August 14, 2014
To the Editor - Polish American Studies
Although one can appreciate an additional article about Reverend Stanislaus Orlemanski, as he has been a seriously understudied individual, and certainly the transcript of the Soviet report is interesting, I find it necessary to correct several misconceptions that have been presented by Mr. Markiewicz in his recent article. I will attempt to present my remarks by following the layout of the article, with one exception.
In almost every article that has appeared, Oskar Lange is presented as the intellectual, the professor, the economist, while Reverend Orlemanski is a quasi-country bumpkin, and Mr. Markiewicz falls into this same trap. This was not the case.
On Page 61, Mr. Markiewicz refers solely to the possible plans for including Oskar Lange in the post-war Polish government, although later he does make passing reference to both Oskar Lange and Stanislaus Orlemanski. This then is the crux of the issue, as it was not solely Lange who was expected to take a role in the post-war government, and the trip to Moscow was predicated on Orlemanski joining him in that plan, which is documented in correspondence sent to the Papal Nuncio in Washington, confirming the expectation concerning Reverend Orlemanski.
On Page 56, there is presented a photograph of Stanislaus Orlemanski and it is described as follows:
military passes for the Alaska Defense Force and Western Defense Command... a passport from the State Department empowering him to travel to the Soviet Union by way of Egypt, Iraq and Iran. He also had visas for the three countries.” No one could have received those other visas, or orders to fly on US Air Force equipment without government permission. This aid significantly exceeded the well-known correspondence between Stalin and FDR on the subject of passports for the two travelers.
It is relevant to note that it was the Soviet News Agency (TASS) that betrayed Stalin’s (implied) promise that the Lange and Orlemanski trip would be kept secret, yet it was primarily Orlemanski’s presence which was immediately broadcast, forcing Roosevelt to explain the situation, although only discussing Orlemanski – it was as though Lange did not exist.
As for the Soviet report on the meeting which Mr. Markiewicz presents – it is clearly either a compilation of the two meetings which occurred or a summary of them (which appears implausible since Professor Miner quotes a report on the earlier meeting in his book), and which are described not only in several aide de memoire’s, but also in State Dept. reports – and that it was only after the first meeting, when Rev. Orlemanski reported that Stalin had promised the moon and the stars (my terminology) that one of the Moscow Westerners asked why he did not have anything in writing. The ‘promissory note’ which is frequently referred to appeared as a result of that second meeting. To reiterate – the document that Mr. Markiewicz presents in his article clearly refers to this being a second meeting (vide P. 64) “He [Orlemański (sic)] said last time that something needs to be done in order to split the Polish Catholics in America.” (Emphasis mine – K.P.)
It is therefore misleading for the general reader or university undergraduate to be told that
This article presents two previously unknown Soviet archival documents. The first deals with the visit of Fr. Stanislaw Orlemanski, a pro-Soviet Polish-American Catholic priest to Moscow and his meeting with Stalin.
As the first two sentences of this article read. These sentences lead one to believe that nothing from the Soviet archives has ever been printed on these matters, and at the least, a reference to Professor Miner’s book would have been appropriate. Additionally Dr. Noskowa writes about this material in her work published in 2005, so there are at least two sources that precede Mr. Markiewicz's paper, and should have been referred to.
 Stanislaus Orlemanski used the English form of both his Christian name and surname, particularly in English language materials, and so I will refer to him in that fashion. It is not apparent if this was a typo, but at certain points, Rev. Orlemanski’s name appears with a diacritical over the n, while the Reverend never used that form in any English language materials (vide p. 54).
 I first began researching Rev. Orlemanski as a result of my work on the English-speaking witnesses to Katyn, and specifically the role of Father Marie Leopold Braun, AA, who was pastor of St. Louis des Français in Moscow. This work has been conducted at the National Archives at College Park, at the Manuscript Division of Columbia University, the Augustinians General House Archives in Rome as well as their Provincial House, at least five other archives in other countries and also include the ‘general suspects’ i.e. FRUC etc. When I first began researching this issue it also related to the issue of the Military Ordinariate attached to the First Polish Army (i.e. Armia Berlinga).
 In this case I will use the Polish spelling, as does Professor Anna Cienciala, since Lange did renounce his US citizenship and was a Polish Ambassador.
To be precise – the description reads Abitutyenci Gimn. Sem. Pols. z roku 1910 w Orchard Lake, Mich., Zjazd Kolezenski odbedzie sie dnia 19go czerwca 1918 roku, referring to students not graduates nor priests.
 Interestingly, although this author’s research has not concentrated on Lange, various articles and reports have been reviewed. It is clear that Lange’s visit did not hold as much attraction as the visit of Orlemanski, as neither TASS nor the English language press seems to have accorded it a similar level of attention.
 vide Miner, Steven M. Stalin’s Holy War. University of North Carolina Press, 2003