Memorandum by Hugh McCann
'Hungarian Refugees'
(Copy)

The following are the salient features of the Hungarian refugee problem as they appeared to me during my recent visit to Vienna – 24th November to 4th December.

1. The extent of the problem may be judged from the fact that the influx of refugees into Austria varied between 2,000 and 10,000 per day and that, between the 28th October and the 4th December, over 110,000 had arrived. Apart from the magnitude of the task of feeding and housing such a large number of homeless people, Austria was concerned at the inherent political dangers for her neutrality of having such a large number of Hungarians near her frontier – notwithstanding the firm assurances that the Soviet Union would respect the Austrian frontier given (unasked for) by Shepilov¹ to the Austrians in New York.
2. The vast majority of the refugees consisted of able-bodied young men fleeing from Hungary in fear of deportation to the Soviet Union. There were extremely few unaccompanied children – one would not expect to find children making their way unaided to and across the frontier. Such children as came over were with either their parents or other relatives. As would be expected, the parents of the young children were also mainly able-bodied persons.
3. Once safe in Austria, a large proportion of the refugees preferred to remain in Austria, close to the frontier, either to have the possibility of returning to Hungary should the situation develop favourably or to await news of relatives. Others were anxious to emigrate permanently to Canada, the United States or Australia.
4. Conditions in the Reception Camps varied – some had remained unoccupied since the Russians left them over a year ago, others were newly constructed military barracks. All were overcrowded, some having as many as 4,000 refugees with over 100 sleeping in a single room. Many national groups were operating in the various camps without any very coherent over-all plan.
5. With regard to the Irish programme, a trainload of 162 persons (including 60 odd which it had been agreed might be accepted unscreened) had left for Ireland before my arrival. All subsequent refugees accepted were confined to the categories, children or families comprising children with their parents and in some cases grandparents. Before acceptance, refugees were screened as to category and general suitability, identity, health and security, with the help at times of a doctor, an interpreter and typists provided by ICEM. The difficulties encountered were as follows:-
   1. there were scarcely any unaccompanied children;
   2. families with children were not too numerous and then it was necessary to find families who wanted to go to Ireland;
   3. the latter could be found only by going from camp to camp down near the border;
   4. in some cases, families would come to Ireland only if other lateral relatives would be accepted too – this was ruled out in our case;
   5. others wanted a firm assurance that they would be given permission to work – we had no decision on this point;
   6. telephone communication to and from the camps was almost impossible as the limited facilities available were grossly overloaded – it was quicker to travel thirty to forty kilometres by road;
   7. having found and registered suitable refugees, we faced the problem that unless they were transported away within twenty-four hours there was every chance of losing them again either owing to a change of mind on their part or to some other national group coming along with earlier available transport. When the airlift to Ireland was organised we always worried lest we would not have both the planes and the refugees at the same time. In the event, we solved the problem by persuading the Ministry of the Interior to give us a room in a large transit camp at Kaisersteinbruck which we filled as a holding centre with an adequate reserve while awaiting the arrival of aircraft in Vienna.

   At the time of my departure the operation was going reasonably smoothly, thanks to the tireless co-operation of all concerned under most difficult circumstances – people had been working seventeen hours a day, Sundays included.

   The number of refugees already in Ireland, added to the regular carrying capacity of the planes booked up to and including the 8th December, amounted to 517.

6. Should it be desired at a later stage to complete our quota of 1,000 there is the possibility of Caritas (the Catholic charitable organisation) finding suitable families for us from among the refugees under their care. I should mention that the Director of Caritas, Monsignor Ungar,² has been critical of the Austrian Government because of the speed at which the refugees are being shipped out of Austria – before they have had time to consider their future or to attempt to trace their missing relatives. He maintains that if the necessary funds were forthcoming the refugees could be kept for a few weeks in the various small guesthouses throughout Austria which are vacant at this time of the year.
7. I understand that in approved individual cases ICEM will pay the cost of shipping refugees back to Hungary or to a third country willing to accept them. In this connection, the Canadian Ambassador in Berne has assured me that his Government has decided that the chances of a Hungarian refugee emigrating to Canada will be in no way prejudiced if such a refugee goes in the first instance to an intermediary country of first asylum.
8. Finally, I should report that the Austrian Government have expressed to me their gratitude at the efforts being made by Ireland to help them in their difficulties with the refugee problem and all the more so because we are helping in the face of our own economic problems at home.