Advertisement

Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 233–251 | Cite as

Before the Special Relationship: The Council on Foreign Relations, the Carnegie Foundation and the Rumour of an Anglo-American War

  • Andrew Williams
Article

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    Andrew Williams, Failed Imagination? New World Orders of the Twentieth Century, Manchester U.P., 1998Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    Hamilton Fish Armstrong Papers, Princeton University Library Box 72, November 7 1928Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Fiona Venn ‘“A Futile Paper Chase”: Anglo-American Relations and Middle East Oil, 1918–1934 in Diplomacy and Statecraft, Vol. 1 No 2, July 1990, pp 165–184, here p. 167 and 172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4a.
    See also: Nicholas Cull, “Selling Peace: The Origins, Promotion and Fate of the Anglo-American New Order During the Second World War”, Diplomacy and Statecraft, Vol. 7, No. 1, March 1996, pp 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    For a brief summary of this see Thomas J. Knock, To End All Wars: Woodrow Wilson and the Quest for a New World Order, Oxford U.P, 1992, Chapter 4 “The Political Origins of Progressive and Conservative Internationalism” andGoogle Scholar
  6. 5a.
    David S. Patterson, Towards a Warless World: The Travail of the American Peace Movement, 1887-1914, Bloomington Indiana, University of Indiana Press, 1976Google Scholar
  7. 5b.
    Roland C. Marchand, The American Peace Movement and Social Reform, 1898-1918, Princeton U.P., 1972Google Scholar
  8. 6.
    See for example Inderjeet Parmar, ‘Lord Lothian’s Moment: The Anglo-American Establishment and the Saving of Britain, 1939–1941’, paper presented at the University of Edinburgh, May 2001 and, by the same author, “Anglo-American elites a-in the interwar Years: Idealism and Power in the Intellectual Roots of Chatham, House and the Council on Foreign Relations”, International Relations, Vol. 16, Number 1, April 2002, pages 53–76. The quote is on page 53.Google Scholar
  9. 7.
    Parmar, “Lord Lothian’s Moment...”, pages 6–7.Google Scholar
  10. 8.
    Knock, To End All Wars, page 57.Google Scholar
  11. 9.
    Lucian M. Ashworth, “Did the Realist-Idealist debate ever happen? A Revisionist History of International Relations”, International Relations, vol. 16, No. 1, April 2002, page 34.Google Scholar
  12. 10.
    This debate is well described by Martin Ceadel in Thinking about Peace and War, Oxford U.P., 1987. See also: David Long and Peter Wilson (eds) Thinkers of the Twenty Years Crisis, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1995Google Scholar
  13. 11.
    E.H. Carr, The Twenty Years Crisis, London, Macmillan, 1939Google Scholar
  14. 12.
    For a fascinating recent account of the intellectual climate of the inter-war years see: David Edmunds and John Eidinow, Wittgenstein’s Poker: The Story of a Ten-Minute Argument Between Two Great Philosophers, London, Faber and Faber, 2001.Google Scholar
  15. 13.
    See Williams, Failed Imagination?, Chapters 1 and 2, and George Conyne, Woodrow Wilson: British Perspectives, 1919-21, London, Macmillan, 1992.Google Scholar
  16. 14.
    Michael J. Hogan, Informal Entente; The Private Structure of cooperation in Anglo-American Economic Diplomacy, Columbia, University of Missouri Press, 1977. This tendency in American historiography is often referred to as ‘corporatist’.Google Scholar
  17. 15.
    Punch, or the London Charivari, February 12th 1991, page 123.Google Scholar
  18. 16.
    Punch, May 28, 1991, page 415Google Scholar
  19. 17.
    Punch, March 5 1919, page 175Google Scholar
  20. 18.
    Punch, May 21 1919, page 403Google Scholar
  21. 19.
    Quoted from (the then junior Treasury official) Sir Frederic Harmer’s diary, 8 October 1945, in Robert Skidelsky, John Maynard Keynes: Fighting for Britain, 1937–1946, London, Macmillan, 2000, page 418.Google Scholar
  22. 20.
    David Hunter Miller, “Sovereignty and Neutrality”, in International Conciliation, No. 220, May 1926, quoted in the Bulletin of the Foreign Policy Association Information Service, Vol. IV, No. 2, March 10, 1928, Armstrong Papers, Box 72.Google Scholar
  23. 21.
    Armstrong to Benes, 6 April 1923, Armstrong Papers, Box 7Google Scholar
  24. 22.
    Minutes of the Anglo-American Group of 1937, Council on Foreign Relations Papers, Box 239.Google Scholar
  25. 23.
    Hamilton Fish Armstrong Papers, Box 72, November 7 1928, pages 1–2.Google Scholar
  26. 24.
    Meetings of the Anglo-American Group of the CFFR, 16 November 1928 and 26 December 1928, Final report of January 1929, Armstrong Papers, Box 72.Google Scholar
  27. 25.
    “The Anglo-American Naval Question: Report of a Study Group of Members of the CFFR”, 12 November 1929, Armstrong papers, Box 72.Google Scholar
  28. 26.
    Minutes of the Anglo-American Group, meeting of 16 November 1929, Council for Foreign Relations Papers, Princeton University Library, Box 238Google Scholar
  29. 27.
    James T. Shotwell, “Diary during the Making of the Geneva Protocol”, 87 pages 1924, Shotwell Papers, Columbia University Library Box A.Google Scholar
  30. 28.
    Shotwell, Diary Entry for 10 September 1924, Shotwell Papers, Box AGoogle Scholar
  31. 29.
    Shotwell met Salvador de Madariaga, already Head of the Disarmament Section of the League’s SecretariatGoogle Scholar
  32. 30.
    For a summary discussion of this see my “Sir John Bradbury and the Reparations Commission, 1920–1925”, Diplomacy and Statecraft, September 2002, pp 81–102.Google Scholar
  33. 31.
    Cf. David Carlton, MacDonald versus Henderson: The Foreign Policy of the Second Labour Government, London, Macmillan, 1970, andCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 31a.
    Andrew J. Williams Labour and Russia: The Attitude of the Labour Party to the USSR, 1924–1934, Manchester U.P., 1989, Chapter 9.Google Scholar
  35. 32.
    The expression is Paul Rich’s, whose “Alfred Zimmern’s Cautious Idealism: The League of Nations, International Education, and the Commonwealth” can be found in: Long and Wilson, Thinkers of the Twenty Years’ Crisis, op.cit., pages 79–99.Google Scholar
  36. 33.
    Shotwell Diary, 31 August 1924, pages 31 and 35.Google Scholar
  37. 34.
    Byrne to Armstrong, 11 August 1928, Armstrong Papers Box 72.Google Scholar
  38. 35.
    Henry Stimson, Diary, “Memorandum of a Trip to Rapidan”, 5 –7 October 1929, Stimson Papers, Reel 126.Google Scholar
  39. 36.
    Stimson Diary, ibid.Google Scholar
  40. 37.
    Henry Stimson, Diary, “Memorandum on the World Court”, dated 1929, Stimson Papers, Reel 126Google Scholar
  41. 38.
    As a footnote, Stimson’s views on the Court are not echoed in current (2003) United States objections to an International Criminal Court. The current American Administration objects to the dangers posed by such a court to the sovereignty of the United States and the bringing of spurious politically motivated claims. It was British Prime Minister Tony Blair who tried to persuade the American President to drop his objections, a debate that is ongoing as this is written. See for example, the Financial Times for 1 July 2002Google Scholar
  42. 39.
    Minutes of the Anglo-American Group, meeting of 7 November 1929, doc.cit.Google Scholar
  43. 40.
    For details on Ottawa, see my Trading With the Bolsheviks: The Politics of East-West Trade, 1920–1939, Manchester U.P., 1992, Chapter 4Google Scholar
  44. 41.
    See for example, “The War Debts: A British View”, Chatham House, September 1937 and the CFR’s response “The British War Debts: An American View” of April 1938; CFR Volume VI, Box 239Google Scholar
  45. 42.
    Meeting of the Anglo-American Group, 15 March 1937, a dinner meeting, CFR Box 239.Google Scholar
  46. 43.
    Minutes of the Anglo-American Group, meeting of 7 November 1929, doc.cit.Google Scholar
  47. 44.
    Robert Skidelsky, John Maynard Keynes: Fighting for Britain, page 91.Google Scholar
  48. 45.
    See for example: Department of State’s Department of Special Research, February 19 1943, Armstrong papers, Box 72Google Scholar
  49. 46.
    Department of State, Department of Special Research, Memorandum of Official Statements of Post-War Policy, 3 January 1942, Berle Papers, Roosevelt Library.Google Scholar
  50. 47.
    Robert Skidelsky, John Maynard Keynes: Fighting for Britain, passim.Google Scholar
  51. 48.
    Williams, Failed Imagination?, page 274Google Scholar
  52. 49.
    Universities Committee on Post War International Relations, n.d. probably 1943, Shotwell Papers, Box 242Google Scholar
  53. 50.
    Isaiah Bowman, Meeting of the Political Committee at the State Department, June 12 1943, Berle Papers, Box 65.Google Scholar
  54. 51.
    For many examples see: Williams, Failed Imagination?, Chapter 5.Google Scholar
  55. 52.
    Report by Stettinius to Hull, on a visit to London, April 7 to 29, 1944, Berle Papers, Box 70.Google Scholar
  56. 53.
    Cf. Williams, Failed Imagination?, Chapter 4Google Scholar
  57. 54.
    Harriman Papers, Library of Congress, 1948–1950, Box 267.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Board of the Journal of Transatlantic Studies 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew Williams
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Politics and International RelationsUniversity of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations