P(e^--.
j

/\;du S '! 06

K§*8*

PLEA

On behalf of the

SLOVAK PEOPLE

to the

UNITED STATES CONGRESS

and the

WORLD SECURITY ORGANIZATION

PRESENTED BY THE

SLOVAK LEAGUE OF AMERICA

t
5> I

al<S*£M





STAMPS

a
©
Q

In

view

of

the

great

amount

of

work

and

of

study

that

you

must

make

as

a

member

of

the

historical

San

Francisco

Conference,

I

regret

to

add

to

your

burdens

by

my

presentation

to

you

of

the

enclosed

plea.

I

am

heartened

to

send

you

this

plea,

because

I

feel

that

you

are

deeply

interested

in

the

peace

of

the

future

world.





BUY UNITED STATES WAR BONDS & STAMPS

zStovatz Jit*agus o tnsxLca

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

MSGR. F. J. DUBOSH
12608 MADISON AVENUE, LAKEWOOD 7, OHIO

April 2$, 1945.

Dear Friend:

In view of the great amount of work and of study that you

must make as a member of the- historical San Francisco Conference,

I regret to add to your burdens by my presentation to you of the

enclosed plea. I am heartened to send you this plea, because I feel

that you are deeply interested in the peace of the future world.

The enclosed plea concerns itself with the hopes and the

prayers and the sacrifices of a small nation which for over ten centuries

has been" struggling to keep itself alive. Its annihilation has been

attempted on many occasions, but its WILL to live has aided it to survive

these mortal thrusts.

Please read about the heroic little nation, the Slovaks,

whose case is herewith presented to you for consideration. If any nation

has a right to liberty, to justice, to life itself, the Slovak nation

also has such a right.

This plea is presented in the belief that you will hearken

to it, because it is made by American citizens, who are of Slovak origin

and vho have for themselves and for their children enjoyed the blessings

of true democracy and who wish these same blessings to accrue to their

blood relatives living in Slovakia.

Yours respectf)

Msgr. E^JiDubosh, President





PLEA
On behalf of the

SLOVAK PEOPLE
to the

UNITED STATES CONGRESS

and the

WORLD SECURITY ORGANIZATION

INTRODUCTION

This plea is made by American citizens whose sons

and daughters now serve in the armed forces of the

United States; who themselves have supported loyally

and generously the cause of America and of democracy. It

is a plea on behalf of a hapless, small nation in Europe

unable to speak for itself and unrepresented by anyone of

its own choosing in the World Security Organization. This

plea is made by Americans on behalf of their ancestral

nation in Europe which has always believed in American

leadership and in the principles of democratic government.

The plea, however, parallels and expresses the hopes and

fears of probably every small nation of Europe. This plea

is made on behalf of the Slovak nation.

WHO ARE THE SLOVAKS?

The Slovaks built the first Christian church in eastern

Europe in what is now Slovakia. It was their ruler who

brought Christianity to the Slav nations who today stand

at the crossroads of civilization in Europe determined that

German aggression shall not engulf them and, by the same

token, that peace shall be part of the new order in Europe.

The Slovaks have fought and are fighting valiantly to

3

DweWHuv



throw off the yoke of Nazism. The uprising of the Slo-

vaks in the face of almost certain doom at the hands of

the strong Nari forces occupying their country displayed

a heroism which, has won the admiration of the world.

For one thousand years the Slovaks fought against the

aggression of the Germans. The Slovaks, in fact, were the

first to attempt to stem the tide of German imperial expan-

sion eastward in the eighth and ninth centuries. Under

their ruler Svatopluk, they succeeded temporarily in rolling

back German invasion and organized an eastern European

state which temporarily held the invader. Eventually, like

other eastern European countries after them, they became

the victims of German ambition. The Germans under

Arnulf, natural son of Charlemagne, with the aid of Hun-

garian (Magyar) invaders from Asia, defeated the

struggling Slovaks in the tenth century.

RIGHT TO NATIONHOOD

In the course of the succeeding centuries the Slovaks

played a constructive role in the affairs of eastern Europe

contributing to its missionary, cultural and peace-time

progress their proportionate share. This in spite of the

fact that Slovakia was invaded successively by the Teu-

tons from the north, the Tartars from the east, the Turks

from the south and the Franks from the west. During all

this time the Slovaks clung to a belief in democracy—

a

belief in the right to self-government. But in their will-

ingness to cooperate with their neighbors in achieving such

an ideal they repeatedly became the victims of the worst

kind of chauvinism. First the Germans attempted to

Germanize them; then the Magyars nearly succeeded in

Magyarizing them; and now, the Czechs, by first mak-

ing ’’Czechoslovaks” of them (for political reasons), are

now attempting to Czechize the Slovaks, who have their

own traditions, their own history, and their own culture.

It is not entirely a matter of chance that Slovakia

and the Slovak people emerged—unhappily—in the pres-
ent crisis as a separate nation. They have been a nation

distinct from both the Hungarians and the Czechs for a

thousand years. They possess an ancient history of

4



their own; they have a language which is neither Czech

nor Czecho-Slovak but Slovak; they have also a litera-

ture which is distinctly their own.

Slovakia is larger in area than Switzerland, Holland,

Belgium or Denmark; in population it is comparable to

Norway, Lithuania, or Latvia and Estonia combined.

CZECH CHAUVINISM

The Slovaks and Czechs united their political fates

in the last war and this act was confirmed on American

soil on May 30, 1918, by an agreement, known historically

as the “Pittsburgh Pact,” executed by President Masaryk

and leaders of the Czechs and Slovaks in America, a

copy of which is attached.
1 This commitment was sealed

with the blood and sacrifice of thousands of Slovaks,

many of whom enlisted on American soil. America not

only stood at the cradle of this new republic but was,

in every sense, its foster mother. The support, financial

and in fighting forces, which America and Americans of

Slovak ancestry gave to this movement made Czechoslo-

vakia possible. On American soil it was solemnly declared

and agreed that it should be the union of two equal Slav

nations, the Czechs and the Slovaks. In truth this never

was a reality during the period of twenty intervening years

following the first World War.

Instead, a highly centralized bureaucracy was created

in the new republic in which Slovakia was treated like a

Czech colonial province. Only those Slovaks were recog-

nized who professed a belief in the complete unification of

the two peoples, under which the Slovaks lost their iden-

tity. There were but two Slovaks of consequence in the

pre-war government of Czecho-Slovakia : Milan Hodza,

who died in Florida an exile from the government-in-exile,

and Stephen Osusky, American-bred lawyer, who for

twenty years held the important post of minister to France

from Czecho-Slovakia. His illuminating commentary is

attached hereto and speaks for itself. 2 Even these ser-

vants of Benes rebelled against the injustices to the Slo-

vaks. The red herring of “collaboration” with the Nazis

1 See Appendix "A"

2 See Appendix '‘B”

5



should not be permitted to be drawn by the Czecho-Slovak

government-in-exile across the real issues in Slovakia.

Mr. Benes, who invented the fiction of a “Czechoslo-

vak” language and people after the peace conference in

Paris, was the leader in this movement for assimilating the

Slovaks, in spite of his statement and promise to the Paris

Peace Conference that Czecho-Slovakia would be a fed-

erative state “on the Swiss model.” His failure to carry

out this pledge resulted in the estrangement of the vast

majority of the Slovaks from the government of Czecho-

slovakia. Now the Slovaks, for a second time, have earned

their right to nationhood by their uprising in the face of

Nazi occupation and by the cooperation and assistance

they have given to the Soviet Army in its fight against

Hitler. In effect, they are upon a new threshold much as

they were in 1918, in their relations to the Czechs. In

view of the rapprochement between the Slovaks and the

Soviet Union, Mr. Benes is now confessing aloud and in

public that Slovakia was unjustly treated in the old part-

nership and that a new partnership must be formed in

which the Slovaks will be equals with the Czechs. In

“Czechoslovak Policy for Victory and Peace,” published

by Mr. Benes recently, he confessed (page 48)

:

“I myself believe that the decentralization of Bo-

hemia, Moravia, Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenia

—

to a degree that will be especially necessary in Slo-

vakia—is a matter of course . . . There is no need for
any dispute about that. The degree and form of this

decentralization will be decided in a free and demo-

cratic spirit by our people themselves, and this particu-

larly applies to the Slovak people.”

This apparently is but another promise similar to others

which he has made to the Slovaks but has never kept. . His

actions belie his words. He has selected as the principal

representative of the Slovaks in his new government,

Vavro Srobar, an unfailing servant and catspaw of the

Benes policy in Slovakia for the twenty years preceding

1939.

6



Surely, under these circumstances, the people of Slo-

vakia should have the right to decide for themselves

whether they wish to renew their partnership with the

Czechs and, if so, the terms of such a new partnership.

Particularly Benes admits that the Slovaks were wronged

and when his promise of a change is not being made in

good faith, the majority of the Slovaks have lost faith

in Mr. Benes. As evidence of this and other reasons why

the Slovak people should be given the right to make their

own decision, we attach the opinion of the Slovak National

Council in London, which speaks for itself. (See Appen-

dix^”).

FUTURE PEACE IN EUROPE

Under all the circumstances, the just thing, the course

which will most certainly insure future peace, is to permit

the Slovak people to determine their own fate in a free

election conducted by a commission appointed by the Uni-

ted Nations and not an election conducted by Mr. Benes.

Leaders, in and out of Congress, in America who have

had the time and patience to check behind the propaganda

of the Benes government of Czecho-Slovakia agree with

what we here say.

In a letter from the Honorable Arthur Capper, United

States Senator from Kansas, dated June 8, 1944, he said:

“Every nationality, no matter how small, has the in-

herent right to its own nationhood. If that principle is

not carried out after this war, then the conflict has been

in vain.”

Senator Robert A. Taft in a letter recently stated:

“I agree entirely with your position and believe that

the Slovaks should be permitted to set up an independent

nation.”

Senator David I. Walsh has expressed himself in even

stronger language:

“Let me add that I am in full sympathy with your ap-

peal for the Slovaks in Czecho-Slovakia. I am whole-

heartedly in favor of translating into a reality the com-

7



mittment in the Atlantic Charter, namely that: ‘Every

nationality, no matter how small, has the inherent right to

its own nationhood.’
”

Congressman Samuel A. Weiss in a letter recently

stated:

“The principles of the Atlantic Charter should become

an actuality that every nationality, no matter how small,

should have the inherent right to its own nationhood. In

so doing we will be sowing the seeds of peace and tran-

quility for generations to come . . . For centuries Slovaks

have always maintained that they are a sovereign nation,

and in my humble opinion, I believe they are entitled to

separate recognition.”

CONCLUSION

As American citizens interested in ending Europe’s

continual unrest and, to that extent at least, of bringing

about lasting world peace we urge serious consideration

for the settlement of the Czech-Slovak dispute.

With the Atlantic Charter and the conferences at

Cairo, Teheran, Quebec, Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta, the

principle that all nations, large and small, have a right to

work out their own destiny, has been generally accepted.

The World Security Organization must succeed, and

will succeed, if the small nations and peoples are recog-

nized as an inherent part of the over-all picture, and their

valid claims and individual problems are given consider-

ation.

Bound by blood and heritage with the Slovaks of our

ancestral land, imbued with a spirit of tolerance and dem-

ocratic principles, having a knowledge of the past history

of the Slovak people and their long struggle to establish

their independence and their right to life, liberty, the pur-

suit of happiness, and freedom of religion with its sacred

right to worship God in their own way, the Americans of

Slovak birth or descent are hopeful and desirous of seeing

that the Slovak people located in the center of war-torn

Europe share in the benefits which shall accrue to man-

kind after the termination of this war.

8



This appeal on behalf of the Slovak people is respect-

fully submitted for the sincere and studied consideration

of all those interested in the future peace of Europe and

of the world.

We earnestly ask for this people the privilege of de-
ciding whether they wish to be an independent nation or

in the event they are part of a reconstituted Czecho-Slo-

vakia, the privilege of deciding questions affecting their

economic and their political status.

9



APPENDIX "A
1

it -. .

,

lesKo-Sloufnsknlolioao,
n

' jo.mftja. i$i$.

sbwakfAn Kgkigfh or^anisdcnwo

a^ymtifek^rh'lfitoltbo,

porokoMali x* pntcmiriosK prc&?«Hi

^tar.^a%
4 pr*?fAiTUsanfUa, * c«*h<M<wei)*iu^ tiaike a * tinZUh

p^tn‘a£mjcb pr«?c;mmoi*ifib p«Ja«vvb a u*mc»U ea na*l«Knmc *.

^ p*?Utu*k*j program u$itujuci ** o Spejcnu*

&*Vv a $Wi«alun> v $<uucstain<nrt slat* i &*k*M*feu $W<tt*ka
bu^c mat *i«cju ;«U*twu A$t»*roistvat.ivu ,*wj

$xicm a $u<kj. .

"SlevcnwiA bu$<? um^bifmjaufbam vslwU v tiwi'c a wo

vewjncmi tWi* vobiic.

*£e$h^slav^$luf$tat bu&? rcpublilwu. j*ba^ott*ttfliela

jnuV^<?m<?kraUcka»

"0vqam*ada spatupraci? €<rcbcv a Siavakav iv* $paj.

Stat^’h inuS? p#£U pabtfkj a mctsuuvj *a sUuac’w.pri $p«d<&n*tn

^^twm^of.jpwbfWo* «up»«v<oa.

'^c^vabs*/ *> 2AtU\iV»m^cc$k^Un*ctJ}b^bv*

§tatu p^mchavaju $a a^vabvHVtt^m &cb«nn a SUnudunn a ich

. ^== ptav^ptatnfa prvH^tavitcLmi.’

J3

&*& *' *



PITTSBURGH AGREEMENT

OR "PACT"

"The representatives of Slovak and Qzech organi-

zations in the United States, the Slovak League, the

Czech National Federation and the Czech Catholic

Alliance, have discussed the Czecho-Slovak question

and our previous manifestos as to a program, in the

presence of the president of the Czecho-Slovak Na-

tional Council, and it was agreed as follows:

We approve a political program to unite the
Czechs and the Slovaks into an autonomous State

comprising the Czech lands and Slovakia.

Slovakia shall have its own administration, its own

parliament, and its own courts.

The Slovak language shall be the official language

in schools, and in public life generally.

The Czecho-Slovak State shall be a republic; its

constitution shall be democratic.

The organization for the cooperation of the Czechs

and the Slovaks in the United States shall be broad-

ened and adapted by mutual understanding, as neces-

sity and changing conditions shall require.

Detailed regulations for the establishment of the

Czecho-Slovak State are left to the liberated Czechs

and Slovaks and their legal representatives."

Explanatory Note: The "president of the Czecho-Slovak National

Council" at the time of the execution of the agreement was T. G. Masaryk.

At the time of the signing of this copy of the agreement he was already

proclaimed president of Czecho-Slovakia.

It will be noted that the agreement contemplates the consideration of

two distinct peoples, the Czechs and the Slovaks, and two distinct coun-

tries "the Czech lands and Slovakia." It also promises a separate "admin-

istration" and a separate "parliament" for Slovakia.

None of these considerations or promises were kept after the republic

was created by the Allies following World War I.

11



APPENDIX "B
1

Letter of Dr. Osusky, Czecho-

slovakian Ambassador in Paris,

to American Slovaks

London, Jan. 21, 1945.

Dear Fellow Slovaks:

The recent public statement of the last pre-Munich

vice-president, Rudolph Bechyne, now a delegate of the

Czecho-Slovak National Council, is a significant sign of

the times, and added proof that verily “truth conquers”

.... as it always does in the end when men can be

found to sacrifice themselves in her b>half!

Actually, the Czech politician who was the first chair-

man of Benes’ National Council (1940-1941) was forced

to call a meeting outside of the National Council in order

to satisfy his conscience, his nation and his country for

the cause of truth and justice. This is further proof that

the Czecho-Slovak “state institution” in London is neither

democratic, nor republican, nor patriotic.

Democracy has one priceless virtue which it prizes

above all its political concepts and institutions, namely,

the right to disagree. Why? Because it has a system,

or technique, of ascertaining the truth in its democratic

processes. If one is in error, a free democratic discussion

enables reason to operate and eventually arrive at the

truth. Benes and his government do not have faith in

democracy because they do not believe in truth! Afraid

of facts, they are; and hence they reject discussion. Truth

stands on its own merits and even if it sometimes suffers

hardships, it will prevail even without assistance from the

government. Only falsehood must depend upon the sup-

port of the state.

12



Opposition to and prevention of discussion is treason

to democracy. Without discussion democracy is dead.

Since the first moment of creation, a government that

is not subject to public control decays and collapses. It

is a direct characteristic of every undemocratic politician

to avow that he serves the people while he directly, or

indirectly, shows himself to be a man without faith in

their judgment.

Fundamentally, fascism is the belief that the indi-

vidual is the embodiment of the state, even if it adopts

the label of democracy, while the principle that an indi-

vidual is the personification of a nation is ordinarily known

as nazism, even though it be labelled patriotism.

In a democracy, governments are instituted to guar-

antee the citizen definite, inviolable rights which they

dare not overstep, or abolish. Since the authority of the

government in a democracy is not absolute, as in an

absolute monarchy, or in a totalitarian regime, when the

government oversteps its boundaries, its acts and laws

are not binding, and the citizen, whose inviolable rights

have been invaded, or disregarded, is not obliged to obey

such laws.

In a democracy, the government exercises its au-

thority according to the Constitution, voted upon and

approved by the elected representatives of the people,

and it cannot be fundamentally changed without destroy-

ing the very foundation upon which it stands. It is not

possible for a government to assert, on the one hand,

that it is a constitutional government, and on the other,

have no regard for the rules of the Constitution by chang-

ing them arbitrarily. A dictator does not respect a
Constitution and he changes its rules arbitrarily.

Absolute monarchies, fascism, and nazism, force their

citizens to be loyal to their country in contrast to a

democracy which builds up faith and trust in its gov-

ernment by education, and by keeping its people informed

of events and their meaning.

What is true of a citizen in the Czecho-Slovak

democracy is even in a larger measure true of the Slovak

13



race within the Czecho-Slovak republic. Dr. E. Benes

did not accept the Slovaks as a nation. But as a demo-

crat he should have known that though in a democracy

the majority rules, it, nevertheless, has no right to oppress

the minority. In a democracy tbe minority has rights

which the majority must not, and dare not, trample in the

dust. In other words, the majority must give the minority

equal rights, must protect them equally by the same laws,

and treat them equitably under the law of the land.

That Dr. Benes did not respect this fundamental and

elementary principle of democracy during his regime in

the pre-Munich republic is proved indubitably by the

fact that as President his government employed 10,702

Czechs and 126 Slovaks in the central offices in Prague.

Let us say, that in the pre-Munich Republic, Dr. Benes

may have shifted the blame on Sramek’s followers who

were decidedly unfriendly to the Slovaks; yet, in exile

today, he, alone is to blame because he is the government

.... he does everything himself, he is everything, and

therefore, he is solely responsible for everything, even as

Bechyne remarked. According to the official legal doc-

trine and practice of Dr. Benes, he, himself, is the em-

bodiment of his nation, and the Czecho-Slovak state, so

that he is the state, and the source of its laws. The in-

dividuals in his government are consequently individually,

collectively and personally responsible to Benes. In the

same way the members of the national council are indi-

vidually and collectively responsible to Benes.

How has Dr. Benes, in whom are vested all the laws

of the Czecho-Slovak republic according to the above

view, treated the Slovaks while in exile? His “state insti-

tution” employs 1,180 officials, and less than 3% are

Slovaks! In the army less than 1% of the officers are

Slovaks. In the army and in the civil service, Dr. Benes,

both at home and in exile, did not employ Slovaks as a

rule. Why? Either because he considers them incapable,

or because he is determined to oppress them in the future.

In either case, the Slovaks must oppose him with de-

termination. They will not let themselves be considered

inferior any longer, and they will not let him oppress,

them any more in the future.

14



Dr. Benes declaration of June 30, 1943, confirms the

view that he has not changed, and. that he plans to op-

press the Slovaks as in the past because he denies the

Slovaks their rights as a distinct nation with its own

national characteristics.

Delegate Bechyne publicly stated at a meeting in

Kingsway Hall in London that the Benes government

was the cause of a grave political crisis between the Slo-

vaks and the Czechs, and that he endangered the exist-

ence of both races by his hostile political policy to the

Slovak race. Bechyne declared that the Czecho-Slovak

government in London said it had come to an under-

standing with the delegation of the Slovak National

Council but no one knows on what basis. The members

of the Council say that Benes, alone, knows the details

of the agreement. And Bechyne asks, just what kind of

political and national agreement it is when only one per-

son in the world knows what it is. We suspect that they
agreed to disagree! That’s the kind of agreement that was

reached.

We do know, however, that Dr. Benes sent a message
containing 16 paragraphs to the Slovak delegation. In

the first paragraph, we have already pointed out on an-

other occasion, he recognized the Slovak government, but

in the remaining 15 paragraphs he destroyed the political

consequences of the commonly accepted principle of Slo-

vakian nationhood which naturally flows from the first

paragraph and rejected the others. The members of

the Council, as the provisional government in exile, de-

clare that there has been no formal agreement because

they did not approve it, and because the Slovak delega-

tion rejected all but the first paragraph of the so called

Benes agreement.

Slovak truth is blazing a trail to final victory, and it

will triumph if only we stand uncompromising and con-

stant in its defense.

With sincere gratitude,

I remain devotedly yours,

STEFAN OSUSKY.

15



APPENDIX "C
1

SLOVAK NATIONAL COUNCIL

SLOVENSKA NARODNA RADA

7. Wilton Crescent, London, S. W. 1.

March, 1945.

Sir,

In connection with M. Edvard Benes’ departure for

Slovakia the Slovak National Council in London sent, on

March 14, a Memorandum to the Soviet, American, Brit-

ish and French Governments protesting against the set-

ting up of a Czechoslovak Government in Slovakia and,

at the same time suggesting to the Allied Governments the

formation of an inter-Allied Military Government.

This is the text of the Slovak Memorandum, signed by

M. Peter Pridavok, Chairman, and M. Karol Vychodil,

Secretary, of the Slovak National Council:—

According to Press reports M. Edvard Benes and some

members of his so-called Czechoslovak Government have

left for Slovakia, cleared of German troops, with the view

of setting up there a Czechoslovak Government and of re-

establishing the former Czechoslovak Republic.

Regarding itself a guardian of the rights of the Slovak

nation to freedom and independence, and considering the

fact that neither in the still German-occupied part of Slo-

vakia, nor in the part cleared by the victorious Soviet Arm-

ies, but handed over to M. Benes’ administration, can our

people express their will freely, the Slovak National Coun-

cil in London raises its voice and solemnly protests against

the setting up of a Czechoslovak Government on Slovak

soil without the freely expressed consent of the Slovak

people.

Czechoslovakia ceased to exist on March 14, 1939,

when the Slovakian Parliament, with the full consent of

16



the Slovak people, decided for the separation from the

Czech lands and for the establishment of a Slovak State.

This State was recognised de jure by many countries

throughout the world, including several Powers at present

in the camp of the United Nations. During these six years

it has been irrefutably proved that the Slovak Republic is

not only capable of living independently, but also that no

other state organism can secure for the Slovak people more

national and cultural freedom as well as material well-be-

ing than the Slovak Republic.

It is only natural that every nation, however small,

desires to live freely and independently. The Slovak

nation cannot be expected to be an exception in this re-

spect.

In the past the centralistic Czechoslovak Government

in which M. Benes’ influence was decisive failed to fulfil

every pledge given to the Slovaks; hence the Slovak peo-

ple cannot trust any new pledges and promises given by

the ex-President of erstwhile Czechoslovakia.

For the Slovak people M. Benes and his so-called

Czechoslovak Government are but foreign intruders who,

in the manner of detestable marauders crawling behind

the victorious Armies of the Soviet Allies, attempt to re-

establish their hatred and bankrupt rule over the stricken

body of our country and to subjugate our much-suffering

people once more.

The Slovak people are quite content with their Slovak

State, and with the exception of a few foreign agents they

desire nothing but to preserve it also for the future with

a government constituted by themselves on truly demo*

cratic lines. The reconstruction of Czechoslovakia with,

out the freely expressed consent of the Slovak people

would be a flagrant violation of the Atlantic Charter and

all other solemn pledges given by the Allied statesmen to

the small nations of Europe, who are the most suffering

victims of this horrible war.

The Slovak National Council in London claims for

the Slovak nation the same rights which the Allied Great

Powers have solemnly promised to accord to all small na-

tions after their liberation, i.e., the right of self-determi-

17



nation with all its implications. We have no desire to
dominate anybody, but we equally refuse to be dominated

and oppressed by any other nation. We therefore reject
the idea of a renewed Czechoslovakia as detrimental not

only to our Slovak nation, but also to the peaceful cohabi-

tation of the peoples of Central Europe.

The Slovak National Council respectfully submits the

following proposals for the settlement of the problems of

Slovakia :—

1. In the Slovak territories freed from the Ger-

mans, inter-Allied Military Government, composed of

Soviet, American, British and French representatives,

should be established for joint control of the tempor-

ary . civil and military administration. We should
greatly welcome if, in civil matters, the co-operation of

a representative of the Holy See could be secured.

2. The self-appointed “Slovak National Council,”

at present allegedly in Kosice, should be immediately

disbanded. As it accepts its orders from M. Benes, a

foreigner, it cannot be in any way whatsoever consid-

sidered as representing the will of the Slovak people.

Moreover, its President, Dr. Vavro Srobar, is one of

the most notorious Czech agents of Slovak origin.

3. Conscription into the so-called Czechoslovak

Army should immediately cease, and Slovak soldiers

should be enabled to continue in the fight against the

common enemy under Slovak flag.

4. Under the supervision of the inter-Allied Mili-

tary Government free and unfettered elections should

be prepared into the local government bodies and into

the Slovak Parliament. Elections should not, however,

be carried out hastily. The Slovak soldiers now abroad

and in captivity, as well as Slovak workers in Germany

and in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia,

should not be deprived of their votes into the Constitu-

ent Assembly. After such free elections had taken

place and the democratically elected Parliament had

amended the present Constitution and chosen the new

head of State; furthermore, after a satisfactory degree

of political and economic stability had been reached,

18



the inter-Allied Military Government should hand over

all power to the legal Slovak Government appointed by

the President of the Slovak Republic.

5. Only delegates appointed by the constitutional

Slovak Government should be admitted as representa-

tives of the people of Slovakia at the Peace Confer-

ence and any other international conferences.

6. All territorial disputes between Slovakia and

neighbouring countries (Austria, Carpatho-Ruthenia,

the Czech lands, Hungary and Poland) should be set-

tled at the Peace Conference to the greatest possible

satisfaction of all countries concerned. The same goes

also for the future mutual relationship between these

countries.

7. All incisive reforms regarding the social and

economic structure of the country should be left to the

newly-elected constitutional representatives of the Slo-

vak people.

8. Punishing of war criminals should be consid-

ered a matter for Slovak Courts of Justice. The pun-

ishment of persons deserving it should be carried out

only after the passions provoked by the war have died

down.

9. No foreigners—with the exception of the inter-

Allied Military Government—should be permitted to
interfere with Slovak politics.

10. Diplomatic relations with Slovakia should be

re-established by those Allied Powers which had, prior

to the War, recognised Slovakia, and entered into by

other nations as soon as possible.

The Slovak National Council trusts that these sugges-

tions, being in full accordance with the proclaimed princi-

ples of policy of the Great Allied Powers, will find due

consideration by His Majesty’s Government.

London, 14th March, 1945.

19



SLOVAK LEAGUE OF

AMERICA

MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS:

FEDERATION OF SLOVAK NEWSWRITERS

FIRST CATHOLIC SLOVAK UNION

FIRST SLOVAK WREATH OF THE FREE EAGLE

LADIES FIRST CATHOLIC SLOVAK UNION

LADIES PENNSYLVANIA SLOVAK UNION

PENNSYLVANIA SLOVAK UNION

SLOVAK CATHOLIC FEDERATION

SLOVAK CATHOLIC SOKOL

20



\



.