§ THE EARL OF SELBORNE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can state—
- (1) Why the Polish troops, who had fought in 1939 and 1940 campaigns and in the Warsaw Rising and were liberated from the German prisoners of war camps in the British zone have been refused the alternative either to join the Polish Resettlement Corps or to return to Poland?
- (2) Whether it is true that their food rations have been reduced to the ordinary German level and that upon the departure of the Polish Armoured Divisions from Germany they will lose their PWX status and become civilian refugees?
- (3) Whether an assurance can be given that the Polish and Yugoslav PWX when employed in Germany in
1096 accordance with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's statement of February 19 will in no circumstances be subject to German supervision and that in the scheme now being worked out of recruiting the refugees for employment in this country, they will be given priority over others as recognition of their war services? - (4) Whether the Association of Polish ex-combatants, formed by the PWX will be allowed to function freely within the limits specified in the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's statement and consulted in all matters concerning their employment and resettlement, in order that their willingness to cooperate may be fully used to the benefit of the British Administration and of those for whom it cares?
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, the 'point of the questions that stand in my name can be very simply stated. When the Allied armies entered Germany we liberated, or thought we were liberating, a very large number of Polish soldiers and airmen whom the Germans had taken prisoner during the course of the war. These Allies of ours who were in German prisoner of war camps belong to three categories. First, there were the Polish troops who were taken prisoner in the campaign of September, 1939, and that category constituted by far the greater number of them. Then there were a certain number of Polish troops who were fighting in France in 1940 and who were then taken prisoner. We liberated those also in 1945. Thirdly, there were a large number of Polish troops of the Polish Home Army who were carrying on that wonderful resistance movement which never ceased from the beginning of the war to the end and which played an important part in aggravating the difficulties which the Germans had in maintaining their communications through Poland during the war. There can be no doubt that the troops in every one of those three categories were Allied combatant troops and that they stood m exactly the same category as Polish troops who fought under British command. I do not think His Majesty's Government or anybody else would dispute that the Polish troops who were captured in the campaign of September, 1939, were Allied combatants, or indeed those who were captured in France in 1940.
1097
§
In regard to the Polish Home Army— the underground movement in Poland—I would remind your Lordships that on August 30, 1944, His Majesty's Government—that is to say, the Coalition Government—issued the following declaration:
The Polish Army which is mobilized constitutes a combatant force which forms an integral part of the Polish Armed Forces.
§ Therefore, there can be no dispute that these very gallant Allies of ours (who were our first Allies in this war and who never ceased fighting until the end) stood in exactly the same position as any other Allied troops who were taken prisoner of war by the Germans. But they have not been so treated, and I for one—and I am sure many of your Lordships will agree with me—feel that the honour of this country is very much at stake in the matter. These Polish troops have been treated by His Majesty's Government as displaced persons. They have been refused the opportunity of joining the Polish Resettlement Corps, and the only alternative they have to remaining in Germany as displaced persons is to return to Poland. There are a great many of them who do not wish to go back to Poland. You may agree or disagree with their decision, but it has been asserted by the United Nations that none of these men is to be forced to go back. Therefore, we cannot question their right to decide whether they wish to live under a Communist government or not.
§ The question I want to ask is why these Allied troops have not been treated in exactly the same way as those Polish troops who fought under British command, and allowed to join the Resettlement Corps. I know of no reason that can be given, or which has been given, except that their numbers are very much greater, but I would suggest that in a matter of this sort (which is really a matter of national honour) numbers are not a relevant argument. If we have a debt to honour, then we ought to honour it. I also submit that numbers do not constitute an insuperable difficulty. I do not believe that the whole problem of displaced persons is at all insuperable if it is tackled energetically. There are about one million displaced persons altogether in Europe, of whom the Poles I am speaking about form only a small fraction.
§ Some months ago I ventured to suggest to your Lordships that it would be quite possible for the Allies to agree among 1098 themselves that each should take a quota of displaced persons. I should have thought it possible to arrange some agreed formula by which the density of the population in fertile land—I do not wish to count Australian or other deserts—should be regarded as the criterion. I think it would be found that if you increased that density of population by only a minute fraction, you could accommodate all the displaced persons. It is very regrettable that that principle has not already been agreed, because the problem of displaced persons is going to become a festering sore in Europe.
§ But that is a different issue from that which I am now raising. I am raising the right of our Polish Allies to be treated as Allies; to be treated on exactly the same plane as those who fought under British command. I cannot believe that my noble friend who is to reply can challenge that principle. I know how much he admires the gallantry of the Polish Army, whether it fought under British command or under Polish command, in Poland or elsewhere. No forces in the Allied armies fought with greater gallantry or consistency than they did. Therefore, my first question is to demand that these men should be treated on a parity with those who fought under British command, and I do not think it would present His Majesty's Government with any insoluble problem if that principle were admitted.
§
The second, third and fourth questions I have on the Paper are subsidiary to the first one. The second question raises a point of extreme injustice. As I understand the policy of His Majesty's Government, these unfortunate men have not only been treated, not as soldiers but as displaced persons, but they are now about to be reduced in their food rations to the level on which the German population at present subsists. To my mind that is not a worthy way in which to treat our Allies. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster recently said:
The standards of living of displaced persons which in some respects have been higher than those of the German population since the beginning of the occupation over a year ago will in future be brought generally into line. with the latter.
That appears to me to be a very gentle and diplomatic way of saying what I have put more bluntly. It seems to me, if it is true, to be a terrible disgrace on us that our Allies should be treated in the same way as the Germans.
§ My third and fourth questions are to seek information from His Majesty's Government. I would like the assurances I have asked for there, but those assurances would be unnecessary if I could only persuade the noble Lord and his colleagues to do what I believe they must, in their heart of hearts, concede to be an elementary act of justice, as well as chivalry; that is, to adopt the course suggested in the first question I have asked on the Paper.
§ 6.34 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAMMy Lords, I hope your Lordships will allow me to answer the questions raised by the noble Earl at some considerable length. His four questions on the Paper, involving in my calculation at least six points of substance, deal with the Polish troops who fought in the campaigns of 1939 and 1940 or the Warsaw Rising, who were subsequently taken prisoner by the Germans and who are now in the British Zone. The number of men concerned is not enormous—it is about 26,000. I do not know whether that helps the noble Earl or hinders his argument, but it is not a question of this being a larger number than the number of Poles already in this country. The problem of their treatment may not be familiar to all members of your Lordships' House, but I certainly agree with the noble Earl that delicate moral issues and balance of equity are presented, and in fairness to the Poles and, I may say, to the Government, I welcome the opportunity of explaining at some length the policy which has been worked out.
In the first place the noble Earl asked whether the Polish troops in question have been refused the alternative either to join the Polish Resettlement Corps or to return to Poland. I do not wish in any way to be pettifogging, but if the noble Earl looks at the question on the Paper he will see that it does not quite represent his intention, because he asks whether they have been refused the alternative either to join the Polish Resettlement Corps or to return to Poland. As the noble Earl brought out in his speech, they can, of course, return to Poland, and there is no question of their not having the right to return. May I say straight away that His Majesty's Government are fully conscious of the notable services that they have rendered, and of their sufferings; and may I express the sympathy of the Govern- 1100 ment and add my own very deep personal sympathy with them and for them?
It would give me nothing but pleasure if I were able to meet the noble Earl on the first point he raises, but I am afraid that after careful consideration the Government are quite clear in their minds that these Poles cannot be given the same degree of preferential treatment as the Poles who fought under British command. We owe to the latter a very special obligation, because of the very fact that they did fight under our command. They came over here and fought for us specifically. For this reason we have offered them enlistment in the Polish Resettlement Corps, to enable such of them as do not wish to return to Poland to settle in this country. If we were to further extend these advantages to Poles who fought in Poland, or subsequently under the French, or in the Warsaw Rising, it would be impossible to deny similar advantages to nationals of other countries who, by their efforts against the enemy, could claim that we were equally indebted to them. The effect of such a policy as the noble Earl suggests would be to impose an intolerable burden upon this country, the full effect of which could not be gauged, and to invite a large number of claims for aid of which we could not check the validity. This is the very solid and practical reason why we cannot admit their claim to be placed on the same footing as those who fought under our command.
Now, with regard to the second question, their rations and their status in the future, for the benefit of those of your Lordships' House who are not so familiar with this question as the noble Earl I would mention that these ex-prisoners of war have been receiving preferential treatment in our Zone in Germany. They have been receiving rations at an appreciably higher rate than the displaced person or the normal German consumer. They are paid monthly, their paymasters being men selected from among their own number, appointed and approved by the Control Commission. They receive a free issue of cigarettes, irrespective of whether they are working or not. They also receive preferential treatment in respect of clothing. That is the position which has prevailed hitherto.
Judging by a previous debate, the noble Earl may be under some misapprehension on this point. There are no 1101 restrictions on their movement other than those made necessary by our obligation to supply them with accommodation and rations. They are free to leave their camps, and to travel where they will, but they must, of course, return to draw their rations. We feel, however, that the time has now come to reconsider their position. It is now nearly two years since the end of the war in Europe and there are still in the British Zone these 26,000 men, classed as prisoners of war, who are living a semi-military life. We can no longer justify allowing them to retain their status. Moreover, it is apparent that their present mode of existence is harmful to them, for it makes their eventual absorption Into civilian life the more difficult the longer it continues. We feel, too, that their status as prisoners of war has acted to a certain extent as a deterrent to repatriation, which it has been His Majesty's Government consistent policy to encourage.
It was for these reasons that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in reply to a question in another place, on December 4 last, announced that those who were not eligible for the Polish Resettlement Corps because they had not served under British command, and who were unwilling to return to Poland, should in due course be given civilian status in the British Zone. We propose, therefore, that they shall, in the near future, be converted to displaced persons status. They will not become what the noble Earl describes as "civilian refugees." As displaced persons their position will still retain certain privileges. They will be under the care and protection of His Majesty's Government, as well as any international organization set up to care for displaced persons. They will receive guaranteed rations at the displaced persons' rate, and accommodation, and they will be eligible for any opportunities for resettlement that may arise. I may say that I myself am most interested in the whole question of resettlement. Obviously that is by far the most happy solution—or would he if it could be brought about—but I would be misleading the House if I suggested that I was sanguine as to what could be achieved in that direction in the near future.
Now I come to the third question, which deals with their employment. It is clearly equitable in the interests both of His 1102 Majesty's Government and the men themselves that they should be placed in profitable employment. In this connexion I would refer the noble Earl to a statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in another place on February 19. He said: "We have undertaken to give Polish and Yugoslav ex-prisoners of war priority over other displaced persons"—and over Germans of course—" for employment by the Control Commission and the Services in Germany." That is perhaps small consolation to the noble Earl, but I hope it will represent some comfort. A civil mixed watchman's service has been organized for guarding and other duties, and recruiting for this service has begun, and it is expected that it will absorb a considerable number of prisoners of war. Recruiting has also begun for the civil mixed Labour Organization which is likely to employ a considerable number on civilian duties for the Services arid Control Commission; others will be employed in the administration of their own camps. Very few, if any, employable men are likely to remain in Germany not employed by the British. In regard to any such men it is not possible to give an assurance that they will not be directed to employment under German supervision, because that would make their employment practically impossible. I can assure the noble Earl, however, that they will be safeguarded against victimization by German employers, and that they will be kept as far as possible in groups under their own supervisors.
Coming to the second part of the third question which the noble Earl raised—the question of the scheme for bringing displaced persons for employment in this country—I may say that the first arrivals under this scheme should be here very soon. Of course, it is a general scheme, and not confined to Poles. The prime consideration in the choice of recruits is the need of industry for workers in particular trades. Even if the practical difficulties could be easily overcome it would be an invidious and thankless task to draw up a list of nationalities in order of priority to govern the selection of displaced persons for employment here. We have decided, therefore, that the governing factors shall be the suitability of the individual for the work he is to perform, having regard to his skill and experience, and also such other personal 1103 characteristics as age, health, number of dependants and so forth. As to the fourth question, the Association of Polish Ex-Combatants is allowed to function freely in the British Zone of Germany, though it has not been granted official status. I am glad to assure the noble Earl that the Association are consulted by the Control Commission in regard to matters relating to employment or resettlement whenever their advice can be of advantage.
I am sure I shall not have been able to satisfy the noble Earl, but I hope I have said enough to convince him that we are genuinely concerned about the future of these men, that we have taken such steps as lie in our power to help them, and that while their present position and prospects are not such as to give cause to anyone for boasting, we at least have a clear conscience and nothing whatever of which to feel ashamed.
§ 6.46 p.m.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the sympathy which he expressed on behalf of the Polish troops, which was I am sure perfectly genuine, and for the full and detailed reply he has given me. I should further like to plead with him to examine a little more closely what I understood to be the Government's reason why these Polish soldiers cannot be treated in the same way as men who fought under British command. He agrees numbers are no obstacle.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI am very glad to hear that. I confess I did not realize that the numbers were so small. I thought them considerably larger, but they appear to have dwindled. The noble Lord says he is advised that if the claim were admitted it would be impossible to distinguish between the case of a Pole and the case of another displaced person. Is that really the case? I think there is a very great difference between a Polish soldier and ….
§ LORD AMMONAs there is no Motion on the Order Paper you really have no right to reply.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI am asking a supplementary question. I am 1104 asking if the noble Lord will look into the point I have raised, because there is a great difference between Poles and others. We have had their officers in this country and have got to know them; we have records of their names. No other country is in that position.
LORD PAKENHAMIf I may be permitted, I will make a supplementary reply. I will certainly look into the point, but I am bound to add that it is not quite so easy as the noble Earl imagines. I am sure he is likely to find himself mistaken if he believes we have records of 26,000 men. While their numbers are not very great, those who might put in a claim would be very considerable.
§ THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGHCould you reply to one more point? A statement was made with regard to the qualifications of persons to be admitted to this country. One of the matters to be taken into consideration was the number of dependants. Does that mean that a man with numerous dependants will receive priority?