Louis Morton, The Fall of the Philippines (Washington, D.C.: Office of the Chief of Military History, 1953), is a richly detailed study with emphasis on military operations. Broader questions of command: MacArthur; Whitney; and Willoughby and Chamberlain, which describes the command situation and differences from the MacArthur perspective; and Pogue1; Stimson and Bundy; Morton, Fall of the Philippines, from the Washington viewpoint. See Lewis H. Brereton, The Brereton Diaries (Morrow, 1946), for somewhat different views, and John Hersey, Men on Bataan (Knopf, 1943), and Carlos P. Romulo, I Saw the Fall of the Philippines (Doubleday, 1943), for close-ups of the combat. The early write-off of the Philippines as a strategically defensible theater is indicated in Pogue1, pp. 239 ff.; Stimson Diary, Dec. 24, 1941; and Morton, Strategy and Command, pp. 187 ff. MacArthur’s feeling of security against air attack: report of conference of MacArthur and others, Manila, Dec. 6, 1941, PMRP, Naval Aide’s file, Warfare, Philippine Islands, Box 17. On the White House interpretation of Roosevelt’s Philippine message, see Whitney, p. 29, and NYT, Dec. 29, 1941, pp. 1, 6; Dec. 30, 1941, p. 1. The Quezon message: MacArthur, pp. 138-139; Stimson Diary, Feb. 9, 11, 1942; the texts of Roosevelt’s messages to MacArthur and Quezon are in Stimson and Bundy, pp. 400-403; see also PSF, Interior. Richard H. Rovere and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., The MacArthur Controversy (Farrar, Straus, 1965), discusses the episode and puts the MacArthur-War Department relationship in a wider perspective. MacArthur’s reports and proposals to Washington: MacArthur to Adjutant General, Dec. 23, 1941; MacArthur to Marshall (no. 201), Feb. 4, 1942; MacArthur to Marshall (no. 297), Feb. 16, 1942; MacArthur to Marshall (no. 344), Feb. 22, 1942; Marshall’s main response: Marshall to MacArthur, Feb. 8, 1942—all in PSF Safe File, Philippines, Feb. 8, 1942. See also Frank Sayre to Roosevelt, Jan. 26, 1942, PSF, Philippine Folder. This file also contains communications on relations with Quezon and on the evacuation from the Philippines.
This Generation of Americans. Roosevelt’s standing in the polls: relevant polls in PSF, Box 54; see also Cantril, pp. 756, 1174-1175. Press support: study by James S. Twohey Associates, cited in PM, Feb. 27, 1942. “Sinking” of the Japanese “battleship”: Morison2, p. 180, n. 33, which indicates the difficulty of identification. Attacks on Hopkins: Time, Jan. 5, 1942, pp. 16-17; Sherwood, p. 517. Social Justice attacks are from facsimiles of articles in PM, Feb. 20, 1942. Roosevelt’s attitude toward his old-time adversaries: Rosenman, p. 6. Joseph Kennedy’s nonappointment: PL, pp. 1289-1290; see also PL, p. 1383; Richard J. Whalen, The Founding Father (New American Library, 1964). Stimson and Lindbergh: Stimson Diary, Dec. 21, 1941, Jan. 12, 1942; see also Stimson Papers, Jan. 9, 1942, Jan. 13, 1942. Roosevelt on Washington as a rumor factory, Feb. 17, 1942: PPA, 1942, p. 102. Roosevelt on the “Cliveden Set” and its associates: PSF, Vatican Folder, Box 19; Hassett, p. 19; PL, pp. 1301-1302. Cissy Patterson’s “undies”: Ernst to Roosevelt, March 20, 1942, Ernst Papers; Roosevelt to Ernst, March 23, 1942, PL, p. 1300. Roosevelt’s Washington’s Birthday speech, Feb. 23, 1942: PPA, 1942, checked against recordings. Japanese shelling: Sherwood, p. 504. Roosevelt on personal leadership: Roosevelt to Leffingwell, March 16, 1942, and to Mary Norton, March 24, 1942, PL, pp. 1298-1299, 1300; see also Roosevelt to Josephus Daniels, July 30, 1942, PPF 86. Elmer Davis remark: PL, p. 1298.
The background and events of the Japanese evacuation have been brilliantly researched by scholars with various perspectives: Dorothy Swaine Thomas and Richard S. Nishimoto, The Spoilage (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1946); Morton Grodzins, Americans Betrayed (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949); Jacobus tenBroek, Edward N. Barnhart, Floyd W. Matson, Prejudice, War, and the Constitution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1954); Stetson Conn, “The Decision to Evacuate the Japanese from the Pacific Coast,” in Greenfield2. The last, part of the U.S. Army history program, makes full use of government records. White House records on this subject are relatively scanty; see Thomas D. Campbell to Roosevelt, March 12, 1942, and attached memorandum, Campbell to John McCloy, Feb. 25, 1942 and March 7, 1942, OF 133; and for an example of Roosevelt’s differentiation between Japanese and Caucasian aliens, see Roosevelt to Stimson, May 5, 1942, OF 4849. Biddle’s experience with Roosevelt on civil-liberties matters: Biddle, pp. 166 ff., 207, 238.
The War Against the Whites. The poem “Remember December Eighth” is from Mosley, p. 270. The Japanese army and nationalist reaction: F. C. Jones, Japan’s New Order in East Asia (Oxford University Press, 1957), pp. 362-363. The central role of Japan in the co-prosperity sphere: Otto D. Tolischus, Through Japanese Eyes (Reynal & Hitchcock, 1945), pp. 86, 87. Roosevelt’s and Churchill’s first exchange on the Indian question: Churchill4, p. 209; Moran, p. 33. Frankfurter’s views: Frankfurter to Roosevelt, July 9, 1942, enclosing Frankfurter to Stafford Cripps, July 9, 1942, Freedman, pp. 664-667. Feeling in the Senate on British imperialism in India: Robert M. La Follette, Jr., to Roosevelt, Feb. 20, 1942, PSF, Senate Folder. Mixed administration attitudes: Clapper Papers, Cont. 23, Jan.-Feb. 1942 Folder, LC. Roosevelt’s concern that the Indians would not rally in defense of their country: FRUS, 1942, Vol. I, p. 604. Churchill to Harriman on Indian incapacity for defense: ibid., pp. 608, 612. Roosevelt to Churchill, March 10, 1942, on American experience with confederation: ibid., pp. 615-616. Johnson on Indian situation: ibid., pp. 626 ff. Hopkins’s view: ibid., p. 629. Churchill to Cripps on coming home: Churchill to Roosevelt, April 11, 1942, ibid., p. 633. Roosevelt to Churchill, April 11, 1942, urging postponement of Cripps’s departure: ibid., pp. 633-634. Churchill’s reply to Roosevelt: ibid., pp. 634-635. Indian Ocean situation: messages in HHP, Box 305. Roosevelt to Marshall on putting Hopkins to bed: Sherwood, p. 531.
Willkie on the U.S. Navy: Time, March 9, 1942, pp. 9-10. Roosevelt on the Navy’s lack of enterprise: Stimson Diary, Dec. 28, 1941. Knox’s exchange with Churchill: Churchill3, p. 667. Morison2, chaps,n-21, and Morison3, chaps. 1-9, provide a graphic portrait of the triumphs and tribulations of American naval power in the Pacific during the early months of the war. Doolittle raid: PMRP, Box 15; Arnold to Roosevelt, April 21 and 22, 1942, Arnold Papers, Box 45, LC. The Battle of the Coral Sea and Midway: Morison3; Morton; Mitsuo Fuchida and Masatake Okumiya, Midway: The Battle That Doomed Japan (Annapolis, Md.: United States Naval Institute, 1955), with a useful foreword by Admiral Spruance; Walter Lord, Incredible Victory (Harper, 1967); Masatake Okumiya and Jiro Horikoshi, Zero! (London: Transworld Publishers, 1958), pp. 144 ff. The “Shangri-La” exchange is reported in Hassett, pp. 40-41, and I have quoted Morison3, p. 76, on the Japanese as Oriental disciples of Mahan. Roosevelt message to MacArthur about approaching Japanese fleet: PSF, Australia, Box 1. On the fall of Corregidor, see Jonathan M. Wainwright, General Wainwright’s Story (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1946).
CHAPTER SEVEN
Roosevelt and inflated battle reports: Roosevelt to Churchill, March 17, 1942, PMRP; compare Morison3, p. 389; see also Emmons to Marshall, June 7, 1942, on AAF role at Midway, HHP, Box 308; report from Western Defense Command, June 12, 1942, PSF Safe File. Hitler’s directive: Directive No. 41, April 5, 1942, Führer Headquarters, text in Trevor-Roper, pp. 116-121. Hitler on Middle Eastern prospect: Hinsley, chap. 10. Stalin’s May Day proclamation: Stalin, p. 54. Litvinov on second front: Time, March 9, 1942, p. 9. Background of strategic planning: Pogue1, p. 304; Matloff and Snell, pp. 177 ff.; Marshall to Roosevelt, quoted in Sherwood, p. 519. Stimson on taking initiative: Stimson to Roosevelt, March 27, 1942, PSF, Stimson Folder. White House conference of April 1, 1942: Marshall to Roosevelt, n.d., Marshall Folder, PSF Safe File; see also Pogue1, p. 306; Sherwood, pp. 518 ff.; Matloff, pp. 183 ff. Roosevelt’s “cigarette-holder gesture”: Pogue1, p. 306. Roosevelt’s developing views on second front: PMRP, Spring 1942. Stimson on the memorable meeting: Stimson Diary, April 1, 1942. Roosevelt to Churchill on the planned Hopkins-Marshall trip: Churchill4, p. 314. Reports of conference to Roosevelt: Marshall to Roosevelt (via McNarney), April 12, 1942, PSF, Marshall Folder. Churchill’s position on war plans: Bry
ant2, pp. 286 ff.; Sherwood, pp. 523 ff.; Moran, pp. 38-39; Churchill4, pp. 317 ff., quoted from p. 322.
Reprise: Russia Second. Background of policy on military aid to Russia: AR, 4557-32 to AR, 4557-38 (Dec. 1941 to Feb. 1942). Conferences: Roosevelt to Stalin, April 12, 1942, Correspondence2, pp. 22-23; Roosevelt to Churchill, March 18, 1942, PMRP. Molotov’s accoutrements: Eleanor Roosevelt, pp. 250-251. Soviet-British peace treaty: Rothstein1, pp. 158-160. Roosevelt-Molotov discussions: FRUS, 1942, Vol.III, pp. 566 ff.; Sherwood, pp. 557-576, which includes notes by Samuel H. Cross, interpreter, as well as by Hopkins. On Molotov’s stop-over in London earlier, see Clapper Papers (Diary, March 24, 1943), LC. Roosevelt’s concern about Russian front: Sherwood, pp. 568, 569. Text of second-front statement: Sherwood, p. 577; Rothstein1, pp. 166-167 (slight variation). Roosevelt on his relations with Molotov: Roosevelt to Winant, June 17, 1942, PL, p. 1329. Churchill to Molotov on second front: Gwyer and Butler, pp. 596-597; Churchill4, pp. 341-342. Molotov report in Moscow: Werth, pp. 382-384. Churchill on keeping the President on the rails: Bryant2, p. 320. Churchill at Hyde Park: Pawle, p. 167; Churchill4, pp. 376-377. Receipt of news of Tobruk fall: Ismay, p. 255; Bryant2, p. 329; Churchill4, p. 383. Marshall’s reaction: Pogue1, p. 333; Marshall to Roosevelt, July to, 1942, AR. Stimson and Marshall on second front: Stimson to Roosevelt, July 15, [1942], PSF, Stimson Folder; Elting E. Morison, pp. 586-587. Discussions in England and Roosevelt’s shift: Sherwood, pp. 606-612. On second front generally: Berezhkov, Pt. II; Deborin, chap. 10; McNeill, pp. 178-201; Kolko, pp. 14-20; Maisky, Pt. 4; Davies Papers, Jan.-Nov. Folders, Boxes 11-12, LC; Clapper Papers, 1942, LC.
Roosevelt to Churchill on latter’s forthcoming meeting with Stalin: Sherwood, p. 616. Churchill’s trip to Russia: Churchill4, p. 475. Stalin on diversions from Soviet front: Correspondence, p. 28 and passim. Stalin’s refusal to accept second-front postponement: Correspondence1, p. 56. Churchill-Stalin discussions in Moscow: Churchill4, pp. 472-502; Sherwood, pp. 617-622. Reports from the front: A. I. Yeremenko, Stalingrad Notes of the Front Commander (Moscow, 1961), p. 87, as cited by Ulam, p. 337. See Ulam, pp. 328-338 and generally, on this period. Roosevelt’s message to Stalin after the conference: Sherwood, p. 622. Implications of second-front strategy: Williams, pp. 209-229.
Asia Third. Hopkins on “white man’s burden”: Sherwood, p. 578. Indian political situation: M. S. Venkataramani and B. K. Shrivastava, “The United States and the ‘Quit India’ Demand,” Indian Quarterly (New Delhi), April-June 1964, pp. 101-139, and sources cited therein; see also FRUS, 1942, Vol. I, pp. 663 ff., 685 ff. Gandhi-Chiang meeting: Payne, pp. 243-244. Gandhi to Chiang, June 25, 1942: PSF, China.
Chiang to Roosevelt, July 25, 1942: FRUS, 1942, Vol. I, pp. 695-698. British position on India: FRUS, 1942, Vol. I, pp. 703-705; further correspondence of principals: ibid., pp. 703, 705, 713, 714-715, 716; see also Hull, pp. 1486-1490; Roosevelt to Ickes, Aug. 12, 1942, PPF 3650. See, generally, PSF, Diplomatic Corr., China, 1933-43; FRUS, 1942, China. American military turn to the possibility of Pacific First: Stimson Diary, July 10, 1942; Dill to Churchill, July 15, 1942, Churchill4, pp. 439-440; Sherwood, p. 594; King and Whitehill, pp. 398-399; Marshall to Roosevelt, May 9, 1942, Arnold Papers, Box 45, LC; see also Morison5, p. 13. Roosevelt’s response: PMRP, Box 13; Stimson Diary, July 15, 1942; Sherwood, p. 605; Morison5, p. 13 n.; Churchill4, pp. 440-441. MacArthur’s pressing for second front in Asia: PMRP, Naval Aide’s File, S.W. Pacific, Box 17.
The Long Arms of War. Führer Conferences, p. 80, records Hitler’s new interest in submarine warfare. Estimates and reports of ship losses from submarine and raider attacks must be treated with care; I have used Richard M. Leighton and Robert W. Coakley, Global Logistics and Strategy, 1940-1943 (Washington, D.C.: Office of the Chief of Military History, 1955), pp. 206 ff.; see also Hinsley, pp. 204 ff. The early difficulties of the Navy and Army in the antisubmarine offensive: McNarney to Marshall, April 14,1942, PMRP; see also Morison1, chaps. 6, 10; Craven and Cate, Vol. I, chap. 15. Roosevelt’s PBV suggestion: Roosevelt to King, April 21, 1942, PL, p. 1311. Roosevelt’s response to the slow Navy mobilization: Sherwood, p. 499; Hopkins’s report from London, ibid., p. 528. Land’s labor proposal: Land to Roosevelt, March 13, 1942, PSF, Maritime Commission Folder. Janeway on energy and efficiency: Janeway, p. 250.
Lagging war production, spring 1942: Roosevelt to Nelson, May 4, 1942, copy to Arnold, Arnold Papers, Box 45, LC. Roosevelt and Army expansion goals: Roosevelt to Harold Smith, June 8, 1942; Roosevelt to Marshall, June 10, 1942, PSF, War Department Folder. Nelson’s status: Nelson to Somervell, May 21, 1942, PSF, War Production Board; see, generally, Industrial Mobilization for War, chap. 2; The United States at War, chap. 5 (also the source, p. 113, of the quotation on the disappearing balance in the production program); Nelson, chap. 19. Anglo-Saxon basis of the Munitions Assignments Board: Leighton and Coakley, p. 252. Roosevelt and aid to Russia: Blum2, pp. 81, 82, 85; see also Roosevelt to Stimson, April 11, 1942, PSF, Stimson Folder.
The Alchemists of Science. Of the abundant literature on the early development of the atomic weapon, especially relevant to Roosevelt’s role are Baxter; Churchill4, Bk. 1, chap. 22; Groves; Moore. Einstein’s letter, Aug. 2, 1939: text in Teller and Brown, pp. 10-12. Sachs’s meeting with Roosevelt: Jungk, pp. 109-111. Bohr on the “Alchemysts”: Freedman, p. 732. Roosevelt’s speech to Pan American scientists, May 10, 1940: PPA, 1940, pp. 184-187; Teller and Brown, pp. 12-13. Different types of research: Baxter, pp. 433-436. Roosevelt-Churchill discussion, June 20, 1942: Churchill1, pp. 377-381. Conant on time factor: Baxter, p. 434. Stewart Burns helped in research and drafting of this section.
CHAPTER EIGHT
Texts of Roosevelt’s communications with Wilhelmina, and of his toast to her: PSF, Netherlands File. Rosenman on Wilhelmina: Rosenman, p. 338. On Roosevelt’s hospitality to royalty in previous years, see, for example, Roosevelt to Princess Juliana, June 6, 1941, PSF, Netherlands Folder. Hassett’s observations: Hassett, pp. 88, 91, 92-93, 104, 133. Roosevelt to Wilhelmina, Aug. 21, 1942, on caring for Juliana: PL, p. 1340. “Shangri-La”: Hassett, pp. 113-115. Roosevelt on problems at Hyde Park: Roosevelt memorandum, Dec. 9, 1942, PL, pp. 1378-1380. August 8, 1942 trip to Shangri-La: Dorothy Rosenman, in Rosenman, pp. 351-355, excerpt from p. 352. Gambling caution: Tully, pp. 20-21. Roosevelt and the Nazi saboteurs: Hassett, pp. 97, 98; see also Biddle, pp. 327-328, 330, 331.
The Economics of Chaos. Roosevelt on the situation in the Pacific: Rosenman, p. 353; PC 857, Nov. 6, 1942; PPA, 1942, pp. 445-447. Roosevelt’s anti-inflation proposals to Congress, April 27, 1942: PPA, 1942, pp. 216-224; Eccles, Pt. 6, chap. 4. Reaction to his stabilization program: see roundup of opinion in PM, May 3, 1942, p. 12. Tax proposals, April 27, 1942: PPA, 1942, pp. 220-221. New York Herald Tribune comment is quoted in Paul, p. 301; Theodore Roosevelt’s presumed “bully” in Freed-man, p. 657. Friction between Morgenthau and Smith: Smith Diary, FDRL; Blum2; Rosenman, p. 357. Morgenthau on writing tax bills: Blum2, p. 38. Roosevelt to Morgenthau on standing pat: Blum2, p. 42; see also Smith Diary, June-July 1942, FDRL. The Knoxville foundry operator’s complaint: J. W. Keller to Roosevelt, June 12, 1942, OF 327. Politics of price control: McIntyre to Roosevelt, June 30, 1942, with memorandum, Henderson to Roosevelt, n.d.; Henderson to Roosevelt, July 17, 1942, OF 327; Henderson to Roosevelt, July 10, 1942 (telegram), FDRL; Roosevelt to Wallace and others, July 11, 1942, OF 4403. Rubber situation: Nelson, p. 292; Smith Diary, June 5, 1942, FDRL; Charles Michelson to Roosevelt, n.d., but evidently mid-1942, OF 56-B; Nelson, p. 304 (misdated). Roosevelt on the scrap-rubber situation: PC 831, June 9, 1942; PPA, 1942, p. 265; Smith Diary, Aug. 6, 1941, FDRL. Stone to Roosevelt, July 20, 1942, Freedman, pp. 663-664. Roosevelt to Baruch, July 29, 1942, PL, p. 1334. The rubber program: PPA, 1942, pp. 319-322. See, generally, J. Joseph Huthmacher, Senator Robert F. Wagner and the Rise of Urban Liberalism (Atheneum, 1968), chap. 16.
Extent of Roosevelt’s personal, ad-hoc involvement in labor problems and crises: see documents in OF 407, 1942.
Roosevelt on pleasure driving: PC 846, Sept. 11, 1942. Preparation of stabilization speech of Sept. 7, 1942: Rosenman, pp. 356-360; Sherwood, p. 631. Roosevelt on the response of Congress in 1933: PC 848, Oct. 1, 1942; see also Clapper Papers, Cont. 23, LC. Fireside chat, Sept. 7, 1942: PPA, 1942, pp. 368-377. Exchange with reporter over possible congressional rejection: PC 846, Sept. 11, 1942. Recall of Congress: Roosevelt to Rayburn, Sept. 6, 1942, PL, p. 1346. Farm policy and politics: The United States at War, pp. 267-270; Young, pp. 95-98. Roosevelt and Morgenthau on tax legislation: Blum2, p. 51. Frankfurter on Byrnes: Freedman, pp. 660-661, 670-671; Hopkins on Byrnes: Hopkins to Roosevelt, Sept. 29, 1942, HHP, Box 317. Byrnes to Hopkins: Sherwood, p. 634.
The People at War. Roosevelt on the women’s diffidence, Oct. 12, 1942: PPA, 1942, p. 420. For intra-administration views of labor-management production efforts, see Hillman to Roosevelt, Feb. 18, 1942; Addes to Nelson, Dec. 15, 1942; Nelson to Addes, Dec. 28, 1942, OF 407; see also OF 4451 (Requisitioning). Hillman’s situation: Frankfurter to Roosevelt, March 20, 1942, Freedman, pp. 652-654; Josephson, pp. 577-586; Industrial Mobilization for War, pp. 246-248, 265-266; Nelson, chap. 16. The new union security formula: J. M. Burns, “Maintenance of Membership: A Study in Administrative Statesmanship,” Journal of Politics, Feb. 1948, pp. 101-116. As an interesting possible example of Roosevelt’s influence on maintenance-of-membership policy, see Roosevelt to Wayne Coy, Dec. 30, 1941, OF 407. FEPC: OF 4245 G, Box 3, has correspondence and other documents on initial FEPC appointments; on later developments, see OF 93 and 4245 G, which includes data on transfer to War Manpower Commission; Smith Diary, FDRL. Stimson’s private views: Stimson to Alfred E. Stearns, Jan. 30, 1942, Stimson Papers; Stimson Diary, Jan. 24, 1942. Rejection of Negro units: Eisenhower to Marshall, March 25, i948, with marginal comments by Stimson, Arnold Papers, Box 44, Folder 127, LC. Japanese-American relocation situation: Milton Eisenhower to Roosevelt, June 18, 1942, OF 4849. Roosevelt’s term for the camps: PC 853, Oct. 20, 1942. Situation in the camps: Dorothy Swaine Thomas and Richard S. Nishimoto, The Spoilage (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1946), pp. 38, 40, 45. Propaganda aspect: Elmer Davis to Roosevelt, Oct. 2, 1942, OF 197. Navy attitude: J. H. Newton to Knox, Oct. 15, 1942, OF 4849. German and Italian-Americans: Roosevelt to Herbert Lehman, June 3, 1942, PPF 133; see also enclosure, unsigned, n.d., but presumably Luigi Antonini to Lehman.
The Definitive FDR Page 166