Notes:
Note 1: Welles sought to utilize this leverage to pressure the British over colonial matters and the question of trade. Walter LaFeber has argued that, "an examination of British and American records can lead to the speculation that the diplomats of each nation, with their eyes on postwar advantages, devoted more time to maneuvering against one another than to fighting the Japanese." See Walter LaFeber, "Roosevelt, Churchill, and Indochina," American Historical Review 80:5 (December 1975): 1280. Back.
Note 2: Welles, an admirer of Adams, had the former secretary of state's portrait hung in a place of honor in his State Department office. Back.
Note 3: According to two Indian scholars, an examination of Welles's role "during and after 1942 indicates a possibility that even in 1941 he might have had a clearer perception than the President of the larger issues brought to the fore by the war." See M. S. Venkataramani and B. K. Shrivastava, Quit India: The American Response to the 1942 Struggle (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1979), 18. Back.
Note 4: Sumner Welles, "The Realization of a Great Vision," Address at the Arlington National Amphitheater, May 30, 1942, speech files, box 195, folder 5, Welles papers, FDRL; Welles, "Commencement Exercises of the North Carolina College for Negroes," May 31, 1943, speech files, box 195, folder 5, Welles papers, FDRL. Back.
Note 5: Welles to Roosevelt, May 22, 1942, and the attached Walter White to Roosevelt, May 4, 1942, box 151, folder 14, Welles papers, FDRL. The role of African Americans in U.S. policy toward colonialism has been the subject of renewed interest, most notably Penny M. Von Eschen's Race Against Empire: Black Americans and Anticolonialism, 1937-1957 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997). Back.
Note 6: Welles to Roosevelt, May 22, 1942, and the attached Walter White to Roosevelt, May 4, 1942, box 151, folder 14, Welles papers, FDRL; Welles, "Address Before the Foreign Policy Association of New York," October 16, 1943, speech files, box 196, folder 4, Welles papers, FDRL. Back.
Note 7: Welles, "The Realization of a Great Vision," Address at the Arlington National Amphitheater, May 30, 1942, speech files, box 195, folder 5, Welles papers, FDRL; New York Times, May 31, 1942; Welles, "Commencement Exercises of the North Carolina College for Negroes," May 31, 1943, speech files, box 195, folder 5, Welles papers, FDRL. Back.
Note 8: Sumner Welles, The Time For Decision (New York: Harper, 1944), 297-298. Back.
Note 9: The anti-colonial sentiment of the Fourteen Points and the Atlantic Charter notwithstanding, the United States had also entered the race for empire at the end of the nineteenth century, and had intervened militarily in several Latin American countries. Back.
Note 10: Welles once wrote that he believed that U.S. interference in the affairs of other nations in the hemisphere amounted to mere "friendly advice" and that "thinking" Latin Americans would welcome Washington's interference in their affairs. See, for example, Sumner Welles, "Is America Imperialistic?" Atlantic Monthly, September 1924; as well as Welles, "Joint Action in the Americas," address to the opening session of the Meeting of Foreign Ministers at Rio de Janeiro, February 16, 1942, speech files, box 195, folder 4, Welles papers, FDRL; and Sumner Welles, "A New Era in Pan-American Relations," Foreign Affairs, April 1937. Back.
Note 11: Sumner Welles, "Wilson and the Atlantic Charter," November 11, 1941, speech files, box 195, folder 2, Welles papers, FDRL; Welles, "The Realization of a Great Vision," Address at the Arlington National Amphitheater, May 30, 1942, speech files, box 195, folder 5, Welles papers, FDRL; "The Atlantic Charter and National Independence," November 13, 1942, box 13, Notter files, National Archives. Back.
Note 12: Robert Dallek, The American Style of Foreign Policy: Cultural Politics and Foreign Affairs (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 126-127; Wm. Roger Louis, Imperialism at Bay: The United States and the Decolonization of the British Empire, 1941-1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 198. In a 1942 "Open letter to the people of England," Henry Luce's Life magazine added: "One thing we are sure we are not fighting for is to hold the British Empire together. We don't like to put the matter so bluntly, but we don't want you to have any illusions. If your strategists are planning a war to hold the British Empire together they will sooner or later find themselves strategizing all alone.... In the light of what you are doing in India, how do you expect us to talk about 'principles' and look our soldiers in the eye." Life, October 12, 1942. Back.
Note 13: Tony Smith, America's Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 125; Anthony Eden, The Eden Memoirs: The Reckoning (London: Cassell, 1965), 513. Back.
Note 14: David Reynolds, Britannia Overruled: British Policy and World Power in the 20th Century (New York: Longman, 1991), 149-150. Back.
Note 15: P document 240, "Official Statements and Views Pertaining to the Administration of Dependent Areas After the War," July 12, 1943, box 57 [all planning documents and planning minutes are from the Notter files, National Archives, Record Group 59, unless otherwise noted]; Hamilton and Hornbeck to Welles, April 14, 1942, FRUS, vol. I, 902-903; Welles to Roosevelt, April 17, 1942, FRUS, vol. I, 903-904; Sumner Welles, The Time For Decision (New York: Harper, 1944), 298-299. Back.
Note 16: This despite the fact that Welles was initially reluctant to tell British officials what course they should pursue with regard to India. His impatience with British policy in India steadily increased after the United States entered the war, when many British actions might thus be interpreted as having Washington's tacit approval. For an account of Welles's earlier hesitation to pressure the British, see, for example, Gary R. Hess, America Encounters India, 1941-1947 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971), 25-31, 45, 181. Back.
Note 17: Welles and other U.S. officials had already pressured the British to allow India to sign the Declaration of the United Nations as a separate entity. Welles to Roosevelt, April 13, 1942, FRUS, vol. I, 1942, 870-872; Welles to Roosevelt, April 17, 1942, FRUS, vol. I, 1942, 903-904; P document 64, "India," August 27, 1942, box 56. Back.
Note 18: For Roosevelt's views on colonialism see, for example, Warren F. Kimball and Fred E. Pollock, "'In Search of Monsters to Destroy': Roosevelt and Colonialism," in Kimball's The Juggler: Franklin Roosevelt as Wartime Statesman (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), 127-157; as well as John J. Sbrega, "The Anticolonial Policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt: A Reappraisal," Political Science Quarterly 101:1 (Spring 1986): 65-84. Back.
Note 19: CAB 66/22 WP(42)118 "India," March 11, 1942, PRO; Roosevelt to Churchill, March 10, 1942, FRUS, vol. I, 1942, 615-616. Back.
Note 20: For the motives behind Johnson's mission, see, for example, Kenton J. Clymer, "Franklin D. Roosevelt, Louis Johnson, India, and Anticolonialism: Another Look," Pacific Historical Review 57:3 (August 1988): 261-284. Johnson's mission is also discussed in Venkataramani and Shrivastava, Quit India, 96-136; Christopher Thorne, Allies of a Kind: The United States, Britain, and the War Against Japan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), 236-246; and Warren Kimball, The Juggler, 134-136. Back.
Note 21: P document 64, "India," August 27, 1942, box 56; P document 218, "Agenda for the meeting of April 3, 1943: India," box 193, Postwar Foreign Policy Files, folder 9, Welles papers, FDRL. Back.
Note 22: John Kent, British Imperial Strategy and the Origins of the Cold War, 1944-1949 (London: Leicester University Press, 1993), 5. Back.
Note 23: Welles to Roosevelt, April 13, 1942, FRUS, vol. I, 1942, 870-872. Back.
Note 24: Welles to Roosevelt, April 17, 1942, FRUS, vol. I, 1942, 903-904. Back.
Note 25: Sumner Welles, "The Realization of a Great Vision," Address at the Arlington National Amphitheater, May 30, 1942, speech files, box 195, box 5, Welles papers, FDRL. Back.
Note 26: New York Times, May 31, 1942. Back.
Note 27: Sherwood to Welles, June 25, 1942, box 83, folder 11, Welles papers, FDRL; Robert Aura Smith, New Delhi, to Sherwood, Washington, cable #145-149, no date, box 83, folder 11, Welles papers, FDRL. Back.
Note 28: Harley Notter, Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation (Washington: Department of State, 1950), 109; Cordell Hull, The Memoirs of Cordell Hull, vol. II, (New York: Macmillan, 1948), 1228, 1230, 1484-1485; Louis, Imperialism at Bay, 175-77. Back.
Note 29: Welles to Roosevelt, July 29, 1942, FRUS, vol. I, 1942, 699-700. Back.
Note 30: Roosevelt to Churchill, July 29, 1942, FRUS, vol. I, 1942, 700. Back.
Note 31: When the Maharajah Holkar, of the once powerful Holkar dynasty of Indore, wrote to Roosevelt endorsing U.S. and Chinese intervention in the current impasse, British authorities intercepted the letter. When Welles raised the matter in a subsequent conversation with Sir Ronald Campbell, the British Minister in Washington, the British diplomat described the Maharajah as a "psychopathic case" to whom no attention should be paid. Memorandum of conversation by Welles, June 1, 1942, FRUS, vol. I, 1942, 666-667. Back.
Note 32: Memorandum of conversation between Welles and Campbell, "Situation in India," August 18, 1942, box 164, folder 4, Welles papers, FDRL. Back.
Note 33: P minutes 21, August 8, 1942. Back.
Note 34: See Venkataramani and Shrivastava, Quit India, 249-258. Back.
Note 35: "This war can be lost in India," the American journalist and social reformer Oswald Garrison Villard wrote in a letter to the New York Times. "From the very beginning of the war in Asia it has been the greater danger that this struggle would degenerate into a war of the colored races against the white."The noted British biologist and writer, Julian Huxley, added: "The world's conscience is beginning to grow a little uneasy over the fact of one country possessing another country as a colony, just as it grew uneasy a century or so ago over the fact of one human being possessing another as a slave." See "Summary of Opinion and Ideas on International Postwar Problems," September 9, 1942, Division of Special Research, box 190, Postwar Foreign Policy Files, folder 1, Welles papers, FDRL. Back.
Note 36: New York Times, August 13, 1942; CAB 65/27(42)109 August 10, 1942, PRO; CAB 65/27(42)113 August 17, 1942, PRO; P document 113, "British Views with Respect to Colonies and Dependent Areas," October 2, 1942, box 56; P document 154, "The British Empire: Empire Institutions," December 9, 1942, box 57; Louis, Imperialism at Bay, 8; P minutes 21, August 8, 1942. Back.
Note 37: P minutes 21, August 8, 1942; P minutes 22, August 15, 1942; P minutes 51, April 10, 1943, box 55. Back.
Note 38: While Washington had some awareness of the scope of Hindu nationalism, much less was known about Muslim nationalism in India. See Betty Miller Unterberger, "American Views of Mohammed Ali Jinnah and the Pakistan Liberation Movement," Diplomatic History 5:4 (Fall 1981): 313-336. Back.
Note 39: See Betty Miller Unterberger, "American Views of Mohammed Ali Jinnah and the Pakistan Liberation Movement," Diplomatic History 5:4 (Fall 1981): 313-336; P minutes 37, December 12, 1942. Welles never believed the Muslim population of the subcontinent would be able to build an economically and politically viable state. See Sumner Welles, Where Are We Heading? (New York, Harper, 1946), 325-327. Back.
Note 40: Welles to Mrs. William Phillips, November 3, 1942, box 82, folder 9, Welles papers, FDRL. Back.
Note 41: For an account arguing that Phillips was not as ignorant of Indian affairs as Welles assumed, see Kenton J. Clymer, "The Education of William Phillips: Self-Determination and American Policy Toward India, 1942-1945," Diplomatic History 8:1 (Winter 1984): 17, 19. Nevertheless, Clymer writes that, "someone less likely than William Phillips to sympathize with the Indian nationalist leaders, much less with the masses, could scarcely be imagined. " Back.
Note 42: Welles to Hull, November 7, 1942, box 82, folder 9, Welles papers, FDRL. Back.
Note 43: Phillips to Welles, December 10, 1942, box 82, folder 9, Welles papers, FDRL. Back.
Note 44: Kenton Clymer, "The Education of William Phillips," 21-35. Back.
Note 45: P minutes 37, December 12, 1942, box 55. Back.
Note 46: P minutes 37, December 12, 1942, box 55. Back.
Note 47: P document 218, "Agenda for the meeting of April 3, 1943: India," box 193, folder 9, Welles papers, FDRL. Back.
Note 48: See, for example, the account by Lloyd C. Gardner, "The Atlantic Charter: Idea and Reality, 1942-1945," in The Atlantic Charter, ed. Brinkley and Facey-Crowther (London: Macmillan, 1994), 61-62. A year after Welles's departure from the State Department he allegedly leaked to Drew Pearson classified materials charging that the administration was missing a valuable opportunity to lead the forces of nationalism in Asia. Pearson's column touched off a storm of protest from British officials sensitive to the public revelation that U.S. officials had recommended postwar independence for India and the establishment of an interim coalition government in wartime. See Drew Pearson, "Confessions of an S.O.B.," Saturday Evening Post, November 3, 1956; as well as Roosevelt to Caroline Phillips, August 30, 1944, PSF, Roosevelt Papers, FDRL. Welles also criticized British handling of the Indian question in his books. See Time For Decision, 301-302; Where Are We Heading?, 324-328. Back.
Note 49: P minutes 21, August 8, 1942, box 55. Back.
Note 50: P minutes 4, March 28, 1942; Welles, Where Are We Heading?, 287; P minutes 38, December 19, 1942; Welles to Leger, November 26, 1943, with enclosure by Welles, "Our Obligation to the People of France," box 89, folder 9, Welles papers, FDRL; P document 158, "Policies Affecting the Postwar Position of France," December 18, 1942, box 57; P document 158a, "Official Statements and Views Affecting the Future Status of France and the French Empire," January 29, 1944, box 57. Back.
Note 51: For U.S. views of Indochina's postwar importance in the 1942-43 period, see, for example, P minutes 4, March 28, 1942; P document 33, "French Indochina," August 4, 1942, box 56; E document 77 and T document 283, "Preliminary Draft: the Economic Relations of Indo-China," March 23, 1943, box 63. Back.
Note 52: P minutes 21, August 8, 1942; P document 33, "French Indochina," August 4, 1942, box 56; P document 158a, "Official Statements and Views Affecting the Future Status of France and the French Empire," January 29, 1944, box 57. Back.
Note 53: P minutes 21, August 8, 1942; E document 77 and T document 283, "Preliminary Draft: the Economic Relations of Indo-China," March 23, 1943, box 63, Notter Files, National Archives. Back.
Note 54: P minutes 21, August 8, 1942. Back.
Note 55: P minutes 21, August 8, 1942. In early 1944, Roosevelt would tell Halifax that the Dutch empire "had done a good job but the French were hopeless." See Walter LaFeber, "Roosevelt, Churchill, and Indochina," American Historical Review 80:5 (December 1975): 1285. Back.
Note 56: Millions of Indonesians, however, disagreed with the State Department's rosy views of the Dutch colonial masters, and Sukarno's nationalist anti-colonial movement had broad public support. 250,000 Indonesians voluntarily worked for the Japanese war effort, and the ferocity with which much of the population opposed the return of the Dutch authorities at the end of the war demonstrated the depth of their loathing for continued European rule. During the Indonesian war for independence (1945-1949) that followed the war, Van Kleffens vigorously opposed United Nations attempts to mediate between the Dutch and the Indonesian nationalists. See, for example, Robert J. McMahon, "Anglo-American Diplomacy and the Reoccupation of the Netherlands East Indies," Diplomatic History 2:1 (Winter 1978): 1-23. Back.
Note 57: Minutes of the Advisory Committee, February 12, 1942, box 54, Notter files; P document 42, "Netherlands East Indies," August 14, 1942, box 56; P minutes 21, August 8, 1942; P minutes 22, August 15, 1942. Back.
Note 58: P minutes 21, August 8, 1942; P document 43, "Indonesian or Malaysian Federation," August 11, 1942, box 56; P document 37, "British Borneo," August 14, 1942, box 56; P document 106, "Netherlands Indies, Now Under Japanese Occupation," September 18, 1942, box 56. Back.
Note 59: P minutes 21, August 8, 1942; P document 40, "Macao," August 14, 1942, box 56; P document 41, "Portuguese Timor," August 14, 1942, box 56. Back.
Note 60: P minutes 21, August 8, 1942; P document 35, "British Malaya," August 14, 1942, box 56; T document 375, "The Problem of British Malaya: Possible Solutions," October 13, 1943, box 65. Back.
Note 61: Furthermore, the 1905 Taft-Katsura agreement had already affirmed Washington's recognition of Japan's domination of Korea in return for Tokyo's pledge to respect U.S. control in the Philippines. See Jongsuk Chay, "The Taft-Katsura Memorandum Reconsidered," Pacific Historical Review 37:3 (August 1968): 321-326. Back.
Note 62: James I. Matray, "An End to Indifference: America's Korea Policy During World War II," Diplomatic History 2:2 (Spring 1978): 181-196; P minutes 21, August 8, 1942; P document 123-b, "International Trusteeship," December 8, 1942, box 56; P document 213, Agenda for meeting of March 13, 1943, box 57; S document 18a, "Conditions for Japanese Surrender to the United Nations," March 13, 1943; E document 155, Japanese Postwar Economic Considerations," July 21, 1943, box 82, Notter files. Back.
Note 63: Welles to Roosevelt, April 13, 1942, FRUS, vol. I, 1942, 870-872. Back.
Note 64: P minutes 20, August 1, 1942. Back.
Note 65: P minutes 21, August 8, 1942. Back.
Note 66: P minutes 22, August 15, 1942. Welles also provides a detailed account of his views on international trusteeship in his Time For Decision, 300-305, 383-384. Back.
Note 67: P minutes 22, August 15, 1942. Back.
Note 68: PIO minutes 5, August 21, 1942, box 85; PIO minutes 13, October 23, 1942, box 85; P minutes 22, August 15, 1942. Back.
Note 69: For a discussion of the many inherent weaknesses of the mandates scheme see Andrew Crozier, "The Establishment of the Mandates System 1919-1925: Some Problems Created by the Paris Peace Conference," Journal of Contemporary History 14:3 (July 1979): 483-513. Back.
Note 70: PIO minutes 5, August 21, 1942, box 85; PIO minutes 13, October 23, 1942, box 85. Back.
Note 71: P minutes 22, August 15, 1942; P minutes 33, November 14, 1942; PIO document 95, "An International Trusteeship for Non-Self-Governing Peoples," October 21, 1942, box 56; P document 123-b, "International Trusteeship," December 8, 1942, box 56; P minutes 51, April 10, 1943. At Teheran, Roosevelt explained to Stalin a trusteeship plan remarkably similar to this. See minutes of the Stalin-Roosevelt meeting, November 28, 1943, Foreign Relations of the United States: The Conference at Cairo and Teheran 1943 (Washington D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961), 486. Back.
Note 72: T document 336, "Regionalism in Southeast Asia: Background," June 24, 1943, box 64, Notter files; S document 43, "The Strategic Importance of Singapore and Hong Kong," October 26, 1942, box 77, Notter files; P document 213, "Agenda for the meeting of March 13, 1943: Part II: South Pacific Regional Supervisory Council," March 10, 1043, box 192, Postwar Foreign Policy Files, Welles papers, FDRL; draft memorandum on Malaysian or Indonesian federation, August 14, 1942, box 192, Postwar Foreign Policy Files, Welles papers, FDRL; Welles, Time For Decision, 30 Back.
Note 73: P minutes 27, October 3, 1942. Back.
Note 74: P document 113, "Resolution of the Assembly of the Liberal Party (July 18-19, 1941)," October 2, 1942, box 56; P document 113, "Charter of Freedom for Colonial Peoples: Resolution of the Third War Conference of the British Labour Party, May 25-28," 1942, box 56; P document 113, "British Views with Respect to Colonies and Dependent Areas," October 2, 1942, box 56. Back.
Note 75: FO 371/31527 "U.S. Views on Colonial Policy," November 21, 1943, PRO; FO 371/31527 "The United States and the Open Door in the British Colonial Empire," by A. G. B. Fisher, December 2, 1942, PRO; CAB 65/28 WM(42) 166th Conclusions, December 9, 1942, PRO; FO 371/35366, Eden memorandum of conversation in Washington, March 29, 1943, PRO; CAB 65/34 WM(43) 53rd Conclusions, April 13, 1943, PRO. Back.
Note 76: The president also shared with Eden his views on the necessity of a strong China and the establishment of international trusteeships for French Indochina and Korea. Back.
Note 77: FO 371/35366, Eden memorandum of conversation in Washington, March 29, 1943, PRO; CAB 65/34 WM(43) 53rd Conclusions, April 13, 1943, PRO; "Declaration by the United Nations on National Independence," March 9, 1943, Hull Papers, folder 262, Library of Congress Manuscript Division. Back.
Note 78: CAB 65/28 WM(42) 166th Conclusions, December 9, 1942, PRO; FO 371/35366, Eden memorandum of conversation in Washington, March 29, 1943, PRO; CAB 65/34 WM(43) 53rd Conclusions, April 13, 1943, PRO; Eden to War Cabinet, "Foreign Secretary's Visit to Washington," March 30, 1943, PRO. Eden also thought that American suggestions about stripping France of Indochina were so harsh that they might warp the political situation in postwar Paris. "A Right Wing Government in France to be confronted with the dismemberment of the French Empire hardly seems a good idea," Eden wrote. As Walter LaFeber has concluded: "For the sake of British interests in both Europe and Asia, London officials felt they had no choice but to fight for a fully restored France." See LaFeber, "Roosevelt, Churchill, and Indochina," 1280. During this discussion between Eden and Roosevelt, Welles warned the president that Washington had already gone on record, with statements from both Hull and Robert Murphy, for the restoration of French possessions. Roosevelt said the commitment referred only to North Africa, but Welles warned that no such modification existed. See Eden, The Reckoning, 378. Back.
Note 79: PIO minutes 5, August 21, 1942, box 85. Back.
Note 80: P document 113, "British Views with respect to Colonies and Dependent Areas," October 2, 1942, box 56; S document 43, "The Strategic Importance of Singapore and Hong Kong," October 26, 1942, box 77; P minutes 37, December 12, 1942; Division of European Affairs memorandum to Welles, "Problems confronting the United States in connection with the British Empire," December 12, 1942, box 193, Postwar Foreign Policy Files, Welles papers, FDRL; P minutes 47, March 13, 1943. For an account arguing that officials in Australia and New Zealand were more in agreement with the U.S. State Department than with London on many questions, see Louis, Imperialism at Bay, 18. See also G. St. J. Barclay, "Australia Looks to America: The Wartime Relationship, 1939-1942," Pacific Historical Review 66:2 (May 1977): 251-271. Back.
Note 81: P minutes 21, August 8, 1942; P minutes 22, August 15, 1942; P document 113, "British Views with respect to Colonies and Dependent Areas," October 2, 1942, box 56; P document 35, "British Malaya," August 8, 1942, box 56; T document 375, "The Problem of British Malaya: Possible Solutions," October 13, 1943, box 65; P document 43, "Indonesian or Malaysian Federation," August 11, 1942, box 56. Back.
Note 82: P minutes 22, August 15, 1942; for an account of the impact of the fall of Singapore on British thinking, see Louis, Imperialism at Bay, 134-146. Back.
Note 83: P minutes 22, August 15, 1942; T document 137, "The Problem of Hong Kong: Possible Solutions," October 23, 1942, box 61. Back.
Note 84: Welles to Ambassador to China Clarence Gauss, March 25, 1942, FRUS: China, 1943, 730; P minutes 47, March 13, 1943; see also Steven W. Mosher, China Misperceived: American Illusions and Chinese Reality (New York: Basic Books, 1990), 46-47; Ta Jen Liu, A History of Sino-American Diplomatic Relations, 1840-1974 (Taipei: China Academy, 1978), 250-251. Back.
Note 85: P minutes 47, March 13, 1943. Back.
Note 86: P minutes 47, March 13, 1943; FO 371/31633, Churchill to Eden, February 13, 1942, PRO; Warren Kimball, The Juggler, 139. Against British opposition, Chiang visited the Indian subcontinent in February 1942, where he publicly expressed sympathy for the nationalist cause. Back.
Note 87: P minutes 47, March 13, 1943. Roosevelt conceded as much to Eden when he predicted that China would undoubtedly side with the United States in the advent of a future clash with the Soviet Union. The president deliberately downplayed Chiang's intense dislike of the British and the fact that the Generalissimo would most likely also oppose British interests. Memorandum of Conversation by Harry Hopkins, March 27, 1943, FRUS, vol. III, 1943, 38-39. Back.
Note 88: P minutes 47, March 13, 1943;P document 113, "British Views with Respect to Colonies and Dependent Areas," October 2, 1942, box 56; S document 43, "The Strategic Importance of Singapore and Hong Kong," October 26, 1942, box 77; P minutes 51, April 10, 1943; memorandum of conversation by Welles, July 28, 1942, FRUS, vol. I, 1942, 698-699. Back.
Note 89: P minutes 47, March 13, 1943; P minutes 51, April 10, 1943. Back.
Note 90: P minutes 47, March 13, 1943. Back.
Note 91: P minutes 47, March 13, 1943. Back.
Note 92: P minutes 47, March 13, 1943. Back.
Note 93: P minutes 47, March 13, 1943; P document 158, "Policies Affecting the Postwar Position of France," December 18, 1942, box 57; P document 158a, "Official Statements and Views Affecting the Future Status of France and the French Empire," January 29, 1944, box 57; Llewellyn Woodward, British Foreign Policy in the Second World War, vol.4 (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1975), 531. Roosevelt was prepared to go further than Welles with regard to Indochina. In July 1943, the President told a gathering of the Pacific War Council that the French should be stripped of their colonial possessions in the Far East because they had "done nothing for the population, but had misgoverned and exploited it," and their return to Indochina after the war would "make bad feeling throughout the Far East." "Indochina should not be given back to the French Empire after the war," he concluded. See Warren Kimball and Fred Pollock, "'In Search of Monsters to Destroy': Roosevelt and Colonialism," in Kimball's The Juggler, 140. Back.
Note 94: P minutes 47, March 13, 1943; S document 18a, "Conditions for Japanese Surrender," March 13, 1943, box 77. "American concern for Taiwan," according to Leonard Gordon, "was first stimulated by knowledge of China's 'sudden public interest' in the island shortly after Japan's expansion of hostilities in the Pacific in December, 1941." See Leonard Gordon, "American Planning For Taiwan, 1942-1945," Pacific Historical Review 37:2 (May 1968): 201-202. Back.
Note 95: P minutes 47, March 13, 1943; Gordon, "American Planning For Taiwan"; S document 18a, "Conditions for Japanese Surrender," March 13, 1943, box 77. Back.
Note 96: P minutes 47, March 13, 1943. Back.
Note 97: After his resignation, Welles used his syndicated column to offer a scathing criticism of British and French rule in the Near East. See, for example, "Welles Criticizes Both French and British Imperialism on Crisis in Levant," New York Herald Tribune, June 13, 1945. Back.
Note 98: P minutes 24, August 29, 1942; P document 47 "Regional Aspects of the Near and Middle East," August 27, 1942, box 56. Welles understood that the British would support a federation in the region. Back.
Note 99: P minutes 24, August 29, 1942; P document 48, "Syria and the Lebanon," August 27, 1942, box 56. Back.
Note 100: P minutes 48, March 20, 1943; P minutes 49, March 27, 1943; PIO minutes, November 20, 1942; P minutes 24, August 29, 1942; P minutes 37, December 12, 1942. Back.
Note 101: P minutes 48, March 20, 1943. The British did not hesitate to encourage the independence of French possessions like Syria and Lebanon, arguing that such a gesture would help to promote the Allied cause in the region. Back.
Note 102: FO 371/31965, Halifax to FO, May 14, 1942, PRO; FO 371/31949, Halifax to FO, June 22 1942, PRO; Woodward, British Foreign Policy, vol. 4, 228-229. Back.
Note 103: P document 218, "Agenda for the meeting of April 3, 1943," (Egypt), box 193, folder 9, Welles papers, FDRL; P document 52, "Egypt," August 27, 1942, box 56, Notter files; Eichelberger memorandum to Welles, "Some Notes on Security and International Police," 1942, box 190, folder 3, Welles papers, FDRL; T document 302, "The Suez Canal and Egyptian Interests," April 1, 1943, box 63; P minutes 24, August 29, 1942. When, at Welles's request, Isaiah Bowman discussed trusteeship with Sir Cosmo Parkinson of the Colonial Office, Parkinson emphasized that the survival of the British Empire after the war was thought by London to be the desire of the colonized. Parkinson illustrated his point by telling Bowman about an "Arab at Aden" who recently sent most of his wages, "small as they were," to King George VI to help repair a bomb-damaged Buckingham Palace. See memorandum of conversation between Bowman and Parkinson, February 25, 1943, box 191, Postwar Foreign Policy Files, folder 4, Welles papers, FDRL. Back.
Note 104: For accounts of U.S. involvement in Iran during the war see, for example, Stephen L. McFarland, "A Peripheral View of the Origins of the Cold War: The Crisis in Iran, 1941-1947," Diplomatic History 4:4 (Fall 1980): 333-351; Eduard M. Mark, "Allied Relations in Iran, 1941-1947: The Origins of a Cold War Crisis," Wisconsin Magazine of History 59:1 (Autumn 1975): 51-63; James A. Bill, The Eagle and the Lion: The Tragedy of American-Iranian Relations (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 18-19. Back.
Note 105: P document 55, "Iran," August 27, 1942, box 56; P minutes 48, March 20, 1943; PIO minutes, November 20, 1942; P minutes 24, August 29, 1942; P document 215, "Agenda for the meeting of March 20, 1943," March 19, 1943, box 193, Postwar Foreign Policy Files, folder 9, Welles papers, FDRL; P minutes 48, March 20, 1943; P minutes 49, March 27, 1943. Back.
Note 106: P minutes 48, March 20, 1943. Back.
Note 107: Welles to Roosevelt, October 20, 1942, box 152, folder 1, Welles papers, FDRL. Back.
Note 108: P document 215, "Agenda for the meeting of March 20, 1943," March 19, 1943, box 193, Postwar Foreign Policy Files, folder 9, Welles papers, FDRL. Back.
Note 109: P minutes 49, March 27, 1943. Back.
Note 110: P document 52, "Egypt," August 27, 1942, box 56; T document 302, "The Suez Canal and Egyptian Interests," April 1, 1943, box 63; P document 50, "Palestine," August 27, 1942, box 56; P minutes 24, August 29, 1942. Back.
Note 111: Welles was also active on the domestic side of the Palestine question, working with the various lobbying groups such as the American Palestine Committee, the Zionist Organization of America, and the Christian Council on Palestine. When Welles resigned, Rabbi Stephen Wise, the leading Zionist in the United States, wrote: "Your vision and your wisdom, your courage and effectiveness cannot long be lost to the American people, which cherishes your service, as my fellow Jews in all free lands will, when the whole story can be told, bless your name." In his 1944 book The Time For Decision, Welles presented his views on a Jewish homeland and criticized British policy in its mandate, and three years after the war he wrote We Need Not Fail, which passionately expressed his commitment to a Jewish homeland in Palestine. See Rabbi Stephen Wise to Welles, October 3, 1943, box 93, Welles papers, FDRL; Welles, The Time For Decision, 262-267; Sumner Welles, We Need Not Fail (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1948). Back.
Note 112: Irwin Gellman, Secret Affairs (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1995), 38. Back.
Note 113: Welles had deep admiration for Jewish leaders such as Rabbi Wise, the president of the American Jewish Congress; Chaim Weizmann, the president of the World Zionist Organization, who would later become the first president of Israel; and Judge Joseph Proskauer, a prominent American Zionist and friend of President Roosevelt. Welles frequently spoke before Jewish organizations and sought to arrange meetings for Weizmann and Wise with President Roosevelt. In fact, Welles's initial skepticism about a Middle Eastern Federation stemmed from his fear that it might pose a threat to the Jewish population of Palestine, but he concluded that a Jewish-controlled, or bi-national Palestine would become a fully integrated member of a federation. Wise telegram to Welles, October 4, 1942, box 86, folder 5, Welles papers, FDRL; Welles to Wise, June 19, 1942, Welles Papers, box 86, folder 5, FDRL; Welles to Wise, October 7, 1942, box 86, folder 5, Welles papers, FDRL. Back.
Note 114: As early as 1942, Welles and Wise held a number of discussions about setting up a war crimes tribunal to investigate atrocities against European Jews, and at one point that same year Welles even discussed with General Eisenhower the possibility of creating a Jewish army in Palestine to aid the Allied forces in the region. Eisenhower to Welles, March 28, 1942, box 86, folder 5, Welles papers, FDRL. For an account arguing that Welles was indifferent to the plight of the European Jews see David S. Wyman, The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941-1945 (New York: Pantheon, 1984). "Welles's reaction to the Holocaust remains an enigma," Wyman writes. "On many occasions, he cooperated with Jewish leaders and seemed on the point of forcing middle-level officials to act. But he seldom followed through" (191). For a less critical assessment see Henry Feingold, The Politics of Rescue: the Roosevelt Administration and the Holocaust, 1938-1945 (New York: Holocaust Library, 1970), which explores the bureaucratic politics involved. Back.
Note 115: P minutes 24, August 29, 1942. Back.
Note 116: P minutes 24, August 29, 1942. Back.
Note 117: P minutes 25, September 5, 1942; P minutes 49, March 27, 1943; "The Atlantic Charter and National Independence," November 13, 1942, Atlantic Charter file, box 13, Notter files; P minutes 24, August 29, 1942; P document 215, "Agenda for the meeting of March 20, 1943: Annex: Palestine," March 19, 1943, box 193, Postwar Foreign Policy Files, folder 9, Welles papers, FDRL. Back.
Note 118: Memorandum of conversation between Welles and Butler, April 21, 1941, box 163, folder 3, Welles papers, FDRL. Back.
Note 119: FO 371/35034 "Palestine," memorandum by Cripps, May 4, 1943, PRO; CAB 66/37 WP(43) 246 "Palestine," by Richard Casey, Minister of State, June 17, 1943, PRO; Llewellyn Woodward, British Foreign Policy in the Second World War, vol.4, 353. Eden's private secretary Oliver Harvey noted that the foreign secretary remained "immovable on the subject of Palestine. He loves Arabs and hates Jews. Our only hope is a firm Anglo-American agreement over PalestineSumner Welles and the President favor a Jewish State as Winston does." John Harvey, ed., The War Diaries of Oliver Harvey, 1941-1945 (London: Collins, 1978), 247. Back.
Note 120: See, for example, the column by Sumner Welles, "Welles says British Should Give Palestine Mandate to U.N.O.," New York Herald Tribune, October 31, 1945. Back.
Note 121: "American Anti-Colonialism and the Dissolution of the British Empire," by William Roger Louis, in Louis and Bull, eds., The Special Relationship: Anglo-American Relations Since 1945 (London: Oxford, 1986), 264-265. Back.
Note 122: P minutes 26, September 26, 1942; P minutes, 27, October 3, 1942; T document 202, "The Italian Empire: Political Considerations," December 29, 1942, box 61; P document 79, "Algeria," September 17, 1942, box 56; P document 81, "Morocco-French Zone," September 15, 1942, box 56. Back.
Note 123: P minutes 26, September 26, 1942; P minutes 27, October 3, 1942. Back.
Note 124: P minutes 26, September 26, 1942; P minutes 27, October 3, 1942. Back.
Note 125: P minutes 26, September 26, 1942; P minutes 27, October 3, 1942; "Provisional Composition of Regional Supervisory Councils," September 25, 1942, box 193, Postwar Foreign Policy Files, Welles papers, FDRL; P document 168, "The Italian Colonies," January 2, 1943, box 57; P minutes 33, November 14, 1942. Back.
Note 126: P minutes 26, September 26, 1942; P minutes 27, October 3, 1942; P minutes 33, November 14, 1942. Norman Davis described Liberia as "a great independent state ... happy as a clam." See Louis, Imperialism at Bay, 171. For an account of U.S. control of the Liberian economy, see, for example, Judson M. Lyon, "Informal Imperialism: The United States in Liberia, 1897-1912," Diplomatic History 5:3 (Summer 1981): 221-243; as well as Lloyd N. Beecher, Jr., "The Second World War and U.S. Politico-Economic Expansionism: The Case of Liberia, 1938-1945," Diplomatic History 3:4 (Fall 1979): 391-412. Back.
Note 127: For Welles's comments, see P minutes 27, October 3, 1942, a stark example not only of the racial arrogance of a senior State Department official but also of Welles's class prejudices. Welles's views on race could be contradictory. While he thought American blacks deserved better treatment, he persisted in his belief that many other races were inferior. His views were shared by many in the State Department. For example, blacks that entered the foreign service during these years were often relegated to postings in Liberia. See, for example, Martin Weil, A Pretty Good Club: The Founding Fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service (New York: Norton, 1978), 90, 125. Back.
Note 128: P minutes 27, October 3, 1942. Back.
Note 129: P minutes 34, November 21, 1942; PIO minutes 10, October 9, 1942, box 85; P document 148, "A Tentative Plan for a Caribbean Council," November 21, 1942, box 57. Back.
Note 130: P minutes 34, November 21, 1942; P document 143, "Falkland Islands," November 19, 1942, box 57. Back.
Note 131: PIO minutes 10, October 9, 1942; P minutes 34, November 21, 1942. Back.
Note 132: P document 123, "International Trusteeship," box 56. Back.
Note 133: FO 371/31527 Halifax to F.O. December 12, 1942 and December 26, 1942, PRO; Donald Wright, "That Hell Hole of Yours," American Heritage 46:6 (October 1995): 58; Cordell Hull, Memoirs, vol. 2, 1638-1639; Notter memorandum to Hull on trusteeship, April 15, 1943, box 190, Postwar Foreign Policy Files, folder 4, Welles papers, FDRL. Back.
Note 134: P minutes 51, April 10, 1943. Back.
Note 135: P minutes 51, April 10, 1943. Back.
Note 136: P minutes 51, April 10, 1943. Back.
Note 137: Hull, Memoirs, vol. 2, 1599. Back.
Note 138: Welles, Seven Decisions That Shaped History (New York: Harper, 1950), 133. Back.
Note 139: P document 236, "International Trusteeship: Summary of Conclusions," July 2, 1943, box 57; P document 240, "Official Statements and Views Pertaining to the Administration of Dependent Areas After the War," July 12, 1943, box 57; Cordell Hull, Memoirs, vol. 2, 1638-1639. Back.
Note 140: Trusteeship received little attention at the October 1943 Moscow Conference, at which Hull was the chief U.S. delegate. Back.
Note 141: Shortly before the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, Harry Hopkins reassured British officials that Washington's plans for reform in the colonial world extended only to the economic field. At Dumbarton Oaks, the U.S. proposal on colonial matters made no reference to independence, and at the second Quebec Conference the American Joint Chiefs told the British that Washington would allow Britain to reclaim Singapore and help the Dutch return to the East Indies. See Walter LaFeber, "Roosevelt, Churchill, and Indochina," American Historical Review 80:5 (December 1975): 1289-1290. Back.
Note 142: The case has been made that the trusteeship plan might have averted postwar conflict in places like French Indochina. See, for example, Gary R. Hess, "Franklin Roosevelt and Indochina," Journal of American History 59:2 (September 1972): 366-367. Back.
Note 143: Cordell Hull, Memoirs, vol. 2, 1234-1238, 1304-1305; Louis, Imperialism at Bay, 225, 230. Back.
Note 144: For example, as Roosevelt retreated from his commitment to trusteeship, he accepted the French return to Indochina. De Gaulle effectively played upon these American fears when he told Jefferson Caffery that France might "fall into the Russian orbit but we hope you do not push us into it." See LaFeber, "Roosevelt, Churchill, and Indochina," 1293. Back.
Note 145: Louis, Imperialism at Bay, 567-568. Back.
Note 146: George Ball, The Past Has Another Pattern: Memoirs (New York: Norton, 1982), 175. Back.
Sumner Welles, Postwar Planning, and the Quest for a New World Order, 1937-1943
|