purpose to see that all nations, especially the small nations, are kept on a position of equality with all others and that, in every practicable way, there will be cooperation." 12

While neither this Government nor any other could "give anybody a blueprint as to all the details of how these relationships between all the different nations will be gradually developed and perfected," he said, sovereign equality of all peace-loving states "irrespective of size and strength, as partners in a future system of general security" was the policy of the United States.

It was at this point that the Secretary's consultation with members from the House of Representatives on the Plan took place. The Representatives participating in the meeting in the Secretary's office on June 2, included members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, but, more basically, constituted the House leadership for both parties. From the Democratic side were Representatives Sam Rayburn of Texas, Speaker; John W. McCormack of Massachusetts, majority leader; Sol Bloom of New York, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee; and Robert Ramspeck of Georgia, majority whip; from the Republican side, Representatives Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, minority leader; Charles A. Eaton of New Jersey, ranking minority member of the Foreign Affairs Committee; and Leslie C. Arends of Illinois, minority whip. Each was given a copy of the latest draft of the tentative proposals, which was a revision of the draft of April 29, and a general discussion of some length followed. The continuity of these specially arranged consultations was unavoidably interrupted at this juncture by the approaching recess of the Congress for the party conventions in this election year. The series was resumed later in the summer.

Additional, more general consultations were meanwhile under way and continued until later in June. On June 22, the Secretary conferred, without the draft Plan, with Senators Joseph H. Ball of Minnesota and Harold H. Burton of Ohio, Republicans, and Lister Hill of Alabama, and Carl A. Hatch of New Mexico, Democrats (often called the "B2H," group), at their request. Moreover, in the period of these talks and until the party conventions had been held, Assistant Secretary Breckinridge Long and others were active for the Secretary in discussing with political leaders of both parties the planks concerning international organization to be incorporated in the party platforms.

A form of expert drafting consultation was also undertaken on behalf of the Secretary when Mr. Hackworth and Mr. Cohen of the Informal Political Agenda Group met with Judge Manley O. Hudson in New York, June 9-11 and 26, 1944, to consider article by article the "Department of State Bulletin, X, 509.

proposals being developed for an international court of justice. Their meetings were held on the basis of drafts of a projected statute and a related "Introductory Note" concerning the existing Permanent Court of International Justice. These had been prepared by the two members of the Group, with the assistance of the research staff. They took into account not only the Statute of the existing Permanent Court and the draft proposals of the earlier Legal Subcommittee, but also the recent Report of the Informal Inter-Allied Committee on the Future of the Permanent Court of International Justice, the views of the PostWar Programs Committee as expressed concerning the court on March 20, 1944, and a proposal drawn up by the staff in light of all the foregoing.

Also, occasional conversations between individual representatives of interested public organizations and various officials occurred, either on or bearing upon the general problems of future international organization.

Beginning approximately with the first of the basic congressional consultations and with the steps described above toward an informal conference among the four governments, work continued to be pressed on the Plan. By June the draft used at the start of the consultations had been revised, added to, and rearranged into eleven sections. The former fourth section was replaced with one on Pacific Settlement of Disputes. Determination of Threats to the Peace or Breaches of the Peace and Action with Respect Thereto was inserted as section VI, and Regulation of Armaments and Armed Forces as section VII.13

With the "Possible Plan" about to become a final recommendation, and with the conclusion on June 2 of the congressional consultations on the Plan, another discussion with the President was considered desirable. It was also believed advisable, in view of increasing public discussion, which was partly reflected in the Secretary's statement of June 1, for the President to make a statement concerning the views and plans so far developed. A draft for this purpose was written in collaboration between the Secretary and some members of the Agenda Group on June 14 and was amended the following morning.

The Secretary and Mr. Stettinius, Mr. Bowman, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Pasvolsky of the Agenda Group discussed the proposed statement and plans later with President Roosevelt on June 15, and with limited amendments the statement was issued by the President that afternoon.1 It mentioned the consideration given to suggestions received from groups, organizations, and individuals and emphasized "the entirely non-partisan nature of these consultations," devoting special attention to the "cooperative spirit" shown in the discussion of all

13 The former sections VI-IX were renumbered to become VIII-XI.

14 Department of State Bulletin, X, 552-53.

aspects of the postwar program. "This," it continued, "is a tribute to the political leaders who realize that the national interest demands a national program now."

The remainder of the short statement, as given below, constituted an announcement for public information and consideration of the broad framework of the "Possible Plan." It likewise, viewed in the light of the stress on nonpartisan participation in determining this framework, constituted an announcement to our Allies of the American unity that underlay this official position.

"The maintenance of peace and security must be the joint task of all peace-loving nations. We have, therefore, sought to develop plans for an international organization comprising all such nations. The purpose of the organization would be to maintain peace and security and to assist the creation, through international cooperation, of conditions of stability and well-being necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations.

"Accordingly, it is our thought that the organization would be a fully representative body with broad responsibilities for promoting and facilitating international cooperation, through such agencies as may be found necessary, to consider and deal with the problems of world relations. It is our further thought that the organization would provide for a council, elected annually by the fully representative body of all nations, which would include the four major nations and a suitable number of other nations. The council would concern itself with peaceful settlement of international disputes and with the prevention of threats to the peace or breaches of the peace.

"There would also be an international court of justice to deal primarily with justiciable disputes.

"We are not thinking of a superstate with its own police forces and other paraphernalia of coercive power. We are seeking effective agreement and arrangements through which the nations would maintain, according to their capacities, adequate forces to meet the needs of preventing war and of making impossible deliberate preparation for war and to have such forces available for joint action when necessary.

"All this, of course, will become possible once our present enemies are defeated and effective arrangements are made to prevent them from making war again.

"Beyond that, the hope of a peaceful and advancing world will rest upon the willingness and ability of the peace-loving nations, large and small, bearing responsibility commensurate with their individual capacities, to work together for the maintenance of peace and security."

V

CHAPTER XIII

"Tentative Proposals" and Negotiating Arrangements

T

HE FURTHER steps to refine the American proposals for a general international organization and to arrange major-power negotiations on this question were taken as situations demanding action were developing in all fields. The period of the spring and early summer of 1944 was a time of convergence both in war movements and in postwar developments.

Rome was liberated June 4. The successful breaching of the German sea wall of Europe by the cross-channel invasion of Normandy, June 6, D-day, decisively heralded eventual victory in Europe. The drive of the Allied forces inland then began swiftly to bring the policies to be applied in liberated areas to the operations stage in widening parts of Western Europe. Coordinate in timing with the drive in the West, the Soviet offensive across Poland, opening June 23, presaged "postwar" operations regarding Eastern Europe, where seriously conflicting forces were already in evidence, while the battles in the Balkans brought nearer the problems involved in the surrender of the Nazi satellites. Already, in March and April, negotiations looking toward withdrawal of an enemy state from the war had taken place with the Rumanians, albeit without immediate result. In the Pacific, the storming of Saipan by United States forces on June 15 was a long northward step toward Japan's home islands.

POSTWAR PREPARATION BY D-DAY

THE PROGRESS of the war toward military victory made it imperative to have available approved policy recommendations to guide this Government as the occasion arose in its discussions, negotiations, and actions with the other major Allies respecting both the enemy states and the liberated friendly nations. The Post-War Programs Committee, which had cleared a series of basic policy recommendations on the treatment of Germany, Rumania, Bulgaria, and Hungary by the end of May, concentrated in June primarily on recommended policy toward

liberated European states. The interdivisional committees, particularly the committee on Germany, and the interdepartmental Working Security Committee, which was concerned with the problems relating to the European enemy states, accelerated their drafting of more detailed recommendations. Even recommendations already approved had constantly to be reviewed as the course of events unfolded and the nature of actual postwar conditions could be measured more exactly.

The military progress simultaneously increased the pressure toward completion of other aspects of postwar preparation. It did so particularly in regard to obtaining United Nations agreement, before the end of hostilities, on a general international organization for cooperation in maintaining peace and security. It was this problem that was fundamental to the postwar policy preparation in all other fields. The predication that a world security organization would exist was, for illustration, a weighty factor in policy recommendations on the territorial problems in areas affected by the war-from the standpoint of the organized cooperation it would signify, the obligations its members would assume, and related considerations including an anticipated lessening of pressures for local boundary changes designed to gain some wholly national strategic advantage. However, since it was the adopted policy to defer international commitments in the territorial field until after the war, except where the states directly concerned could reach a peaceable settlement, there was still time before the final decisions had to be made on most territorial problems. In many other parts of the American preparation, on the other hand, the stage was being reached where conclusion of international agreement was imperative if needed mechanisms were to be available when hostilities ceased.

V

As previously described, plans in several specialized economic and social fields had already become the subject of international negotiation. To a varying extent, each of them was influenced by the conceptions molding the "Possible Plan" for the world security organization, and the cumulative developments concerning all the projected functional organizations, as they were called, added to the urgency of clarifying the nature of the general organization and of determining its date of establishment. It was intended in the "Possible Plan," that the international organizations for specialized economic or other functions should be related to the general international organization in the sense that the latter would be an over-all organization with power to coordinate international activities in these functional fields. Obviously, therefore, the nature and timing of the establishment of the functional organizations were necessarily conditional upon the nature of the general organization and the prospects for its establishment. Consequently preparation in the specialized fields and in the field of general organization had to be closely integrated. This in