The Crimes of Khrushchev: Latvia and Lithuania

The PDF of the full original of this document can be consulted and downloaded at the Internet Archive website.

“No state and no forces from outside can or must be permitted to impose on the peoples of other states their way of life, political and social institutions.”
— Nikita Khrushchev in an interview on June 25, 1958.

The following consultations with Dr. Vilis Masens and Mr. Vaclovas Sidzikauskas, respectively, were held at 1:30 p.m., pursuant to call, in room 226, House Office Building, Washington, D.C., Hon. Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, Chairman of the Committee on Un-American Activities, presiding. Staff members present: Richard Arens, staff director; George C. Williams and Frank Bonora, investigators.

***

The Chairman. The committee will come to order, and the first witness will be sworn.

Do you, Dr. Masens, solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Dr. Masens. I do.

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Arens.

Statement of Dr. Vilis Masens

Mr. Arens. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and occupation.

Dr. Masens. My name is Vilis Masens. I am of Latvian origin, and I am a permanent resident of this country since 1950, when I was admitted to the United States as a refugee from communism.

Mr. Arens. Would you kindly give us a word about your personal background, Dr. Masens?

Dr. Masens. I was born in Latvia.

I am a graduate of the Law School of the University of Latvia; I possess a Diploma of Diplomatic and International Studies of the London School of Economics and Political Science; I obtained my doctor’s degree (magna cum laude, international law) at the University of Heidelberg; I have also studied at the Universities of Grenoble and Paris and at the Academy of International Law at The Hague.

As member of the Latvian Foreign Service, I served abroad in London, Kaunas, and Paris; at the Latvian Department of State I held at different times the posts of Acting Political Director; Director of Western Division in charge of relations with the United States and other Western nations, as well as with the League of Nations; and that of a Director of the Baltic and Scandinavian Division. As a member of Latvian delegations I participated in the work of the League of Nations, in the regular conferences of the Baltic Ministers of Foreign Affairs, and carried out missions abroad. I also represented Latvia in the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris; as a regular commentator on international problems, I spoke on the radio and contributed articles to the press.

In recognition of my services, I was awarded nine Latvian and foreign decorations.

During the Soviet and Nazi occupation, I took part in the activities of national resistance groups.

I left Latvia in the fall of 1944, on the eve of the second invasion of Latvia by the Communists.

As a refugee in Germany, I worked for the Latvian Red Cross; later for the United Nations International Refugee Organization as Area Legal Officer in charge of legal aid and protection to almost 20,000 refugees of different nationalities in Germany.

In 1950 I was elected Public Relations Director of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris.

Ever since I left Latvia, I have been active in Latvian exile political organizations. In 1951 I was elected Chairman of the Committee for a Free Latvia in New York, an organization working for the liberation of Latvia from Soviet domination. I held the above office until 1955.

As one of the founders of the Assembly of Captive European Nations, I was elected in 1954 as its first chairman and was reelected further for three consecutive terms until fall 1958. The Assembly of Captive European Nations is an international exile political organization working for the liberation from Communist domination of nine formerly free and independent nations of Central and Eastern Europe.

At present I am member of its General Committee and the Chairman of the Latvian Delegation in the ACEN.

I have studied and observed Communist activities during the time of my service in Latvia and also while I have been in exile, so that what I have to say about the Communist aggression against Latvia and what they have done in my country, is based on facts and studies.

Mr. Arens. Do you have current sources of information respecting Communist activity and oppression in the Baltic States?

Dr. Masens. Yes, and there is nothing very secret about it. Now, what are the sources?

The sources are Communist press—I mean the Latvian Communist press—radio broadcasts, escapees from Latvia, of which there are not too many, owing to very great difficulties in getting out of the country, but nevertheless there are some.

Mr. Arens. And you have other sources of information which you feel would not be prudent to put on the record at this time?

Dr. Masens. That is correct.

Mr. Arens. Doctor, have you in the pursuit of your work in these various groups traveled over the world?

Dr. Masens. Yes. Altogether I have visited about forty-two countries in Europe, South America, Asia, and the Far and Near East; I have been received by several presidents of the free nations and by twenty foreign ministers.

Mr. Arens. What has been the purpose of your visits to these various countries?

Dr. Masens. I was charged by the Assembly of Captive European Nations while I was its chairman to approach the various governments of the free world for the purpose of obtaining political and diplomatic support for the cause of captive nations.

Practically, it meant our task was, in essence, to try to obtain the support of the free governments so that the question of Soviet aggression against the nine captive nations of Central Eastern Europe would be placed on the agenda of the United Nations or of international conferences.

Mr. Arens. Although you are of Latvian origin and served in the Latvian Government, is it a fact that your sources of information and interest have encompassed all of the Baltic States and their plight under communism?

Dr. Masens. Certainly, I am best informed about the events in Latvia. As to Lithuania, my colleague, Mr. Sidzikauskas, can tell you about that.

But I also have a thorough knowledge of a general character about all of the captive nations due to my previous and present activities.

Mr. Arens. Doctor, there appears to be a tendency in certain quarters, at least in the free world, to feel that international communism, under its present leadership of Khrushchev, is taking a softer or milder strategy from the strategy under Stalin. Indeed, not more than several days ago, we have seen in certain columns in the press observations that there are no longer the rigorous cruelties inflicted, no longer the regime of fear, and the like.

Based upon your current sources of information, do you have any comment to make on that issue in regard to the situation in the Baltic States?

Dr. Masens. My answer to the first part of your question is a definite “No.” The aggressive aims and designs, as well as methods of fraud and violence, of international communism basically have not changed under Khrushchev and are, in fact, as cruel as they were under Stalin.

What better proof is needed in this respect than the behavior of Khrushchev in the United States, where he has never ceased to conduct himself as an aggressive dictator. He talks about peaceful coexistence, noninterference, and the right of all nations to decide their own fate—the same as Stalin talked before him in the past. Nor is there any difference between Khrushchev and Stalin as far as their deeds are concerned with regard to other nations—international communism under Khrushchev continues to oppress other nations and to interfere in their internal affairs, the same as it did under Stalin. During a public appearance here Khrushchev very “generously” declared that Communists do not force communism on anyone; and yet only three years earlier, when the Hungarians decided to rid themselves of the Soviet imposed Communist regime, the same Khrushchev did not hesitate to order Russian troops to crush, in the most brutal way, the Hungarian revolt.

In October 1939, Soviet Russia on the basis of the Soviet-Nazi conspiracy imposed on Latvia, under military threats, the so-called mutual assistance pact and, in pursuit of its aggressive plans, forced upon neutral Latvia and other Baltic States Soviet military and naval bases.

A few months later, in June 1940, the Soviet Union, in complete disregard of its international obligations and in violation of its treaties with Latvia, committed a brutal act of armed aggression against Latvia and occupied its territory with its armed forces.

In July 1940, Moscow arranged in Latvia mock elections carried out in the presence of large Soviet troops, followed by an illegal imposition of a Communist regime and forcible incorporation of Latvia into the Soviet Union.

When in 1941 the Soviet forces and their agents were driven out of Latvia, we were in a position to establish a balance of losses in human lives during the one year of Soviet occupation. Thousands of Latvians had been persecuted, imprisoned, and murdered for the simple reason that they had remained true to their country, had opposed Soviet aggression, and had refused to accept the Soviet-imposed Communist dictatorship. Further, 35,000 persons had been deported for the same political reasons to the Soviet concentration camps in Siberia.

In 1944–45 Soviets reoccupied Latvia and reintroduced Communist regime which, to this day, is maintained in power only with the help of Khrushchev and his troops in Latvia.

As to the second part of your question the facts, as far as Latvia is concerned, are as follows:

There are no political freedoms in Latvia whatsoever, and the Latvian people to this day are deprived of the right to elect a free government of their own choice; there is no freedom of speech, of press, nor of association; there is no freedom of movement within the country, and people cannot change their residence without the permission of the police; there is no freedom to leave the country and the number of those who have been able to leave the country within the last fifteen years is insignificant; there is most certainly present a regime of fear—people dare not go to church for fear that this may harm their position as far as their jobs, educational opportunities, and even their living facilities are concerned. People dare not correspond freely for fear of censorship and persecution.

Mass deportations have been replaced by “voluntary” compulsory transfer of young Latvians to Khrushchev’s virgin lands in Kazakhstan. Many thousand young Latvians have been compelled to go and many more will have to follow, not just for a few years, but, as the Commimist publications in Latvia openly state, “for good, to spend all their lives there.”

In spite of Commimist assertions to the contrary, Khrushchev’s regime in Moscow interferes through its agents in every branch of Latvian life. They are the so-called deputy ministers, of which every minister has one or two; in many instances they are Russians sent from Russia, and their names do not appear in the official list of members of government submitted for formal approval to the Supreme Soviet of Latvia.

Lately, several Latvian Communist functionaries have fallen in disgrace because they had dared to oppose the Khrushchev line that Latvian interests and Latvian economic resources should be sacrificed for the benefit of Russia.

While the Latvian Communist press and the Riga radio gave only a brief notice that Deputy Prime Minister Berklavs had been released from his duties, reasons for his release were disclosed only in the Russian press. Berklavs had been accused of having put Latvian interests ahead of those of Moscow; according to “Premier” Lacis, Berklavs had been striving toward autocracy and nationalistic tendencies and had proposed that Latvian products be distributed mainly in Latvia instead for Moscow. In the eyes of Lacis, such proposals would have brought harm to the general interests of Moscow, as well as to the Latvian people.

Another victim is the so-called chairman of Latvian trade unions (there are no trade unions in Latvia of the kind that exist in the free world) Pinksis, who had objected against sending of Latvian workers to the Soviet Union to work there.

According to the latest information, also the first secretary and many others of the Latvian Komsomol have been released from their posts. All these and similar steps prove to what extent the Soviet Union, under Khrushchev, is trying to exploit Latvia if even Latvian Communists have had to protest.

All this is happening in Latvia under Khrushchev, and I am asking on what facts do the columnists base their statements about the alleged improvements. The only improvements of some kind are as far as the food and clothing situation is concerned, which, until recently, was catastrophic.

But even these improvements are accessible only to those who are in possession of means to buy the commodities available.

Mr. Arens. Dr. Masens, some few days ago when Khrushchev was welcomed to the White House for this formal dinner, he was accompanied by a General Zakharov. Do you have any information respecting General Zakharov?

Dr. Masens. According to newspaper accounts of that event, the name of the person you referred to is Maj. Gen. N. S. Zakharov. Again according to the press, General Zakharov, a Russian native of Novgorod, in Russia, had been Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs in Latvia in 1945, ana had risen swiftly in the intelligence and security police ranks.

According to the Latvian newspaper “Laiks” in New York, September 16, 1959, Zakharov is an experienced Chekist who, from 1947 to 1949, had been deputy chief of NKVD in Latvia. Those familiar with Communist tactics in subjugated countries are aware that one of the first tasks of Moscow is to send to the newly occupied countries their most experienced Chekists as deputy ministers of internal affairs. Their task is to organize a well-functioning Cheka for purposes of carrying out deportations and of terrorizing the local population. Such men had the power over lives and deaths of the people and they were usually the most dreaded persons.

Mr. Arens. Can you kindly tell us, based upon your background and experience, what the reaction will be in your native land of Latvia when the Communist-controlled presses there feature pictures of Khrushchev and General Zakharov being welcomed at the White House?

Dr. Masens. Latvians, the same as all captive people, ever since their subjugation by international communism have been looking to the United States as their main hope for the restoration of their freedom.

They follow with due concern international events and react to such events according to what extent they are favorable or unfavorable to the cause of their liberation. They wholeheartedly welcomed the proclamation of the Captive Nations Week in July 1959 in the United States, which, owing to violent Communist attacks, became known all over the world.

When, however, they learn that representatives of the alien Communist regime, whose iron grip they feel every day, have managed to obtain prerogatives of privneged guests in the free world, how could they feel otherwise but sad, discouraged, and disappointed? They know the true face of communism and who is responsible for their misery and oppression, as well as for the tension ana insecurity in the world. They would deeply regret should their Communist masters be hailed in the free world as their leaders or peacemakers, none of which they are.

Mr. Arens. What happened in Latvia when General Zakharov was Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs?

Dr. Masens. As I mentioned earlier, in all Soviet subjugated countries at that time, Ministries of Internal Affairs issued orders for deportations and generally were in charge of all repressive measures against the civilian population. According to Latvian press and other reliable information at the time when Zakharov was in Latvia, there took place large-scale persecutions and deportations—in 1945 after the reoccupation of Latvia and again in 1949. As is well known, in 1949, at the height of the forced collectivization drive ordered by Moscow in Latvia, mass deportations and persecutions particularly affected farmers and their families, as well as other nationalist circles of Latvia. According to some sources, the number of those deported in 1949 had reached almost 200,000 persons, many of whom had died in Siberian concentration camps and many of whom are still in Siberia.

Mr. Arens. Khrushchev has frequently protested the missile sites which the free world has developed as a shield in various sections of the world. Do you have any information respecting the establishment by the international Communist conspiracy of bases on your native soil in Latvia?

Dr. Masens. Khrushchev’s assertions that Soviet Russia has liquidated its military bases on territoiy of other states are not true. It is a well-known fact that they maintain military and naval bases on the territory of Latvia and in the other Baltic States. These bases were established there in 1939 when they were forced upon the neutral Baltic States by Moscow, and since that time they have been further expanded particularly by installing large submarine bases and shelters and powerful coastal fortifications. These bases constitute a threat to the free nations, particularly to the Scandinavian countries. Not so long ago the Swedish seismographic stations had registered heavy underwater explosions in the Baltic Sea which caused in the Scandinavian countries grave concern. Khrushchev’s deeds also in this respect do not correspond with his propaganda for the Baltic Sea as a “Sea of Peace.”

A few years ago in the vicinity of the Latvian coast, near Liepaja, an American plane was shot down by the Soviets, another American plane was later attacked near Ventspils, Latvia.

Mr. Arens. Is there freedom of religion in the Baltic States?

Dr. Masens. As far as religion is concerned in Latvia, there was up to quite recently a little more freedom than in the Soviet Union. Now the situation has deteriorated in that respect.

Mr. Arens. Under whose regime?

Dr. Masens. Under Khrushchev. For instance, this year the archbishop’s cathedral in Riga has been tinned into a museum, and there are rumors that the same fate is awaiting many other churches. The remaining pastors—not a large number any more—are no longer permitted to visit other parishes. At the big Catholic festival in Aglona attended this year by 20,000 people only two local priests had been present. Previously clergy could go and preach in different parishes, but now they can do so only in their own parishes.

The same applies to the choirs. Previously some Baptist parishes had very well-known choirs. They are invited to participate in religious ceremonies in many parts of the country, but now it is forbidden. They can only appear in their own parish.

Communists are trying also to abolish in Latvia many religious ceremonies, such as funerals, confirmations, weddings, and All Souls Day, and have replaced them by some type of civilian ceremonies. According to Latvian Communist press, particular attention is being paid just now to the campaign against the above religious ceremonies and against the influence of the church.

Mr. Arens. What percentage of the population of Latvia is Communist?

Dr. Masens. In spite of almost twenty years of Soviet domination in Latvia, the Communist Party is as unpopular under Khrushchev as it was under Stalin. According to Latvian Communist press the total membership of Communist Party in Latvia in 1959 amounts to 61,414 out of winch only 18,500, or less than one percent of the total population are Latvians. The rest are Russians, members of Soviet armed forces stationed in Latvia and all sorts of Russian experts, deputies, and advisers sent from Moscow for the purpose of supervising the execution of its orders by the local authorities. There are districts in Latvia where there are no local Communist Party groups at all. If you would add to the number of Latvian Communist Party members another 18,500 persons with vested interests in the maintenance of the Communist dictatorship that would represent the total number of Communist population of Latvia.

Mr. Arens. If there were free elections in Latvia, would the Communists be returned to power?

Dr. Masens. They wouldn’t have the slightest chance in free elections. Latvian people, in spite of tremendous pressure on the part of Soviets, have conserved their national traits and pride, as well as the traditional trend towards the West. They are among the best allies of the free world and deserve all the political and diplomatic support in their struggle for the restoration of their freedom and independence.

The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Masens.

***

The Chairman. Call your next witness, please, Mr. Arens.

Dr. Sidzikauskas, do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Sidzikauskas. I do.

Statement of Vaclovas Sidzikauskas

Mr. Arens. Please identify yourself by name.

Mr. Sidzikauskas. My name is Vadovas Sidzikauskas.

Mr. Arens. What is your occupation?

Mr. Sidzikauskas. Since 1950, I have been a permanent resident of the United States. I studied law at the University of Moscow during the First World War, then in Bern, and then in Lithuania.

Most of my life I spent in the diplomatic service of my country. I was diplomatic representative of Lithuania in Bern, Switzerland, and for ten years Minister Plenipotentiary in Berlin, Germany, and also in Vienna and Budapest.

In 1931 I was transferred to London. I was Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of St. James and at the same time I represented my country in The Hague. I was the delegate for my country to the League of Nations and I also acted as an agent of my government at the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague in 1931 and 1932.

Before World War II, I was in my country, Lithuania, as a manager of the Shell Company of Lithuania. I happened to be in Lithuania and witnessed the taking over of Lithuania by the Soviet military forces in June 1940. Then I was apprehended by the NKVD in December of 1940. I hid myself for two months and then I succeeded in escaping at the risk of my life to Germany, which was the only possibility. There I was arrested by the Gestapo because they accused me of being anti-Nazi and having been “too sharp” at the International Court of The Hague where I defended the rights of my country to Klaipeda (Memel) territory. The German Gestapo accused me also of having intention to annex Prussian Lithuania (Tilsit region).

The assistant to Himmler, Heydrich, put me in the concentration camp of Auschwitz. I was free from Auschwitz after twenty months and then I had to stay in Berlin. It was my assigned residence, and I had to report every day to the police.

In Berlin I established contact with the Lithuanian underground in my country. I visited several times and for the last time I was in Lithuania in May 1944, just before the arrival of the Soviet troops. I became the chairman of the Lithuanian liberation underground organization abroad. Then I was chairman of the political committee of the Supreme Committee for Liberation of Lithuania. When the Russian troops approached Berlin I escaped to Bavaria. There I was liberated by the Americans.

Since that time, I was working with the political committee of the Supreme Committee for Liberation of Lithuania and, since April 1947, was chairman of its executive council.

In 1949 I was on a good will mission here in the United States. In 1950 I emigrated to this country. Here I became the chairman of the Committee for a Free Lithuania, and since the establishment of the Assembly of Captive European Nations. I have been chairman of the Lithuanian Delegation to this body ana I was for four years the chairman of its political committee. Now I am still chairman of the Committee for a Free Lithuania and chairman of the Lithuanian Delegation to the Assembly of Captive European Nations.

Mr. Arens. Do you, sir, have present sources of information pertaining to the current situation in the Baltic States?

Mr. Sidzikauskas. Yes, I do. There are some official and public sources, and there are also others which I cannot reveal, so that I am quite informed about all happenings in Lithuania.

Mr. Arens. Would you proceed at your own pace to tell us what is the situation and what has been the situation in the Baltic States since Khrushchev assumed command of the international Communist apparatus?

Mr. Sidzikauskas. The Lithuanian people consider Khrushchev, who has been and is a member of the ruling clique of the Kremlin, as being co-responsible for all the crimes committed by the Soviet Government against the Lithuanian State and the Lithuanian people. That means a breach of the Peace Treaty, the Non-Aggression Pact, and other legal and political commitments of the U.S.S.R.; military invasion and occupation, suppression of the independence and freedom, mass murders, mass deportations of large portions of the population to Siberia, the forced Sovietization of the country, and economic exploitation of the resources and manpower of Lithuania.

At the 20th congress of the Communist Party, Khrushchev implicitly endorsed the crimes of Stalin with regard to Lithuania. While denouncing some of Stalin’s crimes, among them the annihilation of some ethnic groups in Crimea and the Caucasus, he was silent about the crimes committed by Stalin against the Baltic States.

Khrushchev continues the policy of the Kremlin inaugurated in the time of Stalin, which consists in the continuous suppression of political liberty, of independence and freedom of Lithuania and other Baltic States.

Even in the last article published in the Foreign Affairs magazine he still pretends that Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are integral parts of the Soviet Union.

Khrushchev is continuing to apply measures tending to destruction of the national identity of the Lithuanian people. These measures are:

(а) Physical—deportations, though not on mass scale, and not permitting the people who have been deported by hundreds of thousands to Siberia to return (the number of those who were permitted to return, is insignificant); organizing and practicing of the so-called “voluntary” deportations of the Lithuanian youth for the cultivation of virgin lands in Kazakhstan—recently particularly young girls are affected by this measure; colonization by Russians imported from various regions of the Soviet Union, especially of the larger cities of Lithuania.

All these measures affect and endanger the physical survival of the Lithuanian nation.

(b) Moral—the “Khrushchevification” or intellectual decapitation of the nation. I have in mind recent reforms of education which have been now introduced in captive Lithuania under Khrushchev, where students are exempt from the control of influence of their parents and put in special boarding schools and subjugated to intense Communist indoctrination, in accordance with the precept of Lenin who once said: “Give me a child of eight years, and he will be made for all his life a Communist.”

It is rather a peculiar phenomenon that patriotic feeling is particularly strong among the younger generation that has grown up in Lithuania under the Communist regime. In order to kill and eradicate this feeling, Khrushchev introduced drastic educational reform in Lithuania and, I think, the same is also true in other Baltic States.

Then there is the distortion and denigration of history of Lithuania and glorification of Russia and of its role in the world.

Mr. Arens. May I ask you a rather cynical question?

Are Lithuania and the Sovit Union now at peace?

Mr. Sidzikauskas. No. Lithuania has tried in vain to coexist with its Russian neighbor.

I neglected to say that, while Minister in London in 1933, on July 5 I personally signed the Pact on Definition of Aggression with Mr. Litvinov, Commissar for Foreign Affairs. We did everything to be at peace with Russia, to coexist. By entering into the secret deal with Hitler in August and September 1939, U.S.S.R. committed an act of aggression against Lithuania, and then invaded her by its armed forces. Since that time Lithuanian people consider themselves being at a state of war with Russia.

Mr. Arens. Is peaceful coexistence with the Kremlin possible?

Mr. Sidzikauskas. Our experience shows it is not possible. Our experience shows it is only possible as long as it suits the interests of the Soviet Union.

Mr. Arens. What will be the reaction in your native land when the Communist publications feature these pictures of Khrushchev in the White House and Khrushchev meeting the top officials in this country?

Mr. Sidzikauskas. The impact will be disastrous, if you consider that a quarter of the Lithuanian nation is here in America. About a million Lithuanians are citizens of America, and their contact with their relatives in captive Lithuania is very close.

The population of Lithuania is about three million. The hope of all Lithuanians, of the younger generation and of all the patriots, is that America will help to liberate Lithuania. It is the temper of the situation.

After what happened in Hungary, according to my information from the country, there is a great disappointment with the West. And when the Voice of America became less effective in combatting communism and Soviet imperialism, the belief in the sincerity of Western declarations began declining. I feel, therefore, that the fact that Khrushchev was received in this country as a guest and was honored as a head of the Soviet Union which suppressed the liberty of the Lithuanian nation, will have a negative impact on the morale of the captive Lithuanian people.

Mr. Arens. Your people have seen or experienced communism in the raw, communism in action. Your people know communism from first-hand experience and first-hand suffering.

Now I should like to ask you a few questions based on that experience.

It is asserted in certain official quarters in this Nation that Khrushchev’s visit here to the United States will be a good thing because Khrushchev will look around the country and see our refrigerators and see our factories and see a peaceful, happy country, and somehow decide that he does not want to pursue the goal of international communism and take over the world.

What is your reaction to that suggestion?

Mr. Sidzikauskas. I would say communism is a well-established doctrine of government and it is mistaken, in my opinion, to think or believe that one or other persons, be it Bulganin or Malenkov, would change anything. They might change eventually some methods or tactical approaches but not the essence which lies in the very nature of communism itself.

There are those who have the illusion that when Khrushchev sees the freedom in practice, that will somehow have a positive effect on his way of thinking, but I think that this expectation is totally unrealistic.

Mr. Arens. In the past few days, Khrushchev has repeatedly, almost to the extent of monotony, called for peace and complete disarmament in the course of the next four years. Is it not good to have these protestations of peace so forcibly announced by Mr. Khrushchev?

Mr. Sidzikauskas. The protestations of peace by Khrushchev remind me of the similar protestations of Hitler before the outbreak of World War II. At each rally he always protested his desire for peace. Remember “Peace in Our Time”—paper brought to London by Neville Chamberlain and what happened tnen?

Protestations of peace are proper to ail totalitarians. It is the same method that is now used by Khrushchev.

Russian armed forces stay in the heart of Europe. What are their present aims? Peace?

But what does “peace” mean in Russian terms? It means Western acquiescence and acceptance of Soviet conquests. Therefore, they oppose the raising of the question of Central Eastern Europe, be it in the United Nations or summit conference or other international negotiations. If this standing is accepted by the West, Khrushchev is willing to coexist with the West.

And what does “coexist” mean in Russian terms?

As Khrushchev interprets it, the present Soviet grip over Lithuania and other captive European countries is an inescapable fact of his “history”; therefore, the West has no right to touch his colonial empire. As to the free part of the world, Khrushchev is against the status quo and is for something he calls “ideological competition,” meaning freedom for communism to make new conquests by subversion.

These are my remarks on the meaning of Khrushchev’s protestations of peace and coexistence. These protestations are destined to mislead the world’s opinion.

I submit that the word peace has been too much accentuated and misused during Khrushchev’s visit in this country. What we and the world want and need, is freedom. Let’s have freedom, and we shall have peace.

As to the disarmament scream of Khrushchev, there is nothing new to it.

As a delegate of my country to the League of Nations in 1927, I was present personally at the meeting where the same proposal was made by Gromyko’s predecessor, M. Litvinov, who screamed: “Let’s disarm completely!” Yet in the next year’s congress of the Comintern the Soviet leaders avowed themselves that this was only a tactical maneuver in order to create confusion and to mislead the world’s public opinion.

Mr. Arens. May I inquire about the other side of the coin, based on your experience of communism in action?

Certain of the officialdom in this country have repeatedly, with great emphasis, announced our peaceful intentions toward Khrushchev and his international regime of Communist-controlled satellites over the world.

Isn’t that a good thing?

Mr. Sidzikauskas. We are gratified and it is a great comfort for us that the policy of nonrecognition of the status quo created by Soviet Union in Central Europe has been reaffirmed, even recently by the responsible authorities of this country, and we hope that the question of the restoration of the independence and freedom of our nations will be raised in the conversations with Khrushchev, because what is at stake is the question of the European settlement and, as Khrushchev admitted, too, the political liquidation of World War II. But what does the political liquidation of World War II really mean?

There are two European problems, the solution of which is long overdue.

One is the problem of Germany—the other the problem of Central Eastern Europe.

Nine European states that had been sovereign and independent at the outbreak of World War II have been transformed into Soviet colonies. This situation is a permanent threat to peace or, say, one of the major causes of international tension.

Every European settlement must include the problem of the unification of Germany, whereby the problem of Berlin will solve itself, as well as that of tne restoration of the independence and freedom of the formerly sovereign states of Central Eastern Europe, including Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.

Mr. Arens. What is the situation of Lithuania under Khrushchev’s regime with reference to the church?

Mr. Sidzikauskas. Lithuanians, as you probably know, are predominantly Roman Catholic and on the whole very religious people. The situation of the church today is very difficult. There is no religious freedom. Some churches are open, but some were closed or turned into storehouses or museums. Thus, for instance, the famous Cathedral of Vilnius, capital of Lithuania, has been turned into a museum.

Under Khrushchev, the atheistic Communist propaganda is especially accentuated. Officially, Roman Catholic Church is tolerated, but practically its functioning is made as difficult as possible. Theoretically, people are free to attend churches, but in practice church-going people are submitted to all kinds of discrimination. Workers, employees, or members of Communist organizations, if they go to church, have to watch their step. They will be ridiculed, reprimanded, and may even lose their jobs. And losing one’s job in Communist society means starvation. And yet people dare to defy this pressure and practice their religion.

Recently a young Lithuanian man, member of the Communist youth organization of Lithuania, was married in church. The chairman of his organization attended the wedding as a witness. Great was the scandal. The newspapers took it up, widely discussing the “crime” and calling the careless man all lands of names, such as “reactionist,” “blackguard,” etc.

The very existence of churches in Soviet-occupied Lithuania is extremely difficult because heavy taxes must be paid by the faithful for the maintenance of the churches.

The teaching of religion is excluded from all schools; they are not permitted to possess religious books. Under Khrushchev’s rule, the religious persecution has been even more intensified.

Mr. Arens. Do you have any knowledge as to the economic exploitation in the Baltic States under Khrushchev?

Mr. Sidzikauskas. The economic exploitation is going on. Khrushchev made the “decentralization” of economics; that is what he called it, but practically it is merely a deconcentration of economy, shifting the responsibility for the execution of the Moscow-prescribed economic plan on local occupational authorities. The illusion that this measure would take more care of the needs of the local population, was soon dissipated. Those in captive Lithuania who tried to practice “national communism” in the field of economics were soon dismissed. Even a law has been issued to the effect that those who will not strictly execute the Moscow-engineered economic plan and would disregard the needs of the Soviet Union and the so-called sister republics, will be severely punished. All that means that priority is to be given to the needs of the Soviet master and the so-called sister republics and only what is left is for your own country and for your own people.

To give you only some figures. In the seven-year plan announced by Khrushchev, the Soviet Union is to take from Lithuania 26,110,000,000 rubles; and from that amount, they will reinvest in Lithuania only 12,500,000,000 rubles. That means that in this seven years 13,610,000,000 rubles are to go for the benefit of the Soviet Union. Thus, those who pretend that the situation has improved or changed are wrong, because the economic exploitation of Lithuania’s resources continues to be practiced in captive Lithuania. The so-called government of captive Lithuania is composed of people who were selected by Moscow, not because of their qualifications, but rather because of their obediency to the Kremlin. They have not changed. They had been under Stalin and are still now kept in power under Khrushchev. I am positive that basically similiar situation prevails in Estonia and Latvia. The economic misery resulting from the ruthless measures of the occupying power is equally a factor contributing to the destruction of the national identity of the Lithuanian people.

Mr. Arens. If there were free elections in Lithuania tomorrow, would a Communist regime be retained in power?

Mr. Sidzikauskas. I have no doubt whatsoever that, if there were free elections in Lithuania, 98 percent—and maybe more—would vote against communism. In 1940, just before the Soviet invasion, the Communist Party in Lithuania numbered 1,500 members, and even they were chiefly members of minority groups, not Lithuanians.

Mr. Arens. Out of what population?

Mr. Sidzikauskas. Around three million.

At the present time, according to recent statistics from Lithuania, the Communist Party numbers 49,114 members. In the Central Committee of the Lithuanian Communist Party, 20 percent are Russians. So the Communist element in Lithuania is insignificant in terms of numbers.

Because of the rather conservative character of the Lithuanian people—the word “conservative” I use in good sense—because of traditions of liberty and long independent statehood, patriotism and attachment to religion, the Communists have not succeeded in making sensible inroads. Under Khrushchev’s rule, as I said, the Soviets are attempting to apply new methods which, in the long run, if the alien occupation will last, could eventually bring about the destruction of national identity of the Lithuanian nation.

Mr. Arens. Khrushchev, in his addresses around the country, has portrayed his society of communism as a society which can be accepted or rejected in a kind of popularity contest with freedom. How do the Communists maintain themselves in power in your country?

Mr. Sidzikauskas. Only by Soviet bayonets and tanks. All the bragging of Khrushchev that, in the Communist system, the people are the decisive factor, is a big lie. It is true that the Soviet Constitution provides for a possibility of secession. But this is only a trick ad usum delphini. When one American journalist asked Stalin whether the so-called Soviet Republics could secede, his answer was: “Let them try, and they will see what will happen to them.” Example—Hungary.

Mr. Arens. Is the free world in a popularity contest with the Communist world?

Mr. Sidzikauskas. In my opinion, there is no comparison possible of the Communist and free-world systems. The free-world system is a free society of men, where all stems from the will of the people. There, in the Communist world, the ruling clique does not need the support of the people; there is no freedom whatsoever; there are no elections as the West understands them, and the public opinion has no bearing on the rulers. Everything is ordered by dictators. The present Communist regime in captive Lithuania has been imposed by the Soviet Union and is maintained in power only thanks to the protection of the Soviet armed forces.

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Sidzikauskas.

(Thereupon, at 3:05 p.m., Monday, September 21, 1959, the consultations were concluded.)