Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
135839660
label
Wallenberg, Raoul (2 of 3)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135839660
contentType
document
title
Wallenberg, Raoul (2 of 3)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
485
collections
Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)
John Roberts' Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
135839660
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1986-12-31
year
1986
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1982-01-01
year
1982
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
998e9ed1163db78a
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Roberts, John G.: Files
Folder Title: Wallenberg, Raoul
(2 of 3)
Box: 56
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
United States Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
January 13, 1984
Mr. John G. Roberts
Associate Counsel to the President
The White House
Dear Mr. Roberts:
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to study
Professor Wolff's letter to the President concerning Raoul
Wallenberg. It seems to me that there are three subjects
raised by the letter. The first involves the pertinence
of 22 USC 1732; the second, whether the enactment of Public
Law 97-54 would give the United States a basis under
international law to extend diplomatic protection to Mr.
Wallenberg; the third, what steps the United States has
taken under Section 2 of that law.
Section 1732 of Title 22 of the United States Code
represents a codification of section 3 of the Act of July 27,
1868, 15 Stat. 224. The Act, which contains three sections,
is entitled "An Act concerning the Rights of American
Citizens in foreign States". Section 1 establishes the
right of expatriation. Section 2 provides that naturalized
citizens in foreign countries shall be entitled to the same
protection as native born citizens. Section 3, which has
been codified as 22 USC 1732, appears to have been intended
to insure that naturalized and native born citizens receive
equal protection when imprisoned abroad. Although section
1732 has been the law of the United States for more than a
century, it has seldom been invoked. The President has not
made regular reports under the section. Indeed, one of the
few instances of its invocation was to buttress several of
the Executive orders issued by President Carter under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act during the
Iranian hostage crisis.
In any event, inasmuch as the United States did not have
Z
honorary citizens in 1868, section 1732 is not pertinent
to the case of Raoul Wallenberg.
The question of whether enactment of Public Law 97-54,
95 Stat. 971, conferring honorary citizenship on Wallenberg
would afford a basis under international law for the United
States to seek his diplomatic protection was addressed in
- 2 -
hearings held by the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees,
and International Law of the House Committee on the Judiciary
on June 23, 1981. Acting Assistant Secretary of State for
European Affairs H. Allen Holmes, who testified on behalf
of the Department of State, noted that the granting of
honorary American citizenship to Wallenberg would not confer
on the United States any new international legal right to
confront the Soviets on their incarceration of Wallenberg.
He noted that under international law conferral of honarary
citizenship does not entitle an individual to diplomatic
protection from the country honoring him. Mr. Holmes cited
the Nottebohm case (Liechtenstein V. Guatemala), [1955]
I.C.J. Rep. 4, as authority for the proposition that under
international law the Swedish Government would retain the
right to demand that the Soviet Union account to it for the
treatment of Wallenberg and that no such right would enure
to the United States. In briefs filed in a number of cases
before the United States-Iran Claims Tribunal within the
last year the United States has urged that the Tribunal
follow the underlying rationale of the Nottebohm case.
Since President Reagan approved Public Law 97-54 on
October 5, 1981, the Department of State has raised the
matter with representatives of the Soviet Union on a number
of occasions. Pursuant to section 2 of that law the Depart-
ment of State has also raised the Wallenberg case at the
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and before
the United Nations Human Rights Commission. It intends to
continue to raise the matter whenever it considers that such
an initiative would be useful.
I hope that the information set out above will assist
you in responding to Professor Wolff's letter to the
President. If you would like additional information, I
would be glad to have Robert Dalton, one of our lawyers who
is familiar with the Wallenberg case, give you an oral
briefing.
Sincerely,
Daniel M.Mistoren
Daniel W. McGovern
Deputy Legal Adviser
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
ord
SUBJECT:
Raoul Wallenberg and the
"Hostage Act"
Morris H. Wolff, a Professor at the Delaware Law School of
Widener University, has written the President concerning
Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat whose courageous
efforts saved many Hungarian Jews during World War II. Many
believe that Wallenberg is still alive, held captive in a
Soviet prison. Wolff, who states that he has been retained
by the Wallenberg family to help secure Raoul's release,
suggests that the President take action to that end under
22 U.S.C. § 1732. This provision directs the President to
demand and take steps to secure the release of American
citizens unjustly imprisoned abroad. The Act provides:
Whenever it is made known to the President that
any citizen of the United States has been unjustly
deprived of his liberty by or under the authority
of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of
the President forthwith to demand of that government
the reasons of such imprisonment; and if it appears
to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of
American citizenship, the President shall forthwith
demand the release of such citizen, and if the release
so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, the
President shall use such means, not amounting to acts
of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain
or effectuate the release; and all the facts and
proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as
practicable be communicated by the President to
Congress.
On October 5, 1981, President Reagan signed a law conferring
honorary U.S. citizenship on Wallenberg (an honor Wallenberg
shares only with Winston Churchill). Pub. L. No. 97-54,
95 Stat. 971. Wolff now contends that Wallenberg, as a
citizen, is entitled to action under 22 U.S.C. § 1732.
- 2 -
This statute was enacted in 1868, in response to the
practice of several European countries of refusing to re-
cognize the citizenship of naturalized Americans traveling
abroad, repatriating them against their will. The statute
was largely dormant until the Iranian hostage crisis, when
it suddenly surfaced as the "Hostage Act," a convenient if
inaccurate sobriquet coined by the government lawyers
seeking to rely upon the law as support for action taken to
secure the release of the hostages. See Dames & Moore V.
Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981). The Supreme Court ruled that
the "Hostage Act" did not by itself provide authority for
the suspension of private claims against Iran, although it
was pertinent in assessing, under Justice Jackson's famous
criteria in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. V. Sawyer, 343 U.S.
579, 637-38 (1952) (concurring opinion), whether Congress may
be considered to have acquiesced in such an exercise of
executive authority. What little case law exists indicates
that exercise of authority under 22 U.S.C. § 1732 is
committed to the discretion of the Chief Executive (despite
the "shall" language) and is not subject to mandamus. See
Worthy V. Herder, 270 F. 2d 905 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied,
361 U.S. 918 (1959) Redpath V. Kissinger, 415 F. Supp. 566
(D.C. Tex.), aff'd, 545 F.2d 167 (5 Cir. 1976) (American held
prisoner in Mexican jail).
The President has frequently demanded an accounting con-
cerning Wallenberg from the Soviets. See, e.g., 19 Weekly
Compilation of Presidential Documents 177 (Feb. 2, 1983)
id. 533 (April 11, 1983). While the President has never
asserted a belief that Wallenberg is still alive, he has
recognized the possibility. At the Holocaust ceremony at
the White House on April 20, 1982, the President said of
Wallenberg:
But the one man who I think must be remembered
above all was Raoul Wallenberg. One such man, at
incredible risk, saved tens of thousands. And on
this day of remembrance let us especially recall
this man, and if he's alive, as some suggest, let
his captors know they' be forgotten long before
Raoul Wallenberg is forgotten.
However unenforceable in court and however committed to
unreviewable discretion, 22 U.S.C. § 1732 does, by its
terms, impose a duty on the President. The nature of the
duty is admittedly very vague. The duty to demand the
release of a citizen and to take action to secure his
release is triggered if he is being held by the foreign
power "in violation of the rights of American citizenship,"
a peculiarly difficult concept. If Wallenberg is alive and
- 3 -
imprisoned in the Soviet Union, is his imprisonment "in
violation of the rights of American citizenship?" The
Supreme Court doubted that the imprisonment of the Iranian
hostages satisfied this prerequisite for action under
22 U.S.C. § 1732, see Dames & Moore V. Regan, supra, and the
Soviets, if they are holding Wallenberg, are probably not
doing so because they fail to recognize his newly-conferred
American citizenship.
Of course, we can contend that we have already done what the
statute envisions. The President has demanded an accounting
from the Soviets, and has done so repeatedly. In this
regard it is also worth noting that the law conferring
honorary citizenship on Wallenberg itself requested the
President "to take all possible steps to ascertain from the
Soviet Union the whereabouts of Raoul Wallenberg and to
secure his return to freedom."
I called Dan McGovern, Deputy Legal Adviser at State, to
obtain his views on Wolff's request. McGovern asked for a
copy of Wolff's incoming, which I provided. McGovern has
now responded, rather facilely dismissing Wolff's 22 U.S.C.
§ 1732 theory on the ground that since there were no
honorary citizens when that statute was passed, it cannot
apply to honorary citizens. McGovern presumably also thinks
that the Commerce Clause does not apply to air travel, that
the First Amendment is irrelevant with respect to television
and radio, and that the President has no authority to send
ambassadors to countries that did not exist in 1787. On a
more substantive ground, McGovern noted that during hearings
on Public Law 97-54 the State Department took the position
that the law would not give the United States any new rights
under international law with respect to Wallenberg.
I recommend a reply to Wolff over your signature,
essentially dodging the question of the applicability of
22 U.S.C § 1732. Not only am I not convinced that the
statute does not apply to Wallenberg, but I am
institutionally disposed against adopting a limited reading
of a statute conferring power on the President. We can
provide Wolff with a copy of the State and Justice
testimony at the hearings on Public Law 97-54, note that the
law was intended to be symbolic, and stress all that has
been done by the President to promote the cause of
Wallenberg. We can also note that we have referred his
letter to the State Department, which has raised the
Wallenberg issue in the past and will continue to do so.
- 4 -
A draft reply is attached. I have also attached a cover
memorandum transmitting a copy of the reply to Faith
Whittlesey. Wolff wrote Whittlesey asking for her
assistance in bringing the matter to the appropriate office,
and Whittlesey referred it to us. Wolff has received a
telephonic interim reply from Whittlesey's office, advising
him that his letter was being considered.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FAITH R. WHITTLESEY
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR PUBLIC LIAISON
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
Orig. signed by
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Correspondence from Professor Wolff
Concerning Raoul Wallenberg
You asked for our guidance concerning a response to a letter
to the President from Professor Morris H. Wolff of the
Delaware Law School. Professor Wolff's letter discussed the
case of Raoul Wallenberg, and raised questions concerning
the applicability of a particular statute to Wallenberg.
After consulting with the Department of State, we prepared
and sent the attached reply.
Attachment
FFF: JGR:aea 1/25/84
cc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR DANIEL W. MCGOVERN
DEPUTY LEGAL ADVISER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING Crig. signed by FF
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Correspondence from Professor Wolff
Concerning Raoul Wallenberg
As you know, Professor Wolff of Delaware Law School has
written the President concerning Raoul Wallenberg. Attached
for your information is a copy of my reply to Professor
Wolff. You will notice that I have advised Professor Wolff
that I would refer his correspondence to the State
Department for appropriate review and consideration.
Attachment
FFF; JGR:aea 1/25/84
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 25, 1984
Dear Professor Wolff:
This is written in response to your letter to the President
concerning Raoul Wallenberg. In that letter you referred to
Public Law 97-54, 95 Stat. 971, signed on October 5, 1981 by
the President, which conferred honorary citizenship on
Wallenberg. You suggested that now that Wallenberg was an
honorary citizen, the President could take action under
22 U.S.C. § 1732 to secure his release.
At the hearings on the bill to confer honorary citizenship
on Wallenberg, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Allen
Holmes testified that the bill:
would serve to underscore the seriousness with
which the American Government and people view
Soviet behavior in the Wallenberg case. Conferral
of honorary U.S. citizenship on Wallenberg would
also serve to reaffirm to the Government of Sweden
that the United States firmly supports the quest
to resolve Wallenberg's fate.
Assistant Attorney General Theodore Olson testified that the
bill "is essentially symbolic in nature." The testimony at
the hearings suggests that the bill was not intended to
affect legal rights but rather to serve the important
purpose of reaffirming our national commitment not only to
the values epitomized by Wallenberg but to a clarification
of his fate as well. I have enclosed for your information a
copy of the hearings.
Quite apart from any question of the applicability of
22 U.S.C. § 1732, section 2 of Public Law 97-54 requests the
President "to take all possible steps to ascertain from the
Soviet Union the whereabouts of Raoul Wallenberg and to
secure his return to freedom." Not only the State
Department but the President personally have spared no
effort to obtain information about Wallenberg and, if he is
alive, secure his release. The President has repeatedly
referred to Wallenberg and demanded an accounting of his
fate from the Soviets. To cite just a few instances, on
February 2, 1983, the President remarked that if the Soviets
truly want better relations with the West "they could give
us an accounting of one of mankind's true heroes, Raoul
Wallenberg." On April 11, 1983, the President again stated:
"I would affirm, as President of the United States and, if
- 2 -
you would permit me, in the names of the survivors [of the
Holocaust], that if those who took him from Budapest would
win our trust, let them start by giving us an accounting of
Raoul Wallenberg."
The Department of State has raised the matter with
representatives of the Soviet Union on several occasions,
including at the Conference on Security and Cooperation in
Europe and before the United Nations Human Rights
Commission. That Department will continue to raise the
Wallenberg issue whenever such an initiative would be
useful. I have taken the liberty of referring your
correspondence to the State Department for their appropriate
review and consideration.
This Administration shares your concern for Wallenberg and
your commitment not only to help him if he is alive but to
preserve his memory whatever his fate. As the President
noted in 1982, on the Day of Remembrance:
But the one man who I think must be remembered
above all was Raoul Wallenberg. One such man, at
incredible risk, saved tens of thousands. And on
this day of remembrance let us especially recall
this man, and if he's alive, as some suggest, let
his captors know they'll be forgotten long before
Raoul Wallenberg is forgotten.
Thank you for sharing your views on this important question
with us.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
Only. simed BY IFF
Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
Professor Morris H. Wolff
The Delaware Law School
Widener University
Post Office Box 7474
Concord Pike
Wilmington, Delaware 19803
Enclosure
FFF:JGR:aea 1/25/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
has
O OUTGOING
prior correop.)
H INTERNAL
I INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Morris H. wolff
Name of Correspondent:
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Writes President a king Per him to release
Raoul Wallenberg,from the Soriet Union
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CULTOLL
ORIGINATOR 83,12,06
/
/
Referral Note:
WAT/8
D 83/12/06
583,12,16
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/ /
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
I
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A Appropriate Action
I - Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C - Comment/Recommendation
R - Direct Reply w/Copy
B - - Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D - Draft Response
S - For Signature
F Furnish Fact Sheet
X - Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments: See ID 188754CU
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
188754
ag
ID #
WHITE HOUSE
C0165
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o . OUTGOING
H INTERNAL
I . INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
marris H. Woulf
Name of Correspondent:
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Request to discuss with President in atcff 3)
Actions to has takenste implement law which Ling CA secure
releasent Raoul (nu walff has been
Retained Lg Wellenberg family as then legal connect)
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
AC/RAWL
ORIGINATOR 83/12/02
RAN C 83112102
Referral Note:
cu Fulling
AS
83112103
/
/
Referral Note:
Cu Holl
A 83,12,06
/
/
Referral Note: Dg
CuAT 18
D 83,12,06
5831/2116
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A Appropriate Action
I - Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C Comment/Recommendation
R - Direct Reply w/Copy
B - Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S For Signature
F . Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments: SCUID 188754 all
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
DELAWAR
THE
SCHOOL
18875
THE DELAWARE LAW SCHOOL
WIDENER UNIVERSITY
P.O. BOX 7474 CONCORD PIKE
state
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19803
(302) 478-5280
November 7, 1983
President Ronald Reagan
RECEIVED IN SCHEDULING
The White House
OFFICE 11-30-83
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20004
Dear Mr. President:
On October 5, 1981, you took the iniative to sign a law
granting honorary citizenship to Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish
diplomat whose heroic and humanitarian efforts in Budapest,
Hungary during World War II were responsible for the rescue and
protection from death of approximately 100, Hungarian Jews.
At the time of the signing, at a ceremony at the White House, you
expressed your hopes and prayer that this new law would help in
the effort to achieve the release of Raoul Wallenberg. You
further expressed the hope that someday diplomat Wallenberg would
have the opportunity to leave the Soviet Union and sit "under the
shade of the tree planted in his honor at Yad Vashem in Israel.'
Your signing the law followed the joint action of the House of
Representatives and the Senate in voting to approve a resolution
granting citizenship to Wallenberg.
Many people throughout the United States and the world share
the deep interest which you have in achieving freedom from Soviet
imprisonment for this great hero. It would appear to be a good
time now for new action to be taken. Under Title 22, United
States Code 1732, the President has the power to take action to
secure the release of "any citizen of the United States" who "has
been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority
of any foreign government." The statute states that:
"It shall be the duty of the President forthwith to
demand of that government the reasons of such imprison-
ment; and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation
of the rights of American citizenship, the President
shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and
if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or
refused, the President shall use such means, not
amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and
proper to obtain of effectuate the release."
President Reagan
November 7, 1983
Page Two
This law gives you the power to seek the release of
Wallenberg. Wallenberg today enjoys dual nationality (Sweden
and United States). The law makes no distinction between
honorary and other citizens, and absent this distinction it
would apply to the needs and rights of Raoul Wallenberg.
I would like to have an opportunity to discuss with you or
a member of your staff, in advance, the actions which you might
take to implement this law on behalf of Raoul Wallenberg. His
family has retained me as their legal counsel to take
appropriate steps to help to achieve their brother's release.
I was pleased to discover this law as part of your presidential
powers. Will you please let me know when I might visit with
you to discuss the steps which could be taken to accomplish
this goal.
Interested people throughout the United States and the
world will welcome any intiative you might take under this law
to obtain our shared objective.
I am enclosing a transcript of a recent radio interview, in
which I discuss my representation of Raoul Wallenberg and steps
which might be taken to secure his release. Nothing at this
point in time could be better than to have your strong and
explicit support.
Very truly yours,
morris H.Wolf
Morris H. Wolff
Professor of Law
crh/474x
Enclosure
RADIO PROGRAM INTERVIEW
of Professor Morris H. Wolff
September 14, 1983
Radio Station WKEN
Wednesday afternoon, Bill Satterfield with you. This
afternoon we're going to be talking about a Swedish Diplomat,
taken captive by the Soviet Union at the end of the Second
World War in January of 1945 in Hungary. It's a very
interesting topic and it's getting more publicity and if during
the course of our conversation you have questions about this
man and about what's going on in the effort today to free him
or at least find out if he's dead or alive, give us a call at
674-1234, our phone lines will be open throughout the show.
Our guest today is Morris Wolff, Professor of Law at The
Delaware Law School of Widener University. He is involved in
the matter of Raoul Wallenberg. He has been asked by members
of the Wallenberg family to file a court suit. We are going to
be talking about that and about Wallenberg himself. Professor
Wolff, we welcome you to Dover
W. It's a pleasure to be with you.
S. You are associated with the Delaware Law School of Widener
University, you are a Professor What is your involvement
with Raoul Wallenberg? And then we'll find out a little
bit about Wallenberg and what this matter is all about.
W. Early this summer I was contacted by Professor Anthony
D'Amato from Northwestern Law School. He had been con-
tacted by the family of Raoul Wallenberg with regard to
their interest in securing the release of Wallenberg.
Together with Professor D'Amato, we considered the pos-
sibility of filing a law suit against the Soviet Union to
seek his release. In my position as a Professor of
International Law at The Delaware Law School of Widener
University, I also have a great deal of help from my
students. Together with the research that my students have
done and the interest of the family, we're planning to pro-
secute this matter as a law suit against the Soviet Union
to secure the release of Wallenberg and to seek civil
damages as well.
S. Before we go into the specifics of the law suit, who is
Raoul Wallenberg and what is his story?
W. Raoul Wallenberg was a member of a well-to-do Swedish
family. In 1945, he was abducted from his position as a
Swedish Diplomat in the Legation at Budapest, Hungary. He
got to that post through the request of the U. S. Govern-
ment. In 1944, the War Refugee Board began to see that a
great deal of needless suffering was occurring in Europe
with regard to the extermination of Jews and other minority
groups. They sought to use personnel from neutral count-
ries, such as Sweden, to go and observe the extermination
efforts. Wallenberg was selected by the Swedish govern-
ment after an interview with Herschel Johnson, our
United States Ambassador to Sweden. In other words,
it was our U. S. Government that initiated the pro-
gram. Wallenberg was chosen. He went to Budapest,
simply to observe what was happening. He did more than his
assignment. His assignment was merely to observe and report
back. He began to create ingenious ways of saving many
members of the Jewish population. This included issuing
Swedish passports, which then the Jewish people were able
to use to get out of Hungary. It included his going on the
cattle cars where they had been put for transport to concen-
tration camps and getting them off by claiming these people
were Swedish citizens. He was a human being, a humanitarian
a private citizen in Sweden, a businessman who, in effect,
was drafted by the Swedish Government to become a diplomat
to go and do this mission.
S. Was what he was doing in Hungary totally within Interna-
tional Law as far as the capabilities of a diplomat, or was
he sort of going beyond what the normal diplomatic matters
are?
W. Well, what he was doing was very innovative. Diplomats, by
nature, tend to be more conservative in carrying out the
instructions of their country. What happened here, was
that Wallenberg, when he saw that Eichmann was using
Budapest as one of the final chapters of the "Final
Solution,' as part of an effort to make Europe free of the
Jewish population. Some may say he overreacted and he
began to issue passports. Now, diplomats don't normally go
to their basement, print up passports, and give them out to
civilian populations. Technically, one might say that is a
violation of International Law and that diplomats could be
expelled from the country of location if they did that.
But, in this case, all bets were off. It was war time; it
was slaughter time; and Wallenberg, in the larger humani-
tarian context of international human rights, behaved quite
properly under International Law.
S. So, from his arrival in Budapest in 1944, until his capture
in January 1945, he was involved in these activities.
W. That's right. Much of it self-created; but everybody knew
what he was doing. By everybody, I mean the Swedish govern-
ment knew what he was doing, the U. S. government knew what
he was doing and they gave him high marks for his behavior.
2
S. If my history serves me right, the Soviets were allies of
America in 1945, in January. Why then would the Soviets
have taken Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish Diplomat, into
custody?
W. There are several explanations offered. John Bierman, in
his book called "The Righteous Gentile," which is a story
of Wallenberg's work and Lenore Lester in her book, "Wallen-
berg, The Man in the Iron Mask," have a number of theories
as to why the Russians found it necessary to take Wallen-
berg into custody. First, they had their own game plan
coming into Hungary. Their plan was not merely to over-
come the Hungarian government, but was to begin the Iron
Curtain strategy of clearing Europe, or as much of Europe
as possible, for Russian control. They had already
accomplished this in Poland. Hungary was part of the next
stage. They wanted Wallenberg out of there. Wallenberg
had ideas of helping Hungary remain independent. The
Russians didn't need any observers of foreign element to
be there while they were going to do their project.
S. So he was trouble for the Russians.
W. He represented trouble. He was perceived as trouble and
also the Russians thought whoever should be swept into the
net as, those who opposed the Russian effort, should be
removed from the scene. Apparently, Wallenberg was removed
in this way. An anecdote, in which your listeners may
be interested, Wallenberg was abducted when he went from
Budapest to a small town called Debrecen. He was going
there, he thought, to discuss ways in which the city of
Budapest could be rehabilitated and the population put back
to work. That was a rather naive and innocent assumption.
The Russians took him then into what they call "protective
custody." They took him by train through Rumania, to Moscow
where he ended up in Lubianka prison. The effort to save
the Jews was only part of Wallenberg's interest. He
had an interest beyond that to help Budapest get back on its
feet.
S. We're talking about Raoul Wallenberg. Our guest is
Morris Wolff, Professor of International Law at The
Delaware Law School of Widener University -- 674-1234
is our telephone number if you have questions about our
topic for the day. So, in 1945, Wallenberg goes out to
the small town and is taken into protective custody by the
Soviets and then is transported to Moscow in Lubianka
Prison. In 1957, twelve years later, the Russians finally
admitted he was a prisoner there. Right?
3
W. That's correct. And it's interesting to note that the
person who wrote that letter of admission was none other
than Andrei Gromyko, who now is one of the top three persons
in the Russian government. Gromyko, in his letter, said
that an investigation of the records in the prisons revealed
that a man named Wallenberg had been in custody from 1945
through 1947, then alleged in the letter that he had died of
a heart attack. Well, that was hard to believe even at that
time because Wallenberg would have been only 36 at the time
of his alleged heart attack, was in excellent health when
last seen in Hungary, and the letter was disbelieved. Pri-
soners later coming out of Soviet prisons l'ent credibility
to the fact that the letter was false, because they had
sighted Wallenberg. They had spoken to him either directly
or through the tapping system, which is installed in Russian
prisons by the prisoners themselves, where they tap on walls
or the pipes to make communication in their own language.
So, the original letter of Vischinsky in '47, saying that
Wallenberg had never been seen in Russia, and the sub-
sequent letter of Gromyko in '57 saying that he had been, in
fact, in custody but had died in custody are both rejected
by most historians as being false.
S. Why then is there interest in the man? For you it's an
attorney-client relationship as you have been requested by
the family to file the lawsuit. But for a lot of people
there are committees to Free Raoul Wallenberg Committees,
to Find Raoul Wallenberg and all this other sort of thing.
What is the motivating force for these people who are
involved with this committe type of work?
W. Well, there are two bases. First of all, I consider it an
honor to be retained by the family to represent Wallenberg,
I consider it a high honor. The family is providing the
expenses so that we can file the suit and litigate the
matter. It is the International Law aspect which is of
interest to me and also the humanitarian aspect. Number
one, I want to try to develop new International Law if we
can, that is to have a U.S. Federal Court find that the
Soviet Union is subject to our jurisdiction in this
litigation. There are two laws which help us. The Alien
Tort Statute, which is a Federal Statute in the United
States which says that anyone who violates the Law of
Nations will be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Federal Courts. The recent case, Filartiga, in which
officials in Paraguay tortured a young 16 year old boy
and killed him. Later the Chief of Police, who had
been responsible for that torture, came to New York City.
He was there arrested and the U.S. Courts took jurisdic-
tion. He came to New York City peacefully, not knowing that
he would be arrested. It is interesting to note that the
U.S. Courts have begun to expand their sense of jurisdiction
4
over these matters of violation of human rights. I want to
see the U.S. Courts expand that jurisdiction to include a
scrutiny of the kidnapping and abduction of this inter-
national diplomat. To answer the second part of your ques-
tion, other people, including myself as well, are inter-
ested in the humanitarian aspect. Here was a man, living
comfortably in Sweden, who took this courageous and humani-
tarian step to save hundreds of thousands of people whom he
never knew. History should balance the story of World War
II. That while there were stories of great evil, the evil
of Adolph Eichmann and his methodical Final Solution; the
evil of Adolph Hitler and his efforts to annihilate certain
populations. While there are these stories of terror and
evil, history needs to be balanced by these stories of
greatness and individual courage. Not enough is known about
Raoul Wallenberg. Also, I harbor the great hope that
Wallenberg is still alive. He is 71 years old today. Other
persons have been buried alive in the Gulag prison system
and have emerged, even as old as 71. If there is the
slightest chance that he is still alive, and if there are
people in your listening audience who have any information
about the case, or know about anyone who has information, I
would welcome it at my location at The Delaware Law School,
Box 7474, Wilmington Delaware, where I work as a Professor
of International Law. I want to gather information, I want
to file the law suit, I want all the help I can get and my
greatest moment would be one day bringing this man home.
S. Is there any evidence, Mr. Wolff, that Raoul Wallenberg is
alive?
W. Well, there are conflicting reports. We have reports as
recently as 1981 that he is still alive, that he is still
a prisoner in the prison system. And that's just two years
ago. And I think that if someone as evil as Rudolph Hess
can still be alive in Spandau Prison at 95, then maybe
somebody as good as Raoul Wallenberg is still alive at 71.
S. Raoul Wallenberg has been made an honorary citizen of
America, has he not?
W. Yes he is. By act of Congress and by signature of
President Reagan on October 5, 1981, Raoul Wallenberg
became a citizen of the United States. He is the only
person, other than Winston Churchill, accorded this high
honor.
W. We're talking aboaut Raoul Wallenberg. Our guest is Dela-
ware Law School Professor Morris Wolff, and we will be to
the telephones in just a moment for a message on "Speak
5
Your Piece" on WKEN, Dover.
S. We're talking with Delaware Law School Professor Morris
Wolff. We're talking about Raoul Wallenberg and let's go
to the phones. We thank you for calling and you're on the
air on WKEN.
C. I saw this program on TV once and I kind of like it what
they are doing, but I don't know how much, how far they
are going to accomplish with that, 'cause I'm from there.
W. Where are you from? Were you there duing the war?
C. Yes.
W. Do you know the factual background
....
C. I didn't at the time. I was about 13 years old
12.
W. Is the account that we know about his heroic work correct?
C. Yes. What I've read about him, yes. So that's about all I
can tell you about him. He went to Debrecen, and that's
right next to the Russian border.
W. Next to the Russian border.
C. Pretty close to the Russian border.
W. Was it a transport center from which railroads went?
C. Yes. There's another little town close by there that
Russian railroad tracks are changing sizes, you know, for
Russians are wider than ours.
W. Why do you think they bothered to take him into custody?
C. Oh, well, I haven't got any idea on that because it was
chaos. There was a hell of a chaos there and I suppose
it as just like you said, it was threat.
W. How big is it?
C. Almost half the size of Budapest.
W. Thank you for your help and if you have anything further, I
would be happy to hear from you.
C. Alright, thank you very much.
S. Thank you for calling. Bye-bye. Hi, you're on "Speak
Your Piece" on WKEN.
6
C. Hi Ben! I have a question for him. I am curious to know if
there is any difference in interpretation of law between
Russian and the United States.
W. On what particular law?
C. Well, in any aspect.
W. Well, there is a difference in their interpretation of
International Law, but most nations agree that where a dip-
lomat has been kidnapped and abducted from his initial
position, that is a clear violation of International Law.
I don't think they have ever challenged that aspect of the
law. They have just given us different stories as to
whether they have him in custody. The violation of Inter-
national Law is clearly recognized by all civilized count-
ries, and also by the Treaty of Vienna of 1961 which pro-
vides for the protection of diplomats, and also there was
a 1927 Treaty between Sweden and Russia at that time, still
in existence in 1944, in which both countries pledged the
protection of diplomats from each of their countries.
C. Sounds very interesting. Thank you.
S. Thanks for calling. Bye-bye. Before we go back to the
phones, and let me ask our callers to be just a little
bit patient. As we say, it took twelve years for the
Soviets to acknowledge that Wallenberg was still alive
back in 1957, and now efforts to. receive any official word
on his status are just ignored. What's the big deal with
the Soviets? Why will they not say one way or the other
that Wallenberg is alive or dead or in a prison or some-
where else?
W. 1 think that by this time they are deeply embarrassed
because they are aware that they have given two or three
conflicting stories and they have someone of the high
importance of Gromyko now involved in what clearly has been
a misstatement of fact. This is not a simple case where
the record is clean as to their behavior. The Russians
normally are very sensitive to Federal litigation in the
U.S. Courts. For example, recently in Chicago there was
the Frolova case in which a U.S. citizen filed an action
against the Soviet Union seeking to be rejoined by her
husband, who was a Russian National. Russians had held
him and refused rights of immigration for six months.
Three days after the law suit was filed, they freed him.
That's one of our bases of optimism, that they will be
sensitive to Federal Court litigation. They do not like
to be sued in our Federal Courts.
S. Why? I mean, what penalties can they pay?
7
W. Well, the interesting penalty which was sought in the
Frolova case was the suspension of all activity on the
Chicago Board of Trade. Had the Judge reached this issue,
the Judge would have been obliged to determine whether the
wheat deals with Russia would go through, or be enjoined.
The Russians wanted to avoid that possible confrontation.
As soon as they got word that Mrs. Frolova was suing to get
the release of her husband, they put this man on a plane and
he was in the United States within three days. Thus, ending
the case because you can't argue the case when you get the
relief that you're seeking.
S. We go back to the phones. We're talking about Raoul Wallen-
berg. Morris Wolff is our guest and you're on "Speak Your
Piece" on WKEN.
C. Yes, I don't know as much about Wallenberg as I should. Why
was he not released in the general amnesty after Stalin's
death about '56, '57 like Trepper and the others were. Did
you every bother to quiz Trepper or Bianca at the same time
as to whether he knew of Wallenberg or not?
W. What's the full name of the person you're talking about?
C. Leopold Trepper.
W. How do you spell his last name?
C. Trepper.
W. What is that again?
C. Trepper. He was the chief agent of the Red Orchestra.
W. That's an excellent lead. We are pursuing all leads
possible as to people
C. Trepper is dead. He died in Israel some years ago. He was
a Communist agent under Berezin and then, of course, because
he was under Berezin he engaged in a very interesting double
game when he was finally caught by the Gestapo. He eventu-
ally escaped and was imprisoned by the Soviets at Lubianka
and released at about '56, '57 and went to Israel, went to
went to Poland after that and then went to Israel.
W. Any books you can recommend that we can read about him?
C. Well, I looked up in the book that I have as to whether he
mentioned Wallenberg. He did, according to the Index. Let
me check the title for you one second, it's within reach.
W. Thank you.
8
S. We're talking about Raoul Wallenbeg on "Speak Your Piece"
on WKEN, and as the man checks his book
C. The book is called "The Great Game" by Leopold Trepper and
it's available at a reduction and I got this in Walden
Books. The thing that's intriguing about this was he was in
Lubianka at the same time, he met a lot of these people who
had been in prison for 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, passing
through. And he was held in Moscow and moved in the prisons
around Moscow. He was not shipped to one of the outside
camps. Why are they holding him? What's his importance? I
mean, now why?
W. That's an excellent question and I cannot give you a defini-
tive answer. We can only speculate that
C. What does he know that would embarrass them?
W. I don't think it's so much what he knows, I think it's the
fact that his release would now contradict their previous
allegations that he's dead.
C. No, that's not sufficient. The Wallenberg's are the most
prominent banking family in Sweden, that I do know.
W. That's correct.
C. One characteristic that's very interesting that was remarked
by one of the individuals who was serving with Baneash, I
forget his name, he's an officer who went into a
during the war he was cooperating with the Soviets and he
was in an intelligence category. He went to one of the
departments of the Intelligence Services where they had
pictures of all the people who had crossed them in the past
which were mounted on the wall, and a couple of them were
turned to the wall and he was interested to find his
picture, but, of course, he was working with them at the
time. They have a long memory and they have habits of doing
this. Do they have something against the Wallenbergs?
W. Well, there is an interesting background. That is, that one
member of the Wallenberg family was Ambassador to Germany
during World War II.
C. I know that. The Wallenbergs, well I won't go into all the
rest of the stuff on the air, but the point was that the
Wallenberg's, of course, were connected with the steel com-
bines and the Bolfore Works which were engaged in supplying
the Germans with iron during the war. Out of necessity, not
out of choice, the Germans had them by the throat. The
Swedes were in a very difficult position, just like the
Swiss during World War II.
9
W. I agree with that.
C. A very, very difficult position.
W. It was a complex situation, but the thing that interests me
at this point is, can you, through your reading or other
knowledge help us possibly to identify any persons. I'm not
asking you to do it on the air, possibly to call me at the
Law School, any persons who might be in the United States,
who would be willing to serve or to help us. That is people
who were former KGB Agents or officials in Russian prisons.
A jailer in a Russian prison. This would help us in terms
of the jurisdiction in our case.
C. This would be exceedingly difficult, because most ex-KGB are
given other identities in the United States. You'd have to
operate and ask the FBI about that or the CIA.
The problem is the CIA, or any one of the other cover
agencies. You might be able to get some people who were
refugees at that particular time. The book that I mention
has a number of people who were--that he mentions in the
vicinity--but most of these are very old, as I said, and he
died about five or six years ago.
W. You say the book is generally available?
C. It's an overprint that I got, as I said, locally at Walden
Books.
W. Locally, you mean where?
S. In the new Dover Mall.
W. We'll stop by there on our way home.
C. If they still have a copy of it. I don't know whether this
will give you any information about Wallenberg. He was in
Lubianka at the same time. The thing that I don't under-
stand, as I said, is why, if they released Trepper, okay,
and they released a lot of other people. They released
Hauckman, they released a number of other people, they even
released about 7,000 left-over prisoners from the Stalingrad
imprisonment. Why are they holding Wallenberg?
W. What would your theory be?
C. He knows something. There are two theories. I have two
theories about this. One of them, that he knows something
that's so exceeding sensitive about possibly, I would say,
I'll throw out a very, very long shot. He knows something
about German Nazi, no, Nazi-Soviet negotiations during the
10
War. '42, '43, in Liddell Hart's book there was a story
circulating around British Intelligence, which he accepts at
face value that Molotov meant Ribbentrop in '42 to
discuss an armistice and Stalin demanded to roll the
borders back and Hitler refused to give in. Whether he was
using the Swede for that I don't know. The other
possibility is that he knows something through his banking
family about negotiations that were going on before the war
say, '39, '40. The other possibility is that he knows
something very sensitive for someone who's still alive in
the hierarchy, conceivably in relation to a Swiss bank
or operations abroad. Another possibility is that if they
regarded him as an intelligence agent, I don't know why they
kept him alive this long and they haven't released him.
That's why I kind of leave that out. And then the third
possibility - another possibility is just they feud, that
they have something against the Wallenbergs and are using
this to punish them.
S. OK, well, we thank you very much for calling. Appreciate
it. We move on, we're talking about Raoul Wallenberg.
Delaware Law School Professor Morris Wolff is our guest
on "Speak Your Piece" and you're on the air, we thank you
for calling.
C. I knew about Raoul Wallenberg many, many years ago. Then
I came to America and I never hear nobody knew anything
about Raoul Wallenberg at this time. Then one day about
three, four years ago I have a meeting with a man who was a
help at this time. I think he is a Representative
from California, his name was Tom Lantos. I wonder
if the name says something to the gentleman who is with you.
W. Yes, it does. Congressman Lantos invited me to Washington
on August 3, and I had the privilege of testifying before
the House Foreign Affairs Committee Subcommittee on
International Organizations and Human Rights with regards
to my plans to file this law suit. Tom Lantos was a
refugee from Hungary, and was saved by Wallenberg.
Mr. Lantos and I are working together on the development
of this case.
C. I was almost sure that you must know something because I
talked to Senator Lantos very long time, and his wife I
think she initiated everything, all the interest in the
United States about Raoul Wallenberg.
W. That's correct. Annette Lantos.
W. Do you know anything from your own first-hand experience
which could help us?
11
C. No. I wouldn't think about anything that Mr. and Mrs.
Lantos doesn't know already. But I know only one thing,
that reading newspapers in different languages from time
to time I read that somebody, a prisoner from some kind of
Gulag in Siberia say that she saw Mr. Lantos and talked to
him, and the last time I was in Israel and I read that in
the Israeli paper that a Soviet Jew who came to Israel, he
saw I would say that that was in '81 or '82 maybe, I don't
remember when it was, but it was three years ago or one
year ago.
W. Yes, '81. You're quite right. There was someone who was
out of a Russian prison temporarily, who wrote to his
daughter in Israel saying that he had met Wallenberg while
in prison. This is why we continue to be optimistic about
the chances that he may still be alive.
C. Yes. I read in different papers from time to time that
there is hope that he is still alive, because he was a big
hero.
W. Were you from Hungary?
C. No. I am from Poland.
W. From Poland. I thank you very much for your help and, of
course, your mention of Congressman Lantos is quite accu-
rate. Were it not for Tom Lantos and Annette Lantos, his
wife, I probably would never have learned about this and
we need to develop the educational importance of this case.
C.
nobody knew before. I asked the people, you know, I
am quite active in different organizations. Nobody ever
hear, then Mr. Lantos you know ask the audience if some-
body who hear about Raoul Wallenberg. I knew about Raoul
Wallenberg and his aristocratic family very much.
S. We thank you very much for calling. Bye-bye. Professor
Wolff, what have the United States governments and the
Swedish governments done to find out about Raoul Wallen-
berg and to secure his freedom?
W. The effort to get citizenship, the effort that Congress-
man Lantos initiated very soon after he became a member of
Congress, led to the interest of the Congress in the case.
As I mentioned to the caller, the grant of citizenship was
made on October 5, 1981. At that time, President Reagan,
in very eloquent fashion said, "We will work for the day
when Raoul Wallenberg will have a chance to sit and enjoy
the shade of the tree planted on his behalf in the Avenue
of the Righteous Gentiles in Israel." Let me take a moment
to tell you about that. In Israel, there is a special
section, as you may know, set aside for those who did
12
humanitarian and heroic work on behalf of the Jews in World
War II. Those people lent their effort to save Jewish
lives. Wallenberg has a tree planted there, a living tree,
of course. It's not a living memorial, it's a symbol that
he lives just as the tree lives. And that one day, hope-
fully he will have this option to travel to Israel, or to
travel to his new nation of citizenship, the United States,
and enjoy the rights and privileges of the United States.
Now, to directly answer your question, as to what the U. S.
government has done and the Swedish government has done.
I would have thought that a good lawyer, long before this
time, on behalf of the Swedish government would have filed
a law suit for the release of Wallenberg on the basis of
nationality. It's the injury directly to Sweden that is
most felt. I will use the same nationality theory, that
he is now a citizen of the United States, as part of my law
suit, but there was a time when the Swedish government had
trapped a Soviet sub and they could have sought the swap of
the sub for Wallenberg and regretably they did not. So
that perhaps it can be said that the Swedish government has
not done as much as it might have done.
S. Why do you think that's the case?
W. Well, they're very close to Russia. The proximity of Sweden
to Russia, the fact that Sweden doesn't have the military
protection that we would have, the problem that even Finland
has in its close proximity to Russia. So I am sympathetic
with the foreign policy aspects of their problem. Nonethe-
less, they put this son of Sweden, now son of the United
States into the fray of the saving of lives in Budapest and
I would have thought they would have done more. The U. S.
government can do more also. The U. S. government can come
in and file an Amicus Curiae Brief, that means a friend of
the court. When I file my brief in Federal Court and say
that they stand a full 100% behind this effort to secure his
release. The U.S. government is directly responsible
for Wallenberg's trip to Hungary. The U. S. or War
Refugee Board put up the money and instigated the
trip. They went to the Swedish government and said, "find
for us a good human being to do this work." Had the U. S.
government not acted, Wallenberg would be alive and at home
living as a Swedish citizen today. I think the U.S.
government has a deep moral and legal obligation to lend its
full support. The U.S. government can do a lot more
than the Swedish government. The U.S. is a major
power. This was part of their own war strategy. It is
unfinished business of the U.S. government to go and to help
secure the release of this diplomat.
S. We will be back with some concluding thoughts about Raoul
Wallenberg on "Speak Your Piece" in just a moment.
13
Let's go back to the law suit, Professor Wolff. What is it
exactly, without going into too much legal mumbo jumbo, that
you all are filing suit and what are you hoping to do and
what's the process.
W. One of the reasons to file suit is to determine whether a
Federal Court will hold a sovereign nation accountable for
criminal behavior. Up until this time under International
Law, only human individuals could be brought into court and
charged with violations of International Law on a criminal
basis. We are seeking to extend the international criminal
jurisdiction of the U.S. courts in this matter. We are
alleging that the Soviet Union is directly involved in the
abduction and kidnapping and the confinement of Wallenberg
and consequently should be brought to the bar of justice.
S: And the remedy you seek is Raoul Wallenberg's freedom,
obviously.
W. We want two things. We want a full accounting of each and
every day of his life in custody. Whether he was ever given
any drugs, like amminozine to alter his mind. Whether he
was given dental care, medical care, why he was moved from
prison to prison. The family is entitled to this informa-
tion. The writing of history is entitled to know just what
happened to this hero from the date of his abduction either
until the date of his freedom, which we hope to accomplish
or until the date of a verifiable death. The Russians keep
very careful records. When they want to be honest with us
on this point, they can tell us in exhaustive fashion just
what happened. Secondly, we want to receive monetary
damages. The family is not interested in the money, but we
want to use that money to set up a Wallenberg Foundation to
give scholarships to worthy people who engage in projects
which demonstrate humanitarian concern.
S. Almost anybody can file suit in Federal Court. What are
your chances of success?
W. We are carefully preparing the case with regard to
every basis of Federal Statutory Law, International Treaty
Law and basic customary International Law possible. People
of goodwill, with discretion, such as Federal Judges can
read the facts and read the law in the manner most favorable
to a just, fair and decent outcome. We have a very tough
case, but we are very hopeful that it will come out success-
fully. It's tough because we have jurisdictional problems
of getting the U.S. court to accept jurisdiction. I am
hopeful that the Federal Courts will look with favor on our
plea.
S. Suppose the Soviet Union chooses not to respond to the
briefs or to the papers or anything. What impact will that
14
have on the case?
W. Well, there is a very good chance they will not respond as
we see even during this week with the Korean Airline inci-
dent. Their tendency has been to ignore claims for compen-
sation, but then the possibility exists that if we estab-
lish jurisdiction that the court may enter a default
judgement against the Soviet Union which would be a success
success. If they don't show up on the day of the game and
we win, it is still our victory.
S. There are international tribunals. Are you going through
any of those to seek Wallenberg's release?
W. We would like to go to the International Court of Justice
at the Hague, but regretably under International Law we can
only do that if the Soviet government agrees to the juris-
diction of the International Court. We would also like to
go to the International Court for Human Rights at Stras-
bourg in France, but again we have jurisdictional problems.
Our best shot is the U.S. Federal Courts. Otherwise we
wouldn't be going there.
S. Professor Wolff, you are working for the Wallenberg family.
You are also working with a number of the Wallenberg commit-
tees in America. Is there anything. that our listeners can
do? Can they join these Committees, or learn more about the
cause, and if so, how can they do that?
W. Yes, we have an active Wallenberg Committee here in the
Philadelphia, Wilmington and Dover area. It is called the
Wallenberg Committee of Greater Philadelphia. The Chair-
person is Leona Feldman. She is the President at 251 South
18th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Her phone number is
215 area code, and then the number, 472-0989. In Phila-
delphia, on September 27th, in Room 202 at City Hall there
will be a reception and a ceremony held by the Mayor of
Philadelphia to honor Raoul Wallenberg. This is the second
anniversary of the grant of citizenship by the United
States. Technically, the grant of citizenship day is
October 5th, but we are going to celebrate on September 27,
1983. The event is open to the public. There is no charge.
This year's annual observance celebrates the second anniver-
sary of the conferral of honorary U.S. citizenship on
diplomat Raoul Wallenberg.
S. I suppose if our listeners have information for you or per-
haps want more information, they can contact you at the
Delaware Law School at Widener University in Wilmington.
W. That's correct. I would deeply appreciate any information
in writing that could be supplied that would lead to infor-
15
mation about this case. We are still in the process of
writing the history of the case. Any Hungarian citizens who
have come to the United States or any other persons can
write to me at the Law School, or call me, I would welcome
your call.
S. We are out of time. Professor Morris Wolff from The
Delaware Law School, thanks for being with us. An inter-
esting program. Maybe we have spread the word a little bit
about Raoul Wallenberg.
W. Thank you for inviting me. I've enjoyed my visit.
S. Good. We're glad to have had you here.
16
ID # 188754 CU
WHITE HOUSE
C0165
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
O OUTGOING
HP previousley OR handled
H INTERNAL
1 INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent: Morris H. wolff
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: letter to President requesting release 3
Raoul Wallenbery prom Seviet Inion
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CUHOLL
ORIGINATOR 83,11,23
/
/
Referral Note:
WAT 18
D 383,11,22
583,12,03
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A . Appropriate Action
I - Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C Comment/Recommendation
R Direct Reply w/Copy
B * Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S For Signature
F - Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
UPD
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code
=
"A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments: nov 18 83 Faith Whittlesey memo
to Fred Frelding attached
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 18, 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED FIELDING
FROM:
FAITH RYAN WHITTLESEY FRW
I have received the attached correspondence, concerning
Raoul Wallenberg, from Morris H. Wolff, Professor of
Law at the Delaware Law School. To whom should this
matter be referred?
UNIVERSITY STATE FORGOLA
THE DELAWARE LAW SCHOOL
WIDENER UNIVERSITY
P O. BOX 7474 CONCORD PIKE
WILMINGTON DELAWARE 19803
(302) 478-5280
November 7, 1983
NOV 9 1983
Faith Whittlesey
Special Assistant
to the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20004
Dear Faith:
Can you help me in bringing this matter to the attention of
the President?
Very truly yours,
MORRO
Morris H. Wolff
Professor of Law
crh/492x
DELAWARE
SCHOOL
EXPIRATE
PARAITY
THE DELAWARE LAW SCHOOL
WIDENER UNIVERSITY
P.O. BOX 7474 CONCORD PIKE
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19803
(302) 478-5280
November 7, 1983
President Ronald Reagan
188754
Ca
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20004
Dear Mr. President:
On October 5, 1981, you took the iniative to sign a law
granting honorary citizenship to Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish
diplomat whose heroic and humanitarian efforts in Budapest,
Hungary during World War II were responsible for the rescue and
protection from death of approximately 100, 000 Hungarian Jews.
At the time of the signing, at a ceremony at the White House, you
expressed your hopes and prayer that this new law would help in
the effort to achieve the release of Raoul Wallenberg, You
further expressed the hope that someday diplomat Wallenberg would
have the opportunity to leave the Soviet Union and sit "under the
shade of the tree planted in his honor at Yad Vashem in Israel."
Your signing the law followed the joint action of the House of
Representatives and the Senate in voting to approve a resolution
granting citizenship to Wallenberg.
Many people throughout the United States and the world share
the deep interest which you have in achieving freedom from Soviet
imprisonment for this great hero. It would appear to be a good
time now for new action to be taken. Under Title 22, United
States Code 1732, the President has the power to take action to
secure the release of "any citizen of the United States" who "has
been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority
of any foreign government. The statute states that:
"It shall be the duty of the President forthwith to
demand of that government the reasons of such imprison-
ment; and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation
of the rights of American citizenship, the President
shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and
if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or
refused, the President shall use such means, not
amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and
proper to obtain of effectuate the release."
President Reagan
November 7, 1983
Page Two
This law gives you the power to seek the release of
Wallenberg. Wallenberg today enjoys dual nationality (Sweden
and United States). The law makes no distinction between
honorary and other citizens, and absent this distinction it
would apply to the needs and rights of Raoul Wallenberg.
I would like to have an opportunity to discuss with you or
a member of your staff, in advance, the actions which you might
take to implement this law on behalf of Raoul Wallenberg. His
family has retained me as their legal counsel to take
appropriate steps to help to achieve their brother's release.
I was pleased to discover this law as part of your presidential
powers. Will you please let me know when I might visit with
you to discuss the steps which could be taken to accomplish
this goal.
Interested people throughout the United States and the
world will welcome any intiative you might take under this law
to obtain our shared objective.
I am enclosing a transcript of a recent radio interview, in
which I discuss my representation of Raoul Wallenberg and steps
which might be taken to secure his release. Nothing at this
point in time could be better than to have your strong and
explicit support.
Very truly yours,
mornis wolf
Morris H. Wolff
Professor of Law
crh/474x
Enclosure