PAST AND PRESENT DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING CARPATHO-RUTHENIA

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80-00809A000600040072-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 30, 2011
• Sequence Number: 72
• Publication Date: May 12, 1953
• Content Type: REPORT

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/30: CIA-RDP80-00809A000600040072-8
L~ URIT l:Yl iA
-- -- CLASSIFICATION BECRET,IBECURITY INFORMA=+,r
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
INFORMATION REPORT
COUNTRY USSR/Czechoslovakia
Y 1953
SUBJECT Past and Present Develo
Carpatho-Ruthenia pments concerning NO. OF PAGES
4
PLACE
ACQUIRED --
DATE
ACQU
NO. OF ENCLS.
(LISTED BELOW)
SUPPLEMENT TO
REPORT NO.
" from from 1g.tovtaoK policy toward Ruthenia was quite liberal during the period
120 9 Thereafter the
Czech policy this vis-a-vis Carpaho Q ` etviewpoint of the
policy had the int i i,...
a? The personnel poll
levels, policy was ao one-sided that administrative positions on all
C
Czechs, inclu ding the police and post office, were filled predominantly by
b. `s'he cultural policy was closely tied in with the Personae
1930s, more than 1,200 teachers in Caroathn_sf?ax
policy. In the
origin- -'..
I" sv+o tine Ruthenian independence leader, Dobriansky, sent a letter to
the Austrian emperor, Francis Joseph, in which he asked that independence
be granted to Bukovina, Galicia
spokesmen
addressed and sub-Carpathin. In 1918 Ruthenian
dependence of a memorandum to President Wilson asking for the in-
their homeland.
delegates convened in 8cranton,iPennsylvnnia year, a large number of Ruthenian
Caxpatho-Ruthenia, About 26 to 2,p % Of , and debated the future of
of merging the area with the s those present voted favor
the tnbliehmeat of Ukraine, whereas 60 % favored the ee-
n81y influenced the s area within Czechoslovakia. Their votes
stro disposal of that
bl__
pro
Czech ----~?~ were L:zecns.
policy offered the Cosiste this narrow
good propaganda argunea
s
.
c. Under a land reform sponsored by the
re-distribute d in Ruthenia was awarded ed toe C ech legion $echrlegion most
the land
naires of tt
of World War I), The C fu z ( ve t
erans
agenda purposes as well, ats successfully utilized this fact for prop-
50X1-HUM
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/30: CIA-RDP80-00809A000600040072-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/30: CIA-RDP8O-00809AO00600040072-8
4. The 1938 constitution of Czechoslovakia awarded to Slovakia and Carpatho-
Ruthenia the status of federated republics. In October 1938 a state govern-
ment for the Carpatho-Ukraine was formed in which Dr Bacinsky, (fnu) Brody
and Julian Revay were ministers; Monsignor Voloshyn and Dr Piescak served
as "secretaries" to that government. On 15 Mar 39 the government of
the Carpatho-Ukraine proclaimed its independence from Czechoslovakia.
Monsignor Voloshyn became President, and Julian Revay became Prime Minister.
These appointments were quickly confirmed by the Sejm (Parliament~~
d. In the political sphere the policy of the Czechoslovak Government favored
the extension of Czech political organizations toliie Carpathian area. Czech
parties established affiliates in the Carpatho-Ukraine although there was
no indigenous need for them.
3. When confronted with the argument that the Treaty of San Germain accorded
a high degree of autonomy to Carpatho-Ruthenia, the Czechoslovak Government
claimed that the cultural level of the Ruthenian was too low to permit the
application of such progressive principles. Autonomy was promised to the
Carpathian Ukraine at a late; date but in the meantime every single govern-
ment measure was directed toward the suppression of Ruthenian influence in
the Carpatho-Ukraine.
The establishment of an independent Carpatho-Ukraine at that time was favored
also by the "Scranton group" which addressed a memorandum to that effect to
the US Government. Almost at the moment that an independent Carpatho-Ukraine
was established, the Hungarians invaded the country. Resistance was fierce,
Count Teleki afterwards told the Hungarian parliament that the Hungarian
Army had suffered greater casualties in the occupation of the Carpatho-Ukraine
than in the occupation pf all other areas combined. Although the Hungarians
had established complete control over the country by 30 Apr 39 active
resistance continued throughout their occupation. Thousands of Ruthenians
were severely penalized by the Hungarians for activities directed against
their occupation authorities. Thousands of other Ruthenians fled eastward
to Soviet-held territory. Prior to the occupation of Czechoslovakian terri-
tory by the Soviet Army, 90 % of the soldiers of the Svoboda Army
were from Carpatho-Ruthenia; only the officers were predominantly Czech.
After the occupation of Slovak territory, there was a marked influx of Slo-
vaks into the so-called Czech Army of General Svobods. After the occupation
of Prague by the Soviet Army, the Svoboda Army was disbanded and most of
the men returned to their homes.
6. Because of their disappointment with the Czechoslovak regime and their
hatred for the Hungarian occupation, not only the Communist supported par-
tisans but also the Ruthenian nationalist underground viewed the Soviet Army
as a liberation force in 1944. For the came reasons politically vocal
elements among the Rutbenians favored the incor. ration of the area sub-
sequently known as the Carpathian ablest (Zakarpatska oblaet) into the
Ukrainian SSR. A public drive for signatures in favor of incorporating
the Carpatho-Ukraine into the USSR was apparently quite sv?,cessful. To
understand this one mast bear in mind the people's reaction to Hungarian
misrule and the effectiveness of propaganda which at that time was more
or less echoed by Western information media. In November 1944 a council
or rAAa was convened at Mukacevo end voted unanimously to join the USE.
SECRET/SECURITY INFORMATION
Oblast was likewise favorable and that there was no significant opposition
to it as late as 1950. barge landholders, especially Hungarians and churches,
had owned most of the land in Carpatho Ruthenia prior to collectivization,
whereas the majority of the people led a sub-standard existence. When the
Soviets transformed the former estates into big collectives, many Ruthenians
SECRET/SECURITY INFORMATION
50X1-HUM
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/30: CIA-RDP8O-00809AO00600040072-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/30: CIA-RDP80-00809A000600040072-8
SECREP/SYCURITY INFORMATION
were therefore quite pleased. Although no detailed information is available
signs of opposition and even acts of sabotage against
collectives have occurred during the last three years and indicate that the
Ruthenian population has finally understood that any short-range gains under
the Soviet system are elusive.
8. The people of the Carpathian oblast are most strongly opp.)stfi to Soviet
policy in i2ligious matters. Following the practice adopted earlier in the
Soviet Ukraine, the Soviet regime has suppressed the Catholic Church of the
Eastern Rite in the Carpathian r.hl at. ill Catholic priests who would not
announce their subservience to the Orthodox Church lead an. illegal existence
in the country but it has been stated that they are supported ideologically
and materially by many people. Catholic
masses are still being celebrated in the forests. Many Orthodox priests
are considered as Moscow agents since it has become known that they use
confessions to obtain denunciations of anti-Orthodox and anti-Soviet indiv-
iduals.
9. Russianization, which is be-+.ng advanced all over the USSR, is as wholeheartedly
opposed in the Carpathian oblast an Magyarization was some years ego.
in general, consumer goods including clothing and
mechanical equipment are more plentiful ix,. the towns (at the cooperative
stores) whereas the rural areas are relatively better supplied with agri-
cultural pzoducts. The result is a considerable extz r'ega1 barter and
outright black market trade between urban and. rural arena.
The largest m:litary detzchments reportedly are stationed at Uzhorod.
According to rumors, up to 15,000 troops were stationed there in 1950.
Population figures are believed to demonstrate the influx of personnel of
the armed forces or working in defense industries. The total pre-World
War II population of the Carpathian Ukraine wall 750,000. Of the 120,000
Jews included in this number, fewer than 20,000 are still residing in the
area. Of 100,000 Hungarians, only about one half are left in the Carpathian
oblast. Some 50,000 inhabitants of the area were forcibly resettled in
different regions of the USE. there have been no reports
on the whereabouts of these people. In spite of these sizable population
movements, the population of the Carpathian oblast was estimated at 950,000
to one million in 1950 or considerably more than the pre-war figure. Of
the total population, some 600,000 are believed to be ethnically Ukrainians.
Only a sizable influx of soon-Ukrainian elements, presumably from other areas
of the USSR and for military service and defense industries, could account
for the present population picture.
the Soviet-Czechoslovak border is much more strongly guarded than the
Soviet-Hungarian border. On the Soviet side of the frontier an area sev-
eral kilometers deep has been cleared and mine fields laid. F
WD border patrols in the area are ac-
companied by dogs. The reason for these extraordinary security precautions
is presumably that many Rut)mnians have relatives or friends in Slovakia
and would attempt to escape in that direction rather than to Hungary.
About 150,000 Rutkenians of Ukrainian ethnic stock now live in Slovakia.
They enjoy certain autonomous rights, maintain a Ukrainian Nations?, R"
in Presov and live altogether under less pressure than their fellow country-
men on the Soviet side of the border.
Sk;CR$i /=-vRI_TY IflFOFYA9 ION
50X1-HUM
50X1-HUM
50X1-HUM
50X1-HUM
50X1-HUM
50X1-HUM
P I
50X1-HUM
.9
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/30: CIA-RDP80-00809A000600040072-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/30: CIA-RDP80-00809A000600040072-8
SECRET/SECURITY INFORMATION
While it cannot be claimed that they control any given area, theymake the
more inaccessible regions extremely hazardous. Thus army or MVD escort in
company strength is said to be required for Soviet officials moving through
mountainous areas in the Carpathian ob]ast. At least prior to 1950 several
bridges were blown up and trains on the line from Uzhorod to Kiev w
peatedly sabotaged.
the high percen-
~cage or la'a an na onaliots among recent Soviet defectors provides adequate
proof of its continual existence even in the generation born under Soviet rule.
14. The future of the Carpatho-Ruthenians appears doubtful even if the Soviet
reg'me were removed and Russian influence reduced. Ruthenian emigres are
split into groups--not necessarily well organized--one of which seeks the
establishment of an independent Ruthenian state iii a federation of Central
and East European countries. Other Ruthenian elements favor a Ruthenia in-
tegrated into a f r e e '1kraine. And there are still other Ruthenians who
aspire to a certain autonomous status for Ruthenia in a new Czechoslovakia.
15, The attitude of Czechoslovak emigre E'oups toward Rutheata li~ewise varies
between the different organizations;
a. The Prchala Group claims to represent only Czech nationality interests; it
does not attempt to represent Slovaks and Ruthenians. It takes the position
that friendly relations with these nationality groups would be desirable from
the Czech point of view but that the initiative should rest with the repre-
sentatives of the other nationalities. A member of the Slovak National
Council told= that Prchala did not appear to
be oppose to Slovak independence. Prchala views the Ruthenians as a part
of the Ukrainian nationality stock and believes that Czech politicians should
not complicate the future by renewing territorial claims to Carpatho-Ruthenia.
b. The Czechoslovak National. C,. ittee under Zenkl is working for the restoration
of the Czechoslovak Republic as 16 existed prior to 1938. Some Slovaks and
Ruthenians are represented on the Committ a of the Ruthenians is Ladis-
law Ferdinee He and others of like mind
ar ue that ter po c represents US State Department views of Czechoslovakia.
this man, who a, may a Ini-luenced by
purely selfish considerations in espousing the Czechoslovak political cause.
c. Slovc.k independence groups, including the Slovak National C~luncil under
Sidor (Toronto, Ontario) and the Slovak Liberation Committee under Durcansky
(in Argentina) advocate the establishment of independent states formed on
the basis of ethnic homogeneity within a mid-European federation. It stands
to reason that they are strongly opposed to any Czechoslovak orientation.
SECRET/SECURl''rY INFORMATION
50X1-HUM
M
50X1-HUM
uun I -nuivi
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/30: CIA-RDP80-00809A000600040072-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/30: CIA-RDP80-00809A000600040072-8
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/06/30: CIA-RDP80-00809A000600040072-8