Search in

Digital Archive International History Declassified

February 22, 1958


This document was made possible with support from the Carnegie Corporation

  • Citation

    get citation

    Wierna details a meeting with Czech officials regarding further actions on the Rapacki Plan.
    "M. Wierna, 'Note regarding the Visit to Prague on Feb. 8-9, 1958' ," February 22, 1958, History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive, Polskie dokumenty dyplomatyczne 1958 (Warszawa: Polski Instytut Spraw Międzynarodowych, 2011), Document #74, pp.171-172. Translated by Jerzy Giebułtowski.
  • share document


English HTML


February 22, file note of director on Polish-Czechoslovak consultations

regarding the Rapacki Plan

Warsaw, February 22 , 1958



regarding the visit to Prague on Feb. 8–9, 1958

1. Several-hour-long meetings were held on the 8th and 9th of this month. The first with the following line-up: Wierna, Mazur – deputy  minister, Gregor, Knapp (KDL [people’s democracies] department director) and Szedivy (intern. organizations), another at minister’s David the following participating: Wierna, Mazur, Gregor. At the first meeting, I presented the results of the Rapacki-Gromyko meeting and further action plan.

Gregor formulated preliminary approval and remarks.

The following day, minister David acknowledged principal consent.

Since the talks with Gregor the substance of the matter has been exhausted, the meeting at David’s was largely one of courtesy.

2. The Czechs’ remarks concerned the following:

a) they would deem it correct to forward the document to other states (except the great powers) whose troops are stationed in the FRG; I found the remark correct, so I accepted it ad referendum;

b) they would deem it correct to receive the memorandum together with the accompanying note; they believe that they should reply to it, and that they need it, be it only for the Czech opinion itself; they want to send a copy of their reply to the same addressees to whom Poland would appeal; I took cognizance of it, as I believed that we cannot oppose it;

c) they would wish to have received the document a bit earlier and they claim that it would have facilitated preparation of a reply; aware that it is an allusion to [their idea of] agreeing the text of the document with them, I gave assurances that the document would be kept within the framework of theses that had been agreed and consulted with them; I undertook no commitments in that respect and at the same time, I asked them to bear in mind that we would not hurry with the document;

d) underlying the ground won in the FRG for the idea of the nuclear-free zone, especially among the social democrats, in their opinion it is worth considering whether the importance of the zone should be elaborated in the documents, I listed the disadvantages of this idea.

On the whole, the atmosphere of the talks is v. good, i.e., friendly and matter-of-fact. What is striking is the overemphasis on the modest role of the CSR (“we are only joining in, after all”). Gregor also asked if they should treat the talks as information or consultation. I replied: [that we should treat it] as both; and it that connection already during the visit at David’s I stressed the consultative nature of my trip.

The above is indicative of some kind of resentment; probably because they did not know beforehand about our plans consulted in Moscow.

Unable to alleviate such grudge, I believe that, for obvious reasons, we can compensate for that in the form of more frequent information about the plan’s repercussions in the West, about our assessment, etc.

fM. Wiernaf

AMSZ, z. 23, w. 14, t. 163


It appears your Web browser is not configured to display PDF files. No worries, just click here to download the PDF file.

Click here to view the PDF file in a new window.

PDFs cannot be printed inline in the page. To print a PDF, you must first download the file and open it in a PDF viewer.