tegration was achieved, within the Department, partly through participation, occasionally or continuously, by some of the same staff officers in the work in all these fields and partly through the process of review of all plans at the high technical level and by the Post-War Programs Committee. Where other Departments were also interested, it was accomplished through the various interdepartmental committees at the working and policy levels as already described.

The developments in the specialized fields of most immediate concern, as entailing negotiations for permanent functional international organizations during the spring and summer of 1944, have been discussed above. They were, in summary, the Conference of Allied Ministers of Education, which produced a tentative draft constitution for an educational and cultural organization; the Conference of the International Labor Organization, which provided for the further development of the ILO in the labor and social fields and for its eventual integration with other international organizations; the Bretton Woods Conference, where agreement was reached on the establishment of an international monetary fund and an international bank; and issuance by the Interim Commission on Food and Agriculture of a draft constitution for a permanent organization in this field. In each instance, the possible establishment in the future of an over-all organization was taken into account.

This network of international negotiations involved, though in differing measure, all of the United and Associated Nations in the construction of organized cooperation looking toward advancement of the general well-being and, thus, toward world peace and security. These negotiations as a whole were evidence of the general desire to create the economic and social organizations concerned by the close of hostilities in order, if possible, to have them available in handling the anticipated problems to be faced after victory.

In the political fields the problems had come by the date of the Allied landing in France on June 6 to be distinguishable into two broad types, one relating to immediate posthostilities arrangements and the other concerning international organization and security. Work was pressed on both, concurrently.

The preparations for immediate posthostilities arrangements were under the direction of Mr. Dunn. They were at various stages of advancement. Formulation of policy for the Far East was still in the stage of tentative recommendations from which more detailed preparations could proceed. Agreement on policy directives on certain problems regarding Germany was being reached in order to guide Ambassador Winant in the negotiations then under way in the European Advisory Commission. Final decision was being made on the policies to be applied in operations, either immediate or imminent, in the liberated areas.

The Far East Area Committee, composed of experts from the Office of Far Eastern Affairs, the Division of Territorial Studies, and other interested offices and divisions, was at work on a comprehensive series of papers being prepared at the request of the War and Navy Departments. The Civil Affairs Division of the War Department and the Occupied Areas Section of the Navy Department had asked the Office of Special Political Affairs on February 18, 1944, for the "recommendations and advice" of the State Department on "some of the fundamental questions which confront us in the planning, training and organization for civil affairs administration in Japan Proper, the Mandated Islands, and the countries occupied by Japan." An enclosure enumerating some of these basic questions accompanied this letter, which was to be followed by other similar requests. By May 15, twenty papers prepared in response by the interdivisional area committee and cleared by the Post-War Programs Committee had been transmitted to the War and Navy Departments. The basic document in this series set forth "the Post-War Objectives of the United States in Regard to Japan," 1 and the other papers dealt "principally with measures and policies for achieving" these objectives. These papers were described as being "in the nature of suggestions to the Army and Navy, prepared to accord with the situation as it can now be visualized, for the purpose of enabling CAD and OAS to prepare for the tasks ahead". Throughout the following summer and autumn, the interdivisional area committee on the Far East was engaged in the preparation of additional papers of this character for transmission to the War and Navy Departments.

The interdivisional committees on Germany and on the BalkanDanubian area, composed of experts from the Office of European Affairs and its divisions, the Division of Territorial Studies, and other units having related economic or political interests, were working on the problems concerned with the European enemy states. The problems concerning Austria, not considered an enemy state, were handled by the committee on Germany. The policy papers prepared in these committees were being cleared first through the interdepartmental Working Security Committee, then by the Post-War Programs Committee and, where major economic questions were presented, interdepartmentally by the Executive Committee on Economic Foreign Policy. When approved, these papers were sent, as already noted, to Ambassador Winant in London, United States Representative on the European Advisory Commission. The committee on Germany was also preparing for the use of the War Department a series of recommendations concerning German education, in response to a request of April 5, 1944, from the Civil Affairs Division.

1

The interdivisional country and area committees working on prob

For text of basic document, see appendix 36.

lems of liberated areas and territorial adjustments, composed of experts from the geographic and economic offices and divisions and from the Division of Territorial Studies, were similarly clarifying American objectives in these areas and formulating policy recommendations to guide operations in the period of transition from war to peace. Their papers were being cleared through the Post-War Programs Committee, and such of the economic sections of these papers as needed interdepartmental clearance received it through the Executive Committee on Economic Foreign Policy.

In the case of Italy, the stage of operations had been reached with the conclusion of the Italian armistice in September 1943, and United States policy had begun to be implemented. The interdivisional committee on Italy concerned itself primarily with such long-range problems as those involved in basic political reform in that country and possible territorial adjustments that might arise at the time of the peace settlement.

A special ad hoc drafting committee, comprised of experts from the Division of Territorial Studies and from the Divisions of Eastern European, Central European, and Southeastern European Affairs was established in June 1944 at the suggestion of Secretary Hull to prepare an analysis of territorial disputes in Europe and elsewhere with a view to reducing the number of those that might require Allied negotiation. This committee continued its work into July and produced a basic policy paper on the settlement of territorial disputes in Europe, which was cleared by the Post-War Programs Committee on July 28, 1944.2

The second field of political preparation-international organization and security-was under the direction of Mr. Pasvolsky. Two ad hoc groups, both informal, were working in relationship with the Informal Political Agenda Group by June 6.3 One of these groups had been set up five days earlier, at the suggestion on May 25 of the representatives of the Joint Chiefs on the Agenda Group, to hasten the consideration of whether interim consultative machinery should be established among the four major powers to implement particularly their commitment in paragraph five of the Moscow Declaration:

"That for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security pending the re-establishment of law and order and the inauguration of a system of general security, they will consult with one another and as occasion requires with other members of the United Nations with a view to joint action on behalf of the community of nations."

2 See appendix 37.

This was in addition to the small group on the international court comprised of Messrs. Hackworth and Cohen, in consultation with Judge Manley O. Hudson. Cf. p. 267.

While this question naturally involved examination of the European Advisory Commission and the scope of its functions, the main point of concern was whether some form of recommendatory interim security commission was needed among the major powers to handle problems of global security-other than those concerning enemy states-during the transitional period before a general international organization could become operative. This group was also asked shortly to consider whether the peace settlements should be negotiated before a permanent international organization was established. This was a matter on which, as has been seen, a negative position had already been taken, but which had been discussed in the congressional consultations and which the Secretary wished to have reviewed.

The members of this ad hoc group were, in fact, most of those from the State, War, and Navy Departments on the Agenda Group, and its meetings constituted in effect extra meetings of that Group with the military representatives. The group was composed of Admiral Willson and General Embick representing the Joint Chiefs of Staff; General Strong representing the War Department; Admiral Hepburn, with Admiral Harold C. Train as his alternate, representing the Navy Department; and Mr. Dunn, with Mr. Matthews as his alternate, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Pasvolsky, and Alger Hiss. The assisting technical experts were an officer of the Division of International Organization and Security, Mr. Sandifer, and the Secretary of the Policy Committee, Mr. Yost. Its eighth and last meeting was July 6.

The second ad hoc group, which came to be known as the "Armaments Committee," consisted of Joseph C. Green of the Agenda Group; Frederick Exton of the Department's Supply and Resources Division; General Strong; Admiral Hepburn, with Admiral Train as his alternate; Mr. Wilson, with Mr. Hiss as alternate from the Office of Special Political Affairs; and assisting experts on armament problems from the Division of International Organization and Security, Messrs. Sandifer, Donald Blaisdell, and Clyde Eagleton and Misses Marcia Maylott and Pauline Reinsch and from the Policy Committee Secretariat, Mr. Yost. By invitation Professors Edward M. Earle of the Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton, N. J., and Harold H. Sprout of Princeton University took part in two meetings. The primary objective of this high-level technical group was to make preliminary studies of the future agreements contemplated under the "Possible Plan" for regulation of armaments and armed forces, including manufacture and international traffic in arms. This group also studied problems of the possible "Security and Armaments Commission" and the agreements for provision of armed forces envisaged under that plan. These studies were desired in connection with the future implementation of the proposals being incorporated in the Plan, and while the studies of this ad hoc group were reflected in the discussions

molding the Plan, its work was otherwise of an essentially long-range preparatory character. For these studies, the group held twentythree meetings, commencing April 11 and ending July 27, 1944.*

As of June 6, 1944, the Agenda Group was working primarily on three aspects of the "Possible Plan," as it was still called. These were (a) the relation of regional to world-wide arrangements for pacific settlement of international disputes; (b) arrangements for dependent areas; and (c) refinement of the Plan especially from the standpoint of the position of the major powers in the proposed organization. While the Agenda Group as such did not directly undertake the steps currently in process among the signatories of the Moscow Declaration to arrange negotiations, its Departmental members did so with the assistance of the main staff officers of the Group.

The Informal Political Agenda Group was now about to be converted into "The International Organization Group," the first formal recognition of its existence and of the highly special function it had been performing since the previous December. Its last meeting as the Agenda Group was June 7, 1944. By this time it had largely completed, on the basis of the December 1943 memorandum of basic ideas, the draft "Possible Plan" in eleven sections.

For the last month of drafting, out of which the final Plan emerged, the renamed Group after June 7 concentrated most heavily on the precise economic and social arrangements to be included, to which several meetings were given over in whole or in part, and next most heavily on the provisions concerning dependent territories and on local and regional procedures in connection with security action. Budgetary and administrative provisions were considered at the meeting of July 5. By July 6, the full draft was available, now entitled: "Tentative Proposals for a General International Organization." At the last meeting of the International Organization Group, July 8, problems about which the members still had some questions were discussed, particularly regional arrangements and, very briefly, voting provisions.

The draft of the Tentative Proposals transmitted, as will be noted shortly, to the other three major powers was dated July 18, 1944. This draft was identical with the preceding draft of July 6 except for the omission, at the urging of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to avoid international discussion at this period in the war, of the section. concerned with international trusteeship for dependent territories.3 The basic framework of American policy on a postwar general organi

'After Dumbarton Oaks, this group was reconstituted, following a discussion in the Policy Committee on Oct. 18, 1944, to consider certain long-range problems in the field of current armaments and arms traffic-control policy and continued to function intermittently into September 1945.

See appendixes 38 and 39.