52 Meeting of the National Secretariat of the V League (Tel aviv, 26 September 1945)

MINUTES: CZA S25/5717

Present:Kaplansky, Pratkin, Tarnopoler, Greenblatt, Manya [Shohat], Zvi Nadav, Tsirulnikov, Dr.Kruck, Nehorai, Kremer, Erem, [Ziesling]

Agenda: 1) Information from Kaplansky;

       2)the national convention;

       3)Red Army Forest oroject.

   The chairman, Comrade Pratkin, welcomed Kaplansky upon his return from London.

   Kaplansky: The report on my meeting at the Soviet embassy in London may have lost some of its freshness, since I have repeated on various occasions both in London and here at home.

   Remez preceded us to London and awaited us. Following our arrival – myself and Ziesling- we applied to the embassy for a formal interview. It was granted immediately. Our meeting was scheduled for 9 August. Owing to the absence of the soviet ambassador to London, Gusev, who was attending the

Page 106

Potsdam Conference, we were received by Kukin, the charge d’affaires at the Soviet embassy in London. Information circles confirmed that Kukia is a central figure, who has held this post for a total of twelve years. A conversation with him is tantamount to a conversation with the ambassador. Moreover, his expertise exceeds that of the ambassador. Indeed, during the conversation I found that Kukin definitely justified the high evaluation we heard about him from our circles. He is educated, bright and very cultured. In the course of the conversation we discovered that he is knowledgeable about our affairs and about Palestine, and that he takes an interest in everything that occurs here.

   I began the formal conversation by surveying briefly the activities of the V League in Palestine, our shipments [to the USSR]1, our delegations, and our relations with Soviet institutions. I also explained that with the war’s end we had to discuss our future plans. We intended to devote our forthcoming national conference to that discussion, and we had invited representatives of the government of the USSR and of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. We had not yet received a reply. We began to form well-founded suspicions that our invitations had not reached their destinations; therefore, we had taken measures to ensure that our invitations would reach the USSR legations in Cairo and Beirut directly. On the occasion of our visit to London, we expressed the wish to clarify our operative programs with the embassy.

   Remez spoke next and added details about the negotiations conducted by the delegation that recently visited Tehran with a representative of the Soviet Red Cross, Dr. Barian. Remez mentioned Barian’s concrete proposal that the V League organize support for a Jewish orphanage in Minsk and to the plan for the medical-scientific liaison institution which we intend to establish in Palestine. Finally, he emphasized that we appreciate greatly visits by USSR representatives to Palestine, not only to participate in conferences but also to become acquainted with our endeavours in the country. Remez concluded by expressing the wish that we, too, would be permitted to visit the Soviet Union and make contact with the Jews there.

   Kukin, at the outset of his lengthy response, noted that a conversation of the kind we were conducting could assume a formal diplomatic character, or it would be frank, as far as possible, and take a friendly tenor. He himself preferred the latter—to speak as frankly as possible.

   To our question –should the V League continue to exist—he assented absolutely and added that we  would be making a great mistake if we through to disband it following the war’s conclusion. True, the war had ended, but fascism had not yet been eradicated. It had spread throughout all the countries of Nazi occupation and had made extensive inroads. Many fascist groups had survived in Europe and existed openly, and their influence extended to America, where ,too, fascism had made great inroads. Fascism in its bestial from was a carrier of degenerzte, zoological anti-Semitism.

注释

1.       See Doc.27,n.4.

Page 107

   We still share the common, urgent task of waging war on fascism. Subsequently, Kukin said with surprising frankness that he was obliged to admit that even in certain regions of the USSR, which had been under the jackboot of Nazi occupation for a lengthy period, the virulence of Nazism and anti-Semitism had penetrated and given rise to vile public manifestations2.kukin’s admission showed that his earlier remarks had been frank.

   Kukin added that the USSR, as a state, was quite capable of curbing manifestations of fascism and anti-Semitism and uprooting them. By the same token, the USSR valued immensely the public campaign against fascism and anti-Semitism waged by public bodies and organizations abroad.

   Kukin then reiterated that from this point of view he was certainly in favour of the V League’s continued existence in Palestine. As for the league’ activity, he valued greatly the fostering of cultural relations with the USSR, the diffusion of comprehensive reports about Soviet culture—art, science, music—and of course mutual exchanges of information on life and developments in the Soviet Union and in Palestine. This, he believed, should be the league’s major activity.

   Regarding relations: Kukin [referred to] the difficulties we had encountered in this matter. But, at the same time, he emphasized that he hade received complaints from other countries as well about irregular relations with relevant Soviet institutions. He thinks that it would be preferable for us to be in direct contact with VOKS in Moscow and with the Jewish Anti-Fascism Committee, without resorting to mediation by USSR legations in Cairo, Ankara or Beirut.

   Kukin concluded by remarking: let us hope that relations between us, which in the past were abnormal, will be mended and improved.

   From the discussion of the V League, Kukin shifted the conversation to general political matters. It was clear that he was speaking frankly. “There were difficulties in the past”, he said, “and possibly we can expect many difficulties in the future. The Soviet Union finds itself in a rather delicate situation. Ture, the Soviet Union has not yet had its final word concerning Palestine, because Palestine is in the British realm of influence; but the USSR may clearly articulate its stand at any juncture. Do not be amazed by this and do not demand binding declarations or unequivocal political statements from the USSR at the present time.

   In response to Kukin’s remarks, I said, inter alia:” As emissaries of the V league, we do not insist on political declarations because that is not our task. There is an official Jewish representation in Palestine for the purpose of conducting negotiations with the USSR. When the time comes, it will undoubtedly establish relations with the USSR.” As for Kukin’s suggestion that the V League concentrate on furthering cultural ties with the USSR, I noted the flagrant contradiction between Dr.Barian’s suggestion and his own. Dr.Barian, for example, had impressed upon our delegation that it was more desirable for

注释  

2. For manifestations of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union in the wake of the German withdrawal, see Redlich. War, Holocaust and Stalinism.pp.38—40.

Page 108

the league to continue dealing with concrete,constructive projects; he advised us to avoid lending the league the blatant character of an institution for cultural relations with the USSR, because in that case we could expect many difficulties in our relations with Soviet institutions, which would view us as a kind of Soviet ‘agency’.

   Here Kukin interrupted me by saying such an approach seemed to him ‘incompatible with the current political reality or with the special conditions of our country’. For my part, I said that we were not afraid of being thought a Soviet ‘agency’ and that we are ready to foster friendly relations with the USSR. I also emphasized that there was a great deal of sympathy for the Soviet Union in the yishuv. Within the yishuv itself there were large groups of former Russians who were raised on Russian literature and culture, so it should be no surprise if our activity generated extensive support.

   As for our relations with Britain: We were grateful to Britain for its positive actions on our behalf. We were well aware that without the mandate we would not have achieved as much as we had in Palestine. But Palestine was not a British colony or a British ‘patrimony’; it was international territory for which the mandatory government bore international responsibility.

At this point Kukin again intervened and turned the conversation towards clarification of the current situation in Palestine, showed an interest in the issues to be raised at the [World] Zionist Conference3, and asked whether the Labour government4 had already taken a conclusive decision on its Palestine policy. I replied that the Jewish Agency had not been in contact with the new government (which at that time had still not been formed). As for the Zionist Conference, I said, it had not yet concluded and had not adopted resolutions, though the direction they would take was already clear. The Zionist Conference would decide to demand the proclamation of Palestine as a Jewish state.

   Kukin asked: And the  Arabs, what will become of them?

   In reply, Ziesling quoted the second half of the resolutions adopted by the Elected Assembly5 concerning political, economic and cultural equality with the Arab community.

   I described the developments which had occurred in the Arab community as a result of the Jewish immigration to Palestine, emphasizing that there was no basis for supposing that the situation would be aggravated following the establishment of the Jewish state.

注释

3.The World Zionist Conference opened in London on 1August It was the first official and representative Zionist gathering after the war and it included moving reports Holocaust survivors, including survivous and repatriates from the Soviet Union and Soviet-controlled areas. The conference closed on 15 August reaffirming the Zionist demands of establishing a Jewish commonwealth in Palestine and the removal of immigration and land-purchase restrictions.

4.The British general election in July, which resulted in a landslide victory for the Labour Party.

5.In Hebrew, Assefat Hanivharim(see Doc.16,n.1).