IX: America Anticipates the League in Exerting Economic Pressure upon Italy

IX America Anticipates the League in Exerting Economic Pressure upon Italy

a. Senator Nye Flusters Foreign Diplomats

AS THE LEGIONS of Mussolini were preparing to march into Ethiopia, many Americans began to press for neutrality legislation that would insulate the Western Hemisphere against the possible outbreak of World War II. The crusade of 1917 had not made the world safe for democracy, and during the early years of the Roosevelt era a tide of disillusion swept over the United States that hid from the public eye the measuring rods that had been used by patriotic historians during the second Wilson Administration. The average American suddenly began to count the cost of the World War and was deeply disturbed to discover that the vast expenditures in human lives and national wealth entailed by that struggle had been in vain. American intervention had completely destroyed the old balance of power that had been carefully constructed by European statesmen, and at the close of the conflict the United States had retired from a position that might have brought stability to a new international edifice that trembled in the winds of uncertainty. When Hitler began to move with earthquake feet along the German frontiers, the continent of Europe had tremors that shook the White House in Washington. But President Roosevelt had no magic formula that would bring prompt reassurance to anxious millions across the Atlantic. He was looking for re-election in 1936 and he did not dare to flout the strong isolationist sentiment that was so evident in most American circles.

One of the isolationist leaders was Senator Nye who was certain that Americans could derive no benefits from sailing on stormy European waters. The great parade of 1917 had shown all too clearly that the paths of glory led but to the grave. The best way to prevent a repetition of that mad scramble with its dire results was to show the American people the sinister forces that had dragged them into conflict. The wiles of Wall Street should be made familiar to the man in the street so that he would shut his ears to the drums of war that beat a cadence of death for the poor and a rhythm of riches for the wealthy.

This viewpoint of Senator Nye received strong confirmation through a sensational article published in Fortune in March 1934, entitled “Arms and the Men.” In a long succession of lurid pages the story was told of the shady deals and the devious methods of great munitions manufacturers of Europe in their efforts to incite wars that would make their profits reach dizzy heights.1 Nye had this article reprinted in the Congressional Record so that its full impact would be felt by susceptible members of Congress. There is little doubt that it helped to influence the action of the Senate in its approval on April 12 of the Nye resolution that provided for the appointment of a special Senate Committee to investigate the activities of munitions makers and dealers.2

Vice-President Garner appointed Nye to be the chairman of this committee, and Senator Pittman, chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, acquiesced in the appointment. It was quite unusual in a Senate controlled by the Democratic Party for a Republican to be named to this important post. Secretary Hull deeply deprecated this action by the Democratic majority: “Had I dreamed that an isolationist Republican would be appointed I promptly would have opposed it. . . . The appointment of Nye was a fatal mistake because the committee . . . proceeded to enlarge the scope of its inquiry into an attempt to prove that the United States had been drawn into the First World War by American bankers and munitions makers.”3

But despite his dislike for the appointment of Senator Nye, Secretary Hull promised to aid the committee in every possible way, and President Roosevelt urged the Senate (May 18, 1934) to provide ample funds for the use of committee members so that they would be able to execute their task with a thoroughness commensurate with the high importance of the questions at issue.4 The committee began its hearings on September 4, and it was not long before a sordid story began to unfold. There were some colorful chapters dealing with the malign activities of highly paid lobbyists who used their influence to secure lucrative contracts. Some of the testimony pointed to the fact that manufacturers of munitions ardently believed in a “one world” of business. There were intimate ties that bound these “merchants of death” into an international trust. Within this business circle many trade secrets freely circulated, patents were exchanged, and the volume of trade was diverted into certain favored channels.

It was also brought out that some American army and naval officers had been of great service to armament firms, and that the Army and Navy departments, in order to speed a “preparedness program,” had given definite encouragement to the same corporations. This encouragement went so far as to permit manufacturers to copy designs of equipment that had been tested and perfected in government laboratories. Products made from these plans were freely sold to foreign governments.5

Some of the revelations that shocked the American public came from the secret files of the Department of State. Secretary Hull had been most generous in making available for the use of the Nye Committee confidential documents whose contents were supposed to be kept hidden from the prying eyes of newspaper reporters. But the inevitable leaks soon occurred. The Argentine Government protested against certain allegations concerning an Argentine admiral; the Chinese Foreign Office denied that a large wheat loan had been diverted into the itching palms of munitions makers, and Lord Vansittart carefully combed his large vocabulary for words that would express the proper pitch of indignation over the insinuation that King George V had exerted pressure upon Poland in order to secure a contract for a well-known British firm.6 Taking his cue from the Foreign Office, the British Ambassador at Washington denounced the publication of the correspondence of the British Government with the House of Morgan during the years 1914-17. The American public should remain ignorant of the close connections between American big business and Britain.

Secretary Hull was greatly embarrassed by this barrage of protests, and he endeavored to enlist the support of the President in his effort to keep the Nye Committee “within reasonable limits.” Anglo-American relations should be carefully coddled lest some incident arise that might lead to seriously strained relations. But President Roosevelt was not interested in preserving the secrecy of the records of the House of Morgan. Although he agreed to meet the members of the Nye Committee in conference on March 19, he refrained from exerting the slightest pressure upon them.7 Historians will be eternally grateful to him for his silence on this occasion.

Thanks to this lack of Presidential pressure the Nye Committee unearthed a vast amount of data of great value to historians. These documents clearly showed the economic forces that helped to prepare the hostile climate of opinion against Germany that eventually led to American intervention in 1917. An important part of this evidence revealed the rich financial harvest gathered by some business firms as a result of the conflict.8 These surprising figures accelerated the movement to enact legislation that would insure American neutrality and would take the profits out of war.

b. The Offensive against American Neutrality

The movement to insure American neutrality soon encountered the bitter opposition of many American publicists and politicians who believed that the Kellogg Pact had abolished the old concept of neutrality. They expressed their opinions with vehemence and launched a spirited attack upon anyone who adhered to the belief that America could still stay out of Europe’s never-ending cycle of wars. Their carefully planned offensive against the continuance of the American practice of neutrality began long before the findings of the Nye Committee deeply disturbed the American mind. It was a carry-over from the fight for the Treaty of Versailles. That treaty was partly American-made, and it had numerous supporters in the United States. Many readily recognized that it contained some glaring injustices, but they would not condemn the whole convention because of these imperfections. After the defeat of the treaty in the Senate, a group of prominent Americans dedicated all their efforts to bring the United States into a close concert with their former allies by means of some innocent-appearing pact whose broad implications could eventually be made to serve their purposes. The Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact was the answer to their prayers.

The British and French governments watched with great care and deep appreciation the work of these international-minded Americans. It was becoming increasingly difficult to preserve the spoils of the World War. If America could be bound to some general treaty for the renunciation of war her moral support would be assured in favor of the status quo. If some nation still crippled by the chains of Versailles attempted to break those bonds, or if some have-not power should by armed force endeavor to upset the political structure erected in 1919, she would be denounced as a treaty violator and a wicked foe of world peace. The Kellogg Pact was in the making long before 1928.

In order that this pact should be specially shaped to promote British and French imperial interests, the foreign offices of those two countries insisted upon certain reservations to the general terms of the treaty. The French Government made it very clear that the proposed peace pact should not affect the right of legitimate defense or the performance of the obligations outlined in the Covenant of the League of Nations. The same should be true with reference to the obligations contracted under the terms of the treaties of Locarno or under the provisions of treaties of alliance. Secretary Kellogg indicated his approval of these reservations in his speech before the American Society of International Law (April 28, 1928). On May 19 the British Government expressed its acceptance of the French reservations and then seized the opportunity to announce some of its own. There were certain regions of the world whose welfare and integrity constituted a “special and vital interest” for the safety of the Empire. Interference with these regions could not be “suffered.” Their protection against attack was “to the British Empire a measure of self-defence.” It should be clearly understood, therefore, that the British Government would not become a party to a new general peace treaty except upon the “distinct understanding that it does not prejudice their freedom of action in this respect [self-defense of certain regions of the world.]”9

In commenting upon these British and French reservations, Professor Edwin Borchard trenchantly remarks: “Considering the breadth of these qualifications or interpretations, it would be difficult to conceive of any wars that nations have fought within the past century, or are likely to fight in the future, that cannot be accommodated under them. Far from being an outlawry of war, they constitute the most definite sanction of specific wars that has ever been promulgated.”10

It was obvious that the British reservations were purposely ambiguous. British statesmen could still meet with armed force any “interference” in vast undefined “regions of the world” whose welfare and integrity the British Government regarded as “vital” to the interests of the Empire. By accepting this significant phraseology Secretary Kellogg underwrote a reservation which reduced the peace pact to a sorry gesture. His previous acceptance of the French reservations gave further overtones of war to a document that was supposed to be a paean of peace.11

This situation was given an additional martial twist by Secretary Kellogg’s opinion that wars undertaken by nations in pursuance of their obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations, under the Locarno treaties, or under treaties of alliance were not outlawed by the Pact of Paris.12 After this broad statement it was only natural for European statesmen to argue that the American Government was now bound by League decisions concerning aggressor nations and could not oppose collective action decreed by Geneva.13 It is interesting to note that Senator Borah helped to mold this European viewpoint. In an interview with Kirby Page he boldly declared: “Another important result of such a treaty [the proposed Paris pact] would be to enlist the support of the United States in co-operative action against any nation which is guilty of a flagrant violation of this outlawry agreement. . . . It is quite inconceivable that this country would stand idly by in case of a grave breach of a multilateral treaty to which it is a party.”14

It should be remembered that Borah, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, took an active part in the negotiations for this Pact of Paris. Before the pact was signed Secretary Kellogg wrote him a letter to thank him for his “co-operation and very great assistance.”15 Borah replied by congratulating Kellogg “not only in securing the Treaty, but in securing it in the form in which it seems now it will undoubtedly be accepted. I look upon the Treaty as a great and distinct achievement in the cause of peace and I regard the manner and skill with which you have conducted the negotiations as an exhibition of the highest statesmanship.”16

Kellogg now expressed his fears that there was “a significant movement against the treaty in this country and I think we should all bear this in mind.”17 Borah should have been deeply interested in checking this movement because he was in many ways one of the authors of the pact that would soon be signed in Paris:

I think the people in Europe understand the great assistance you have been. Many of the suggestions as to its form came from you and your first open letter to the New York Times explaining the proposed treaty was of immense value.18

In the second week in August, Kellogg wrote to Borah with some anxiety about the “insinuations” in certain newspapers:

Just now representatives of certain papers . . . are writing all the insinuations they can think of and Frank Simonds has joined the crowd. He says we have assumed moral obligations. I know of no moral obligations to apply sanctions or take affirmative military action in any case whatever might happen; in fact this is the only kind of treaty, as you have always said, that we can possibly sign. . . . It makes me discouraged when I see such insinuations.19

These insinuations had a good basis in fact and Borah’s interview with Kirby Page [March 25, 1928] showed that the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations firmly believed that “in the event of a grave violation” of the proposed peace pact the United States could “not stand idly by.” It would not be long before the next Secretary of State, Henry L. Stimson, would vehemently assert this very viewpoint. Borah was incredibly naïve in his whole attitude towards the proposed Kellogg-Briand treaty for the outlawry of war. He had been one of the outstanding opponents of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919-20 and had played a major part in encompassing its defeat in the Senate. Now he was throwing all his energies in pushing through the Senate a treaty that would “freeze” all the injustices of Versailles. The so-called chains of Versailles could be broken only by armed conflict; Borah was in the strange position of outlawing war and thus perpetuating those chains. The implications of the proposed pact seemed to escape him, even though some distinguished publicists endeavored to warn him. In December 1929, Professor Borchard wrote him a long letter which ended on the following admonition:

I cannot help but feel grateful that we did not succumb to the campaign for joining the League—a campaign now about to be renewed. . . . We should inevitably have become either a party to or an opponent of these transactions [European disputes then pending] and could not have done anything but drag ourselves into the meshes of European politics. If I correctly read the British White Paper, it is their idea that this result has been accomplished by our signature of the Kellogg Pact. It was always my belief that this was essentially their purpose in signing the Kellogg Pact.20

Senator Capper had already given an indication that he believed that the Kellogg Pact fundamentally changed our historic neutrality policy. In February 1929 he introduced a resolution which called for the prohibition of the shipment of “arms and munitions and implements or other articles for use in war” to any country which the President declared was a violator of the Kellogg Pact.21 Although this resolution was not adopted by the Senate it was strong evidence that some prominent Republicans and Democrats were ready to follow a bipartisan policy with reference to the outlawry of war.

There were numerous academic supporters of this bipartisan policy. Professor Clyde Eagleton was confident that the “Kellogg Pact will be respected only if we deliberately and strongly take sides against the violator of the Pact,”22 and Professor Charles G. Fenwick praised the pact because it indicated American concern with regard to its observance “by other States” and an intention to depart from our “traditional attitude of neutrality” should others be guilty of a breach of it.23

In order to implement this one-world concept of war and peace (with no middle ground of neutrality), certain publicists expressed the opinion that the provisions of the Kellogg Pact contained implications of international consultation. David Hunter Miller was sure of it. In the event of a threat of war, “inevitably the Government of the United States will be consulted, if not at Geneva, certainly by the Powers most influential at Geneva. . . . No Government of the United States could be indifferent to such an appeal [nor] could it refuse to use its influence in such case in co-operation with the League of Nations to preserve peace.” Consultation among the signatories of the Pact of Paris was an obligation inherent in the terms of the Pact itself.24

Secretary Stimson shared this view of Mr. Miller, and on August 8, in an address before the Council on Foreign Relations, he gave it clear and emphatic expression.25 Neutrality, he believed, was an outworn American concept: international co-operation was the new slogan of the Department of State and it would command popular support. The Roosevelt Administration was too cautious to go as far as Mr. Stimson, but Norman Davis, at Geneva (May 22, 1933), not only promised consultation but also co-operation with other powers to the extent of refraining from any action that would defeat collective effort to punish an aggressor State.26

John Bassett Moore, America’s leading authority in the field of international law, listened to the words of Norman Davis with deep dismay. The commitment of the United States to any far-reaching consultative pact would “constitute the gravest danger to which the country has ever been exposed, a danger involving our very independence. . . . It would destroy the last vestige of the power to control our own destiny. . . . Of all conceivable devices the consultative pact’ is the most pernicious.”27

These words of warning from Judge Moore carried considerable weight in some Democratic circles, and they had a definite influence upon the Department of State in the Italo-Ethiopian crisis. But before the outbreak of that conflict the fight to preserve American neutrality was transferred to the halls of Congress.

c. The President Accepts a Congressional Program of Neutrality

It is a trite observation that politics often makes strange bedfellows. This was certainly true of the relations between Borah and Stimson. At times they were poles apart in their attitude towards the problem of world peace, but upon other occasions they stood shoulder-to-shoulder and gave each other strong support. In the summer of 1932, Borah agreed with Stimson that it would be wise statesmanship to cancel the war debts of the nations that had been associated with America during the World War.28 In the early days of 1933, Borah once more stood close to Stimson. On January 10, 1933, President Hoover sent to Congress a special message requesting authority to declare an embargo upon munitions of war. This request had particular reference to the war then raging between Bolivia and Paraguay. But the message also contained an inclosure from Secretary Stimson (January 6, 1933) in the form of a resolution that had wide implications.29 Borah was persuaded to introduce this resolution which passed the Senate on January 19 without discussion. On the following day Senator Bingham made a motion to reconsider the vote on the resolution and thereby erected a barrier that prevented final favorable action.30

Under the wide terms of this resolution, whenever the President discovered in any part of the world a threatening situation which would be aggravated by shipments of munitions of war to that quarter, he could, after securing some measure of international co-operation, issue a proclamation which would take the form of an arms embargo. This embargo would be put into force against “such country or countries as he [the President] may designate.”

The tremendous powers thus placed within the discretion of the President were very apparent to the business interests of the United States. Officials from the Winchester Repeating Arms Company, and from similar corporations in different parts of the country, rushed to Washington and strongly argued against the proposed legislation. In response to this pressure the scope of the resolution was narrowed. The embargo would apply not to “any part of the world” but merely to “any American Country.”31 But even in this emasculated form it failed to secure the approval of Congress.32

When Secretary Hull assumed office in March 1933 he quickly disclosed his irritation that Congress had failed to enact neutrality legislation that placed broad powers within the President’s discretion. He and Stimson saw eye to eye in this regard. In April 1935, he frankly informed the President that he did not want the type of legislation “advocated by isolationists like Nye, which would bind the Executive hand and foot and inform any prospective aggressors . . . that they could declare war on their intended victim and we would then see to it that our citizens did not furnish arms to that victim.”33

But Hull was not able to suppress the enthusiasm of Senators Nye and Clark who introduced several measures providing for the very neutrality policy that was scorned by the Department of State. The President and Secretary Hull asked Senator Pittman (chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations) to “kill” the proposed legislation by reporting adversely upon it, but he failed to act according to their desires. Norman Davis was then sent to see Pittman who agreed to “stifle” the Nye-Clark resolutions. After this promise of acquiescence by Pittman, Hull appeared before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and expressed his views. Subsequently he sent to the committee a draft of the legislation which he preferred. This, of course, contained a provision which left to the President’s discretion the application of an arms embargo in time of war.34

The Department of State feared that the strong isolationist bloc in the Senate might be able to postpone the passage of the proposed legislation, so Hull on August 19 asked President Roosevelt to exert pressure upon Senator Pittman so that he would evince the proper fighting spirit against the obstructionists. But Pittman seemed singularly unresponsive to White House advice in this regard, and the resolution he reported from the Committee on Foreign Relations failed to give the President any discretion in the application of an arms embargo. When this resolution passed both houses of Congress and was sent to the President for his approval, Secretary Hull indicated several provisions that were distasteful to him. But the President waved aside these objections and approved the bill on August 31.

On September 24, the National Munitions Control Board held its first meeting, and now every manufacturer, exporter, and importer of arms, ammunition, and implements of war would have to register with the Department of State. The export of their products would be controlled by a license system. In time of war a mandatory embargo proclaimed by the President would put a stop to this trade with belligerent nations. There would be no opportunity for the use of Presidential discretion. It was also provided that the Chief Executive, by proclamation, could extend to American citizens a warning that if they took passage on belligerent ships they did so at their own risk. He could prohibit or restrict the entry of belligerent submarines into American waters and could bar the transport of men and munitions from American ports to belligerent vessels at sea.35

d. American Reaction to the Italo-Ethiopian War

The Neutrality Act had established a new policy of peace insurance which it was ardently hoped would keep America safe from the ravages of war. A test for this policy soon arose on October 3 when Mussolini’s legions marched into Ethiopia. The usual proclamations of war were omitted. This led Secretary Hull to send telegrams to London, Paris, Rome, Geneva, and Addis Ababa requesting news of actual hostilities.

Bingham, in London, replied that “His Majesty’s Government do not consider a state of war to exist.”36 A little puzzled by the cautious attitude of Britain, Hull sent another telegram of inquiry to London: “Is this attitude based upon legal considerations that relate to belligerent rights, or is it the result of practical considerations pending the Council meeting?”37

While Hull was waiting for a reply from Bingham, Stanley K. Hornbeck, chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs, proposed to Mr. Phillips that a message be sent to the British Foreign Office and to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to the effect that no request be made of the American Government to co-operate in the imposition of sanctions.38

Dr. Hornbeck’s proposal was met with “smiles of disapproval” but he nevertheless continued to push it vigorously. He knew only too well that Europe would be eager for America to co-operate in any program of pressure upon Italy and he realized the dangers that would attend such action. While the Department of State was pondering the problems that would inevitably arise out of the war, word came from Paris that Laval and Eden had been holding important conferences concerning the course that should be followed. Laval had expressed the view that “it might be possible to get by with economic measures” of pressure upon Rome. Eden had countered with the statement that “if such measures should be taken they must be strong, firm and complete, and must commence all at once in order to be effective.”39

As dispatches continued to pour into the Department of State from European capitals it was soon obvious that a state of actual warfare existed between Italy and Ethiopia. In view of this fact President Roosevelt sent to Secretary Hull a wireless message from the cruiser Houston that he believed a proclamation should be immediately issued recognizing this state of war.40 Hull agreed with this viewpoint even though some of his advisers like Hugh Wilson were of the opinion that America should await action by the League. On October 5 the formal proclamation was issued which placed an embargo upon the shipment of arms and munitions of war to belligerent nations. Along with this proclamation a statement was issued warning all American citizens that those “who voluntarily engage in transactions of any character with either of the belligerents do so at their own risk.”41

This statement went beyond the letter of the Neutrality Act and was drafted by Secretary Hull in order to discourage “trading of all kinds with Italy.” The President had agreed with Hull in this particular case, but he broke with him in connection with the issuance of a warning to American citizens to be careful about traveling on Italian ships. Hull thought this warning was not necessary, but the President insisted that it be issued. He feared that if “Americans continue to patronize Italian ships there may very easily occur some untoward episode.”42

From Germany, Dodd reported that the Italo-Ethiopian War was being carefully studied by the Foreign Office. With reference to the possible imposition of sanctions, Dodd believed that inasmuch as Germany was no longer a member of the League and had no share in “Geneva decisions, it does not propose to be bound thereby.” The German Government hoped “to maintain normal trade with Italy.”43

In Paris there was a growing disinclination to take strong measures against Italy. Even the leftist press was supporting this viewpoint. The communist papers were exclaiming with emphasis: “We refuse to be dragged into a war through Signor Mussolini’s folly.” In the leading papers there was a marked tendency to “dissuade England from pressing for the adoption of sanctions.”44

After a careful scrutiny of the French press the Italian Government reached the conclusion that “France had decided to support Italy without alienating England.“ The consequence was that “Italy will proceed uninterrupted into Ethiopia, in the meantime seeking some advantageous compromise. . . . Military sanctions seem certain to be discarded and such economic sanctions as may be adopted have the prospect of being so restricted as to be ineffective.”45

Hugh Wilson, in Geneva, hoped that Secretary Hull would postpone any action with reference to the Italo-Ethiopian conflict. The situation was decidedly “ticklish.” The issuance of an American proclamation recognizing a state of war “might influence the decision of the Council and involve us in responsibility for the course of action which they adopt.”46

Prentiss Gilbert, also in Geneva, presented the opposite viewpoint. He had talked with a British official who took the position that the sooner America acted “the better.” League action “would not tend to clarify the situation but [would] probably render it more involved and that early action on our part would not only serve to cut through this atmosphere by a recognition of the realities of the situation, but . . . would also strengthen the British position.”47

It was the British position that Secretary Hull regarded as being of prime importance. On October 5 he directed James C. Dunn to telephone to the Embassy in London and make certain inquiries about the attitude of the Foreign Office. He learned that the British Government believed that “sanctions might not be agreed to immediately at Geneva, but that eventually there would be sanctions.” With reference to the existence of war between Italy and Ethiopia, no decision had as yet been made by the British Government.48

While the British Foreign Office was wrestling with the juridical problem of war, the British General Staff and the British Admiralty were engaging in important conversations with French military officials concerning possible operations in the event that France was attacked as a result of League measures. During these conversations the question of sanctions was given extended consideration, the view being expressed that “military measures might be evoked by conditions flowing out of the application of economic measures.”49

These conversations were given added significance by the reply of the French Government to the British query as to French action in the event Britain was attacked by a third power “against whom sanctions were contemplated.” French assistance was promised under the following three conditions:

1) The obligation of assistance must be reciprocal. It must bind Britain to help France in similar circumstances.

2) There must be a joint consultation on the proposed measures of precaution.

3) The obligations must apply whether the aggressor State is or is not a member of the League.50

e. The League Names Italy as an Aggressor Nation

During the period of Anglo-French military conversations concerning the wide ramifications of the Italo-Ethiopian dispute, the League of Nations was grappling with the same thorny problem. Anthony Eden, at Geneva, had no thought of appeasement, and his inflexible attitude was strongly supported by many important groups in Britain. The clergy of the Church of England was particularly insistent that the British Government stand behind the League. The Archbishop of York51 and the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote letters that vehemently expressed the opinion that loyalty to the League was a moral obligation.52 Canon F. R. Barry, preaching in Westminster Abbey, struck a similar note and frankly faced the fact that League support in the crisis then disturbing Europe might have grave consequences for Britain.53 Just before the Assembly of the League declared Italy to be an aggressor state, Eden received a telegram from the Archbishop of York and a number of bishops, deans, and other representatives of the Church of England assuring him that he had their ardent support in “taking whatever action” might be “necessary to uphold the Covenant of the League.”54

Many members of the Trades Union Congress were outspoken in their advocacy of loyalty to the League, and when the Labour Party Conference began its sessions on September 30 a demand was immediately voiced for the application of economic sanctions.55 British public opinion was apparently ready to support the League even at the cost of war.

In France there was a very different situation. As the shadow of resurgent Germany began to darken the northern frontiers of France, Laval grew increasingly reluctant to have any serious break with Mussolini. At first the rightist leagues like the Croix de Feu, the Camelots du Roi, and the Solidarité Française were the most outspoken groups in favor of friendly relations with Mussolini’s Italy, but slowly the leftist elements moved in the same direction. In most circles there was no fervor for war. The general viewpoint reflected a profound pessimism about British idealism. It seemed to a large number of Frenchmen that the sudden British enthusiasm for the League masked a selfish concern for British imperial interests. They regarded it as distinctly naïve

to allow their feelings to be engaged by the abrupt conversion of a nation which finds itself overcome by so lively an attachment to the League at a moment when the League can be of service to its national interests. Between the previous indulgence and the present severity of the English attitude towards violations of the Covenant, the French see a contrast which strikes them as singular. . . . Is it not exasperating to see England rallying to the Covenant at last after her long detachment has allowed our victory [in the World War] to fritter itself away and has permitted an expansion of German nationalism?56

But French reluctance to press Mussolini in a vigorous fashion did not prevent the League of Nations from taking action to block Italian expansion in Ethiopia. On October 5 the Council of the League met at Geneva and appointed a Committee of Six which was to submit a report on the Italo-Ethiopian dispute not later than the afternoon of the 7th. On that date the Council reassembled and heard the report of this special committee. In conclusion the report made this ominous statement: “After an examination of the facts stated above, the Committee has come to the conclusion that the Italian Government has resorted to war in disregard of its covenants under Article 12 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.” The Council accepted this report naming Italy as an aggressor nation, and it referred the matter to the meeting of the Assembly on October 9.57

There was little doubt that the Assembly would confirm the decision of the Council, and in Geneva the question of sanctions began to loom large. On October 8, Hugh Wilson had a long talk with M. Coulondre, the French Foreign Office expert on economics, who wanted to know if copper and petroleum could be included under the term “implements of war” and thus be affected by the American arms embargo. Wilson did not believe that these “strategic materials” would fall within the terminology of the neutrality law. Coulondre then remarked that embargoes and quotas could be made efficacious “only on condition that the United States would co-operate.” Wilson felt that such co-operation “might be extremely difficult.” After a brief consideration of this discouraging statement, Coulondre expressed the optimistic opinion that the French and British governments were moving towards a “real entente.”58

In London, Sir Samuel Hoare discussed this entente with Ambassador Bingham and was a little dubious about French co-operation. He inclined towards the view that the “French Government would not go as far as actual military sanctions or a blockade, but he was confident that the French would support the British up to that point.” Economic sanctions might turn the trick. If there could be arranged some effective collective action in refusing to accept Italian exports, the war would not last more than a few months.59

The possibility that the Italo-Ethiopian conflict might widen into a general European war was discounted by Mussolini who assured the editor of the Paris Soir of his desire to come to an understanding with Britain: “This disagreement which England has with us is indeed senseless and a conflict between the two countries would be unthinkable. Neither directly nor indirectly do we desire to injure any British interest.”60

But these gestures of conciliation did not affect the attitude of the Assembly of the League of Nations which on October 11 approved the decision of the Council (October 7) to declare that Italy had resorted to war “in disregard of engagements under Article 12 of the Covenant.” The Assembly also appointed a Co-ordination Committee to deal with the matter of possible sanctions against Italy.61

Ambassador Long reported that in Rome the press was “bitter over the action of the League.” It expressed the opinion that “Italy has been condemned at Geneva under methods which no court in any civilized country would use in the prosecution of the most heinous crime.”62 In view of this sharp Italian animosity towards Britain, Long thought that the Department of State should be prepared for a “possible sudden outbreak of hostilities.” If a conflict actually took place, it would not be wise to discount the military strength of Italy. The “potentialities of the situation suggest the possibility of our having to deal on a friendly basis in the future with a more important Italy.”63

f. Secretary Hull Insists upon an Independent Policy

The Department of State was fully aware of the implications of the Italo-Ethiopian dispute. On October 9, Secretary Hull sent a telegram to Hugh Wilson in which he emphasized the fact that as far as the American Government was concerned it should be “increasingly clear” to the League that every possible step had been taken to “preserve the peace.” An assurance was then given that the Department of State would not overlook “any measures that we may be able to take consistent with our policy.” But the League should realize that the American Government was inclined to pursue its course “independently in the light of circumstances as they develop.”64

Ambassador Wilson discussed this instruction with Anthony Eden who said that he “had been particularly careful not to take any steps which could embarrass the United States and that he had reached the conclusion before I spoke to him that it might be embarrassing to us to have an invitation issued.” When Wilson took the matter up with Laval he received a prompt assurance that “if the matter of an invitation were raised,” France would oppose “such a step.”65 Eden then remarked that further pressure could be exerted upon Italy through collective action on the part of the signatories of the Pact of Paris. He could not see that “such a step would cut across the work at Geneva if done through diplomatic channels.” In order to illustrate this statement he outlined the plan he had in mind for applying sanctions to Italy in such a way as to bring the war to an early close.

While Eden was thinking in terms of compulsion, Laval still hoped that it would be “possible to make an agreement which could be accepted by Italy.” This hope was based upon confidential information to the effect that Mussolini was prepared to accept “something considerably less than he had formerly demanded.”66

But from Rome word came that the position of Mussolini in Italy was stronger than ever. The feeling was widespread that “the present issue goes beyond any question of internal policies and involves the very existence of Italy. Mussolini counts among his supporters today persons who formerly would gladly have witnessed this downfall or perhaps even had contributed to that purpose.”67

In Geneva the British continued to press for effective sanctions. This policy would be pursued until the elections. Consequently, “the weight of English pressure at Geneva on the Italo-Abyssinian crisis may be expected to increase rather than diminish until the general election is over.”68

This British pressure found expression during a conversation between Sir Samuel Hoare and Ambassador Bingham. The Foreign Secretary was extremely anxious that Italy be made to feel the weight of international displeasure because of her aggressive action in Ethiopia. In this regard the signatories of the Kellogg Pact could play an important role. They could be summoned to action by the League, but this procedure might awaken resentment in the United States. A second alternative could take the form of a series of conversations “between the diplomatic representatives of the Pact signatories,” but Hoare was silent as to the method of initiating these conversations. The third alternative was the “possibility of action initiated by the President of the United States.”69

When these suggestions were conveyed to President Roosevelt he was somewhat confused as to procedure. He was enjoying a cruise at sea and he did not have on board his vessel a “complete copy” of the Kellogg Pact. He could not remember any “clause under which any positive action can be taken by signatories against a violating nation except possibly a pro forma protest.”70

Hull immediately replied by wireless that there was no provision in the Pact of Paris which prescribed any method of invocation. But former secretaries of state [including Stimson] had “unofficially expressed the opinion that the Pact impliedly authorized and calls for consultation, and it is our view that consultation at the present stage . . . does not contemplate anything more than a concerted. . . appeal by all the signatories to the belligerent countries to abide by their legal and moral obligations by desisting from further hostilities.”71

With the President’s approval, Secretary Hull sent a long instruction to Ambassador Bingham indicating the attitude of the American Government. The Department of State was “favorably disposed in principle to the idea of calling attention to the obligations of all signatories to the Pact,” and this had already been done with reference to the Italo-Ethiopian dispute. With regard to any consultation between the signatories of the pact in relation to this dispute, such action should have been taken before the outbreak of hostilities. Therefore, the “opportune moment for collective invocation of the Pact. . . has gone by.” In view of what the “United States has already done, dramatically and emphatically, I doubt whether it would be wise for a renewed initiative to come from this country.”72

But this negative attitude towards any formal invocation of the Pact of Paris did not prevent the President and Secretary Hull from making strenuous efforts to exert economic pressure upon Italy even before sanctions were actually imposed by the members of the League. At a press conference on October 10, Secretary Hull was asked whether he would care to elaborate upon what “the President said about American interests trading with belligerents at their own risk.” Hull replied that every person should be able to grasp the “implications” of the President’s statement. While there was no legal prohibition against Americans engaging in ordinary commercial transactions with the belligerent nations, the President’s warning about the risks attending these business relations would probably act to diminish the extent of them.73

This mild, indirect way of checking the flow of American goods to Italy did not satisfy the President’s desire to help put a stop to the Italo-Ethiopian War. He suggested to Secretary Hull that it might be possible to put an end to all shipments of processed copper and steel by including those articles in the list of “arms, ammunition and implements of war.” When Hull informed him that his advisers in the Department of State were of the opinion that the Neutrality Act did not “authorize such additions to the embargo list,” he pressed for the publication of the names of all Americans who, even at their own risk, traveled on belligerent ships or traded with belligerents. Hull conferred with Secretary Roper on this point and then advised the President that such publication would be “unwise.” It would be expedient to proceed slowly and avoid incurring the “criticism and the certain antagonism of traders and travellers.”74

g. Britain Limits Italian Freedom of Speech

American interest in the imposition of sanctions against Italy was diverted for a short time by British action to limit Italian freedom of speech. On October 12 the Columbia Broadcasting System issued a press release relative to the refusal of the British postal authorities to relay, through the radio-telephonic circuit between London and New York, a speech made by Baron Aloisi at Geneva. Under Article 27 of the Telecommunication Convention of Madrid, any suspension of radio services could be put into effect only after “all the contracting governments” had been notified through the Bern Bureau of such intended action. The British Government had not taken the trouble to send this notification, and their failure to do so was branded by Francis C. de Wolf, of the Department of State, as “somewhat highhanded.” This incident was “further proof of the wisdom of establishing a separate telephonic circuit between New York and Paris.”75

Dr. Irving Stewart, a member of the Communications Commission, took the matter more seriously than Mr. de Wolf. He regarded the British action as a direct breach of Article 26 of the Treaty of Madrid (1932). It might, therefore, be necessary for the Federal Communications Commission to write to Secretary Hull and request that the breach be “brought to the attention of the British authorities.” This suggestion was shocking to certain officials in the Department of State who were busily berating Italy for violating treaties. Britain must never be put in the same class with Italy in this matter. Dr. Stewart was quickly informed that it would be preferable to keep all discussion of this question upon a “purely informal basis” because its wide ramifications “involved matters of delicate consequence.” It was apparent to Dr. Stewart that Britain must not be judged by ordinary standards, so he promised to do “all he could” to keep the commission from sending any protest to the Department of State.76 The incident could be safely buried in the voluminous government files.

h. America Refuses to Follow a Parallel Policy with Britain

While this burial was being safely accomplished by the members of the Federal Communications Commission, many of the experts in the Department of State were wrestling with the very live problem of sanctions against Italy. They were fully aware of the fact that the Covenant of the League imposed no obligations on the League as such in connection with the imposition of sanctions. The enforcement of such measures was the responsibility of the individual members of the League. The obligation of each member to apply sanctions became effective as soon as it had recognized through its vote that Italy “had gone to war in violation of the Covenant.”77 All the members of the Council with the exception of Italy, Austria, Hungary, and Albania had approved the resolution declaring Italy an aggressor nation, thus indirectly making a declaration in favor of sanctions. In the Assembly on October 10, Italy had voted against the resolution of censure, while Austria and Hungary abstained from formal action. Thus the League was almost a unit in its approval of measures to curb Italian aggression.

In Europe the attitude of Germany was of prime importance. Word from Ambassador Dodd was reassuring: “Notwithstanding the suspicions of the French . . . which I gather are in a measure shared in the United States that Germany may shortly be expected to avail herself of the conjuncture to break loose, this country is really out of the picture for the present.”78

News from France struck a note of muted optimism. Henry Morgenthau, Jr., had a conversation with Pierre Laval on October 15. The French Premier still nursed hopes of finding a solution for the Italo-Ethiopian dispute. France had no intention of “acquiescing in either military sanctions or blockade.” He was especially anxious for his policy of conciliation to succeed because if matters were pushed to an extreme point and Mussolini fell there was “great danger that Communism might take over the regime in Italy and Europe could ill afford this blow.”79

In October 1935 there was little danger of Mussolini’s fall. The decision of the League to impose sanctions upon Italy had done more “to rally the nation around the Government . . . than any step yet taken toward a ‘peaceful solution’ of the dispute.” Italy was now certain that Britain sought war in order to “cripple” Italian power “permanently.”80 Mussolini, during a conversation with former Senator Allen, of Kansas, expressed the opinion that the British Government was trying to “provoke Italy into war.”81 In Rome it was reported that a telegram had just been received from Dino Grandi recounting a discussion with Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain had remarked that “it was no longer a question of war in Abyssinia; no longer a question of support from the League of Nations, but it has become a question of England’s prestige.”82

But Britain had no real intention of going to war to preserve her prestige. There was strong hope in London that economic sanctions would bring Italy to her knees. On October 15 the American press published a statement concerning the financial restrictions that the League was ready to impose upon Italy. All loans to or for the Italian Government, or to any person or corporation in Italian territory, were prohibited. Similar prohibitions would be applied to “all banking or other credits.” This action was regarded by Herbert Feis, of the Department of State, as “very drastic.”83

Although the British Government realized that a policy of economic sanctions might eventually lead to war with Italy, it instructed its delegation at Geneva to push “hard and insistently” for its adoption.84 The Italian Foreign Office was fearful that this British pressure would have immediate effect upon American policy. On October 16 the Italian Ambassador had a conversation with Mr. Phillips and complained that the Federal Reserve Bank had recently circularized the more important banks in New York City asking for data concerning all credit and banking operations with Italian banks and commercial houses. He regarded this action as one of the many manifestations that the American Government was busily engaged in efforts to discourage trade with Italy. While he was certain that the League of Nations was “not dictating” to the United States, it seemed obvious that the Department of State was “very responsive to the situation developing in Geneva.” When the ambassador finally remarked that he assumed that the British Government was in close touch with the United States “with regard to its program,” Mr. Phillips hurriedly “denied this and told him definitely that we had not been approached by any Government with regard to League activities.”85

This assurance by Mr. Phillips was distinctly disingenuous. On the very day that this assurance was given by Mr. Phillips, Anthony Eden had one of his usual confidential conversations with Ambassador Hugh Wilson. Once more the old question arose of consultations between countries which were not members of the League. Wilson expressed the opinion that any action or pronouncement by these non-member countries on the Italo-Ethiopian dispute should be issued as a result of diplomatic discussions rather than as a product of a formal conference. Eden replied by suggesting that France and the United States take the initiative in invoking the Kellogg Pact. He was quite “enthusiastic for this idea.” He felt that it would be “enormously helpful. . . if Germany could be brought into the picture in some way.”86

Secretary Hull was cool to this suggestion, and on October 17 he cabled to Prentiss Gilbert at Geneva that the American Government was “acting upon its own initiative and proceeding separately and independently of all other Governments or peace organizations.”87

When Ambassador Wilson was shown a copy of this instruction he sought an early opportunity to discuss its contents with Anthony Eden. Eden was reassuring. Undoubtedly a communication from the League would be sent to the United States, but it would be in a form that “could not be embarrassing.” With reference to the political situation in Europe, Eden remarked that the “whole relationship between France and England was progressively more unsatisfactory.” He had received letters from France indicating that England was more unpopular than at any time since Fashoda. Certainly the public temper in Britain was rapidly mounting against France and their “shilly-shallying in carrying out collective action.”88

The communication from the League to which Eden had referred took the form of some documents dealing with the Italo-Ethiopian dispute. American comment on these data was requested. On October 26, Secretary Hull sent his reply. Once more emphasis was placed upon the “independent policy” followed by the United States with reference to the war in Ethiopia. While the American Government looked with sympathetic interest upon the concerted efforts of other nations to preserve peace, it would not become a member of this concert. It would, however, be ready at all times to exercise “its moral influence in favor of peace throughout the world.”89

i. Italy Hopes to Preserve American Friendship

In France some of the papers like Le four were frankly disappointed by the tenor of Secretary Hull’s reply. M. Bailby expressed the view that “when America promises to exercise moral influence in favor of peace” it is apparent that she has “no desire to go further.” This decision leaves “the door open to transportation of products through Germany and Austria, thus placing sanctions nations in a deplorably inferior position.”90

Prime Minister Laval, however, informed Ambassador Straus that he was “very well pleased with the statement of the American position.” He believed that peace could be preserved by granting to Italy “some form of control over that portion of Ethiopia south of the eighth meridian.“ He likewise felt that it would be necessary to grant a strip of territory in the North bordering on Eritrea. With regard to sanctions he inclined towards the view that they would be applied “almost immediately,” and would be confined to “economic measures.” He thought that it was exceedingly important to “sustain the administration of Mussolini in order to prevent the spread of communism.”91

In Italy the reply of Secretary Hull to the League was considered a “full confirmation of the policy of neutrality voted by Congress.” Italian opinion remained “friendly to America.”92 The hopes of many Italians were given a lift by the remarks of a well-known American newspaper correspondent, Isaac G. Marcosson, who appeared to speak with authority relative to the impossibility of enforcing sanctions against Italy. It was Mr. Marcosson’s conviction that the failure of Austria and Hungary to approve the policy of pressure presaged an early breakdown of that system. German exports would have an easy road to Italy, and Russia, despite promises to the contrary, would supply Mussolini with much-needed oil, pig iron, and manganese.93

But Italian optimism as to the ineffective nature of sanctions received a blow on October 30, when President Roosevelt and Secretary Hull issued statements which called attention to the fact that they had warned American citizens “against transactions of any character with either of the belligerent nations except at their own risk.” The President then expressed the hope that American businessmen would not be attracted by the possibility of rich returns from wartime trade, and Mr. Hull sounded a warning against “temporary and risky war profits.”94

This counsel of perfection was not received with favor in some important countries. The Japanese Ambassador in Rome informed Ambassador Long that his Government would “not support the sanctions policy” and would not “even answer the recent League communication on the subject.”95 The Spanish Government was not at all certain what policy it would adopt,96 while the Polish Ambassador informed Mr. Phillips, the Acting Secretary of State, that his Government was opposed to an early enforcement of sanctions against Italy.97 The holes in the embargo dykes were constantly growing larger.

It was obvious to many American diplomats abroad that the British program for exerting pressure upon Italy was not meeting with the support that had been expected. The possibility of being drawn into a war had acted as a deterrent upon some nations; others were critical of the way British statesmen had handled the matter. Ambassador Long expressed the view that the Italian invasion of Ethiopia had been a violation of the Kellogg Pact, but she was not alone in this movement towards war. Britain’s “naval threat against Italy was also a violation of the Covenant of the League and fairly good evidence that she was, and is, ready to disregard her renunciation of ‘war as a national policy’ taken under the Kellogg Pact.”98

It was difficult for Ambassador Long to be sharply critical of Italian policy. In Rome he had been treated with such constant courtesy that he found it easy to supply excuses for violations of the Kellogg Pact. Since October 11 the Italian Government had been faced with the threat of sanctions. This economic warfare would start on November 18, and its impact upon the Italian way of life was dreaded throughout the peninsula. It was widely recognized that America, through her arms embargo, through restrictions upon banking credit, and by repeated warnings of the dangers of trade with belligerent nations, had taken steps that might seriously embarrass the Italian war effort. But the Italian Government had not permitted these adverse moves to produce an attitude of hostility towards the United States. While there was some “querulousness in their scrutiny of American policy, they are on the whole generous in their interpretations of it as it affects them and they very generally consider America in a very friendly way.” The hope was still cherished that the Ethiopian war would not sacrifice “the friendship of America not only because of the selfish advantage it is to them in this fight but also because the thought is traditional with them.” After this careful presentation of many of the factors in the Italo-Ethiopian equation, Ambassador Long closed with the following advice: “I strongly recommend the American Government be neutral and keep out of this war. . . . I recommend that we pursue a course of studied aloofness.”99

j. The Department of State Exerts Pressure upon Italy

These recommendations of Ambassador Long were wasted words as far as President Roosevelt and Secretary Hull were concerned. The Anglo-American entente, whose existence had been vigorously denied by Mr. Phillips, was functioning in a most effective manner. The Department of State had been making an exhaustive study of economic sanctions and it had come to the conclusion that they could not function properly unless certain essential raw materials and key commodities were excluded from American exports to Italy. The embargo on “arms, ammunition and implements of war” was too restricted in scope to affect the Italian war effort in a major manner. Something new would have to be added to the American program.

In order to be of the greatest possible service to the League in this matter of sanctions against Italy, Secretary Hull issued on November 15 a statement that was really a declaration of economic warfare upon Italy:

The American people are entitled to know that there are certain commodities such as oil, copper, trucks, tractors, scrap iron, and scrap steel which are essential war materials, although not actually “arms, ammunition, or implements of war,” and that according to recent Government trade reports a considerably increased amount of these is being exported for war purposes. This class of trade is directly contrary to the policy of this Government as announced in official statements of the President and Secretary of State, as it is also contrary to the general spirit of the recent neutrality act.100

It was the purpose of Secretary Hull to place America in the van of a crusade against aggressor nations. Neither he nor the President had the authority to join with other nations in military sanctions that would stop the march of Italian armies into Ethiopia, but they could invoke the “spirit” of the Neutrality Act in an effort to sabotage any rapid advance of Mussolini’s war machine. They had moved several steps ahead of the League in this matter. Secretary Hull’s statement of November 15 was three days prior to the date when the League sanctions went into effect. Moreover, the list of commodities and raw materials on this non-export list was more extensive than the one subsequently issued by the League members. The American schedule included the important item of petroleum. The League never went that far and the statements issued by it never struck the note of righteousness so strongly sounded by Secretary Hull. To strident supporters of the League this note of righteousness seemed like a summons to peace; to realistic students of international relations it was a clarion call to arms whose overtones kept vibrating along State Department corridors until they were magnified into a chorus of war by the tragedy of Pearl Harbor.

Firm	Year	Profits
Bethlehem Steel Corporation	1917	43%
Jones and Laughlin Steel Company	1917	47%
Colt’s Patent Fire Arms Company	1917	64%
Savage Arms Corporation	1917	65%

In Richard Lewisohn’s The Profits of War (New York, 1937), pp. 153-34, the following statement is made: “The Kennecott Company, one of the Guggenheim group, made a profit in 1917 amounting to 70% of the capital invested. . . . The corresponding profits of the Utah Copper Company . . . were 200%. . . . But even this was surpassed by the Calumet and Hecla Copper Mining Company who won the palm with 800% in 1917.” See also the Washington Evening Star, December 14, 1935.

1John H. Ferguson, American Diplomacy and the Boer War (Philadelphia, 1939), pp. 208-9.
2February 10, 1904.
3February 10, 1904.
4February 11, 1904.
5Tatsuji Takeuchi, War and Diplomacy in the Japanese Empire (New York, 1936), pp. 155-57.
6Edward H. Zabriskie, American-Russian Rivalry in the Far East 1895-1914 (Philadelphia, 1946), pp. 101-60.
7Ernest B. Price, The Russo-Japanese Treaties of 1907-1916 Concerning Manchuria and Mongolia (Baltimore, 1933), pp. 34-38.
8A. Whitney Griswold, The Far Eastern Policy of the United States (New York, 1938), pp. 129-34.
9Theodore Roosevelt to President William H. Taft, December 22, 1910. Knox MS, Library of Congress.
10John G. Reid, The Manchu Abdication and the Powers, 1908-1912 (Berkeley, 1935), chaps. 4-10.
11Charles Callan Tansill, Canadian-American Relations, 1875-1911 (New York, 1944), chaps. 1-4, 10-12.
12Merle E. Curti, “Bryan and World Peace,” Smith College Studies in History, XVI (Northampton, 1931).
13Charles Callan Tansill, America Goes to War (Boston, 1938), chaps. 2-6.
14Edwin Borchard and William P. Lage, Neutrality for the United States (New Haven, 1937), p. 183.
15Tansill, op. cit., pp. 459-60.
16Borchard and Lage, op. cit., p. 88. It is interesting to note that in the eventful days that just preceded America’s entry into the World War, President Wilson had so little regard for Secretary Lansing that he complained bitterly to Colonel House about his shortcomings: “I [House] was surprised to hear him [the President] say that Lansing was the most unsatisfactory Secretary in his Cabinet; . . . that he had no imagination, no constructive ability, and but little real ability of any kind. He was constantly afraid of him because he often undertook to launch policies himself which he, the President, had on several occasions rather brusquely reversed.” House Diary, March 28, 1917. House MS, Yale University Library.
17President Wilson did not have a clear idea of the actual meaning of the Fourteen Points. In his Diary, December 20, 1918, Secretary Lansing makes the following significant comments: “There are certain phrases in the President’s ‘Fourteen Points’ [Freedom of the Seas and Self-Determination] which I am sure will cause trouble in the future because their meaning and application have not been thought out. . . . These phrases will certainly come home to roost and cause much vexation. . . . He [the President] apparently never thought out in advance where they would lead or how they would be interpreted by others. In fact he does not seem to care just so his words sound well.” Lansing Papers, Library of Congress.
18Oscar Cargill, Intellectual America: Ideas on the March (New York, 1941), p. 504.
19The correspondence dealing with the pre-Armistice agreement is printed in full in Foreign Relations, 1918, Supplement, I, The World War, I (Washington, 1933), 337-38, 343, 357-58, 379-81, 382-83, 425, 468-69.
20Paul Birdsall, Versailles Twenty Years After (New York, 1941), pp. 35-36.
21David Lloyd George, Memoirs of the Peace Conference (New Haven, 1939), I, 306-9.
22Harold Nicolson, Peacemaking, 1919 (New York, 1939), p. 18.
23The Intimate Papers of Colonel House, ed. Charles Seymour (Cambridge, 1928), IV, 343.
24Philip M. Burnett, Reparation at the Paris Peace Conference (New York, 1940), I, 63-64.
25Ibid., p. 69.
26Ibid., pp. 832-33.
27Birdsall, op. cit., p. 258.
28Thomas A. Bailey, Woodrow Wilson and the Lost Peace (New York, 1944), p. 240.
29Thorstein Veblen, The Nature of Peace (New York, 1917), p. 261. Secretary Lansing did not share the viewpoint that the Germans had forfeited their colonies through maladministration. In his Diary, January 10, 1918, he remarked: “This purpose of the retention of conquered territory is prima facie based upon conquest and is not in accord with the spirit of a peace based upon justice. . . . it is necessary for peace that the adjustment should be equitable.” Lansing Papers. Library of Congress.
30Edwyn Bevan, The Method in the Madness (London, 1917), pp. 305-6.
31Arthur P. Scott, “George Louis Beer,” in the Marcus W. Jernegan Essays in American Historiography, ed. W. T. Hutchinson (Chicago, 1937), p. 315.
32Ibid., p. 319.
33George L. Beer, African Questions at the Paris Peace Conference, ed. L. H. Gray (New York, 1923), pp. 58-60.
34Bailey, op. cit., p. 163.
35Harry R. Rudin, Germany in the Cameroons, 1884-1914 (New Haven, 1938), pp. 11, 414, 419.
36Bailey, op. cit., p. 167.
37It is significant that most of Professor Lord’s colleagues on the Inquiry thought that his zeal for Poland was “excessive.” Birdsall, op. cit., p. 178. See also, Hunter Miller, My Diary at the Conference of Paris (privately printed, 1928), I, 289.
38Ray S. Baker, Woodrow Wilson and World Settlement (Garden City, 1922), III, 37-38.
39Miller, op. cit., IV, 224-26.
40Seymour, op. cit., IV, 334-35.
41Lloyd George, op. cit., II, 637-42.
42René Martel, The Eastern Frontiers of Germany (London, 1930), pp. 49-50.
43William H. Dawson, Germany Under the Treaty (London, 1933), pp. 149-52.
44Diaries, Letters and Papers (London, 1935-37), II, 503.
45Documents on International Affairs, 1934, ed. John W. Wheeler-Bennett and Stephen Heald (New York), p. 424.
46Miller, op. cit., IV, 224-28; VI, 49-52.
47E. Alexander Powell, Thunder Over Europe (New York, 1931), p. 62.
48Dawson, op. cit., pp. 102-9. See also, I. F. D. Morrow and L. M. Sieveking, The Peace Settlement in the German Polish Borderlands (London, 1936).
49Powell, op. cit., p. 66.
50Baker, op. cit., pp. 482-84. Apparently, Henry White did much to give President Wilson the correct view of the situation in Upper Silesia. See Allan Nevins, Henry White (New York, 1930), p. 423.
51In the learned account written by Georges Kaeckenbeeck, The International Experiment of Upper Silesia (London, 1942), p. 6, the vote is given as 707,605 for Germany; 479,359 for Poland.
52(London, 1930), pp. 79-88.
53Dawson, op. cit., pp. 206-9.
54Sir Robert Donald, The Polish Corridor and the Consequences (London, 1929), pp. 197-98. See also, Sarah Wambaugh, Plebiscites Since the World War (Washington, 1933); W. J. Rose, The Drama of Upper Silesia (Brattleboro, 1936); Colonel E. S. Hutchinson, Silesia Revisited—1929 (London, 1930).
55Seymour, op. cit., IV, 347, 349, 383.
56Articles 428-432 of the Treaty of Versailles, The Treaties of Peace, 1919-1923 (New York, 1924), I, 254-55.
57General Henry T. Allen to Secretary Hughes, December 22, 1921. 862T.01/346, MS, National Archives.
58Ambassador Wallace to Secretary Hughes, Paris, April 27, 1920. 862.00/921, MS, National Archives.
59Emil Sauer to Secretary Hughes, Cologne, February 16, 1923. 862.00/1215, MS, National Archives.
60Dawson, op. cit., p. 84.
61Nevins, op. cit., p. 372.
62G. E. R. Gedye, The Revolver Republic (London, 1930), pp. 29-31.
63Herbert Hoover, “Communism Erupts in Europe,” Collier’s, CXXVIII (September 8, 1951), pp. 26-27, 68-71.
64Alma Luckau, The German Delegation at the Paris Peace Conference (New York, 1941), p. 124.
65Ibid., pp. 98-100.
66George A. Gordon to Secretary Hull, Berlin, May 22, 1933. 862.00/2985-86, MS, Department of State.
67George A. Gordon to Secretary Hull, Berlin, June 17, 1933. 862.00/3010, MS, Department of State.
68George A. Gordon to Secretary Hull, Berlin, June 23, 1933. 862.00/3017, MS, Department of State.
69George A. Gordon to Secretary Hull, Berlin, July 10, 1933. 862.00/3028-29, MS, Department of State.
70George S. Messersmith to Secretary Hull, July 10, 1933. 862.00/3033, MS, Department of State.
71The Final Act of the Lausanne Conference, July 9, 1932 (London, 1932), Cmd. 4126.
72The countries represented at this conference in Berlin were France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States.
73New York Times, June 3, 1933.
74The United States was deeply concerned about this transfer moratorium because about 40 per cent of the German external debt, approximately $1,800,000,000, was owed to American creditors. For a different estimate see Cleona Lewis, America’s Stake in International Investments (Washington, 1938), p. 414.
75New York Times, June 21, 1933.
76Raymond Moley, After Seven Years (New York, 1939), p. 247.
77Ibid., pp. 261-62.
78The documents dealing with the London Economic Conference are given in great detail in Foreign Relations, 1933, I, 452-762.
79Memorandum by the chief of the Division of Western European Affairs (Moffat), March 24, 1933. Ibid., pp. 396-98.
80Ibid., pp. 409-11. Atherton to Secretary Hull, London, May 12, 1933.
81Ibid., pp. 417-19. Agreement of understanding and co-operation.
82Memorandum by the ambassador in France (Straus) of a conversation with the British Ambassador in France (Tyrrell), June 15, 1933. Ibid., pp. 420-21.
83Ambassador Dodd’s Diary, 1933-1938, pp. 9-10. For July 4, 1933, Dodd records a conversation with Colonel House in which the aging colonel remarked: “I sent two nominations to the President, your’s and Nicholas Butler’s, but I felt that you ought to be given precedence.”
84Ibid., p. 5.
85Cordell Hull, Memoirs (New York, 1948), I, 237-38.
86New York Times, January 19, 1933.
87New York Times, March 19, 1933.
88New York Times, May 8, 1933.
89Dodd, op. cit., p. 9.
90Ibid., p. 5.
91Ibid., pp. 6-7.
92Ibid., p. 9.
93Ibid., pp. 10-11.
94Ibid., p. ix.
95Ibid., February 21, 1927, LXVIII, pt. III, 4389.
96January 8-10, 23-24, 29, 1927.
97January 9, 1927.
98January 25, 1927.
99March 17, 1927.
100January 21, 26, 1927.

Back Door to War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy 1933-1941