Roosevelt (115 page)

Konoye: The View Toward Chungking.
Grew’s comment on the possibility of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor: Grew, p. 1233 (Jan. 27, 1941). Indispensable sources on Japan’s strategic planning during this period are Butow, p. 204 and
passim;
and Yale C. Maxon,
Control of Japanese Foreign Policy
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1957), pp. 150, 153-154, and
passim.
Roosevelt’s comment on Matsuoka’s trip is in PL, p. 1125 (Feb. 19, 1941). Hitler-Matsuoka negotiations: Sontag and Beddie, pp. 289 ff.; Schmidt, pp. 226 ff.;
Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression,
Vol. IV, pp. 526 ff. Schmidt, p. 231, stresses Hitler’s emphasis to Matsuoka on the uncertainty of Nazi-Soviet relations. Text of Japanese-Soviet agreement: Dallin, pp. 164-165. On Chinese-American relations in 1941, extensive background is provided by PSF, China, 1941-44, and by
Morgenthau Diary
(China), Vol. I, which reprints large sections of Morgenthau’s diary, including transcripts of his conferences with his staff.

The Yangtze River description is from Agnes Smedley,
Battle Hymn of China
(Knopf, 1943). Chiang at this time: White and Jacoby, pp. 122-129; Tsou, chap. 2; Payne, pp. 233 ff. On Chiang’s relations with the Chinese Communists during this period, see Lawrence K. Rosinger,
China’s War Time Politics, 1937-1944
(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 945) pp. 38-39 and
passim.
Appointment of Lattimore: Currie to Roosevelt, May 6, 1941, PSF, China, and other correspondence, Box 4. For Chiang’s comments and views generally, see his
Resistance and Reconstruction
(Harper, 1943) and
The Collected Wartime Messages of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek,
Vol. 2 (1940-1945) (John Day, 1946), compiled by the Chinese Ministry of Information. U.S.-Chinese relations generally, during early 1941: PSF, Currie Folder, Box 45.

Roosevelt: The Crisis of Strategy.
Roosevelt to Grew: Heinrichs, p. 328. Roosevelt’s note to Knox about the “dear, delightful” Navy officers: PSF, Navy Department, Box 20, Dec. 23, 1940. Background of army planning
and strategy: Cline, chaps. 1 and 2. Navy: King and Whitehill. On the more immediate background, see Matloff and Snell, chaps. 1-3. Admiral Stark’s strategic appreciation of Nov. 1940: PSF, Navy Department, Box 20, Nov. 4, 1940. The characterization of Plan Dog as the first attempt to deal with American military strategy as a whole is from Matloff and Snell, p. 25. Pogue
¹
, p. 127, among others, notes Roosevelt’s noninvolvement openly in the early planning; see also Divine, chap. 2. Marshall: Pogue
¹
, pp. 22-23 and
passim;
Sherwood, pp. 164-165; Robert Payne,
The Marshall Story
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1951), chap. 16. The President’s general directive of Jan. 16, 1941 is quoted in Watson, pp. 124-125. Roosevelt’s editing of the directive: Watson, p. 373. On the discussions and agreements of the British-American staff, see Matloff and Snell, chap. 3; the plan to concentrate American naval efforts in the eastern Atlantic is spelled out in Knox to Roosevelt, March 20, 1941.

Roosevelt’s elaborate and cautious preparations for American trusteeship of Greenland are reflected in documents in PSF, Greenland, Memorandum, Stimson and Knox to Roosevelt, April 22, 1941, and his reply to them of April 30, 1941; and in PSF, Denmark, which includes Roosevelt’s correspondence with Hull on the wording of his appeal to the King of Denmark, April 14, 15, and 18, 1941. Implications of a Pacific First strategy: Feis
³
, pp. 45-47.

Harriman’s description of the atmosphere of London: Sherwood, p. 276. Roosevelt’s aid to Britain: HHP, Box 305; also Roosevelt to Churchill, March 25, 1941, SD 811.6363/38 1/2. Roosevelt’s humorous exchange with the press: PC 735, April 15, 1941; PPA, 1941, pp. 113 ff. The President’s highly significant statement about convoying leading to war: PC 712, Jan. 21, 1941. Knox’s claim about cleaning up the Atlantic is quoted in Langer and Gleason, p. 445. Roosevelt’s and Marshall’s views on Hawaii are indicated in Pogue
¹
, pp. 135-136. Stimson’s comments on convoying to Roosevelt: Stimson and Bundy, p. 369. Ickes’s view of Roosevelt’s approach: Ickes, pp. 466, 470, 485, 538; Morgenthau’s views: Blum
¹
, pp. 253-254 and
Morgenthau Diary
(China). Iowa farmers: Wallace to Roosevelt, May 26, 1941, PSF, Box 59. Hopkins’s position: Clapper Papers, May 19, 1941, LC. Frankfurter’s position: Freedman, pp. 599-602. The croquet game incident is reported in Ickes, p. 510; I infer that Hull went on with his game only from Ickes’s word “interrupt.” Stimson’s boa constrictor quotation: Elting E. Morison, p. 518. The Stimson outburst “Keep on walking”: Stimson and Bundy, pp. 370-371.

Stalin: The Twist of
Realpolitik. Stalin stated his preference for political arithmetic over algebra to Eden at their conference in Moscow, Dec. 1941: Eden, p. 251. Munich as catalyst: Kennan
²
, pp. 321-329. Molotov’s comments on
Realpolitik
and on Russian-American relations are quoted in Werth, pp. 51-52, 94; on the latter see also Currie to Roosevelt, May 8, 1941, FDRL. Churchill
³
, pp. 357 ff., describes his warnings to Stalin of the impending German invasion. Matsuoka described to Hitler his meeting earlier with Stalin: Sontag and Beddie, pp. 296-297. Soviet-American economic relations: Hull, pp. 971-972; Acheson, p. 34. Stalin’s send-off of Matsuoka is described in Langer and Gleason, pp. 354-355; Dallin, p.
346; Werth, p. 121; the reported words vary but the meaning is similar in these sources. Stalin’s information and policies before the invasion: Ulam, pp. 303-313; Deborin, pp. 148-150; Werth, pp. 120-126. Stalin’s important speech of May 5, 1941 to the officer graduates, with its implication that Russia might have to take the initiative against Germany in the future, is quoted in Werth, pp. 122-123; Werth compiled this quotation from several Russian oral sources several weeks later, but all his sources, he states, agree on Stalin’s having made the statement about possibly taking the initiative. I have discussed this speech with Berezhkov and Soviet historians. The Tass statement and the exchange between the German Ambassador and Molotov are quoted in Werth, pp. 125, 127. Alan Clark’s
Barbarossa
presents a graphic picture of the initial German advance; see also Werth. Stalin’s near-collapse: Zhukov, pp. 11-12, 33; Werth, pp. 315-316. Hitler’s on-the-eve message to Mussolini is in Ciano, p. 369; Churchill’s broadcast, in Churchill
³
, p. 371; and Stalin’s broadcast, in Werth, pp. 162-165. Ilya Ehrenburg, pp. 10-11, describes hearing the speech.

Roosevelt’s letters to Bailey, to the Congressman (fames F. O’Connor), and to Bruce Barton: respectively, PL, p. 1154, May 13, 1941; PL, p. 1159, May 19, 1941; PPE 7550, May 19, 1941; see also Roosevelt to Norman Thomas, May 14, 1941, PL, pp. 1156-1157. Watson’s memo to Roosevelt, May 16, 1941, on foreign-policy opinion: PL, p. 1158; see also Cantril, pp. 1061, 1128, 1162; OF 857; PPF 4721; PSF, Post-War Planning Folder, Box 54; Cantril Notebook I; PSF, Public Opinion Folder, Box 54. Ickes’s warning to Roosevelt about Hitler and incidents: Ickes to Roosevelt, May 24, 1941, PSF, Box 73. Differences within the administration on policy are fully covered in Langer and Gleason, pp. 458 ff.; Sherwood, pp. 295-298, which also describes the writing of the speech declaring a full emergency, and Roosevelt’s reaction to the reaction.
Bismarck
episode: Sherwood, p. 295; Rosenman, p, 283. The speech: PPA, 1941, pp. 181-194. The press conference the following morning: PC 745, May 28, 1941. Roosevelt’s first reaction to
Robin Moor
sinking: Roosevelt to Hull and Welles, June 11, 1941, SD 195.7 Robin Moor 12 1/2, NA. On the mood of spring 1941, see Clapper Papers (diaries of that time), LC.

Atlantic First.
Churchill’s speech on the German invasion of Russia: Churchill
³
, p. 372. On earlier British-Soviet relations, see Werth, p. 162; Butler, pp. 544 ft.; Eden, p. 263; Dallin, chap. 11; FRUS, 1941, Vol. I, pp. 155, 164, 167, 176. American relations with Russia and lack of confidence in that country’s holding out against the Wehrmacht: Hull, pp. 971-973; Langer and Gleason, pp. 530-531; PHA, Pt. 14, p. 1336; see also Divine, pp. 79-84. Roosevelt’s dislike of Oumansky: Ickes, p. 569. Roosevelt’s response to the invasion: Sherwood, pp. 303-311; Kennan
²
, pp. 352-355. State Department declaration of June 23: FRUS, 1941, Vol. I, pp. 766-768; see also Welles, p. 171. The Roosevelt-Oursler exchange, June 25, 1941: PPF 2993. Davies’s reports from Moscow: George Fischer, “Genesis of the United States-Soviet Relations in World War II,”
The Review of
Politics,
July 1950, pp. 363-378. Administration view that the best way to help Russia would be to step up aid to Britain: Cox to Hopkins, June 23, 1941, Cox Diary, FDRL. Pressure on Roosevelt to step up the Atlantic war: Sherwood, pp. 303-304; PHA, Pt. 16, pp. 2175 ff.; Ickes, pp. 549 ff.; Harriman to Roosevelt, April 24, 1941, HHP, Box 305. Roosevelt’s operations orders for Atlantic escorting: PHA, Pt. 5, pp. 2293-2295. Operational orders on Iceland: Stark to Hopkins, June 17, 1941, with accompanying copy of instruction from the Chief of Naval Operations to the Commanding General, First Marine Brigade (Provisional), June 16, 1941, PSF, Iceland. Churchill on Iceland: Churchill
³
, p. 138. Morison
¹
, p. 79, and King and Whitehill, pp. 343-344, note some of the more specific operational choices in escorting ships. See, generally, PSF, Navy, Box 21, 1941. Hitler’s refusal to escalate in the Atlantic:
Führer Conferences,
June 24, 1941, p. 1; July 10, 1941, pp. 3, 8, 9; Shirer, pp. 1149-1153; Schmidt, p. 231.

Roosevelt’s citing of Sandburg on Lincoln on strategy: PC 662, Aug. 19, 1941; PPA, 1941, p. 329. Roosevelt to Ickes on shortage of naval ships: PSF, Ickes Folder, July 1, 1941; see also PPA, 1941, p. 280. The exchanges between Hull and Nomura are exhaustively documented in
FRUS-Japan;
for the stiff Hull oral statement, June 21, 1941, see
ibid.,
p. 485. Long throws some light on Hull and internal State Department relationships. Events in Tokyo during this period: Ike, pp. 60, 65-66, 78-90, 97, 98, 101; see also Konoye’s retrospective account in PHA, Pt. 20, pp. 3995-3997. Roosevelt’s action on Indochina: FRUS, 1941, pp. 527-530; see also PPA, 1941, pp. 279-280. Roosevelt’s comment on the “knock-out” fight in Tokyo is from the letter to Ickes cited above. Ickes’s comment on the “noose” policy, July 27, 1941: Ickes, p. 588. Stimson’s comment was in a handwritten note in the margin of a report to him by Robert Patterson, on the Cabinet meeting of July 18, 1941 attended by Patterson, in Stimson Papers. Grew’s comment: Grew’s diary, quoted by Langer and Gleason, p. 654. Mosley, pp. 206-209, describes some of the activities of the moderates in or close to the Emperor’s circle during this period.

Russia Second.
On the fighting in Russia, see the graphic accounts in Werth, Pt. 2, and Clark, chaps. 3-4; and in the North Atlantic, Morison
¹
, chap. 4. Military estimates of the prospects of Russian survival: Stimson to Roosevelt, June 22, 1941, quoted in Sherwood, pp. 303-305; Churchill
³
, pp. 393-394, 398, 402. Churchill
³
, pp. 457-458, is also the source of the account of his exchange with Maisky. On Roosevelt’s “expedient” approach to Russia, see Fischer, cited above. Langer and Gleason, p. 542, has a roundup of congressional reactions to the German-Soviet hostilities. Raymond H. Dawson,
The Decision to Aid Russia, 1941
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1959), offers an excellent compilation of interventionist and isolationist reactions to the Russo-German war, as well as a balanced account of the relations of foreign policy and domestic politics following this event. Conflicting advice to Roosevelt: Pogue
¹
, p. 158; Sherwood, pp. 306-307. Popular attitudes toward Russia as reported to Roosevelt: Cantril to Roosevelt, July 3, 1941, PSF, Public Opinion Polls; see also Cantril Notebook I.

Hopkins’s mission to Moscow and reports on his talks with Stalin: Sherwood, chap. 15; HHP, Box 298. Roosevelt on Wheeler: Roosevelt to
Frankfurter, July 25, 1941, Freedman, p. 611. Roosevelt’s exasperation over lagging aid to Russia: Ickes, pp. 592-593; Blum
¹
, p. 264. Morgenthau telephone call to Cox: Cox Diary, Aug. 2, 1941, FDRL. See Paul Carell,
Hitler’s War on Russia
(London: Harrap, 1964).

Government as Usual.
The press-conference exchange on the defense effort: PC 733, April 8, 1941; PPA 1941, p. 90. Price control: PSF, Rowe Folder, Box 56; Harvey C. Mansfield and Associates,
A Short History of OPA
(Washington, D.C.: Office of Price Administration, 1947); see also Smith Diary, March 18, 1941, FDRL. Lilienthal notes the policy divisions within hierarchies of defense agencies. Josephson, p. 545, and Ickes, pp. 535-536, describe the Cabinet discussion of labor problems. PPA, 1941, pp. 205-208, has the President’s statement and executive order seizing the North American Aviation Co. plant. For the White House and labor disputes generally, see PSF, Strikes Folder, Box 56. Reports to the White House from the scene of the strike: Grady to Patterson, June 9, 1941, and Patterson to Roosevelt, June 12, 1941, OF 407-B. Reaction to the plant seizure: special compilation and analysis conducted for this book by Paul Streicker, at FDRL, OF 407-B, Boxes 20-24. On the White House reaction to congressional calls for restrictive labor measures, see Hillman to Roosevelt, June 24, 1941 (on the Vinson bill), PSF, Strikes Folder. Discussion of dollar-a-year men: PC 735, April 15, 1941; PPA, 1941, p. 116. The state of the defense program in early 1941 is reflected in Smith Diary, FDRL; McCloy to Stimson, May 21, 1941, Stimson Papers;
The United States at War,
p. 81; Nelson, pp. 275ff.; see also Truman Committee hearings, cited below. Keynes: Clapper Papers (Diary, May 17, 1941), LC. The private report to Roosevelt, July 15, 1941, initialed rwh, is in War Department Folder, FDRL. The origins of the Truman Committee are described in Donald H. Riddle,
The Truman Committee
(New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1964), chap. 1, and in Steinberg, chap. 22; the proceedings are in “Investigation of the National Defense Program,” Hearings before a Special Committee Investigating the National Defense Program, 77th Congress, 1st Session, and later sessions; the Connally comment is at p. 1325. Roosevelt’s earlier preparations for congressional investigations: Roosevelt to Stimson, Knox, Knudsen, Hillman, March 6, 1941, PSF, OPM Folder, Departmental. The Lippmann comment is from his “Today and Tomorrow” column, a copy of which is in the Stimson Papers; see also
Time
and the liberal weeklies for criticism of Roosevelt’s leadership during this period. The Lilienthal comparison with 1933: Lilienthal, p. 321. The struggle over extension of Selective Service is well described in Pogue
¹
, pp. 145-157; Langer and Gleason, pp. 568-574. See Stimson and Bundy, pp. 376, 378; Pogue
¹
, pp. 149, 153, 155-156; Vandenberg, pp. 13-15, for criticism of Roosevelt’s leadership in the fight. I. F. Stone’s comment:
The Nation,
Sept. 6, 1941, pp. 194-195. See Stone’s
Nation
articles generally for brilliant studies of defense mobilization. See Somers for later developments.