quently, the separateness of the two Committees became indistinct. As time passed and urgency increased, the two Committees frequently convened as one, devoting the first few minutes of their meeting to immediate matters that were pressing. Whether or not the two convened together, however, meetings began with a briefing by the Chairman and sometimes by additional members on current developments in international relations and the progress of the war in all theaters.

The recommendations and principal instructions to the United States representative on the European Advisory Commission were cleared by the Post-War Programs Committee. This Committee also formulated in final form the policy instructions for United States representatives at the growing number of international conferences and discussions being held or projected in special fields and for the State Department representatives on interdepartmental committees. Ad hoc decisions sometimes appeared necessary in some foreign-policy fields before consideration of general policy could be completed, such decisions being taken by the Post-War Programs Committee and elsewhere in the Department of State, and also, where military and naval operations were concerned, by the Departments of War and the Navy, all working against time. These ad hoc decisions added to the complexities inherent in the problems faced and to the urgency for consideration of all the Committee's twenty-six fields of work.

By July 27, 1944, the Post-War Programs Committee had considered policy papers in each of the twenty-six fields, and policy had been tentatively formulated in each. In addition, general policy papers on territorial settlements and detailed policy papers on military government for Japan and on displaced persons of foreign nationality in Germany were under study. Negotiating documents had been approved in several fields, including those to be used in the Dumbarton Oaks Conversations on general international organization. Two hundred and seventy documents, of which one hundred and eighty-nine were major policy papers, had been acted upon. The entire policy-formulating and policy-reviewing machinery of the Government had been brought into play at one stage or another. The preparatory work for this Committee engaged ten of the twelve Offices, twenty-four Divisions, the interdivisional country and area committees, an interdepartmental working committee on security, the economic committees, the committee and staff on international organization and security, and interdepartmental consultation on many aspects of the problems involved. V During the period of the Dumbarton Oaks Conversations, the secretariat of the Post-War Programs Committee prepared, in the form of a report to the Secretary of State, a complete record of American postwar policy thus formulated and of the status of the relevant nego

tiations. The Secretary's "black book" of current foreign policy has been compiled periodically ever since as a standing practice in the Department.

AN "ADVISORY COUNCIL ON POST-WAR FOREIGN POLICY"

AN ADVISORY group in connection with the foregoing superior Committees was contemplated at the time of the reorganization as a related part of the new policy structure. An "Advisory Council on Post-War Foreign Policy" was projected to succeed the Advisory Committeewhich was still suspended, not abolished. Much thought had been given this matter in the autumn of 1943 by the Informal Agenda Group; a decision to establish it was made by January 15, 1944; and further attention was at once given it by the Post-War Programs Committee at its earliest meetings in February 1944.

L

The proposed "Advisory Council" was initially envisaged as a large nonpartisan group to be consulted on major questions of postwar foreign policy. It was to be composed of a number of representatives of influential public organizations, Members of Congress and the Cabinet, ranking officials of the Department, and certain additional highly qualified citizens. Subsequently, particular thought was given to having its congressional and noncongressional members meet separately, since their responsibilities were different and there would be special need for consultation with the congressional members on a more specific basis as plans and events developed. It was thought that the group would not be asked in its meetings, to be held once or twice a month, to make formal recommendations or decisions, but rather that it would be informed on problems through the Department's explanation of developments and invited to give the Secretary of State the benefit of its discussion and advice. The group would, in turn, keep the organizations represented informed on these problems, except し where secrecy was for the time being necessary.

The conception of the new body projected at this advanced stage of the preparation thus differed from that underlying the Advisory Committee in several respects. The Council was to be a related part of a large policy-formulating structure within the Department and between Departments and not itself the superior organization. It was to advise on the basis of papers and policies placed before it for consideration and advice, not to originate its own agenda and proposals. Its members, except those from Congress and Departmental officials, were to be primarily representative of particular public organizations, rather than persons invited from the general public to participate on the basis principally of their personal experience and other special qualifications. Representativeness was already tending, as has been observed above, to become the basis for participation in

the Advisory Committee as its work developed, shown not only in the congressional membership of this Committee but, especially during 1943, in the composition of the Taylor Committee and its special committees. Since, in the new final stage of preparation, competence to interpret and to inform public opinion and to enlist public cooperation in the guidance of postwar policy had become a major need, representation in the proposed new Council of the organizations active in American public life appeared best adapted to meet this need. This need was not to be preclusive; there was to be some membership not of representative character.

The decision to institute the Advisory Council had been made in connection with the Departmental reorganization, and it also was announced on January 15, 1944. This was before the completion of detailed plans for the Council's membership and functioning. The announcement stated:

"The Secretary of State has also established an Advisory Council on Post War Foreign Policy and so far has designated Mr. Norman H. Davis, Mr. Myron C. Taylor, and Dr. Isaiah Bowman as Vice Chairmen of this new Council, which will be under his Chairmanship with the Under Secretary as his deputy. The Secretary has asked Mr. Davis, Mr. Taylor and Dr. Bowman, who with others have been associated with him in this field for the past two years, to assist him in organizing and carrying forward the work of this Council which will bring together outstanding and representative national leaders to advise the Secretary on post-war foreign-policy matters of major importance." "

It was expected that the list of other participants would also be published, which demanded that the greatest care be used in selecting the organizations to be represented in order to avoid giving justified offense to those omitted. The difficulties of arranging truly "representative" membership for the large Council envisaged and the harassing pressure of the daily demands upon the Secretary personally and on the Department as a whole hampered the conclusion of the remaining plans. Nevertheless, a tentative plan for the public membership was completed on February 11 and submitted to the President. It was reported on February 18 that, thinking revision necessary, the President would present to the Department an amended list of the proposed members. When this was received, it appeared that extensive changes and enlargement of the membership would be involved. Although further steps in the matter were repeatedly discussed in the Department, with particular reference to the shortening of the long membership list in the interest of effective participation by the members, the project continued in abeyance for some weeks.

6 Department of State Bulletin, X, 43.

'Subsequently Mr. Pasvolsky and Robert W. Hartley were designated within the Department to be its Director and Executive Secretary, respectively.

As time passed and the rapidity of developments increased during the spring, further effort in the direction of an "Advisory Council" was regarded as less and less timely. The project was abandoned May 22, 1944. However, the abandonment was of the form rather than of the substance. As will be seen, the projected congressional consultations were inaugurated by Secretary Hull informally during March 1944. Consultations between the Secretary and leaders of various national organizations in that summer and autumn, and the off-the-record dis-\ cussions undertaken throughout the country in the closing months of the year, to a degree carried out the original aim of the project to inform the public and to obtain its thought, primarily but not exclusively, on the problems of postwar general international organization. Furthermore, the Department's thinking on the entire matter and the several suggested lists of participants in the projected Council were used during the following year when forty-two national organizations were invited by the Secretary of State to serve as consultants to the American Delegation at the San Francisco Conference.

REORGANIZATION OF THE STAFF

THE REORGANIZATION of the staff on January 15, 1944, reflected similarly the course of events and the resulting rapid movement of the preparation of postwar policy toward final recommendations, negotiations, and subsequent operations. In most of the fields of research, the stage of concentration upon "studies" had passed; in the remainder, it was passing, giving way to the drafting of proposals and recommendations. Consequently, when the Departmental reorganization introduced the new structural unit of operational "Offices," within which all divisions would be grouped, a major adjustment in the organization of the staff was required. This adjustment was not completed at one step, however, because the original concept of a "research staff” no longer applied equally in the political and economic fields, and within the political it remained more applicable to the territorial than to the international security and organization aspects of the work."

The political work was organized within a new Office of Special Political Affairs, created as one of the five new Offices charged with responsibility for political foreign policy and relations under the high-ranking officials of the Department. James C. Dunn was its

8 Members of public organizations in fields of labor, business, and farming were among the advisers on the Delegation to the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, at Mexico City, Feb. 21-Mar. 8, 1945, but this was not unique in American practice and, though influenced by it, did not stem primarily from the above project.

'For listing and assignment of staff under the reorganization, see appendix 32. 843388-5015

Acting Director 10 until Ambassador Edwin C. Wilson assumed the directorship on May 8, 1944. Alger Hiss was appointed Special Assistant to the Director late in April. The new Office contained two divisions, created out of the Division of Political Studies, which was abolished. These units were all of "regular" Departmental status, functioning from this time forward wholly within the Department's budget.

The Division of International Security and Organization was established to initiate and coordinate policy and action pertaining to "general and regional international peace and security arrangements and other arrangements for organized international cooperation," liaison with international organizations on these matters, and "liaison within the scope of its responsibility with the War and Navy Departments" and other Departments concerned. Studies were of course continued under this mandate, but they were now amalgamated with new operational functions. Mr. Notter was named Chief of this Division and Messrs. Sandifer, Rothwell," and Gerig, Assistant Chiefs. All of these were members of the former research staff. The work of this Division was to develop through subsequent years and further organizational adjustments.

In the case of the second of the two divisions, the Division of Territorial Studies, the concept of the "research staff" was maintained, but on an obviously temporary basis although not expressly so stipulated. This Division was charged with analyzing and appraising developments and conditions in foreign countries "arising out of the war and relating to post-war settlements of interest to the United States;" with formulating "policy recommendations in regard to these matters in collaboration with other divisions in the department;" and with maintaining liaison with other Departments and agencies of the Government. Its Chief, Mr. Philip Mosely, and Assistant Chiefs, Mr. Harris and Mr. Ireland, were likewise from the preceding Division of Political Studies.

These two Divisions reported to the Office of Special Political Affairs which in turn reported to Under Secretary Stettinius and Secretary Hull. However, Mr. Pasvolsky, as Special Assistant to the Secretary of State, continued in charge of the substantive prepar\ation with regard to international organization and security, on which his work was concentrated at the Secretary's request. He also, as Executive Director of the Post-War Programs Committee, super

10 Mr. Dunn was Director of the Office of European Affairs.

"Mr. Rothwell served only briefly in this capacity, since he was almost immediately designated one of the two executive secretaries of the Post-War Programs Committee.