires, which could have accomplished the same, which in turn would have countered
the third Lie that Poland was a sovereign state.

Besides calling on his audience to support Yalta resolutions in Congress, Davies

suggested that consideration be given to maintain relations with the Warsaw regime
through a charge d’affaires at the present time, “until that regime has moved effectively
to meet the demands of the Polish people, as expressed by the truly representative bodies
which arose in 1980-81.” And finally, Davies advised that the Administration “could
explore the possibility of according a form of recognition to the London Government”
[Polish Government-In-Exile]. Davies was not implying that the United States recognize
the Polish Government-In-Exile in place of the Warsaw regime, as many had understood,
but looking into the possibility of according a “form of recognition” as a means of
presenting a strong symbolic statement in view of the events that were taking place in
Poland, as was done in other similar situations around the world.

After the defection of communist Poland’s Ambassador to the United States, Romuald
Spasowski, the regime in Warsaw kept refusing to accept John D. Scanlan as U.S.
Ambassador to Poland. In East Germany U.S. Army Maj. Arthur D. Nicholson Jr. was
shot and killed. Thus significant East-West tensions were still in the air, while President
Reagan was still anxious to hold a summit with Gorbachev at this time.

On March 23, 1985, Senator Robert Kasten had an article published in “Human Events”
advising of his resolution. It was similar to the statement used to introduce his resolution
in U.S. Congress.

On March 25, 1985, as Co-Chairperson of the POMOST Renounce Yalta Committee,

Yolanda Flanagan sent an individual computerized letter to all senators (not yet
cosponsoring Senator Kasten’s S.J. Res. 37), which read as follows:

“Is the U.S. truly committed to a policy of human rights and self-determination for all
people? Do we as a nation truly reject a Soviet sphere of influence occupying half of
Europe? Is the U.S. truly committed towards freedom for captive nations? Is the U.S.
truly committed towards its own long-term preservation as a nation, and as a democracy?
S.J. Res. 37 answers all of the above questions in the affirmative and that is why the
people of captive nations and so many ethnic, as well as non-ethnic, Americans support
the above resolution.

“Evidence of support for S.J. Res. 37 can be found virtually in every captive nation
publication in the United States, which has endorsed this effort to deal with the 1945
Yalta executive agreement. On June 24, 1984, ten U.S. cities took part in worldwide
demonstrations calling for the renunciation of Yalta and its spirit. On February 10, 1985,
religious services were held around the world for the victims of Yalta. POMOST has
already received 65,000 signatures calling on U.S. leaders to deal with Yalta. Perhaps
most important of all, the people of captive nations, who were affected by Yalta, have
appealed for a positive response to this effort. TKZ Solidarnosc in the shipyards of
Gdansk, “K.O.S.” (Social Defense Committee), “KSN” (Congress of Nation’s Solidarity)
as well as other leading underground organizations in Poland have appealed for your
positive response.

“Please express your solidarity and understanding for those who will never stop
struggling for freedom, independence, and basic human rights, but only fear that we in
the Western world might. Millions in the United States and around the world will
appreciate your cosponsoring S.J. Res. 37.

“Thanking you in advance for your consideration.”

Through our contacts we appealed to the Polish underground that when, and if, possible
to issue more appeals calling on President Reagan, U.S. members of Congress, all Poles,
all Captive Nation people, and the American people, to support the Kasten resolution.
Interest in the Yalta campaign was now also spreading to Central and South America
through the efforts of POMOST Denver, Colorado, Representative Jerzy Majcherczyk,
who spent considerable time traveling there.

Under the leadership of the Polish Government-In-Exile, in London, signatures were

being collected in England in support of the “Early Day Motion” introduced in the House
of Commons in January by Sir Bernard Braine. The motion read:

“That this House recalls that Mr. Winston Churchill, when Prime Minister, was a
signatory, together with President Franklin Roosevelt and Marshall Joseph Stalin, to the
Yalta Protocols in February 1945 which guaranteed self-determination, sovereignty and
democracy for the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe; notes that marshal Stalin,
despite being a co-signatory, used his military power and political influence to frustrate
those intentions; deplores the resultant widespread and systematic abuse of human rights
which still continues to this day; supports peaceful endeavors by the peoples concerned to
regain their rights; and urges Her Majesty’s Government, on the 40th anniversary of the
Yalta Protocols, to declare its refusal to accept the division of Europe into spheres of
influence and to reaffirm the right of the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe to
genuine self-determination.”
 On March 28, 1985, influential U.S. Representative Jack Kemp introduced the same
resolution as Kasten in the U.S. House of Representatives, which was designated as H.J.
Res. 219. Kemp’s introductory speech read as follows:

“Mr. Speaker, the Polish-American Congress was founded in Buffalo, NY, in May 1944.
It represented Americans of Polish descent numbering about 6 million. When President
Roosevelt received representatives of the newly founded Congress, the head of the
delegation, Mr. Charles Rozmarek, speaking on behalf of the – then – 6 million
Americans of Polish descent, called on the President to “insist that neither an alien nor a
puppet system of government shall be imposed upon Poland nor that any part of her
population will ever be disposed of or transferred against the really freely expressed will
of the Polish People.

“Today, the people of Poland are still fighting that battle, as are the peoples of all the
captive nations of Central and Eastern Europe.

“In support of these people who continue to yearn for their freedom and for the right to
determine their own destiny, today I am introducing a resolution to reaffirm U.S.
solidarity with the aspirations of captive nations in Central and Eastern Europe by
repudiating the consequences of the 1945 Yalta executive agreements. This same
resolution has already been introduced in the Senate by my good friend Senator BOB
KASTEN of Wisconsin.

“One of the great debilitating myths of our times is the myth of Yalta. That myth holds
that in 1945, the powers at the Crimean Conference agreed to divide up the postwar
world into two spheres of influence, one “belonging” to the East and the other
“belonging” to the West.

“From this revision of history related policies have grown, both in the East and in the
West. In the East, the myth of Yalta has served to legitimize Soviet control over Central
and Eastern Europe. It has served to convince the Soviet leadership of the free world’s
acquiescence in Soviet domination of peoples and nations outside its borders. And it has
found expression in the Brezhnev doctrine, which gives the Yalta myth a global cast,
holding that any nation falling under Soviet control must remain under Soviet control.

“In the West, the Yalta myth has served to anesthetize our concern over the fate of
Central and Eastern Europe. It reached its greatest ignominy in the Sonnenfeldt doctrine,
which established U.S. policy to strive for an evolution that would create an “organic
relationship” between the Soviets and Eastern Europe in a misconceived effort to
promote international harmony. And it is echoed in the bitter irony of the Helsinki
accords: A human rights agreement that lent legitimacy to the most extensive repression
of human rights in history.

“I believe that it is time for the United States and our Western allies to unmask the Yalta
myth as an unhealthy shadow over East-West affairs. Far from mandating “spheres of
influence,” as the myth would have it, the Yalta agreements called for free and fair
elections in Poland and the other countries of what is now the East bloc. The Western
powers’ error was not to cede Eastern Europe to the Soviets, for no such deal was ever
struck. The West’s error was in trusting that Stalin would honor his agreement.”
“In the words of Stanislaw Mikolajczyk, premier of the Polish government-in-exile of the
late 1940’s, “I was able to accomplish nothing in effecting free elections in Poland. But I
have accomplished one thing: I have shown to the whole world that nobody can believe
the promises of the Soviet Government.

“Mr. Speaker, by enacting this resolution, the U.S. Congress can show to the world that
we do not take broken promises lightly, and that we support the right of the peoples of
Central and Eastern Europe to self-determination and to choose the form of government
under which they will live. We must show the courageous men and women of solidarity
in Poland that we stand with them and the freedom loving men and women throughout
Central and Eastern Europe.

“I ask that my resolution be printed in the RECORD.”

Kemp had introduced the exact same resolution as Kasten, with the exception that in
paragraph 5, Kemp’s resolution stated: “Whereas, at the Yalta Conference,
representatives of the United States agreed to repatriate all Soviet citizens,” while the
Kasten resolution was since toned down to state: “Whereas, at the Yalta Conference, it
was agreed to repatriate all Soviet citizens.” This was simply a mistake.

Kemp’s speech was rather strange, as it did not fit parts of the resolution that he
introduced. If the Yalta agreements were made on behalf of peoples “not represented,” if
it was decided that “a new Polish government should be formed using an unpopular
Soviet backed Provisional Government as a base,” and if it was agreed “to repatriate all
Soviet citizens who remained abroad after the war, irrespective of their individual wishes
and by force if necessary,” why would Kemp state so directly that no deal was struck to
cede Eastern Europe? And certainly the Mikolajczyk quote was taken out of context
because as well as complaining about Soviets not keeping promises, he, like most every
Pole, felt betrayed by the Western powers. This also applied to Charles Rozmarek, who
was mentioned in Kemp’s speech. I advised Michelle Van Cleave of Congressman
Kemp’s office about these issues but she didn’t seem to understand or show interest.

Based on pushing an “enforce” Yalta approach, without any mention of U.S. mistakes,
along with other statements made, as well as receiving a rather cold shoulder by the
Kemp staff, we sensed that the Polish American Congress leadership was once again
trying to undermine our approach. At one point Jan Nowak visited Senator Kasten’s
office criticizing POMOST as a radical bunch of troublemakers that should not be
listened to until Mac Owens in effect replied: “Mr. Nowak, I am not here to listen to
internal disputes between the Polish American community. I am here to see to it that the
strongest resolution possible is passed by the U.S. Senate.”

Despite the above, we were pleased that Kemp had introduced our resolution. We were
also pleased by an article, which appeared in the March 30-31, 1985, edition of Nowy
Dziennik. The article reported that the Polish American Congress was giving its full
support to the Kasten/Kemp resolutions. At last we would be working together on at least
one action. As a result, on April 23, 1985, I sent the following letter to PAC President
Aloysius Mazewski:
“I join Pomost Executive Committee Coordinator Christopher Rac, in congratulating you
on your involvement in support of Senator Kasten’s S.J. Res. 37 and Congressman Jack
Kemp’s H.J. Res. 219.

“Eventually Polish history will evaluate all of us together in determining if Polonia

adequately fulfilled her responsibility of renouncing the spirit and consequences of Yalta.
Working in unity for the same specific legislation gives us all our best chance of attaining
this goal. Under these circumstances we are all faced with perhaps our greatest challenge.
Can we together exert enough pressure to score an important victory for the people of
Poland who are very much behind this effort?

“…I have been advised that a few of your divisions have already started promoting letter
writing campaigns in support of S.J. Res. 37 and H.J. Res. 219. We are of course doing
the same on a national basis. I wish you every success possible in this work. Hopefully a
united Polonia can bring much needed results in this area. The fact that we are working
together for this aim should please all those truly concerned about our cause while
serving a blow to those who would prefer to see us divided…”

In the meantime, the political climate was somewhat changing as Reagan was very
interested in holding a summit with Gorbachev. On April 5, 1985, the Chicago Sun
Times, if not other publications around the country, printed George Will’s article titled
“Reagan lets hope rule over reality,” which read as follows:

“The Soviets have murdered an American officer but have promised not to bear a grudge
about it, and we have promised to work with them to prevent such “episodes.” Détente is
back.

“The Soviets have been intimately involved in killing scores of thousands of U.S.
servicemen, but generally have used Korean and Vietnamese surrogates. Still, who will
remember Army Maj. Arthur D. Nicholson Jr. a month from now? Who remembers Peter
Fechter? He was shot in 1962 while trying to climb the Berlin Wall and was left, like
Nicholson, to bleed, while people eager to help were kept away. Today, the wall is a
state-of-the-art killing machine with automated firing devices.

“The Soviet empire requires low-tech murder, too. The day after an Afghan officer led a
defection from a convoy reinforced by Soviet troops, the Soviet troops arrested 40
civilians. Patrick David, a physician with Aide Medicale Internationale, told
representatives of Helsinki Watch: “They tied them up and piled them like wood. Then
they poured gasoline over them and burned them alive.

“The Soviet empire is based on murder, retail as well as wholesale. A Polish priest is
murdered by secret police wholly subservient to the KGB. The attack on the pope is
organized by Bulgarian secret police subservient to the KGB. The Soviets watch
Nicholson bleed for an hour, and stalk Korean Airlines flight 007 for two hours, and what
price do they pay? Pay? President Reagan said the murder made him especially eager for
a summit with Mikhail S. Gorbachev who used Konstantin U. Chernenko’s funeral to
threaten military action against an American ally, Pakistan, if it continues to aid Afghan
fighters.
“About four hours after Nicholson was murdered, the president, breakfasting with
journalists, was asked about Soviet violations of arms-control agreements – violations his
administration has documented. He spoke about “language problems” and “ambiguity”
leading the Soviets to a different but equally sincere “understanding” of what the
agreements require.

“In 1982, a French officer operating under the 1947 agreements that covered Nicholson’s
activities was killed when his car was run off the street by East German forces. British
officers operating under the agreements have been involved in suspicious “accidents.”
Six days after Nicholson was shot – the day he was buried in Arlington National
Cemetery, within sight of the office where Secretary of State George P. Shultz met with
Soviet Ambassador Anatoly F. Dobrynin – those two men discussed having discussions
to prevent such “episodes.” It was “murder” one day, an “episode” the next.

“Historians may conclude that it was during this administration that the United States
conclusively lost the Cold War. By “lost” I mean forfeited the last chances to embody in
action correct thinking about the Soviet threat. This severe judgment is justified in spite
of the fact – actually, because of the fact – that this administration is wiser than its recent
predecessors and probably wiser than its successors will be. It is the wisest the nation has
had in a generation. Measured that way, it is commendable. Measured against the task, it
is unsatisfactory.

“This conclusion is compelled by things done and left undone, from the failure to use the
weapon of enforced default against the Polish regime’s debts, to the current squandering
of energy on the charade of arms control. The debacle of policy toward Poland
demonstrated the degree to which a conservative administration, especially, is incapable
of subordinating commerce to geopolitics. The Carteresque elevation of arms control to
the rank of centerpiece in U.S.-Soviet relations demonstrates the degree to which
democracies allow their wishes to control their thoughts.”

In a similar article of March 27, 1985, which also mentioned Yalta, The Wall Street
Journal concluded: “…whoever ordered the killing of Maj. Nicholson has at least ensured
that if there is a summit, it will be one unaccompanied by the illusions and naïve
expectations that so often accompanied those of the past.”

In the meantime on April 1, 1985, the price of coal, electrical energy, and gas was
drastically increased in Poland. The Pope was criticized in the communist weekly
“Polityka.” Tensions remained high, and we were always concerned that the interests of a
U.S.- Soviet summit might once again take priority over concern for Poland and other
captive nations.

By April 1, 1985, POMOST New York Representative Dariusz Szczepanczyk received a

commitment that influential New York Senator Alfonse D’Amato would co-sponsor
Senator Kasten’s resolution. It was just a question of preparing a speech, which D’Amato
wanted to present before the U.S. Congress at the time of making the announcement.

Thanks to the efforts of Canadian pro-Solidarity activist Richard Heith, on April 3, 1985,
Canada’s Member of Parliament representing Calgary East Alex Kindy made the
following speech before the House of Commons in Ottawa, which was transmitted
nationally on Cable Television:

“Mr. Speaker, on March 24 an American officer, Major Arthur Nicholson, was shot in
East Germany by a Soviet soldier. With this in mind, we must reflect on the Yalta
Agreement made 40 years ago. This agreement resulted in the division of Europe into
two hostile blocs. It set the stage for the cold war and marked the beginning of mounting
tension in Europe.

“The only thing this agreement achieved was a spread of communism world-wide, and 40
years of military threat. As this House is aware, we still have no security in Europe; great
armies still face one another; Germany remains divided, and 125 million Eastern
Europeans still face a life of Soviet domination.

“As a free nation, we must recognize and encourage the Soviet Union to cease the
continued denial of self determination and sovereign independence to so many historic
European nations. That is a basic right laid down by the United Nations.

“We must also encourage the participants in the Yalta Agreement to recognize and
repudiate that agreement and then, can the 40 years of injustice cease? At that time we
might begin to see the beginning of a new era, an era of true peace in the world, without
tension, where nations are truly free.

The above statement was also included in the Parliamentary Report, Spring1985 issue,
which was circulated throughout the Federal Constituency of Calgary East.

On April 22, 1985, POMOST Executive Committee Coordinator Krzysztof Rac had a
letter published in the Chicago Sun Times combining the issue of Yalta with the need to
support the contras in Nicaragua, as well as defend U.S. interests in other parts of world,
as well as at home. It read as follows:

“The upcoming vote on President Reagan’s continuing aid program for the contras may
be the most important vote ever cast by a member of Congress.

“In weighing the many factors that will influence their decision we urge them to keep one
sobering truth in mind; that a lasting peace cannot be built upon lies and deception.

“President Franklin D. Roosevelt chose to ignore this truth at Yalta and bargained away
the freedom of the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe. He chose to disregard the
noble principles embodied in the Atlantic Charter, the principles hundreds of thousands
of young American men gave their lives for during World War II and recognized the
Soviet-sponsored Lublin committee as the basis for the post-World War II government of
Poland.

“This infamous betrayal, followed by the inconsistent foreign policies of subsequent

administrations, resulted in needless loss of life in Korea and Vietnam as well as the Cold
War and arms race, which threatens all mankind with annihilation. Please do not allow
this mistake to be made again.
“The Soviet-sponsored de facto government of Nicaragua is totalitarian in nature. It has
been imposed upon the Nicaraguan nation by force. The contras are fighting to restore a
democratic form of government.

“The United States should support the contras on the basis of principle alone. Our nation
has clearly enunciated its belief in the right of self-determination in the Atlantic Charter
as well as in the Charter of the United Nations, to cite only two examples.

“But there is another reason to vote for aid to the contras, and it is a selfish reason. This
vote will demonstrate whether America is willing to fight for its own security.

“The Soviets will not be content to remain in Cuba and Nicaragua. Other Central
American nations will be threatened. The contras are fighting for the freedom of their
nation, just as Poles fought for their freedom during World War II.

“The Poles were betrayed at Yalta. We should not make this mistake regarding the
contras. We should support Reagan’s program for these freedom fighters.”

In England, Sir Bernard Braine’s January 1985 “early-day motion” attracted 246
signatures in the House of Commons. While the motion, printed earlier, was not
controversial, the support involved showed a great deal of interest. On April 25th, 1985,
Sir Bernard Braine addressed the House of Commons as follows:

“…To mark the 40th anniversary of the Yalta protocols in 1945, I put down an early-day
motion at the beginning of the year, which attracted an almost unprecedented number of
signatures drawn from all parties. There were 246 in all. The early-day motion noted that
the Soviet Union unilaterally broke both the letter and the spirit of the Yalta protocols
within months of their being concluded. It went on to say that the House “deplores the
resultant widespread and systematic abuse of human rights which still continues to this
day; supports peaceful endeavors by the peoples concerned to regain their rights; and
urges Her Majesty’s Government…to declare its refusal to accept the division of Europe
into spheres of influence and to reaffirm the right of the peoples of Central and Eastern
Europe to genuine self-determination.

“Why was it necessary to put down such a motion? Why did so many members feel that
they had to sign it? The answer is that for the peoples of eastern and central Europe –
some of us remember the sacrifices of Poles and Czechs during the war in defense of
these islands – and for their displaced émigré survivors, time has stood still since 1945,
while the rest of the world has moved on. In the period when self-determination was the
order of the day, when General Smut’s vision of a commonwealth of nations was
developing before our eyes, when western colonial empires were being dismantled, the
Soviet grip on an area hitherto composed of independent states, save for temporary Nazi
occupation, was tightening and consolidating.

“My right hon. and learned Friend spoke of 40 years of peace, and I then became a little
skeptical. Who paid the price for that peace? Who stood in the way of the Soviet tanks
that roared into Hungary, and of those who slaughtered Hungarian patriots and hanged
their leaders in 1956? Who was it who moved the newly-formed Warsaw pact forces into
Czechoslovakia to destroy the smiling face of Socialism in 1968? Who shot down Polish
workers, ending the first ray of light out of Eastern Europe – the Solidarity trade union?
Who was responsible for all that?…

“…World leaders as widely different ideologically as President Mitterrand in France and

President Reagan in the United States have denounced Yalta. According to the USSR,
however, Yalta legitimized its hegemony in Eastern Europe, and western denials merely
add to existing tensions. Confusion surrounding this issue surely makes reassessment
desirable…

“…Does my hon. Friend the Secretary of State envisage a further period of no war, of
phoney peace, so that our children and grandchildren in the early decades of the next
century will still be faced with Warsaw pact forces on one side, standing over prostrate
bodies of once independent nations, NATO forces on the other? Will this uneasy,
unsettled situation go on and on? Of course not. The bubble must burst. Western leaders
could begin by ending the hypocrisy that has been practiced for more than 40 years by
denouncing Yalta. Such a declaration should make it clear that the minutes of the meeting
of the “Big Three” did not constitute a treaty or an international agreement, because the
intention that the document should create legal relationships was absent.

“Why not accompany a repudiation of Yalta with a reaffirmation of commitment to the

Helsinki final act, which guarantees existing frontiers in eastern and central Europe? Why
not proclaim an unwavering conciliatory program of economic and social contacts
designed to promote understanding and common interests? Such a trumpet call would not
bring the walls of Jericho tumbling down, but the cruel mould of Yalta would be broken
and the way opened, as never before, to intensive rethinking about the future of all
Europe.”

“…There may, therefore, be areas where the easing of tension between East and West can
be secured by means of patient diplomacy. That is surely the hope of my right hon. and
learned Friend. But it is imperative that Western Governments cease to practice double
standards, fooling themselves that détente, as we know it, is an acceptable policy, when
the only result of the Helsinki agreement inside the Soviet bloc so far is that most of its
citizens who bravely sought to monitor compliance have been imprisoned, sent to
psychiatric hospitals or silenced in some other way.

“Those of us who have the good fortune to live in democracies must insist that our
Governments do not delude themselves into believing that they can achieve a genuine
and lasting peace by ignoring the continued violations of human rights or by denying
whole peoples the right to self-determination. Our own Government should measure
every proposal for co-operation with the Soviet Union or its satellites by what it will
yield in positive gains, especially in human freedom. For every “quid”, there must be a
tangible “quo.”

Amid 100 senators (2 from each state), Senator Kasten’s resolution in the U.S. Senate
still only had 6 cosponsors. The resolution was obviously still too controversial for the
State Department and the American political establishment. That was OK as no call for
U.S. leaders to address themselves to Yalta was ever wasted. It was a call to focus on,
and work towards, freedom for captive nations. These elements account for 90% of
accomplishing an ultimate goal (be it landing on the moon, or freedom for captive
nations). If focused on and working towards the ultimate goal, the amount of means to
reach the ultimate goal is only limited by our imagination. Without these two elements,
while accepting status quo, there would never be progress towards freedom for captive
nations.

While no doubt previously viewing the Polish-American community, and the entire
Captive Nation community, as an easy constituency to please, that only required a
meeting, speech, and picture taking session, U.S. leaders now saw us demanding that our
representatives take action on behalf of a very legitimate cause, and to treat it on a
priority basis. And the movement in this direction could be seen with speeches in the U.S.
Congress, articles, statements, etc. addressing themselves to the issue of Yalta and
freedom for captive nations, regardless of what exact approach was used.

Thus in a sense it was better to prolong a Yalta action that carried continual controversy
with it, rather than quickly passing a non-controversial resolution at which time U.S.
leaders would have more of a tendency to feel that the matter was addressed, is over and
done with, and closed. We were now more concerned, however, with how much longer
the American captive nation community would show active support for the action. We
were now approaching three years of work on this action, and every action had a limited
attention span, even the sensitive issue of Yalta. Some felt that this was our last chance to
get something accomplished, as interest would die before another session of Congress
would come along. It would be a shame for the action to end without getting any concrete
results at all.

A few individuals were suggesting that the focus of the action be shifted from captive
nations to addressing American public opinion in general, showing how Soviet expansion
and America’s defensive foreign policy was leading to defeat, and that waking up to this
fact was a matter of survival. This, in turn, would hopefully lead to massive political
pressure from the general population to put an end to feeding the Soviet system with
trade, and credits, that made their expansionist policy possible. It was a very logical
suggestion but this approach had been tried on numerous occasions, by numerous
conservative organizations, without ever being able to obtain active support. Even well
financed conservative groups, who strongly agreed, could not generate massive
campaigns in terms of demonstrations, petitions, and the like. Captive nation Americans
would be the first to support such an action, but this could not generate nearly the amount
of support as the sensitive issue of Yalta. POMOST, under the leadership of John
Krynski, was among the country’s most aggressive and effective promoters of sanctions
against the communist world, but meaningful efforts could only be carried out by
presenting good position papers and working closely with interested U.S. leaders on the
subject, as Krynski was doing.

Thus we had a dilemma with the Yalta action as senators, in response to Yolanda
Flanagan’s letter, continued to send back non-committal answers such as New Jersey
Senator Bill Bradley who wrote:

“As you may know, this bill was introduced and then referred to the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. It has not yet come up for consideration by the full Senate. I plan to
follow developments in this area carefully, and will bear your views in mind should this
issue come up again during the 99th Congress…”
In its April 25, 1985 edition, Nowy Dziennik, dedicated an entire page to the campaign
under the headline: “CALL TO ACTION WITH THE ISSUE OF YALTA.” It contained
a letter from National PAC President Aloysius Mazewski to Presidents of PAC State
Divisions, Members of the National Council of Directors, and Members of the Polish
Affairs Commission, stating that: “The time to move on this crucial matter is now.”
Along with the letter, Nowy Dziennik published Senate Joint.Resolution. 37, and
proposed draft letters for sending to members of the Senate and House of
Representatives.

On April 29, 1985, POMOST San Francisco Representative Yolanda Flanagan sent the
same letter previously mailed to senators, to all members of the House of
Representatives. We also continued to distribute leaflets with draft letters for writing
letters in support of the resolutions to senators and representatives in Congress. The
American captive nation press kept encouraging participation in the action as well.

The first round of arms reduction talks between the Soviet Union and the United States
had been concluded. Ottawa, Canada, was preparing to hold a Human Rights Conference.
The United States was pushing for open meetings, while the Soviets wanted the entire
conference to be held behind closed doors. Polish opposition leaders Adam Michnik,
Bogdan Lis, and Wladyslawa Frasyniuk were under arrest and threatened with up to five
years in prison for attending a meeting called for by Lech Walesa. Poland witnessed
strong anti-communist May Day demonstrations, during which time observing American
diplomats were ruffed up and arrested. Opposition leaders Jacek Kuron and Seweryn
Jaworski were arrested for taking part in the “illegal” demonstrations. It was becoming
clear that Poland’s struggle for freedom was not about to end.

With various ceremonies commemorating 40 years since the end of World War II, much
attention was focused on Europe. On April 29th, 1985, the Washington Times advised that
in Leizig, East Germany, only the Soviets were considered to be liberators. The
newspaper wrote:

“Thank you, Soviet soldiers!” exclaim red banners in this ancient German city, which
actually was liberated by the U.S. Army and handed over to the Russians as part of the
Roosevelt-Churchill-Stalin deal reached at Yalta.”

In its lead editorial, on May 3, 1985, The Washington Times wrote:

“…Within a year of the “peace” of Yalta, Stalin announced that the doctrine of world
revolution was still valid. In short order, half of Germany and all of Hungary, Poland,
Czechoslovakia, Albania, Yugoslavia and Romania lay behind the Iron Curtain. Civil war
raged in Greece, and Turkey and Iran were threatened with Soviet hegemony. Tens of
thousands of Russians who had fled Stalin’s terror were forcibly repatriated and marched
to concentration camps above the Arctic Circle, where the fortunate ones died quick
deaths.

“It is important that V-E Day be celebrated, equally important that myths about World
War II be dispelled. The Soviet Union’s triumph over Nazi Germany in the East was
merely the victory of one form of totalitarianism over another. The nations of Eastern
Europe were freed from the shackles of Nazism only to have the chains of a more
sinister, more insatiable tyranny imposed on them. The peace they achieved was the
peace of the grave, and on this day above all others, we should not forget.”

After making the unfortunate visit to the German cemetery at Bitburg, where 49 Nazi SS
combat soldiers were among the 1,887 World War II buried, Reagan made other
appearances in Europe, which included delivering a speech before the European
Parliament in Strasbourg, France. In his May 8, 1985 speech, Reagan said:

“…I am here to tell you America remains, as she was 40 years ago, dedicated to the unity
of Europe. We continue to see a strong and unified Europe not as a rival but an even
stronger partner…”

During the speech Reagan appealed for European support of American positions taken
pertaining to arms control talks. “We must remain unified in the face of attempts to
divide us and strong in despite of attempts to weaken us.” He then went on to say that:

“The United States is committed to an end to the artificial division of Europe. We do not
deny any nation’s legitimate interest in security….But when families are divided, and
people are not allowed to maintain normal human and cultural contacts, this creates
international tension. Only in a system in which all feel secure, and sovereign, can there
be a lasting and secure peace…

“It is my hope that in the 21st Century – which is only 15 years away – all Europeans,
from Moscow to Lisbon, will be able to travel without a passport and the free flow of
people and ideas would include the other half of Europe…”

Unfortunately, there was a lot of disunity in Western Europe at this time, especially with
regard to support for the United States. Various factions in West Germany wanted to see
their country become more independent of U.S. led foreign policy, wanting
“emancipation” as America’s little brother that needed to follow in big brother’s
footsteps. Volker Ruehe, the deputy floor leader in Parliament for the Christian
Democrats, expressed resentment that commentators in the U.S. and other Western
countries were reacting suspiciously to Kohl’s attempts to improve ties with East
Germany. Among young people on the left, there was a growing tendency to equate the
Soviet Union and the United States as countries with policies that were not in the best
interest of Germany.

There were many hecklers in the European Parliament with complaints ranging from the
amount of U.S. arms being stationed in Europe to the President’s involvement with
Nicaragua. When Reagan visited Spain on this trip, there were protests against that
country being a member of NATO- a view supported by the majority of Spanish citizens
according to most polls taken there.

Amid all the confusion, Nicaraguan leader Daniel Ortega came for a visit to Poland,
where he accused President Reagan of “fascist” tactics in Central America. Soviet leader
Mikhail Gorbachev, who had only been in power for two months, accused the United
States of following a warlike foreign policy that had become a “constant negative factor”
in global relations. While many in the West expressed hope that the new, young, nice
looking Soviet leader might bring hope of better relations, Gorbachev started favorably
referring to Stalin for the first time in many years. He did this to the loudest and most
prolonged applause given during an audience at a Kremlin meeting on May 9 1985,
marking the 40th anniversary of World War II there. “American imperialism is at the
forward edge of the war menace to mankind,” Gorbachev said. And, of course, there were
the usual charges that American leaders were trying to revive “revanchism” in West
Germany – an effort to unite Germany and regain territories lost during the war.

On May 9, authorities in Warsaw prepared typical communist ceremonies with soldiers

marching and banners hanging – such as one that read “Friendship, concord, and
cooperation with the U.S.S.R. guarantees the security and development of Poland.” In the
May 10, 1985 edition of the New York Times, author Michael T. Kaufman wrote further
about the day in Warsaw as follows:

“An older man, who has vivid memories of the Warsaw uprising, said the emphasis on
glory clashed with his own feelings of sadness, a mood he thinks is shared by his entire
generation. “Poland was the first victim of the war and, I think we were the first victim of
the peace,” he said. “The shooting stopped, but a dying Roosevelt and a war-weary
Churchill at Yalta allowed us to go from German occupation to Soviet domination.

“The notion that Poland was cynically abandoned to a Soviet sphere of influence at the
Potsdam and Yalta conferences is commonly heard here and is heatedly debated in works
clandestinely published by sympathizers of the Solidarity movement.

“Yalta remains one of the bywords in the continuing historical debate that often divides
Polish society from Polish authorities. For if there are many who feel that the agreement
was used to push a reluctant nation into the Soviet camp, there are those in the
Government and party who say that it has been precisely this division of Europe that has
maintained the peace for 40 years.

“There is little agreement between Government and society on the meaning of Yalta, but
in other aspects of the long debate there is evidence that the history grandmothers tell
their grandchildren is gaining validity over what the Government has propounded
through its monopoly on organized education and communications.

“For example, for seven years after the war, the official view was that veterans of the
Polish Home Army, which was anti-Communist but was the largest and best-organized
resistance force in Poland during the war, were suspect. Up until Stalin’s death, its
members were arrested and tortured, and some were killed as traitors. Now the Home
Army is honored, its living veterans treated as heroes, its dead buried as the patriots that
the grandmothers knew them to be.”

Amid all these developments, with Yalta now being raised in major publications around
the world, focus on the resolutions in the U.S. House and Senate had to be maintained. In
the May 11, 1985 edition of the Slavic Village Voice published in Cleveland “An
Appeal” was issued which read as follows:
“During the past forty years, those concerned about the fate of captive nations have
protested and mourned YALTA’s negative consequences to the 1945 agreement, and
have felt frustrated and powerless to deal with it.

“Thanks, however, to the support of numerous pro-captive national organizations,

publications, and individuals, a massive international movement has developed, calling
for the renunciation of the YALTA AGREEMENT. Thousands of individuals have taken
time to write a letter, make a phone call, or sign a petition, showing their support for
“TKZ Solidarnosc” in the shipyards of Gdansk, “Niepodleglosc” (Independence),
“K.O.S” (Social Defense Committee) and “KSN” (Congress of Nation’s Solidarity),
among Poland’s leading underground organizations. Numerous ethnic groups, in virtually
every Western nation, are echoing the appeal for support.

“On February 5, 1985, Wisconsin’s Senator ROBERT W. KASTEN introduced S.J.

Resolution 37 in the U.S. Senate, and, on March 28, 1985, Congressman JACK KEMP
introduced H.J. Resolution 219 in the House of Representative, calling for the
renunciation of the Yalta Agreement. Both resolutions need your help to pass.

“Will you take the time to express YOUR solidarity with the people of the captive
nations? Here’s how:

“Fill out all these forms, then mail or deliver them to: SOLIDARNOSC. 6515 Fleet
Avenue, Cleve. OH 44105. They will be forwarded to the proper officials to state your
feelings about Yalta, and to tell them that you support these Resolutions, and want them
to do the same.”

Ready to be signed prepared statements in support of renouncing Yalta were addressed to

Ohio Senators Glenn and Metzenbaum, as well as to Congressional Representatives
Edward Feighan and Mary Rose Oaker.

The Polish Express published in Toronto, Canada, joined an ever-growing number of

captive nation publications informing about, and supporting, the Renounce Yalta
campaign.

On May 21, 1985, the most authoritative Pole in the world addressed himself to the issue
of Yalta. When visiting the home of the European Union, Pope John Paul II stated:
“Europeans cannot reconcile themselves to a divided continent.” The Pope went on to say
that: “Borders established through agreements cannot restrict unity between people and
nations.” He added that countries not belonging to the European Union, cannot be denied
the fundamental right to seek European unity. In its May 21, 1985 edition, Nowy
Dziennik reported that the Pope’s appeal to cross the barrier, created artificially as a
result of dividing societies, politically and militarily, comes at a time of intensity during
the action to Renounce Yalta. The paper mentioned the rising wave of support for the
Yalta resolutions in U.S. Congress.

On May 23, 1985, former Ambassador from communist Poland to Japan Zdzislaw
Rurarz, who defected to the United States, presented the following statement at the Los
Angeles Press club:
“It has been more than three years since I defected to the United States, and my
impressions of your great country are many. This is a rich and beautiful land made up of
many people who believe in goodwill. Perhaps most important of all, there is an
atmosphere of freedom everywhere one turns in this country. It is people like me who
sense it constantly, and who can appreciate it far more than many.

“Perhaps it also because of being accustomed to freedom, practicing goodwill, and

trusting basic human nature, that I also find much of America to be naïve in certain areas-
in important areas that involve your preservation as a free and democratic nation. I know
the Soviet system because I worked inside it for many years. It is an expansionist system
that consistently thinks in terms of widening its sphere of influence, with the United
States serving as its ultimate goal. It is a system bent on your destruction, which cannot
ever be trusted. By now this should be obvious to all. If the Soviet system lies
consistently to its own people, you cannot expect its leaders to deal with goodwill
towards another state, especially a competitive state, especially one that has always been
viewed as the enemy.

“Please do not assume that the Soviet system can change. While there might be more
people, like me, who do not accept the course of that system, the only options available to
them are to defect or be destroyed, but not to promote meaningful change. The Soviet
system and its basic goals are not open to change. Please, for your own good, become
aware of this and accept it as a very unfortunate fact of life.

“My friends, I know what the United States and the free world are up against, and the
consequences that this danger poses. Ultimately recognizing this danger might prove
necessary to prevent yet another holocaust. While celebrating the end of World War II,
many have forgotten that much of that tragedy began with the signing of the Molotov-
Ribbentrop pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Many have also forgotten
that after forty years half of Europe has still not been liberated. Please do not forget the
people of Eastern Europe, not only because they perhaps sacrificed most on behalf of the
Allies, but because to be silent about the suffering of man anywhere in the world weakens
our commitment to freedom everywhere in the world, including here in the United States.

“As you know, terror is now being commonly practiced in Poland with people being
interrogated, beaten, tortured, and even killed, including men of the cloth. The jails are
being filled again with political prisoners. At the same time, I can assure you that neither
these, nor other forms of repression, will end the present struggle for freedom, human
rights, and self-determination in Poland. This struggle has long since passed the point of
no return.

“During my many travels around your country, I have often been asked how can we, in
the United States, help those in Poland and other countries behind the iron curtain. To
answer this question I think that we need to be sensitive to the appeals being voiced
throughout Poland. The people of Poland are calling on the United States and the
Western world to renounce Yalta and the spirit of this 1945 executive agreement.

“Indeed, at Yalta, President Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill
made numerous concessions to Soviet Marshall Jozef Stalin. Rather than winning peace
with these concessions, however, the Soviet system consolidated its gains into a stronger
base from which to launch its continuing offensive against the Western world.

“Morally, Yalta is also under fire as an agreement, which symbolizes Western

acquiescence in the creation of a Soviet sphere of influence in Europe. Thus, the people
of Poland and other captive nations often wonder if the Western world truly supports
their struggle to become free of Soviet domination and, in fact, Soviet occupation.

“Thus, while there are many ways to express our solidarity with those suffering behind
the iron curtain, first and foremost, the United States and its people should renounce the
consequences and the spirit of the 1945 executive agreement. On February 5, 1985,
Wisconsin Senator Robert W. Kasten introduced S.J. Res 37 in the U.S. Senate. On
March 28, 1985, New York Congressman Jack Kemp introduced H.J. Res. 219 in the
U.S. House of Representatives. Both resolutions deal sincerely with the symbolic issue of
Yalta. Therefore, I appeal to the leaders of the United States and the American people to
support the passage of this legislation. In this way you can express your solidarity with
the people of captive nations, while also expressing your will for the preservation of
freedom and democracy in the Western world.”

After the Press conference Rurarz was a guest on the Michael Jackson (not singer, but
well known national radio talk show host) Show. During the program, carried by ABC
stations around the country, Rurarz said that the Yalta Accords “were bad in general, but
even those bad accords were really not observed by the U.S.S.R.” The following day
Rurarz presented a speech titled “Perspectives Of Getting Out of Yalta and The Current
Situation In Poland,” to the Polish-American community. During the speech given at Our
Lady of The Bright Mount Church auditorium, Rurarz appealed to the Polish-American
community in Los Angeles to continue working hard for the renunciation of Yalta.
 SUCCESS & DISAPPOINTMENT AMID COMPROMISE

As May, 1985 was coming to a close there were still only 6 cosponsors of Senator
Kasten’s S.J. Res. 37 in the U.S. Senate:

Jesse Helms and John East from North Carolina, James McClure and Steven Symms
from Idaho, Dan Quale from Indiana, and Malcolm Wallop from Wyoming. All were
conservative Republicans, which, unfortunately, only showed partisan support.

In the House of Representatives the following 26 members of Congress cosponsored Jack

Kemp’s H.J. Res. 219:

From Arizona: Republican Eldon Rudd

From California: Republicans William E. Dannemeyer, Robert K. Dornan,
Robert J. Lagomarsino, and Bill Lowery
From Florida: Democrat Lawrence J. Smith
From Georgia; Republican Newt Gingrich (a future Speaker of the House)
From Indiana: Republican Dan Burton
From Iowa: Republican J.R. Lightfoot
From Maryland: Republican Helen Delich Bentley, and Democrat Barbara Mikulski
From Massachusetts: Democrat Nicholas Mavroules
From Minnesota: Republican Vin Weber
From New York: Democrats Mario Biaggi, and Henry J. Nowak
Republicans J.D. DioGuardi, Raymond J. McGrath, Fred J. Eckert, and George Wortley
From Ohio: Republican Thomas N. Kindness
From Pennsylvania: Republicans Don Ritter, and Robert S. Walker
From Virginia: Republican G. William Whitehurst
From Texas: Republicans Dick Army, Joe Barton, and Democrat Charles Wilson

Cosponsors in the House of Representatives were also predominantly Republican, but at

least there were also some Democrats.

At the beginning of June 1985, we received a sudden call from Senator Kasten’s office.
We were advised of an opportunity to attach the resolution as an amendment to a State
Department Authorization Bill. Besides minor changes in style of presentation, the only
meaningful change in wording involved one paragraph. Instead of reading: “The United
States does not recognize as legitimate any spheres of influence in Europe and that it
reaffirms its refusal to recognize such spheres in the present or in the future, by
repudiating the negative consequences of the Yalta executive agreements of 1945” the
resolution would now state:

“The United States does not recognize as legitimate any spheres of influence in Europe
and that it reaffirms its refusal to recognize such spheres in the present or in the future, by
repudiating any attempts to legitimize the domination of East European nations by the
Soviet Union through the Yalta Executive Agreement.

Thus the amendment to the foreign appropriations bill would read as follows:

“TITLE VI MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

“POLICY TOWARD APPLICATION OF THE YALTA AGREEMENT

“SEC.4601. (a) The Congress finds that –

“(1) during World War II, representatives of the United States, Britain, and the Soviet
Union took part in agreements and understandings concerning other peoples who were
not represented;

“(2) the Soviet Union violated the Yalta guarantee of free elections in the countries
involved, specifically the Yalta agreement commitment “to form interim
intergovernmental authorities broadly representative of all democratic elements in the
population and pledge to the earliest possible establishment of free elections of
government response to the wills of the people and to facilitate where necessary the
holdings of such elections;”

“(3) at Yalta it was decided that a new Polish Government should be formed using an
unpopular Soviet backed provisional government as a base which was to expand on a
broader democratic basis with the inclusion of democratic leaders from Poland itself and
from Poles abroad, and was to hold free elections, provisions which the Soviets violated
by arresting or executing democratic leaders while holding fraudulent elections;

“(4) at the Yalta Conference, it was agreed to repatriate all Soviet citizens who remained
abroad after the war, irrespective of their individual wishes and by force if necessary
resulting in much tragedy and suffering;

“(5) millions of people around the world, especially those residing in Central and Eastern
Europe believe the 1945 Yalta executive agreements involved alleged United States
acquiescence in the enslavement of entire nations under a Soviet totalitarian system of
government;

“(6) the nations of Central and Eastern Europe continue to resist Soviet domination as for
example in guerilla wars after World War II in Lithuania, Ukraine, and other countries, in
East Berlin 1953, Poznan and Budapest 1956, Prague in 1968, in Poland 1970, and again
since 1980;

“(7) it is appropriate for the United States according to the principles on which this nation
was founded to respect the desires and aspirations of all freedom-loving people around
the world;

“(8) it is appropriate that the United States express the hopes of the people of the United
States for the freedom of the people subjected to the captivity of Soviet despotism in
Central and Eastern Europe as well as elsewhere around the world; and

“(9) it is appropriate for the United States to reject any interpretation or application that,
as a result of the signing of the 1945 Yalta executive agreements the United States
accepts the present position of nations being held captive by the Soviet Union: therefore,
be it
“(b)(1) The United States does not recognize as legitimate any spheres of influence in
Europe and that it reaffirms its refusal to recognize such spheres in the present or in the
future, by repudiating any attempts to legitimize the domination of East European nations
by the Soviet Union through the Yalta Executive Agreement.

“(2) The United States proclaims the hope that the people who have been subjected to the
captivity of Soviet despotism shall again enjoy the right to self-determination within a
framework that will sustain peace, that they shall again have the right to choose a form of
government under which they shall live, and that the sovereign rights of self-
determination shall be restored to them in accordance with the pledge of the Atlantic
Charter.

“(3) The United States hereby expresses its solidarity with the peoples of Central and
Eastern Europe.”

Kasten’s people made it clear that if we preferred, they were prepared to continue
fighting for passage of the resolution, as a resolution, and the decision was up to
POMOST.

On the negative side, passage of the resolution as an amendment to an appropriations

(spending) bill for years 1986 and 1987, would kill any chance of open hearings, and
much publicity. On the positive side the resolution would pass through the U.S. Senate.
As nothing would be passed in the House of Representatives, the amendment would still
be subject to change by a foreign relations committee made up of senators and
representatives of Congress. As the amendment would not involve any budget
appropriations [financing], and as Kasten’s people advised that the White House and
State Department had pledged not to object to the amendment, no further changes to the
amendment were anticipated.

At this point the decision was a rather easy one to accept for POMOST, even at the risk
of seeing the amendment changed by the joint Foreign Relations committee. The
resolution, as it was worded now, appeared to still be too controversial for gaining quick
majority support in the House and Senate. We could still not break down a few important
Democratic senators, or even moderate Republican senators, to lead the way for others to
join. Our support was still limited to the conservative right wing of the Republican Party
(which always tended to reflect the views of POMOST). While finding 26 cosponsors in
the House of Representatives during little more than 2 months was not bad, there was no
guarantee that the list would keep growing, even though the list included some
Democrats (mostly conservative ones from the southern states). And even if the majority
of senators and representatives in Congress cosponsored the resolutions involved, there
was still no guarantee that the Foreign Relations Committee(s) would call for hearings, or
that the resolutions would be passed on for a vote on the floor of the House or Senate.
And finally, there was no guarantee that the language would not be changed in House or
Senate committees before being presented for a full vote in the House or Senate, even if
that were to be the case.

By passing the wording of the resolution as an amendment now, at least the Senate would
be on record as accepting partial U.S. responsibility for the tragedy of Yalta. We did not
mean to be stubborn about having the United States go on record as accepting partial
responsibility for the crime of Yalta, especially since at this point there did seem to be a
more sincere commitment towards breaking down the barriers of a divided Europe.
Nevertheless, we felt that we had no more right to “whitewash” Yalta, than we had to
“whitewash” Katyn, even if there was little, if any, moral equivalence involved.

We continued to feel that the “responsibility” aspect of this action was very important if
only to show present and future U.S. leaders that sooner or later history will always
condemn a sellout of captive nations. We also continued to feel that a greater amount of
meaningful support could be achieved from a U.S. government that recognized the
responsibility of undoing a mistake that one of its leaders committed, than to approach
the issue as an innocent Superpower which was merely looking to do the right thing, or
looking out for its own material and strategic interests. By seeing the United States accept
“responsibility” we could also be assured that the issue was being approached with the
utmost of sincerity. And even if POMOST’s approach to the issue of “responsibility”
would prove to offer no benefit at all, we wanted to maintain this position in case it
proved to be useful in the future, such as during future attempts to renounce the Yalta
agreement itself.

There were yet more reasons for accepting Senator Kasten’s proposal. Many in the
captive nation community and, more importantly, many people in Poland, had put their
heart and soul into this Renounce Yalta campaign for three years now. Tens of thousands
of people contributed, if only by placing a signature on a Renounce Yalta petition. In
terms of signatures collected under petitions, letters written to Washington D.C., the
offices of American leaders called by phone, demonstrations, and many other signs of
support, this was probably the most massive action ever carried out in the history of the
captive nation community. We needed to show our people that it paid to get involved in
actions designed to support freedom for captive nations. We needed to show our people
that work in this direction produces results. We could not afford to come out of this
action empty handed. In addition, after three long years, it was becoming harder and
harder to generate active support. Thus we accepted Kasten’s offer.

Republican Senator Richard G. Lugar, from Indiana was the Chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee. Rhode Island Senator Claiborne Pell was the Minority
leader of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee [the highest ranking Democrat on the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee]. On June 10, 1985, on the floor of the U.S. Senate
[not just the Foreign Relations Committee], as reported in the Congressional Record, the
following proceedings took place:

“Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, this Senator notes that, at the right time, at least in order,
the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin [Senator Kasten] has arrived to present his
amendment. I yield the floor.

“AMENDMENT NO. 318

“(To reaffirm United States solidarity with the aspirations (Purpose: of captive nations in
Central and Eastern Europe by repudiating any attempts to legitimize the domination of
East European nations by the Soviet Union through the Yalta Executive Agreement)
“Mr. KASTEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and for its immediate
consideration.

“The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

“The legislative clerk read as follows:

“The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. KASTEN], for himself. Mr. QUALE, Mr. WALLOP,
Mr. HELMS, Mr. EAST, Mr. SYMMS, and Mr. McCLURE proposes an amendment
numbered 318.

“Mr. KASTEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.

“The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

“The amendment is as follows:

“On page 31, after line 23, add the following:

“[The amendment is published in the Congressional Record]

“Mr. KASTEN. Mr. President, 40 years ago a meeting began in the Crimean resort city of
Yalta that was to have immense consequences for the freedom of Eastern Europe, and the
security of the West.

“The Yalta conference produced a series of executive agreements that, in effect,

established Soviet domination of Eastern and Central Europe. This resulted in the
enslavement of millions of people, and even today provides a justification for inaction in
the face of Communist offenses against human rights in those regions.

“In commemoration of this anniversary, I am offering this amendment, which calls upon
Congress to repudiate any attempts to legitimize Soviet domination of East European
nations through the Yalta executive agreements. This repudiation has to do with the fact
that Yalta has become a symbol of the inability of liberal democracies to stand up to a
totalitarian power, and a willingness to abandon friends and principles.

I do not question the motives of the Western leaders who negotiated this agreement with
Stalin in 1945. After all, the Red Army already controlled much of Eastern Europe at the
time of the meeting, and the Western leaders believed that by acquiescing temporarily to
Soviet control of this region, they could extract valuable concessions from Stalin. History
has proven them wrong. But the reasons for repudiating the consequences of Yalta have
less to do with questioning these political judgments. It has to do with our ideals of
democracy.

“The consequences of Yalta are contrary to both the Atlantic Charter, which established
the goals of the allies in World War II, and the great founding principles of this great
Nation of ours. Both stressed the idea of self-determination. But there was no self-
determination resulting from Yalta. The future of millions of people were laid out on the
basis of geographical location. They had little control of their destiny.

“The Soviet Union looks to Yalta to justify its domination of Central and Eastern Europe.
Therefore, to repudiate any attempts to legitimize Soviet domination of Eastern Europe
nations through the Yalta executive agreements would make it clear that we do not accept
the forcible division of Europe. To repudiate these consequences of Yalta would make it
clear to the Soviet Union – and to our allies – that cooperation with the U.S.S.R. will not
be at the expense of the subjugated people of Central and Eastern Europe. This resolution
will send a message to those vanquished people that we have not forgotten.

“Mr. President, this effort is no substitute for substantive economic and political pressure
on the Soviet empire. But the renunciation of Yalta is an important symbolic act in much
the same way that the emancipation proclamation was an important symbolic act. Just as
the emancipation proclamation gave hope to those who languished in slavery before they
were actually freed, so the repudiation of Yalta is intended to give hope to the people of
the Soviet bloc. We must send a clear message to the people of Central and Eastern
Europe that we have not written off their hopes and aspirations for a better life.

“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that articles on this subject from the Washington
Times and the Washington Post be printed in the RECORD…”

“There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:

“[Articles titled “YALTA’S FALSE PROMISE” By George F. Will &

“POISON OF SURRENDER HAS INFECTED US SINCE YALTA” By Leopold
Tyrmand are entered into the Congressional Record.

“Mr. KASTEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators QUALE,
WALLOP, HELMS, EAST, SYMMS, and McCLURE be added as cosponsors.

“The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

“Mr. KASTEN. Mr. President, we have discussed this amendment with the ranking
leadership on both sides of the Foreign Relations Committee. I am hopeful that the
committee will, in fact, accept this amendment.

“Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, we do in fact accept the amendment and commend the
Senator from Wisconsin for the amendment.

“Mr. PELL. Mr. President, on this side, too, we accept the amendment, recognizing that
this resolution is not a formal repudiation of the Yalta Agreement. If that agreement had
been truly adhered to and the Soviets not violated it, we would not be in this situation we
are today.

“The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

“The amendment (No. 318) was agreed to.

“Mr. KASTEN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment
was agreed to.

“Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

“The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.”

Thus on June 10, 1985, a modified version of Senator Robert W. Kasten’s S.J. Res. 37
passed the U.S. Senate as an amendment to State Department Authorization Bill S1003 (a
Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal year 1986-1987).

It is not easy for any leader of any country to admit to mistakes that bring shame to a
nation. It was especially difficult when the criticism passes moral judgment on a beloved
and popular President. On this day the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on behalf of
the entire Senate, showed the courage and sincere concern for captive nations, to do so.

By stating that the Yalta agreements were made on behalf of peoples who were not
represented, that it was decided that a new Polish Government should be formed using an
unpopular Soviet backed provisional government as a base, and that it was agreed to
repatriate all Soviet citizens who remained abroad after the war, irrespective of their
individual wishes and by force if necessary, the Senate had accepted that this was an
immoral agreement. For reasons listed previously, this, in my opinion, was the most
important directly visible accomplishment of the Renounce Yalta campaign, perhaps as
important as renouncing the Yalta agreement itself. News of the passed Senate
amendment traveled fast throughout the active captive nation community.

Many sent letters of thanks to Senator Kasten and his staff. On June 18, 1985, to Senator
Kasten I wrote:

“Your amendment…will bring much hope to millions behind the iron-curtain and around
the world. This marks the first time the full U.S. Senate has addressed itself to the issue
of Yalta.

“Thanks to your initiative, dedication, and perseverance the U.S. Senate has clearly
renounced the legacy of Yalta in a very profound and sincere manner. We salute you for
this great historical achievement.

“Your work during the past two years has also united the captive nation community as
perhaps never before. Bulgarian, Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian,
Polish, Romanian, Russian, Ukrainian, as well as other ethnic and non-ethnic Americans
played an active role in support of this campaign on behalf of all the nations of Central
and Eastern Europe. You have given us, and the rest of the world, a gift that will always
be remembered as an important contribution towards attaining a free and united Europe.”

On June 12, 1985, New York Republican Senator Alfonse M. D’Amato made the
following speech before the Senate (as it appeared in the Congressional RECORD):

“RENUNCIATION OF THE YALTA AGREEMENT SIGNED 40 YEARS AGO

“• Mr. D’AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senate Joint Resolution 37
introduced by my good friend and colleague, the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. I commend the junior Senator from Wisconsin for
his successful efforts to incorporate this resolution into S.1003, the State Department
reauthorization bill.
“Senate Joint Resolution 37 and the amendment to S.1003 reaffirms U.S. solidarity with
the aspirations of captive nations in Central and Eastern Europe by repudiating any
attempts to legitimize through the Yalta agreements domination of East European nations
by the U.S.S.R. The executive agreements signed at the Yalta Conference have been an
enduring and tragic symbol of the division of Europe for more than 40 years.
“At the time of signing, Yalta was purposeful in recognizing the geopolitical problems of
the region, while ensuring self-determination for the peoples of those war-torn nations.
Shortly thereafter, however, the United States and other Western nations realized that
Moscow was determined to use Yalta as a vehicle to extend its influence throughout
Eastern Europe. Although the United States signed these accords, its responsibility to
adhere to Yalta has been relieved by the Soviet Union’s gross violations of both the intent
and the letter of the Yalta agreements.
“For much too long, Yalta has served as the legal justification for Soviet domination in
Eastern Europe. Instead of representing freedom and self-determination, Yalta is
unfortunately a pseudonym for oppression and authorization. Moscow has used Yalta as a
green light for expansionist policies and has deepened the divide between Eastern and
Western Europe. This amendment expresses our Nation’s recognition of Yalta’s
distortions by not recognizing as legitimate any spheres of influence in Europe. It
repudiates the negative consequences of the Yalta executive agreements and squarely
places the United States on the side of the freedom-seeking people of Eastern and Central
Europe.
“The Soviet Union should know our disdain for their convoluted interpretation of the
Yalta executive agreements. It is afraid of the dissolution of Yalta because it would
undermine the foundation of its European policy: namely, the continued division of
Europe into spheres of influence. Moscow’s anxiety over attempts within Eastern Europe
for self-determination have resulted in the invasion and subjugation of several Eastern
European “allies:” East Berlin in 1953, Poznan in 1956, Budapest in 1956, Prague in
1968, and the present plight in Poland. The U.S.S.R. has held its sphere of influence only
by the use of armed aggression, clearly not the intent of the Yalta agreements.
“The enactment of this amendment into U.S. foreign policy would send a message not
only to the Soviet Union, but also to the nations of Eastern and Western Europe that we
do not tolerate Moscow’s policy of East European domination and its human rights
abuses. Soviet violations of the Yalta executive agreements should not be legitimized by
further U.S. compliance. I commend the Senate in its acceptance of this amendment and I
strongly urge the House of Representatives to agree to its inclusion in the fiscal year 1986
State Department authorization bill•”

Besides the Western Captive Nation press, the underground press in Poland was
following the Yalta action closely. Thanks to Mirek Chojecki in Paris, if not others, they
were very well informed on all the details pertaining to the action. It was always a treat to
receive the latest edition of “Niepodleglosc,” or” KOS,” such as the June 16, 1985
edition, which, as frequently was the case, contained a great deal of information
pertaining to the Renounce Yalta campaign.
Satisfaction over the strongly worded amendment passed by the U.S. Senate did not last
long however. On July 30, 1985, a conference report was submitted pertaining to
“disagreeing votes” of the two Houses [Senate and House of Representatives]. Being that
the Senate passed the Yalta amendment, while the House of Representatives did not
address itself to the amendment, the Yalta legislation was passed on to this committee.
This committee made up of House and Senate members agreed to make the following
changes in the amendment dealing with Yalta:

In paragraph 1, which read: “…during World War II, representatives of the United States,
Britain, and the Soviet Union took part in agreements and understandings concerning
other peoples who were not represented;” the words “other peoples who were not
represented” was changed to “other peoples and nations in Europe.”

In paragraph 2, minor changes mainly dealing with style were made. The paragraph
previously read:…“ the Soviet Union violated the Yalta guarantee of free elections in the
countries involved, specifically the Yalta agreement commitment “to form interim
intergovernmental authorities broadly representative of all democratic elements in the
population and pledge to the earliest possible establishment of free elections of
government response to the wills of the people and to facilitate where necessary the
holdings of such elections.”

After changes, the paragraph now read: “the Soviet Union has not adhered to its
obligation undertaken in the 1945 Yalta agreement to guarantee free elections in the
countries involved, specifically the pledge for the “earliest possible establishment of free
elections of government response to the wills of the people and to facilitate where
necessary the holding of such elections.”

Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, which read as follows, were eliminated:

(3) at Yalta it was decided that a new Polish Government should be formed using an
unpopular Soviet backed provisional government as a base which was to expand on a
broader democratic basis with the inclusion of democratic leaders from Poland itself and
from Poles abroad, and was to hold free elections, provisions which the Soviets violated
by arresting or executing democratic leaders while holding fraudulent elections;

(4) at the Yalta Conference, it was agreed to repatriate all Soviet citizens who remained
abroad after the war, irrespective of their individual wishes and by force if necessary
resulting in much tragedy and suffering;

(5) millions of people around the world, especially those residing in Central and Eastern
Europe believe the 1945 Yalta executive agreements involved alleged United States
acquiescence in the enslavement of entire nations under a Soviet totalitarian system of
government;

Previous paragraph 6 involved stylistic changes. The paragraph previously read as

follows:
“the nations of Central and Eastern Europe continue to resist Soviet domination as for
example in guerilla wars after World War II in Lithuania, Ukraine, and other countries, in
East Berlin 1953, Poznan and Budapest 1956, Prague in 1968, in Poland 1970, and again
since 1980;”

After changes made it now read as follows:

“the strong desire of the of the people of Central and Eastern Europe to exercise their
national sovereignty and self-determination and to resist Soviet domination has been
demonstrated on many occasions since 1945, including armed resistance to the forcible
Soviet takeover of the Baltic Republics and resistance in the Ukraine as well as in the
German Democratic Republic in 1953, in Hungary in 1956, in Czechoslovakia in 1968,
and in Poland in 1956, 1970, and since 1980”

Previous paragraph 7, which read as follows, was eliminated:

“ it is appropriate for the United States according to the principles on which this nation
was founded to respect the desires and aspirations of all freedom-loving people around
the world;”

Previous paragraph 8 involved stylistic changes. The paragraph previously read:

“it is appropriate that the United States express the hopes of the people of the United
States for the freedom of the people subjected to the captivity of Soviet despotism in
Central and Eastern Europe as well as elsewhere around the world; and…”

It now read:

“it is appropriate that the United States express the hopes of the people of the United
States that the people of Central and Eastern Europe be permitted to exercise their
national sovereignty and self-determination free from Soviet interference; and”

Previous paragraph 9 involved minor stylistic changes. It previously read:

“it is appropriate for the United States to reject any interpretation or application that, as a
result of the signing of the 1945 Yalta executive agreements the United States accepts the
present position of nations being held captive by the Soviet Union: therefore, be it”

It now read:

“it is appropriate for the United States to reject any interpretation or application that, as a
result of the signing of the 1945 Yalta executive agreements, the United States accepts
and recognizes in any way Soviet hegemony over the countries of Eastern Europe.”

As recorded in the Congressional Record of July 30, 1985,

Policy (b) 1 remained unchanged as follows:

(b)(1) The United States does not recognize as legitimate any spheres of influence in
Europe and that it reaffirms its refusal to recognize such spheres in the present or in the
future, by repudiating any attempts to legitimize the domination of East European nations
by the Soviet Union through the Yalta executive agreement.

Policy 2 involved stylistic changes. It previously read:

(2) The United States proclaims the hope that the people who have been subjected to the
captivity of Soviet despotism shall again enjoy the right to self-determination within a
framework that will sustain peace, that they shall again have the right to choose a form of
government under which they shall live, and that the sovereign rights of self-
determination shall be restored to them in accordance with the pledge of the Atlantic
Charter.”

After changes made, it now read:

(2) the United States proclaims the hope that the people of Eastern Europe shall again
enjoy the right to self-determination within a framework that will sustain peace, that they
shall again have the right to choose a form of government under which they shall live,
and that the sovereign rights of self-determination shall be restored to them in accordance
with the pledge of the Atlantic Charter and with provisions of the United Nations Charter
and the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.”

Policy 3, as listed below, was omitted:

(3) The United States hereby expresses its solidarity with the peoples of Central and
Eastern Europe.”

Thus AMENDMENT NO. 318 of State Department Authorization Bill S1003, on July
30, 1985, became Sec 804, under TITLE VIII- MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS of
CONFERENCE REPORT H.R. 2068. It left no trace of any U.S. responsibility for bad
decisions made at Yalta, except that those responsible for the changes forgot to assign the
number 5 to old paragraph 9, which still remained listed as number 9 in the July 30, 1985,
Congressional Record, despite the disappearance of 4 previous paragraphs, which mostly
did address themselves to U.S. responsibility for the negative consequences of Yalta.

We were bitter about the undermining of this amendment. We considered the elimination
of factual statements at this stage of the Action (after passing the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee), a cowardly act that served as yet another betrayal of Poland and
other captive nations. And this was done despite assurances that the White House and
State Department would no longer object to the amendment as it was presented and
approved by the U.S. Senate. Our hope remained, however, that the struggle for the
renunciation of Yalta and a united Europe would continue.

In an interview published in the July 23, 1985, edition of Nowy Dziennik (Polish Daily
News), Zbigniew Brzezinski was asked several questions pertaining to the Yalta
campaign. Brzezinski maintained that the program to renounce Yalta could not be
achieved in a direct manner, or through negotiations directly aimed at liquidating the
division of Europe. He maintained that the Russians would never accept this.
Brzezinski still believed that the division of Europe could only be liquidated indirectly as
a result of individual indirect steps and understandings, which in and of themselves did
not have this declared aim, but the consequences of which lead in this direction. As
examples he gave reduction of arms, widening of economic and socio-political contacts,
and perhaps eventually a widening of neutral spheres a la Vienna. He did not exclude the
possibility that as a result of Soviet internal problems, such as economic stagnation,
corruption, and paralysis, the need to place more focus on China, and uncertainty with
how to deal with Eastern Europe, the Soviets might consider it a necessity to offer some
concessions during the next stage in history. He concluded, however, that we must reject
the illusionary hope that Yalta will be formally liquidated.

At another point Brzezinski advised that, from the Polish point of view, we should rid
ourselves of the tendency of exaggerating about American betrayal and selling Poland
out. “Politics is a question of maneuvers, concessions, initiatives, and it is sometimes
played in necessary situations.” Brzezinski pointed out how Poles betrayed Ukranians at
one time, without any special guilt of conscience experienced by Poles. Thus we should
be more objective in judging the politics of other nations as they pertain to us.

We, as POMOST, certainly had no illusions about the Soviets, but maintained that there
was no room for a lengthy gradual compromise process between a dictatorship and a
democratic opposition in Poland. In the midst of such an incompatible power struggle, we
felt certain that the dictatorship would never stop its aggressiveness until it basically held
complete power and no longer felt threatened, which would be completely unacceptable
to the democratic opposition. Likewise, in the midst of this struggle, the democratic
opposition would never cease using any additional gains to immediately strive for a
completely free, democratic, and independent nation. We held no hope of ever seeing
Poland as partly a communist dictatorship, and partly free, without being in the midst of a
temporary power struggle to completely defeat the other side. We felt that this applied to
the region as a whole, and especially as pertaining to Poland where the people were
completely fed up with 40 years of Soviet occupation, especially while their economy
represented a bottomless pit of malfunction, and heading for complete collapse.

When such deep frustration is bottled up for decades, revolutions in Central and Eastern
Europe traditionally sought to overthrow all aspects of oppression until they were brutally
put down. Thus for better or for worse, we believed that Poland had passed the point of
no return and everything was on the line. Either the challenge to Soviet occupation would
shortly end in total victory, or would end in disaster, but in the end there would be no
room for pro-longed satisfactory compromise.

While recognizing that each previous revolution in Central and Eastern Europe had
basically failed, we felt sure that nothing could stop the present movement from trying to
make a complete break from communism. Thus, for us, there was no alternative except to
continue applying as much pressure as possible for Western commitment, regardless of
how slim the chances were of obtaining any meaningful support.

While we did not enjoy criticizing a U.S. President for the betrayal of Poland and other
captive nations at Yalta, and during the course of other World War II conferences, we
would continue to try and penetrate the conscience of the United States as to its direct
moral responsibility to play an aggressive role in freeing Poland and other captive
nations. Likewise, we would welcome a democratic Poland apologizing to Ukrainians,
Lithuanians, and others pertaining to Polish wrongs perpetrated in its history, in the
interest of achieving a better world.

On July 25, 1985, Algimantas Gureckas wrote that although the amendment dealing with
Yalta was not exactly what his organization would have wished for, Lithuanian-American
Community of the U.S.A., Inc. was supporting it because:

1) the amendment repudiates Soviet attempts to legitimize their domination of

Eastern Europe based on Soviet misrepresentation of Yalta without affecting
Yalta decisions on borders or other issues, and

2) we hope that the amendment will finally resolve the difficult issue of Yalta
between Poles on one hand and Lithuanians and Ukrainians on the other.

Gureckas was referring to the initial amendment, which passed the Senate on June 10,
1985. He no doubt was completely satisfied with the final “watered-down” version
passed by the Congressional joint committee.

On August 16, 1985, PUBLIC LAW 99-93 [Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal
Years 1986 and 1987] enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States assembled, was approved and signed into law by President Reagan.

Under Title VIII – MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS, Sec 804, without any further
changes, read as follows:

“SEC. 804 POLICY TOWARD APPLICATION OF THE YALTA AGREEMENT.

“(a) FINDINGS. – The Congress finds that –

“(1) during World War II, representatives of the United States, Britain, and the Soviet
Union took part in agreements and understandings concerning other peoples and nations
in Europe;

“(2) the Soviet Union has not adhered to its obligation undertaken in the 1945 Yalta
agreement to guarantee free elections in the countries involved, specifically the pledge
for the “earliest possible establishment of free elections of government response to the
wills of the people and to facilitate where necessary the holding of such elections”;

“(3) the strong desire of the of the people of Central and Eastern Europe to exercise their
national sovereignty and self-determination and to resist Soviet domination has been
demonstrated on many occasions since 1945, including armed resistance to the forcible
Soviet takeover of the Baltic Republics and resistance in the Ukraine as well as in the
German Democratic Republic in 1953, in Hungary in 1956, in Czechoslovakia in 1968,
and in Poland in 1956, 1970, and since 1980;

“(4) it is appropriate that the United States express the hopes of the people of the United
States that the people of Central and Eastern Europe be permitted to exercise their
national sovereignty and self-determination free from Soviet interference; and
“(5) it is appropriate for the United States to reject any interpretation or application that,
as a result of the signing of the 1945 Yalta executive agreements, the United States
accepts and recognizes in any way Soviet hegemony over the countries of Eastern
Europe.

“(b) POLICY. – (1) The United States does not recognize as legitimate any spheres of
influence in Europe and it reaffirms its refusal to recognize such spheres in the present or
in the future, by repudiating any attempts to legitimize the domination of East European
nations by the Soviet Union through the Yalta executive agreement.

“(2) The United States proclaims the hope that the people of Eastern Europe shall again
enjoy the right to self-determination within a framework that will sustain peace, that they
shall again have the right to choose a form of government under which they shall live,
and that the sovereign rights of self-determination shall be restored to them in accordance
with the pledge of the Atlantic Charter and with provisions of the United Nations Charter
and the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.”
BLANK BACK PAGE
 ACTION RENOUNCE YALTA TAKES ON LIFE OF ITS OWN

While the battle over the wording of Yalta legislation in the U.S. Congress had come to
an end, the topic of Yalta took on a life of its own. Pope John Paul II’s encyclical titled
“Slovanum Apostoli” firmed up the Catholic Church’s position on this issue by stating
that it must serve as an active bridge between opposing governments in Europe divided
by Eastern and Western spheres of influence. Unlike the Church’s position under
previous leadership, Pope John Paul II expressed the need to attack the Soviet system,
and force it to retreat, but to do so for moral reasons, as opposed to political grounds.

Articles on Yalta kept appearing in major publications, such as one written by Lawrence
Elliott in the August 1985, issue of Reader’s Digest titled “At Helsinki: Shadows of
YALTA.” Of Roosevelt’s position at Yalta, Elliott wrote: “He was willing to agree to
almost anything, convinced that he and “Uncle Joe” could smooth it all out later.
Roosevelt even announced at the outset that he was not going to insist on any concession
from the Russians.” After writing about the Soviet massacre at Katyn, and the Polish
Home Army’s Warsaw uprising of August 1944, when the Russians ignored pleas for
help, Elliot wrote:

“Yet the Western leaders, desperate to preserve the Grand Alliance, closed their eyes to
these massacres.”

About Helsinki, Elliot quoted Under Secretary of State George W. Ball as follows: “To
the Soviets, the Helsinki agreement is the equivalent of the World War II peace treaty we
vowed we would never sign as long as Europe remained divided.” Elliot added: “It is a
ratification of Yalta.”

While stating that Helsinki at least put the Soviets on record as agreeing that men and
women, as well as states, have certain specific rights, he added “But as Yalta had already
written into history, the Soviets neither say what they mean nor mean what they say.” He
quoted Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights Elliot Abrams as saying “If Andrei
Sakharov and others are not celebrating, why should we?”

Lawrence Elliot concluded: “It is now up to the Western Allies to make sure that the
Helsinki Accords are not forgotten, that an unrelenting spotlight is thrown upon Soviet
perfidy.”

“Let us put their dismal record before the world – and go home.”

Well-known writers Rowan Evans and Robert Nowak criticized the U.S. administration
for remaining silent about continuing repression in Poland and warned of the danger of
another round of “appeasement” in U.S. foreign policy.

In an August 1, 1985 article published in the Washington Times, Congressman Jack

Kemp wrote:

“Security in Eastern Europe has meant Soviet puppet regimes, wholesale violations of the
Yalta pledge of free and open elections, and Soviet invasions both overt and by proxy to
suppress rebellious uprisings.
“Security and cooperation in Europe – the Helsinki goals – will be ensured only when all
of Europe’s people live under governments freely chosen, responsive to the will of the
people.

“That is the Helsinki pledge that is binding on us all.”

In the Op Ed section of the September 14, 1985 edition of the Denver Post, POMOST
supporter Dr. Ann Tipton Donnelly praised the effort to renounce Yalta. In an article
titled “Don’t repeat Yalta mistake,” she wrote about President Roosevelt’s trip to
Chicago in 1944 as follows:

“Bypassing other groups, Roosevelt made a beeline for the Polish delegation, assuring
them, “We will stick together.” The Poles were as convinced then of his good intentions
as they had been four years earlier when he had courted them with the words “Poland is
an inspiration to the world.” Five months later, at Yalta, he acquiesced to the Communist
occupation of perhaps the bravest of our allies, even declaring at one point, “Poland has
been causing trouble for 500 years.”

Dr. Tipton Donnelly went on to write:

“Tragically, political expediency still dominates our negotiations with the Soviet Union,
and the resulting vacillations of will undermine our ability to lead the free world. Today’s
resistance fighters in Afghanistan, for example, are said to fear a sellout by the U.S. in
exchange for a politically expedient appearance of progress at the current East-West
arms-control talks. Based upon the U.S. track record at Yalta, Afghan fears are well
founded.

“The “Renounce Yalta” movement has made a good start. Why don’t we now renounce
all our Yaltas – past, present and future – and save our children and grandchildren the
effort?”

After pointing out several examples of American acquiescence towards the Soviets,
Tipton Donnelly ended her article by stating: “If only the democratic West would stop
apologizing for its moral superiority over communism and engage its overwhelming
ideological resources in the war of ideas. The renunciation of Yalta is a good beginning.”

During September and October of 1985, a major political battle was fought in Cleveland
over Mayor George Voinovich’s position calling for the enforcement of Yalta. But at
least the Mayor used this position to call on Reagan to place the issue of free elections in
Eastern Europe on the agenda for his upcoming summit meeting with Soviet leader
Mikhail Gorbachev. Both those for the renunciation of Yalta, and those for the
enforcement of Yalta, took a break in the battle to travel to New York to protest
Jaruzelski’s visit to the United Nations.

Two thousand strong took part in the New York demonstration against Jaruzelski on
September 26, 1985. Representatives of POMOST and the Polish American Congress
from various parts of the country stood together and united on this day. During his
speech, POMOST Executive Committee Coordinator Christopher Rac stated the
following:

…“If Jaruzelski wants normalization, he has to deal with the Polish nation without his red
glasses. He and his kind have already lost the ideological war in the heart of Europe.
Communism has lost in Poland.

“So there is only one way for Jaruzelski to normalize the situation in Poland. He must
legalize Solidarnosc, free political prisoners, and establish a free market system. These
should be his first steps. Talking to the Rockefellers and speaking to the General
Assembly of the United Nations will not suffice. But talking to the true leaders of the
Polish nation in Poland, after these changes are made, may be a step in the right direction.

“Long live Solidarnosc! Long live Poland!”

During this day members of the U.S. Helsinki commission held a press conference.
Representing Senator Alfonse D’Amato, the Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission,
the Director of the Commission office, M.R. Hathaway, read fragments from a letter sent
by the Coordinating Committee of Solidarnosc abroad. It detailed the many violations of
the Declaration pertaining to Europe at Yalta. It concluded:

“Jaruzelski has a choice. He can try to carry out the promise given the Polish nation at
Yalta and Helsinki, or live with concern about the day, when Solidarnosc will knock on
his door and will demand an accounting. In the depth of his heart he will then know if he
is a patriot or a traitor.

Long live Soldarnosc! Long live Poland!”

During this time communist Poland announced that Parliamentary elections would be
held on October 13, 1985. In support of the Temporary Coordinating Committee of
Solidarnosc, POMOST called for boycotting and protesting against this election
sponsored by the communist regime, which had never carried them out in a free and
democratic manner.

Upon returning to Cleveland, POMOST and Committee in Support of Solidarity leader

David Domzalski took on Cleveland Mayor Voinovich for his call to enforce Yalta. In a
letter to the editor published by the Cleveland Plain Dealer, a Patricia Crooks wrote:

“I was shocked to hear of the Oct. 7 meeting at City Hall at which Mayor George V.
Voinovich and the other proud ethnic leaders of the city said that a strongly worded Yalta
protest would endanger U.S. –Soviet talks on nuclear disarmament (“Ethnic groups ask
Reagan to urge enforced Yalta pact,” Plain Dealer Oct 9).

“Forty years ago, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston
Churchill used the lives of Eastern and Central Europeans to appease Josef Stalin. Now,
40 years later, Voinovich and those at City Hall are again using the people of the captive
nations, this time to appease Mikhail Gorbachev.

“Thank God for the group that protested this tragic repeat of history.”
The Reagan – Gorbachev summit passed by November 19 – 21, without any meaningful
agreements. Reagan refused to abandon his Strategic Defense Initiative testing program.
Gorbachev agreed to pass by discussing the subject for now. Despite the passage of a
Congressional resolution calling on Reagan to bring the rights of the Polish people to the
attention of the Soviet government, there was no indication that this was done during the
summit. President Reagan did express his support for establishing the Solidarity
Endowment Fund to promote human, civil, and trade union rights and ideals of
“Solidarnosc.”

Reagan was criticized sharply by many conservatives for becoming soft on communism.
Washington Times columnist John Lofton pointed out that U.S. loans to Eastern bloc
nations had risen from $75 million in 1984 to $1.3 billion in 1985, while more Americans
were murdered by Soviet communists than Americans were taken hostage during the
Jimmy Carter administration. Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and member of
the Center for Strategic and International Studies Paul Craig Roberts pointed out that
while there were 32 confirmed Soviet violations of the SALT agreements, the State
Department was haunted by visions of the breakdown of the summit process.

The subject of “Yalta” continued to be raised in the Western world, and would not go
away.

During the month of November 1985, the monthly “Commentary” organized a

symposium on “America and its challenges since 1945.” Several well-known professors
classified as Neo-conservatives by liberals, such as Jean Kirkpatrick, Professor Lionel
Abel, and Robert Nisbet, from the American Enterprise Institute, attended the
symposium. They accused Roosevelt of naive ness and an inability to deal with the
Soviets, holding him personally responsible for terrible foreign policy decisions, which
gave the Soviets control of Eastern Europe. They condemned Roosevelt for his Yalta
policy, which gave Poland, and much of the Far East away, for basically nothing.

Nisbet went so far as to state that Roosevelt sometimes showed “rather pathetic ignorance
of political history and geopolitics.” He added that: “In many walks of life we do find
alive and well the institutionalization of Roosevelt’s unwavering faith in the Soviet
Union.”

The battle continued on for several months as a Professor Theodore Draper wrote in the
January 1986, New York Review of books: “Roosevelt did not give the Soviet Union
control of Eastern Europe; the Red Army did…” He blamed Churchill for showing too
much confidence in the Soviets, and accused the conservatives of inventing the attacks to
discredit “liberal internationalism” by discrediting one of its founders.

The exchange continued on into April 1986, when Professor Abel made the point that “it
had been a tradition of American policy, long before Roosevelt’s presidency, not to
recognize acquisitions of territory by force of arms.” Abel charged that Roosevelt – and
Draper for defending him, – were “accomplices of Stalin” in the “enslavement of Eastern
Europe,” which Draper called a “political obscenity.”
In its November 26, 1985 edition, Nowy Dziennik informed readers of a Walesa speech
which was smuggled out of Poland and read by Lord Chapple at Oxford University in
England. Walesa warned that if the authentic aspirations of society, at least to a small
degree, are not carried out, then an explosion of anger on a scale hard to foresee could be
expected. Walesa stated that Solidarnosc does not accept the division of Europe into
spheres of influence, as was carried out at Yalta. “We are all Europeans. Yes like you the
British, like the French, and Italians. Also Poles are Europeans, not only in a
geographical sense, but in a cultural sense.”

Walesa’s speech was printed in London’s Daily Telegraph with the editor’s commentary
section expressing support.

By the beginning of January 1986, an increasing number of conservatives criticized

Reagan’s foreign policy as leading us back to détente and appeasement. In a December
24, 1985 editorial titled “Glass eyes on Poland,” the Washington Times stated that:
“President Reagan used to have the right idea about Poland.” The editorial concluded
that: “Poland, like Afghanistan should be a topic of conversation whenever Americans
and Soviets get together.”

In a letter of January 8, 1986, supporting the editorial, Honorary Chairman of the Warsaw
Uprising Commemorative Committee Stefan Korbonski reminded readers of the
President’s previous statements made pertaining to Yalta.

Marking the 41st anniversary of Yalta, in February 1986, POMOST released the
following statement:

“During the past three years the Pomost Socio-Political Movement, together with
numerous other pro-freedom organizations in the United States and around the world, has
worked towards raising the issue of Yalta. Because of our solidarity, hard work, and
determination, a great deal has already been accomplished.

“Numerous world leaders have since responded to our joint appeals. On June 10, 1985,
the full U.S. Senate addressed itself to the issue of Yalta for the first time by unanimously
passing Senator Robert W. Kasten’s amendment to State Department Authorization Bill
S1003. Pomost salutes Senator Kasten, his colleagues, and all those who supported this
amendment, which dealt sincerely with the 1945 Yalta executive agreement. We
particularly salute those organizations, publications, and individuals who in the best
interest of our mutual cause took time away from their own positive initiatives to join
Action Renounce Yalta so as to assure that our united voice with regard to this important
issue would be heard.

“Despite this achievement however, those truly concerned about the fate of captive
nations know that the struggle for freedom and self-determination must continue until
these ultimate goals are reached. They also know that the issue of Yalta cannot be
considered closed.

“While in Conference Committee, held for the purpose of ironing out differences
between S1003 and the House version of this State Department Authorization Bill, the
Yalta amendment was changed. Despite assurances to the contrary, the U.S. State
Department used its influence to eliminate all references pertaining to tragic mistakes
committed during the Yalta Conference itself.

“Yalta amendment 804 to State Department Authorization H.R. 2068 (House of

Representatives designation for S1003), which was presented to President Reagan for
signing into Law failed to mention that the 1945 agreement involved decisions
“concerning other peoples who were not represented.” Also eliminated from the
amendment was reference to the fact that “at Yalta it was decided that a new Polish
Government should be formed using an unpopular Soviet backed provisional government
as a base…” A paragraph dealing with the issue of forced repatriation after the war,
resulting in death and suffering for millions, no longer appeared in the amendment as
well.

“Ignoring such embarrassing yet tragic facts pertaining to Yalta was consistent with the
approach displayed by the U.S. Administration since the beginning of this campaign.
Implying that Yalta was a good agreement served as a great injustice to the millions who
fought, suffered, and perished on the front lines for freedom everywhere, only to be
betrayed at Yalta.

“Defending such agreements as Yalta also raises questions as to the sincerity of U.S.
commitment towards freedom for captive nations and the preservation of democracy in
the free world. How well are we prepared to deal with present and future threats to our
principles and values if we fail to learn from history and our past mistakes?

“While we appreciate President Reagan’s interest in seeing free elections held in captive
nations, there is no need to use Yalta as a base for supporting this right guaranteed by
numerous, more dignified, documents and basic international law.

“When starting Action Renounce Yalta three years ago, we, members and friends of the
Pomost Socio-Political Movement, vowed to aggressively pursue this goal until it is
accomplished. In 1984 this action was dedicated to Father Jerzy Popieluszko who
exemplified the virtue and necessity of combating the world’s evils with truth. Forty, nor
four hundred years, can change the truth about Yalta.

“Yalta was a cynical, immoral, and illegal agreement, which clearly violated the Atlantic
Charter and basic international law. Yalta represented the finalization of U.S., British,
and Soviet foreign policy conducted during the 1943 Teheran Conference and much of
World War II. During this time the U.S. continued to extend military aid to Moscow
while its troops were overrunning much of Eastern Europe. The U.S. held back its forces
allowing the Red Army to take Prague and Berlin. After 41 years Yalta continues to serve
as a symbol for the division of Europe and Western acquiescence in the enslavement of
captive nations. Failure to condemn Yalta tends to signify our continued acceptance of
tyranny in a divided world. The time is long overdue for Western leaders to fully respect
the right to self-determination for the people of captive nations by honoring their call to
formally renounce the 1945 Yalta executive agreement. Let it be known that our efforts
will not cease until this aim is accomplished. A lasting peace can never be built upon lies
and deception in a divided world.
“Therefore, we appeal to all freedom-loving people in the United States and around the
world to express their solidarity with the people of captive nations by calling for the
renunciation of Yalta and the spirit of this 1945 agreement. We appeal to the U.S. and
other world media to inform about the facts pertaining to Yalta and other World War II
conferences in accordance with the principles of a free press and the public’s right to
know. We appeal to all U.S. and other world leaders to honor and respect the will of
freedom-loving people on both sides of the iron-curtain by renouncing Yalta. We appeal
to the U.S. State Department to stop objecting to, and actively working against, the
renunciation of Yalta. We appeal to President Ronald Reagan to show his courage,
compassion, and understanding on behalf of those who will never give up their struggle
for freedom and independence while only fearing that we in the Western world might, by
formally renouncing the 1945 Yalta executive agreement.”

On February 6, 1986, the White House released a paper, which expanded on President
Reagan’s State of the Union message delivered before the U.S. Congress. While offering
an olive branch for cooperation with the Soviet Union, he also spoke of contesting Soviet
aggression wherever it appears. After speaking about helping to counter communist
aggression in areas ranging from Afghanistan to Latin and Central America, as well as
Africa and Asia, Reagan stated:

“No discussion of peace and freedom can be complete without a reference to Europe’s
great and just hope: an end to the artificial division of the continent. The dividing line
between freedom and oppression is one boundary that can never be made legitimate. The
most significant way of making all Europe more secure is to make it more free.

“We stand for the principles of freedom, democracy, the rule of law, unconditional
human rights, and government with the consent of the governed. The cause of Poland’s
Solidarity continues to arouse the conscience of mankind. Solidarity will not die because
its heartbeat is an indestructible truth that resonates in every human heart.”

POMOST’s position was further clarified in the April 5, 1986, edition of “Gwiazda
Polarna” as follows:

“Our approach to the victims of terrorism should not be limited to creating better
conditions for them while in captivity. Winning their freedom should always remain our
top priority. In the case of East-Central and Eastern Europe however, U.S. foreign policy
is geared towards reforming terrorism as opposed to freeing those being held hostage by a
consistently brutal system. We send humanitarian aid to ease the suffering of people
living under a failed economy, which continues to worsen. We call for the release of
individual political prisoners so that they will have more mobility under a political
system, which will continue to violate their most basic human rights. We grant loans,
credits, and trade with this aggressive system.

“Forty years have proven that limiting our ambitions to reforming the Soviet system and
easing the pain of its brutality is not enough to make a significant difference for the
people of captive nations. A police state cannot be reformed to any meaningful degree.
By trying to reform a police state we are at the same time granting it legitimacy. Seeking
less brutal occupation should not be done at the expense of neglecting the only permanent
solution for the people of captive nations namely freedom, independence, and self-
determination.

“To begin making meaningful progress on behalf of captive nations, Soviet occupation
and tyranny must be firmly and consistently rejected at all times. We simply cannot
expect to make a meaningful difference for the people of captive nations by limiting our
activities within the framework of the existing Yalta system, which accepts Soviet
domination of East Central and Eastern Europe…”

“…The United States could, and should offer far more substantial funding for
broadcasting into Eastern Europe especially when considering that the Kremlin must pay
with far more substantial funding in attempting to jam out such initiatives. The United
States could and should make honoring previous human rights agreements a precondition
to entering any new understandings of any kind. Sanctions could and should be
implemented and maintained not only when democratic movements are being suppressed.
Having ample evidence that the so called leaders of Eastern European nations do not
represent their people, the United States could, and should aggressively insist upon full
access international supervision of their elections. The United States could, and should
begin a process of withdrawing recognition of governments, which do not represent their
people. The United States need not limit itself to an occasional declaration pertaining to
captive nations but could, and should insist upon their freedom constantly. The United
States should not be jumping in and out of détente with little or no consideration for the
situation in Eastern Europe, which basically remains unchanged since World War II.

“There is virtually no limit to actions that could be taken on behalf of captive nations. It
is only commitment, which has been lacking. Renouncing Yalta would proclaim this
commitment towards captive nations in no uncertain terms. Thus the act of renouncing
Yalta itself would serve as the greatest challenge to Soviet domination of East-Central
and Eastern Europe in forty years.”

While demanding more of the U.S. administration pertaining to Yalta, POMOST was
actively involved in working with the administration when it came to supporting the
Contras in Nicaragua.

On April 9, 1986, President Reagan sent POMOST Executive Committee Coordinator

Christopher Rac the following letter:

“Dear Mr. Rac:

“I am deeply grateful for the wholehearted support of POMOST as we work to send aid
to the valiant freedom fighters of Nacaragua.

“No one can better understand the oppressive nature of communist regimes than those
who have personally suffered under them. Your members, many of whom have lived
under totalitarianism in Poland and have seen the ruthless crushing of solidarnosc, have
understandable concern and compassion for the millions of Central Americans who may
be subjected to the same fate, if the Soviet beachhead on the mainland of our hemisphere
is able to crush its indigenous opponents, consolidate its power, and widen its assault
against democratic governments in the region.
“We must not allow the Nicaraguan freedom fighters to go unassisted when we have the
means to help. Too much is at stake for our own future and the future of our neighbors.

“I thank you again for POMOST’s steadfast support of freedom and human dignity in this
hemisphere and throughout the world. God bless you.

Sincerely,

[Ronald Reagan]”

On April 25, 1986, the nuclear power plant at Chernobyl exploded which dashed hopes of
cheap energy for the Soviets because of fear, in favor of new natural gas pipelines.

In the April 28, 1986, edition of Newsweek Magazine, an article titled “A New War Over
Yalta” appeared written by Johnathan Alter. He described the unusually aggressive
exchanges of opinion between “Neo-conservatives” and “liberal” professors on the issue
(previously described in this book). Alter, himself, reached the conclusion that: “With the
luxury of hindsight, Roosevelt might have been able to do a better job negotiating with
Stalin. But even John Foster Dulles, President Eisenhower’s strongly anticommunist
secretary of state, told a colleague that FDR did not have such a luxury. Eight weeks from
his own death and with the war still unfinished, he played the hand dealt him as best he
could.”

Unfortunately, Alter was not aware of the incident when during the Congressional
hearings of February 26, 1953, U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was asked by
Congressman Smith of Wisconsin: “Do you think it might do us some good if we confess
that some of the things that are going on today as a result of those secret agreements is
part of our doing also?” Dulles replied by stating: “Confession is always good for the
soul but the best place for a confession, I think, is in the privacy of one’s communion
with one’s God.”

From May 12 to 15, 1986, POMOST held a meeting in Washington, D.C. with
representatives from all over the United States and beyond. On May 12, 1986, we took
part in a White House Briefing for POMOST. Among the White House staff that we met
with was the Assistant to the President and Director of Communications Pat Buchanan.
After his speech, when asked why the administration was fighting our Renounce Yalta
Action constantly, Buchanan was unusually at a loss for words, as though to say: “I can’t
excuse my administration on this point.” It was well known that Buchanan did not always
agree with the Reagan administration.

On November 3, 1986, Newsweek published the following hard-hitting article written by

their Bonn correspondent, Andrew Nagorski:

“Challenge to the Kremlin

An East-bloc dissent

“So familiar is the postwar division of spoils in Europe that the East bloc’s periodic
eruptions usually startle the West: East Germany in 1953; Hungary in 1956;
Czechoslovakia in 1968; Poland repeatedly, culminating in the ascendancy of Solidarity
in 1980 and 1981. Last week, as Hungary quietly marked the 30th anniversary of the most
violent of those episodes, 122 prominent dissidents from the four countries issued a joint
appeal linking all these attempts to throw off Soviet control. Asserting that Hungary’s
revolutionaries had sought “independence, democracy and neutrality,” they announced:
“We declare our joint determination to struggle for political democracy in our countries,
pluralism based on the principles of self-government, peaceful reunification of divided
Europe and its democratic integration, as well as the rights of all minorities.”

“The significance of the declaration should not be underestimated. These may only be
words, but they represent a challenge to the Kremlin. Any thought of joint action by
Eastern European rebels has long been among the Soviet leadership’s most dreaded
nightmares; nothing angered Moscow more about Solidarity than its call for other Eastern
European nations to organize their own free-trade unions. The declaration also puts a
discomforting onus on Western Europe and the United States, which have given only lip
service to the aspirations of Eastern Europeans.

“Radical proposal: Those who signed the appeal – including the region’s most respected
writers, historians and human-rights activists – are convinced that no solution can be
found to the East – West conflict without taking these aspirations into account.
Negotiations focusing only on arms control fail to address the root causes of East-West
tensions, they say. “Western Europe rests its back against a wall of dynamite, while
blithely gazing out over the Atlantic.” Hungarian novelist George Konrad, one of the 122,
wrote in his 1984 book, “Antipolitics.” “I consider Western Europe’s good fortune as
uncertain as our misfortune.”

“The West, he argues, should make a radical proposal for German reunification, the
dissolution of NATO and the Warsaw Pact and the creation of a European federation.
That prescription is not backed by all dissidents, but they agree on the need for a “post-
Yalta” formula for Europe.

“The very fact of the declaration was evidence that repression has eased over the last 30
years, particularly in Hungary and Poland. (The Hungarian and Polish authorities were
nervous enough about the joint appeal, however, to summon some of the signers for
questioning last week.) “The Russians have a certain fear and respect for those bloody
Hungarians who made such a revolution in 1956,” says Miklos Vasarhelyi, who served as
press secretary to Imre Nagy, the fallen Communist leader who embraced the goals of the
revolution. Yet despite the flourishing of a “parallel culture” of dissent, the declaration
pointed out that “the basic demands of the revolutionaries have not been realized.”

“Can they ever be? Czech playwright Vaclav Havel, another of the 122, argues that the
inability of East-bloc governments to suppress underground journals demonstrates the
strength of even small groups of activists. “When free speech is suppressed, speech
paradoxically has a special weight and power,” he says. “A proper word in the proper
time is able to influence the situation more than 5 million voters of some political party in
the West.” The 122 hope that their declaration will be just such a proper word – one that
the West should take as seriously as Moscow does.”
Nor did the issue of Yalta die in the West. Professor of Education at George Washington
University, Edwin P. Kulawiec, never stopped writing letters. In another letter published
in the Washington Times on November 25, 1986, he wrote:

“Your Nov. 12 editorial “Vyachelav Molotov” listed among Molotov’s acts the signing
of the pact with Nazi Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop that enabled “Nazi Germany and
the Soviet Union to cynically divide Poland.” It should be noted in the interest of fairness
that the West acted no less cynically five years later at Yalta when it gave the Soviets
Poland, a staunch and unrelenting ally of the West throughout the war and on all fronts as
well as in Poland through its AK (the home army).

“Poland had suffered enormously as a result of the Molotov- Ribbentrop Pact. It

continues to suffer as a result of the Yalta Pact signed by Roosevelt, Churchill, and
Stalin. The lesson here: cynicism is a handmaiden of expediency. Never mind high
ideals.”

On April 6, 1987, Congressman Jack Kemp announced the start of his campaign for
President of the United States. Kemp promised that if he were to become President, he
would “repeal the Yalta agreement as a signal that we do not consider Eastern and
Central Europe to be for all time within the orbit of the Soviet colonial empire.” Kemp’s
election campaign, however, did not go very far.
 YALTA CRUMBLES IN REALITY

After summits with Gorbachev during November 1985, and October 1986, on June 12,
1987, as a part of festivities marking Berlin’s 750th anniversary, President Ronald Reagan
stood on the West Berlin side of the Brandenburg Gate and said: “If you seek peace, if
you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization,
come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate…tear down this wall.”

By the end of 1987, after many arrests, beatings, and even loss of lives suffered by the
opposition, Polish communist leader Wojciech Jaruzelski presented a referendum
supporting economic and political reforms. Polish voters abstained or voted against him.
During this year an active opposition force started taking hold in Hungary marking the
beginning of reforms in that country.

By the spring of 1988, in preparing for President Reagan’s May visit to Moscow, Mikhail
Gorbachev turned to Secretary of State George Shultz and said: “I’m ending the Cold
War. It’s over.” By the end of the year, as pressure for change continued in Eastern
Europe, on December 7, Gorbachev delivered a conciliatory speech before the United
Nations. Faced with both internal and external pressures, the Soviet leader, whose
ambition was also to save his country from decline and ruin through a new policy of
restructuring (“perestoika”), and openness (“glasnost”), decided to give up trying to hold
the Soviet sphere of influence together by force.

Religious freedoms were restored in the Soviet Union and during 1988 the Russian
Orthodox Church celebrated its 1000th anniversary. During 1988, a Soviet Congress was
also formed, which included some elected members.

In January 1989, during the opening of the Conventional Forces in Europe talks held in
Vienna, Soviet Foreign Minister Edward Shevardnadze said that disarmament progress
“has shaken the iron curtain, weakened its rusting foundations, pierced new openings,
and accelerated its corrosion.”

During January, and February 1989, Solidarity was legalized and “roundtable”
discussions were held in Poland to address elections and the future sharing of power.

During March of 1989, multi-candidate elections were held in the Soviet Union, which
put reformers and dissidents, including Andrei Sakharov, into the Congress of People’s
Deputies. In April 1989, as a result of the Geneva accords, the withdrawal of Soviet
troops from Afghanistan was completed.

In May of 1989, on his first official visit to West Germany, Mikhail Gorbachev informed
Chacellor Kohl that the Brezhnev doctrine had been abandoned. Moscow was no longer
willing to use force to prevent democratic transformation of its satellite states. On May 2,
1989, Hungary announced the gradual dismantling of the “iron curtain” along her border
with Austria. During this month the communist bureaucracy was abolished in Hungary
and a part of the Iron Curtain was dismantled for the first time – a barbed-wire fence
along the Austrian border. At the same time Solidarity in Poland won a decisive victory
in the first free Polish parliamentary elections.
On May 31, 1989, under the title of “A Europe Whole and Free,” President George Bush
(Senior) delivered a speech to the citizens of Mainz, Federal Republic of Germany.
During the speech he said:

“…For 40 years, the seeds of democracy in Eastern Europe lay dormant, buried under the
frozen tundra of the Cold War. And for 40 years, the world has waited for the Cold War
to end. And decade after decade, time after time, the flowering human spirit withered
from the chill of conflict and oppression; and again the world waited. But the passion for
freedom cannot be denied forever. The world has waited long enough. The time is right.
Let Europe be whole and free.

“To the founders of the alliance, this aspiration was a distant dream, and now it’s the new
mission of NATO. If ancient rivals like Britain and France, or France and Germany, can
reconcile, then why not the nations of the East and West? In the East, brave men and
women are showing us the way. Look at Poland, where Solidarity, Solidarnosc, and the
Catholic Church have won legal status. The forces of freedom are putting the Soviet
status quo on the defensive. And in the West, we have succeeded because we’ve been
faithful to our values and our vision. And on the other side of the rusting Iron Curtain,
their vision failed.

“The Cold War began with the division of Europe. It can only end when Europe is whole.
Today it is this very concept of a divided Europe that is under siege. And that’s why our
hopes run especially high, because the division of Europe is under siege not by armies but
by the spread of ideas that began here, right here. It was a son of Mainz, Johannes
Gutenberg, who liberated the mind of man through the power of the printed word. And
that same liberating power is unleashed today in a hundred new forms. The Voice of
America, Deutsche Welle, allow us to enlighten millions deep within Eastern Europe and
throughout the world. Television satellites allow us to bear witness from the shipyards of
Gdansk to Tiananmen Square. But the momentum for freedom does not just come from
the printed word or the transistor or the television screen; it comes from a single powerful
idea: democracy.

“This one idea is sweeping across Eurasia. This one idea is why the Communist world,
from Budapest to Beijing, is in ferment. Of course, for the leaders of the East, it’s not just
freedom for freedom’s sake. But whatever their motivation, they are unleashing a force
they will find difficult to channel or control: the hunger for liberty of oppressed peoples
who’ve tasted freedom.

“Nowhere is this more apparent than in Eastern Europe, the birthplace of the Cold War.
In Poland, at the end of World War II, the Soviet Army prevented the free elections
promised by Stalin at Yalta. And today Poles are taking the first steps toward real
election, so long promised, so long deferred. And in Hungary, at last we see a chance for
multiparty competition at the ballot box.

“As President, I will continue to do all I can to help open the closed societies of the East.
We seek self-determination for all of Germany and all of Eastern Europe. And we will
not relax, and we must not waver. Again, the world has waited long enough.
“But democracy’s journey East is not easy. Intellectuals like the great Czech playwright
Vaclav Havel still work under the shadow of coercion. And repression still menaces too
many peoples of Eastern Europe. Barriers and barbed wire still fence in nations. So, when
I visit Poland and Hungary this summer, I will deliver this message. There cannot be a
common European home until all within it are free to move from room to room. And I’ll
take another message: The path of freedom leads to a larger home, a home where West
meets East, a democratic home, the commonwealth of free nations.

“And I said that positive steps by the Soviets would be met by steps of our own. And this
is why I announced on May 12th a readiness to consider granting to the Soviets temporary
waiver of the Jackson-Vanik trade restrictions if they liberalize emigration. And this is
also why I announced on Monday that the United States is prepared to drop the “no
exceptions” standard that has guided our approach to controlling the export of technology
to the Soviet Union, lifting a sanction enacted in response to their invasion of
Afghanistan.

“And in this same spirit, I set forth four proposals to heal Europe’s tragic division, to help
Europe become whole and free.

“First, I propose we strengthen and broaden the Helsinki process to promote free
elections and political pluralism in Eastern Europe. As the forces of freedom and
democracy rise in the East, so should our expectations. And weaving together the slender
threads of freedom in the East will require much from the Western democracies.

“In particular the great political parties of the West must assume an historic responsibility
to lend counsel and support to those brave men and women who are trying to form the
first truly representative political parties in the East, to advance freedom and democracy,
to part the Iron Curtain.

“In fact, it’s already begun to part. The frontier of barbed wire and minefields between
Hungary and Austria is being removed, foot by foot, mile by mile. Just as the barriers are
coming down in Hungary, so must they fall throughout all of Eastern Europe. Let Berlin
be next – let Berlin be next! Nowhere is the division between East and West seen more
clearly than in Berlin. And there this brutal wall cuts neighbor from neighbor, brother
from brother. And that wall stands as a monument to the failure of communism. It must
come down.

“Now, glasnost may be a Russian word, but “openness” is a Western concept. West
Berlin has always enjoyed the openness of a free city, and our proposal would make all
Berlin a center of commerce between East and West – a place of cooperation, not a point
of confrontation. And we rededicate ourselves to the 1987 allied initiative to strengthen
freedom and security in that divided city. And this, then, is my second proposal: Bring
glasnost to East Berlin.

“My generation remembers a Europe ravaged by war. And of course, Europe has long
since rebuilt its proud cities and restored its majestic cathedrals. But what a tragedy it
would be if your continent was again spoiled, this time by a more subtle and insidious
danger – Chancellor referred to – that of poisoned rivers and acid rain. America’s faced
an environmental tragedy in Alaska. Countries from France to Finland suffered after
Chernobyl. West Germany is struggling to save the Black Forest today. And throughout,
we have all learned a terrible lesson: Environmental destruction respects no borders.

“So my third proposal is to work together on these environmental problems, with the
United States and Western Europe extending a hand to the East. Since much remains to
be done in both East and West, we ask Eastern Europe to join us in this common struggle.
We can offer technical training, and assistance in drafting laws and regulations, and new
technologies for tackling these awesome problems. And I invite the environmentalist and
engineers of the East to visit the West, to share knowledge so we can succeed in this great
cause.

“My fourth proposal, actually a set of proposals, concerns a less militarized Europe, the
most heavily armed continent in the world. Nowhere is this more important than in the
two Germanys. And that’s why our quest to safely reduce armament has a special
significance for the German people.

“To those who are impatient with our measured pace in arms reductions, I respectfully
suggest that history teaches us a lesson: that unity and strength are the catalyst and
prerequisite to arms control. We’ve always believed that a strong Western defense is the
best road to peace. Forty years of experience have proven us right. But we’ve done more
than just keep the peace. By standing together, we have convinced the Soviets that their
arms buildup has been costly and pointless. Let us give them incentives to return to the
policies of the past. Let us give them every reason to abandon the arms race for the sake
of the human race…”

“…When Western Europe takes its giant step in 1992, it will institutionalize what’s been
true for years: borders open to people, commerce, and ideas. No shadow of suspicion, no
sinister fear is cast between you. The very prospect of war within the West is unthinkable
to our citizens. But such a peaceful integration of nations into a world community does
not mean that any nation must relinquish its culture, much less its sovereignty.

“This process of integration, a subtle weaving of shared interests, which is not nearly
complete in Western Europe, has now finally begun in the East. We want to help the
nations of Eastern Europe realize what we, the nations of Western Europe learned long
ago: The foundation of lasting security comes not from tanks, troops, or barbed wire; it is
built on shared values and agreements that link free peoples. The nations of Eastern
Europe are rediscovering the glories of their national heritage. So, let the colors and hues
of national culture return to these gray societies of the East. Let Europe forgo a peace of
tension for a peace of trust, one in which the peoples of the East and West can rejoice – a
continent that is diverse yet whole.

“Forty years of Cold War have tested Western resolve and the strength of our values.
NATO’s first mission is now nearly complete. But if we are to fulfill our vision – our
European vision – the challenges of the next 40 years will ask no less of us. Together, we
shall answer the call. The world has waited long enough…”

“In June 1989, Mazowiecki won the first free Presidential elections in Poland. In July
1989, Gorbachev pledged that the Poles and Hungarians were free to determine their own
future. On July 6, 1989, Gorbachev told the Council of Europe in his famous Strasbourg
speech that the “common European home…excludes all possibility of armed
confrontation, all possibility of restoring to the threat or use of force, and notably military
force employed by one alliance against another, within an alliance, or whatever it might
be.”

On August 21, 1989, the 21st anniversary of the Prague Spring, a demonstration took
place in the Czech capital during which Alexander Dubcek spoke encouraging words to
the crowd.

On September 11, 1989, Hungary opened her borders with Austria and over 10,000 East
German refugees in Hungary arrived in West Germany. These measures led people to
pour out of East Germany to West German embassies in Pargue and Warsaw. On this day
the organization “Neue Forum” was created in East Germany.

On October 7, 1989, the 40th anniversary of East Germany, Gorbachev met with East
German leader Erich Honecker, who made his final public appearance in East Berlin.
Demonstrations were brutally stamped out. On October 18, 1989, Egon Krenz replaced
Honecker as leader of communist East Germany.

On October 25, 1989, while traveling together, Gorbachev’s spokesman Gennadii

Gerasimov told reporters in Helsinki, Finland, that the “Frank Sinatra Doctrine” [“I did it
my way”] had replaced the Brezhnev Doctrine for the Soviets.

On November 4, 1989, one million East Germans demonstrated in the Alexanderplatz,

East Germany’s biggest rally ever. On November 9, 1989, borders between the two
Berlins were opened. East Germans were free to travel. The Berlin Wall had come down.
On November 10, 1989, free elections for East Germany were announced for 1990.

On November 10, 1989, Todor Zhivkov resigned as leader of Bulgaria. By mid-

December, a multi-party system was in place in that country. On November 12, 1989,
Potsdam Square was reopened in the presence of the two mayors of Berlin. On November
24, 1989, faced with massive demonstrations in Prague, all shown on television, Czech
communist leaders resigned. This was after demonstrations grew daily from 10,000 to
200,000 to eventually 500,000 people marching for the end of Communist Party rule.
On November 28, 1989, Chacellor Kohl presented a 10-point plan for a German
Confederation.

On December 2 and 3, 1989, during the Malta Conference, Soviet spokesman Gennadii
Gerasimov told reporters “We buried the Cold War at the bottom of the Mediterranean.”
Bush was to write later: “Leaving Malta, I flew to Brussels to brief our allies. I felt it was
important to reassure them there was to be no U.S.- Soviet condominium, no Yalta-style
deal on Eastern Europe.”

On December 5, 1989, Gorbachev was quoted in Pravda as follows: “The world is

leaving one epoch, the Cold War, and entering a new one.” On December 17, 1989,
Nicolae Ceausescu ordered his troops in Romania to fire upon anti-government
demonstrators. Four days later student protesters disrupted a mass demonstration on his
behalf. The crowd, and even the army, turned against Ceausescu.
On December 22, 1989, The Brandenburg Gate was reopened. On December 25, 1989,
Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife were executed. On December 29, 1989, Vaclaw Havel
became President of Czechoslovakia, and Alexander Dubcek became chairman of
parliament, after free elections were held.

Despite the fall of the Berlin Wall, Gorbachev was initially determined not to see a united
Germany in his lifetime. Among steps proposed to prevent a unified Germany,
Gorbachev called for a Four-Power meeting in Berlin (on the future of Germany, and
Eastern Europe). Bush later wrote: “Our inclination was to decline outright: such Yalta-
style intervention in the situation violated German self-determination and was exactly
what we were trying to avoid.”

In February 1990 free elections were held in Nicaragua, which was helped by Moscow
and Washington agreeing to cancel the flow of arms to their respective allies, the
Sandinistas and Contras.

On March 18, 1990, the first free elections were held in East Germany. On May 6, 1990,
the first free local council elections were held in East Berlin. On June 22, 1990, in the
presence of the foreign ministers of the four former occupying powers, “Checkpoint
Charlie” was removed. On July 1, 1990, a monetary union between East and West
Germany began. The two mayors of Berlin reopened 8 underground train stations that
had been closed for 28 years. On September 12, 1990, the four former occupying powers
and the two German states signed a treaty “on a final settlement concerning Germany” in
Moscow. On October 3, 1990, the official reunification of the two German states took
place. And on December 2, 1990, the first parliamentary elections were held in a united
Germany.

In 1990, the Supreme Soviet elected Gorbachev as the country’s president for a term of
five years. Gorbachev, still the leader of the increasingly unpopular Communist Party,
was cautiously promoting a market economy, including the individual’s right to possess
private property. All the “restructuring” and “openness” which increased the diversity of
opinions led to little more than nationalistic and ethnic infighting. According to Anatoly
Sobchak, the liberal mayor of St. Petersburg:

“A totalitarian system leaves behind it a minefield built into both the country’s social
structure and the individual psychology of its citizens. And mines explode each time the
system faces the danger of being dismantled and the country sees the prospect of genuine
renewal.” In other words, glasnost and perestroika were good things in themselves but
too much too fast meant the danger of confusion amidst liberation.

In 1990 the Russian Republic, the largest republic of the Soviet Union, declared its
limited independence under Yeltsin, and an Anti-Reform Russian Communist Party
broke off from the reformist party faction led by Gorbachev. By May of 1992, twelve of
fifteen republics declared their independence and the empire of the tsars and the
Communists had fallen to pieces.

On June 15, 2001, during remarks delivered to the faculty and students of Warsaw
University, President George W. Bush (Junior) said:
“(…) Today, I have come to the center of Europe to speak of the future of Europe. Some
still call this “the East” – but Warsaw is closer to Ireland than it is to the Urals. And it is
time to put talk of East and West behind us.

“Yalta did not ratify a natural divide. It divided a living civilization. The partition of
Europe was not a fact of geography; it was an act of violence. And wise leaders for
decades have found the hope of European peace in the hope of greater unity. In the same
speech that described an “iron curtain,” Winston Churchill called for “a new unity in
Europe, from which no nation should be permanently outcast.”

“Consider how far we have come since that speech. Through trenches and shell-fire,
through death camps and bombed-out cities, through gulags and food lines men and
women have dreamed of what my father called a Europe “whole and free.” This free
Europe is no longer a dream. It is the Europe that is rising around us. It is the work that
you and I are called on to complete.

“We can build an open Europe – a Europe without Hitler and Stalin, without Brezhnev
and Honecker and Ceaucescu and, yes, without Milosevic.

“Our goal is to erase the false lines – our goal is to erase the false lines that have divided
Europe for too long. The future of every European nation must be determined by the
progress of internal reform, not the interests of outside powers. Every European nation
that struggles toward democracy and free markets and a strong civic culture must be
welcomed into Europe’s home.

“All of Europe’s new democracies, from the Baltic to the Black Sea and all that lie
between, should have the same chance for security and freedom – and the same chance to
join the institutions of Europe – as Europe’s old democracies have.

“I believe in NATO membership for all of Europe’s democracies that seek it and are
ready to share the responsibilities that NATO brings. [Applause] The question of “when”
may still be up for debate within NATO; the question of “whether” should not be. As we
plan to enlarge NATO, no nation should be used as a pawn in the agendas of others. We
will not trade away the fate of free European peoples. No more Munichs. No more Yalta.
[Applause] Let us tell all those who have struggled to build democracy and free markets
what we have told the Poles: from now on, what you build, you keep. No one can take
away your freedom or your country.” [Applause]
 REFLECTIONS UPON ACTION RENOUNCE YALTA IN 2005

Many outside factors contributed towards the complete victory of the democratic forces
in captive nations, and the end to a physically divided Europe. Many of the favorable
factors involved had to do as much if not more with the economic, political, military, and
ideological decline of the Soviet Union, than by meaningful, concrete, positive actions
coming from the Western democracies of the world. In the end, amazingly, it was the
people of Central and Eastern Europe who bravely initiated the march through history’s
window of opportunity not only to renounce, but also to overcome and destroy Yalta, not
only on paper, but also in reality.

While POMOST and many others within and outside of the Western captive nation
community put their hearts and souls into the Renounce Yalta campaign, and other
actions that promoted freedom for captive nations, we knew that it was easy to be
politically active within the comfortable confines of a democracy, such as the United
States. It was the courageous people of Poland and other captive nations who risked
everything on the front lines which, remarkably, defeated the military occupation and
dictatorship of a superpower. Those of us who were politically active in the West served
as little more than cheerleaders in the equation. Nevertheless, it was an honor and
privilege to have supported such a noble and just cause.

There were no villain leaders among those who supported freedom for Captive Nations,
while expressing various views pertaining to Yalta. There were merely differences of
opinion. On several occasions the same opinions were expressed by various organizations
but at different times. Each voice expressing an opinion on the subject was obviously
doing so in the interest of freedom for captive nations, which was clearly understood by
U.S. political leaders. In this sense the political activity of all involved complimented one
another.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, deservedly so, has remained an unusually well respected political
authority among American society as a whole. He is a logically brilliant, knowledgeable,
and articulate political thinker who deserves not only respect but also a great deal of
admiration. Much the same can be said about Jan Nowak, whose lifelong dedication to
the cause of a free Poland can be matched by few, if any. Aloysius Mazewski was also a
very honorable man who worked tirelessly on behalf of the PAC and the struggling
people in Poland. Each of the above individuals was motivated by the best of intentions.

Obviously a U.S. president would have hardly preferred anything more than to see the
restoration of freedom and democracy for captive nations under his administration.
President Reagan felt that his approach, including the investment he placed in his
personal relationship with Gorbachev, would be most effective. And Reagan was
certainly a very effective leader. No doubt there were some very noble reasons which
stood behind the cautious approach of U.S. leaders towards the developing situation in
Eastern and Central Europe. President Reagan and others, undoubtedly, to at least some
extent, felt partially restrained by the possibility of leaving those risking everything on
the front lines, including life, with false hopes and exaggerated expectations of active
Western support amid limited options in a nuclear world. Renouncing Yalta by a U.S.
administration, at that time, would have been a very radical step. As some critics of the
action stated, it would have been an appropriate step to take prior to declaring war on the
Soviet Union.

The United States as a nation was very interested in, and genuinely sympathetic towards,
the Solidarity Movement. In one polling about 50% of the American people believed that
the U.S. would be justified in going to war over Poland. Going beyond the general
interest in nations that sought to free themselves of occupation, there seemed to be more
interest shown in this struggle precisely because one of the countries involved was
Poland. And the mere presence of the United States, as a counter force to communism,
gave comfort and hope to the people of Poland and other captive nations during many
decades.

It could be said that POMOST’s Action Renounce Yalta was pointing out America’s
weakness, and limitations, during a critical time when it was important to project power
and strength. It could be argued that the morale of those struggling on the front lines in
captive nations would have been better served by less controversial legislation that would
have been passed by a large U.S. Congressional majority easily, and quickly. It could also
be legitimately argued that it was better to indeed use the issue of Yalta as added pressure
to promote free elections in captive nations, as opposed to pointing out U.S. fault.

Despite all of the above reasons for doing things differently, time appears to have proven
POMOST’s approach to Action Renounce Yalta as being justified. While Action
Renounce Yalta may have helped boost the morale of Opposition forces in Poland, we
felt certain that those leaders were far too sophisticated to base their actions or hopes on a
Western political campaign of any kind. At a time of concern and despair among the
politically active Polish-American community, the sensitive issue of Yalta channeled
such frustrations into a united, effective, and positive action that promoted the vision of
freedom, democracy, and independence for captive nations around the world.

While nobody could have projected with any degree of certainty that conditions would
prove ripe enough for freedom, democracy, and independence to succeed in full,
POMOST correctly assessed that this was an unavoidable goal regardless of what action,
or lack of, was taken by the West, and that it would end rather quickly in complete
success, or complete failure.

We knew that victory could only be attained when enough people demanded “freedom
now” firmly and effectively enough, at the same time. Delaying the inevitable battle from
decade to decade was not a good option for the Polish people because it only prolonged
the agony of dictatorship, as the world became even more accustomed to accepting such a
fate. We also knew that the lifting of Western sanctions, and throwing money into the
bottomless pit of Poland’s communist economy in the name of seeking “stability,”
offered the same result.

The goal to see the 1945 Yalta Agreement formally renounced by the U.S. government
was not attained. Nevertheless, the loud and prolonged calls to do so focused attention on
a united Europe throughout the campaign. Thus even voices critical of our approach were
accompanied by calls to do more on behalf of ending the division of Europe and kept the
issue active for a prolonged period of time.
While more frequent Western calls for more sustained efforts on behalf of freedom for
captive nations were often absent of concrete proposals and actions, they perhaps
contributed towards bringing the vision of freedom closer for all concerned. In the
process Yalta was being effectively condemned by history, leaving a lasting impression
on many leaders, including the Bush family [when it came to Eastern and Central
Europe].

While perhaps naïve and overly cautious in seeking compromise between Solidarity and
the Jaruzeski regime, in a 1998 book written jointly with National Security Advisor Brent
Scowcroft, President George Bush [Senior] wrote about his determination not to reach a
“Yalta-style deal” with Gorbachev pertaining to Eastern Europe, and particularly
Germany, when it became evident to all that the Soviet system was crumbling. And just
as his father had promoted the long-term vision of a united Europe, President George
Bush [Junior], has frequently expressed U.S. commitment to “no more Yaltas” for
Central and Eastern Europe, in effect admitting to partial U.S. responsibility for this
tragic agreement.

Fortunately amid the decline of the Soviet system, and the caution and hesitancy of the
Western world, there were enough voices calling loud and effectively enough at the same
time behind the iron curtain to penetrate status quo and bury the spirit of Yalta.
Fortunately, at this point, the United States consolidated the gains of democracy within
the NATO Alliance. Much to the credit of the Polish-American Congress lobby effort,
and Jan Nowak personally, this was accomplished against some rather stiff initial
opposition, surprisingly coming to a great extent from the Republican Party.

For me, personally, the whitewashing of our resolution was a major blow from which I
did not fully recover until the fall of the Berlin Wall, and walking the streets of a free
Poland. Upon seeing how difficult it was to penetrate the American political process as a
lobby, I decided to take a chance on attempting to place myself within the political
established by running for U.S. Congress. Thus I entered the 1988 Republican Primary to
represent California’s 40th Congressional District against 13 other candidates.

I knew that my chances of winning were very slim, but had no idea how virtually
impossible this mission would be to complete. While Polonia was kind enough to donate
$30,000 towards my campaign, a candidate needed to show close to $1 million to be
taken seriously by the press. Performance during debates made little difference for an
under-funded candidate. During most debates there were less than 100 people in
attendance, and half of those were people who came to numerous debates. The vast
majority of voters were not aware of any of the candidates until the end of the campaign
when those candidates who had money sent letters, brochures, and other mailings on an
almost daily basis, at the expense of approximately $25,000 per mailing.

Despite the hopelessness involved with getting elected, fortunately there was a very
positive aspect to this effort as well. One of the candidates who had a serious chance of
winning not only shared my views on virtually every issue, but also shared a very
genuine interest in the fate of Poland and other captive nations. A few of the other
candidates, as well as I, dropped out of the race to endorse and support Christopher Cox,
who was elected by a narrow margin.
Cox, a very well liked and respected Congressman, with a very bright future was
eventually chosen by President George W. Bush to head up the Securities & Exchange
Commission. Upon being elected, Congressman Cox traveled to Poland to be an observer
of the first post-communist free elections. During his local cable television program a
“Solidarnosc” banner was prominently displayed in the background. He wrote articles
and legislation that benefited Poland. Besides proving to be a true friend to the cause of a
free Poland Cox is recognized as an extremely bright, talented, dignified, sincere, and
dedicated individual. It is my hope that eventually he will run for president of the United
States and that the American people show the wisdom to vote him into office. At such
time he will also deserve the utmost of support from the entire American captive nation
community.

From a perspective of numerous years the time spent on the Renounce Yalta campaign
and other POMOST actions were the most rewarding of my life. Few things in life now
give me more pleasure than walking the streets of a free, democratic, and independent
Poland. Having contributed a pebble towards this result makes it that much sweeter.

It was never the desire of POMOST members to become leaders of the Polish-American
community, or any community, but rather to mobilize the maximum support possible for
the people of Poland and other captive nations to freely determine their own fate. The
motivation behind POMOST was never to be active for the purpose of being active, but
to make a contribution, however small, towards achieving victory, which was all that
mattered.

Now that virtually all of the captive nations of Eastern and Central Europe have achieved
victory, one can only hope that freedom, democracy, and independence will not only be
preserved but will thrive to the fullest extent possible, as well as offer a higher standard
of living. Just as it was wrong to become accustomed to the postwar division of Europe
because it had been maintained for more than 40 years, so to freedom should not be taken
for granted simply because it exists now. One never knows from where future threats to
the world will be becoming, and when, as well as at whose expense. One never knows
what future alliances might come along. Democracy is also not a natural state of being
that can be taken for granted within any country’s borders, including the United States. It
involves fulfilling constant responsibilities by the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial
branches of government, as well as by the Press and People of each given nation.
 HOPE FOR THE FUTURE

Humanity as a whole recognizes that a united and peaceful world would be the ultimate
accomplishment for mankind. The benefits of shifting enormous resources from military
hardware and wars to creating a higher standard of living would be obvious. The sparing
of misery, suffering, and lives would be bountiful. Every logical individual can accept
this but disagreement immediately begins when considering what to unite under, and how
to begin accomplishing such a goal amid unstable leaders, different political systems,
misunderstandings, mistrust, and existing conflicts.

Human nature is basically the same and problems start when we think otherwise by
attributing motives and feelings to others that do not reflect our own. The vast majority of
people in any given society are not motivated to hate, risk their lives, kill, or otherwise
commit violence because of not liking another society’s nationality, religion, riches, or
life style. Every society is like our own. People are motivated to hate and kill when
viewing another society as being an aggressor that threatens their nationality, religion,
possessions, lifestyle, and right to overall self-determination.

Thus in each war each side believes that they represent freedom fighters, liberators,
resistors, and otherwise defenders against a present or future aggressive enemy made up
of leaders and armies who are fanatics, terrorists, and insurgents that desire to occupy,
dominate and threaten the self-determination of others. It is usually a small minority that
initially creates this misunderstanding among the many. Because humanity is motivated
by the right to obtaining, defending, and preserving self-determination there are rarely
permanent winners to a war as there will always be resistance among the losers until an
acceptable level of self-determination is restored no matter how long this might take.

History has shown us that every empire has fallen sooner or later as a result of trying to
create a united world in its own image with the threat or use of force. Even the most
powerful of empires have eventually collapsed from lack of enough military strength and
finances to police and control even a portion of the world amid the growing resistance
that this approach creates among others. It’s a process that has always resulted in
eventual failure, regardless of how well meaning the intended results might have been.

It was the creation and enforcement of a Yalta Superpower World Order by the threat or
use of force which resulted in consistent resistance, tension, instability, and conflict. It
was the destruction of Yalta and the return to honoring the self-determination of nations
and people which created conditions for building a peaceful, stable, and united Europe. Is
there any reason why this process cannot be duplicated on a global basis if the same
approach is taken?

Many multi-ethnic and religious societies have functioned very well proving that there is
no reason why people of any nationality, color, or faith cannot coexist in a state of peace.
The most lasting of these successful societies have simply been built on allowing for the
maximum amount of self determination for the maximum amount of people by following
basic democratic principles. Perhaps the main barrier that stands in the way of making
progress towards a peaceful and united world is simply failure to apply these same
principles on an international basis?
A school board member, city councilman, state senator, or national member of congress
who defies majority vote with the use of force ends up losing respect, considered
dangerous, and justifiably resisted by peers. The same applies to any world leader who
violates democratic principles by going to war in defiance of the world’s majority of
nations and people. They also end up being considered dangerous and justifiably resisted
by peers. They end up uniting the world against them, being defeated, and eventually are
condemned by history.

Thus the world awaits superpower leadership, which despite being strong militarily,
commits to honoring and respecting majority vote. Setting such an example for following
democratic principles is what attracts peers, wins respect and support, while minimizing
resistance. Pope John Paul II, without an army or any coercion by force, united the world
behind him as perhaps no other leader, and had very few enemies, by simply promoting
even handed justice in accordance with democratic principles and the respect of
international law.

The world awaits superpower leadership that focuses on promoting the most self
determination for the most people possible, rather than attempting to build a world in its
own image by force. It awaits superpower leadership that is willing to go to war, or send
troops for peace-keeping duties when called upon by the majority, but otherwise remains
within its borders. It awaits leadership that views the world in terms of seeking even
handed justice as opposed to dividing the world into friends and enemies. The world is
waiting for superpower leadership that lives by the same international agreements it
expects all other nations to honor.

Such a superpower will find more permanent security with the above approach than as a
result of all the military power it can achieve to promote the most of noble of end results
while defying the world’s majority. No significant group of people on earth is motivated
to kill citizens of another group which is viewed as standing for even handed justice and
respecting the will of the majority. And the world would be far more eager to come to the
defense of a nation that consistently honors democratic principles against any
insignificant groups willing to kill for superficial reasons, which might remain. A
superpower that consistently acted in accordance with the will of the world, honoring
democratic principles and international law, would also be in a position to apply far more
meaningful pressure on the dictators of nations that remain.

The emergence of such superpower leadership is just a question of time. Mankind has
already evolved from individuals to groups, tribes, municipalities, kingdoms, nations, and
alliances, recognizing the advantages that each step has brought for those involved in the
process. Most all international borders have already been broken down by the business
world, tourism, the arts, and sports. The internet and ever more sophisticated means of
communications in the information age increasingly help educate people to the fact that
given the same set of circumstances we all basically act and react in the same manner. As
a result it brings the world closer together, while making it more difficult for political
leaders to demonize an enemy.

As a result of the new information age it is already becoming more difficult to wage
unpopular pre-emptive wars of aggression under false pretexts. World public opinion
reacts more quickly and effectively, fewer parents are willing to give up their children for
war, and there is a greater and quicker price to pay for the leaders involved. Thus a united
and basically peaceful world is just a question of time as long as mankind exists and
continues to evolve.

As with many previous geo-political situations, the world was convinced that the Cold
War was basically permanent and could not be changed. The seemingly impossible was
overcome, however, simply because enough unarmed people joined together in solidarity
at the same time against a powerful military empire to call for self determination. This
resulted in a basically peaceful and united continent that had virtually always experienced
wars, major conflicts, and tension, throughout its long history. Likewise a basically
united and peaceful world will arrive, but only when enough people demand loud
enough, at the same time, for all leaders of the world to consistently honor the voice of
the majority and respect established international democratic laws without exception,
regardless of how convinced they are of the righteousness in the minority position that
they hold.

It is a violation of international law, sick, immoral, archaic, and ultimately self-defeating

for any nation in the 21st century to defy the majority of the world by taking unilateral
actions regardless of how convinced they are in justifying this behavior. Defying the will
of the world also consistently leads to the destruction of the nation involved. It is
therefore a sign of short sighted poor leadership, a poorly functioning press, and citizenry
that fails to become informed and react properly and effectively enough to such an event.
It’s a failure to honor democratic principles and law. It’s as primitive as allowing the
physically strongest member of congress to suspend the will of the majority and decide a
course of action whenever feeling strongly enough that the majority are wrong. And even
if eventually proven right for defying the majority at any given time, the damage from the
violation of democratic principles is far more damning than any unilateral success that
can be achieved.

There will come a time when enough world citizens will contribute enough financial and
active support to organizations applying enough pressure on world political leaders to
live by democratic principles. Eventually there will be enough pressure on political
candidates in democracies to commit to these principles and honoring international law as
a priority to become elected. Eventually grass root pressure of world citizenry in such
forms as putting people in the streets, supporting internal resistance, or boycotting goods
produced, and tourism, in any nation that does not respect democratic principles will
become effective.

Upon seeing enough worldwide grass roots support for a world built upon consistently
honoring democratic principles on a priority basis more and more politicians, “think
tanks” and political experts will present visions of how best to make sure that growth on
this foundation is implemented. The framework for making decisions based on
democratic principles will require such changes as eliminating veto power by any one
government in any one decision making international body.

Facing a strong enough united world front, which includes citizens of one’s own country,
that refuses to accept a violation of international democratic principles, will eventually
reduce unilateral pre-emptive wars to a minimum. This will be insured when world
leaders are subjected to enough pressure, internationally and domestically, to face a world
court or tribunal for violations of these principles. When confronted with a mindset of
developing a world based on democratic principles, each nation in good standing could
eventually be required to not only allow for international observers but to have elections
in each nation run by an international body. And to promote international democratic
principles and understanding, each nation in good standing could be required to carry an
international broadcasting channel that televises the world body’s law processing
deliberations, and activities, as well as debates and news pertaining to issues, from an
international perspective.

A superpower will still be able to play an effective role in policing the world, but only
when called upon by the majority of nations to do so, at which time the world could be
obliged to pay for this service. Under these circumstances it would be more difficult for
any one nation to defy and build up hate for other nations that consistently accept the will
of the majority even when not in agreement with the majority. Thus with time there will
be fewer and fewer nations willing to defy a world body and nations that are genuinely
built upon, and consistently practice, democratic principles. There are criminals in any
given society, and so too there will be nations that violate international law. In each case,
however, dealing with the issue based on democratic principles is the roadmap to success.

Such a world will come when the same democratic principles that are successfully
practiced in a democratic society on an individual, local, state, and national basis, are also
applied on an international scale, rather than continuing on with the failed policy of
individual nations taking matters into their own hands. The world may not evolve to this
stage in this decade or century. On the other hand it could happen tomorrow. It’s just a
question of when enough world citizens support international pro-democracy
organizations at the same time, financially and actively enough, to demand a world built
on these principles.

It would be nice to see a free Poland, with its traditional motto “For Your Freedom and
Ours” to play a leading active role in promoting a world built upon democratic principles.