Roosevelt

by James Macgregor Burns

  The Call to Battle Stations. General sources on Pearl Harbor attack and its background: PHA; Wohlstetter; Farago; Yakovlev. Forestry Service transfer: Ickes, p. 626. Plans for a Key West fishing retreat: Sherwood, p. 378. Roosevelt’s health: Ross McIntire, White House Physician (Putnam, 1946); and other references cited in chap. 15 notes below. Main source for Japanese-American relations, late 1941: FRUS—Japan; FRUS, 1941, Vol. IV; Feis3; Grew; PHA; Butow; Ike; Hull. On relations with China: Hull, pp. 1005, 1024; Grew, pp. 1279, 1355; Matloff, p. 63; Feis4, p. 276; Butow, p. 595; Morgenthau Diary (China), pp. 364-365, 377-379, 547 548; FRUS, 1941, Vol. IV, pp. 396, 435, 436-441; Hull to Roosevelt, Aug. 19, 1941, PSF, China Folder, 1941-1944. Continuing negotiations with Japan: PHA, Pt. 20, pp. 4423-4427; FRUS—Japan, pp. 656-661, 662-663, 685; Grew, p. 1272 and passim. Evidence of faulty perception or communication: Clapper Papers (Diary, Nov. 18, 21, 1941), LC; FRUS—Japan, pp. 612, 619, 631, 687; Konoye, in PHA, Pt. 20, pp. 4005, 4006; FRUS, 1941, Vol. IV, pp. 412 419, 423; Wohlstetter. Kearny incident: Morison1, pp. 92-93; PSF, Navy Department, Box 21, 1941, Roosevelt’s Navy Day speech, Oct. 27, 1941: PPA, 1941, pp. 438-444. For an authoritative German account of the Kearny episode, see Jürgen Rohwer, “Der Kearny-Zwischenfall,” Marine-Rundschau, Heft 5, 1959, pp. 288-301.

  Roosevelt’s dire warning, Oct. 9, 1941, of a Russian-type plight for Americans if Hitler won in Europe: PPA, 1941, p. 411. Roosevelt’s empty bag of tricks: Sherwood, p. 383. Indications that Japan would attack British or Dutch or Russian territory, not American: Wohlstetter, chap. 5 and passim; Farago, pp. 288, 290, 307-308, 350; Yakovlev, Pt. III. American reluctance to fight for Kra Peninsula, etc.: Sherwood, p. 429; these views are corroborated by polling data received at the White House and indicating that respondents were strong for helping Britain and the Philippines but not Singapore or Australia; Russell Davenport to Hopkins, July 10, 1941, HHP, Box 298. Shift on defense of the Philippines: Watson, pp. 438-444; Matloff and Snell, pp. 67-68. Shifting attitudes on policy toward Japan: Cantril, p. 975. Roosevelt’s cautious handling of aid to Russia: Raymond H. Dawson, The Decision to Aid Russia, 1941 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1959), chaps. 7-10. Press and political reaction to Roosevelt’s comments on religion in Russia: Dawson, p. 260. Taylor mission to Vatican: Myron C. Taylor (ed.), Wartime Correspondence between President Roosevelt and Pope Pius XII (Macmillan, 1947); Roosevelt to Taylor, Sept. 1, 1941, PSF, Italy Folder; Taylor memorandum summarizing views of Monsig. Tardini, Sept. 20, 1941, PSF, Vatican Folder; see also The Holy See and the World War, Vol. V (Rome, 1969). Stalin’s comments to Churchill about lack of clarity in British-Russian relations: Churchill3, pp. 528-529.

  A Time for War. Liaison conference, Nov 1, 1941: Ike, pp. 208-239; Mosley, pp. 202-204. Proposals A and B: Ike, p. 204; Butow, pp. 322-323; texts: Ike, pp. 209-211. Imperial Conference, Nov. 5, 1941: Butow, p. 325; Ike, pp. 208-239; Mosley, pp. 230, 240. Roosevelt-Nomura discussions, Nov. 10, 1941: Sherwood, p. 420; Stimson Diary; PHA, Pt. 11, pp. 5420, 5431. Cabinet meeting next day: Stimson and Bundy; PHA, Pt. 11, pp. 5420, 5432; Hull, p. 1058. Roosevelt offer to Nomura to expedite exploratory discussions: FRUS—Japan, pp. 715-719. Roosevelt discussions with Nomura and Kurusu, Nov. 17, 1941: FRUS—Japan, pp. 740-743; Freedman, p. 623. Report on Chiang’s fears: Currie to Hull, Nov. 25, 1941, 711.93/481-1/2SD. Hull’s denunciation of Proposal B: Hull, p. 1070. Roosevelt’s truce offer, c. Nov. 17, 1941: PHA, Pt. 14, p. 1109; on dating of same, see Langer and Gleason, p. 872; Feis4, p. 312. Hull’s changes: PHA, Pt. 14, pp. 1110-1115. Roosevelt to Churchill, Nov. 24, 1941, on the proposal: PL, p. 1246; Churchill’s response: PHA, Pt. 14, p. 1300. Stimson to Roosevelt on Indochina: PHA, Pt. 11, p. 5434; see also PPA, 1941, p. 510; Blum1, p. 330. Hull to Stimson on “washing his hands of it”: PHA, Pt. 11, p. 5422. Japanese liaison conference, Nov. 29, 1941: Ike, pp. 260-262. Imperial Conference, Dec. 1, 1941: Ike, pp. 262-283. Mussolini on Roosevelt is quoted in Langer and Gleason, p. 925. Roosevelt to Hirohito: PPA, 1941, pp. 511-513.

  Morison3, pp. 83 ff., pictures the Japanese training and preparations for Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt’s fatalistic statements: Blum1, p. 391; Smith Diary, Dec. 6, 1941, FDRL. My interpretation of Roosevelt’s strategic state of mind as of late fall 1941: PL; PHA, Pt. 11, pp. 5438-5441; Lilienthal (Hu Shih conversation with Roosevelt, morning of Dec. 7, 1941), pp. 505-506; Sherwood, p. 428 (Roosevelt’s complaints later to Hopkins about Hull—complaints I believe also directed at himself); Yakovlev, Pt.III; Raymond A. Esthus, “President Roosevelt’s Commitment to Britain to Intervene in a Pacific War,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, June 1963, pp. 28-38; F.W.F.S. Birkenhead, Halifax (London: Hamilton, 1965), pp. 529-530; George E. Morganstern, Pearl Harbor (Devin-Adair, 1947), chap. 3, pp. 599-603; see also Langer and Gleason; Woodward, pp. 186-187. Roosevelt’s request for Asia-Pacific bases: Hull to Winant and to Johnson (Canberra), FRUS, 1941, Vol. I, pp. 573-575. Roosevelt on Japan’s strategy: PPA, 1941, p. 501; FRUS—Japan, p. 772; Sherwood, p. 428. Roosevelt’s receipt of first thirteen parts: PHA, Pt. 10, pp. 4659-4671; Sherwood, pp. 426-427; Smith Diary, Dec. 6, 1941, FDRL; Farago, pp. 352-354.

  Rendezvous at Pearl. Pearl Harbor attack: primarily, Morison3, chap. 5; Walter Lord, Day of Infamy (Holt, 1957); Kimmel. Knox’s reception of news: Morison3, p. 101. Hopkins’s remark: Sherwood, p. 431. Hull’s statement to the Japanese envoys: Hull, p. 1096. Churchill’s reaction to the news of Pearl Harbor: Churchill3, pp. 604-605; John G. Winant, Letters from Grosvenor Square (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1947), p. 199; I have described Churchill’s reaction wholly on the basis of his later recollection. Roosevelt’s reaction and early events in his study: Tully, pp. 254 ff.; Farago, pp. 378-379; Stimson Diary; PHA, Pt. 11, pp. 5438-5439; Lilienthal (Hu Shih’s remembrance), p. 507; Biddle, p. 206; NYT, Jan. 24, 1943, VII, p. 3; interview with Eleanor Roosevelt, New York Post, Dec. 7, 1961, p. 57. Evening meeting: Perkins, pp. 379-380; Sherwood, p. 433; Ickes, pp. 622-665; Blum2, p. 1; Biddle, p. 206; Stimson Diary; PHA, Pt. 11, p. 5439, Pt. 19, p. 3503; PL, p. 1252. PHA, Pt. 19, pp. 3503-3507, has transcript of the congressional conference with the President, evening of Dec. 7, 1941. Scene outside White House: Richard L. Strout, Christian Science Monitor, Dec. 8, 1941, p. 3; and other periodicals. Military reports arriving at White House: PSF, Philippines Folder, 4-41, especially Marshall telephone calls forwarding MacArthur messages of Dec. 7 (9:00 P.M.), Dec. 8, Dec. 9 (Washington time). Roosevelt to Murrow: Alexander Kendrick, Prime Time (Boston: Little, Brown, 1969), pp. 239-240.

  CHAPTER FIVE

  Roosevelt’s feeling of anguished relief and attitude toward security arrangements after Pearl Harbor: Tully, pp. 256 ff.; Eleanor Roosevelt, p. 237; Perkins, pp. 379ff.; Hurd, p. 265. Churchill’s immediate action: Churchill3, pp. 610-611. Churchill’s “harem” remark: Bryant2, pp. 225-226. Roosevelt’s press conference and fireside chat of Dec. g, 1941: PPA, 1941, pp. 516-530. White House arrangements: Eleanor Roosevelt, p. 237; Blum2, pp. 1-2; Rosenman, p. 310. Hitler’s strategic reaction to Pearl Harbor: Meskill, pp. 40-47; Warlimont, pp. 208-209; Ciano, p. 416; Hinsley, pp. 186-188; Bullock, pp. 661 ff.; Shirer, pp. 1155ff.; Friedländer2, pp. 270-271. I have discussed the Japanese-Soviet aspect of Hitler’s decision with German and Soviet historians. Hitler’s war address: Shirer, pp. 1173ff.; Gordon W. Prange, Hitler’s Words (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Public Affairs, 1944). A useful general source on major 1942 diplomatic episodes is Joseph E. Davies Papers, 1942 Folders, Box 11, LC.

  A Christmas Visitor. Immediate defense efforts after Pearl Harbor: Marshall to Stimson, Dec. 9, 1941, PSF, War Department Folder; Pogue1, p. 235; Matloff, pp. 82-83. The memorandum on Roosevelt’s World War I experience is G.G.T. to S.T.E., Dec. 11, 1941, PL, pp. 1255-1256; internal evidence indicates strongly that this was composed by Roosevelt. On Roosevelt’s earlier defensiveness about his World War I role, see Burns, pp. 65-66. Roosevelt’s call for a conference to draft a basic wartime labor policy, and warning about strikes, Dec. 11, 1941: PPA, 1941, pp. 533-534; his remarks to the management-labor confe
rence: ibid., pp. 558-562. Miss Perkins’s observation of him at this point: Perkins, p. 368. Eleanor Roosevelt’s reaction to her sons going off to war: Lash, p. 262. Churchill’s arrival in Washington and installation in the White House: Sherwood, pp. 442-443; Reilly, p. 125; Churchill3, pp. 662-663; Eleanor Roosevelt, pp. 242-243. The Roosevelt-Churchill Christmas Eve ceremony, PPA, 1941, PP 593-595; Sherwood, p. 443.

  Churchill’s concern about a possible shift in U.S. strategy: Churchill3, pp. 641-643. Washington’s position on strategy: Pogue1, p. 266; Matloff and Snell, p. 99, and references contained therein. The British plan for North Africa: Churchill3, pp. 663-665; Gwyer and Butler, pp. 353-354. Gwyer and Butler, pp. 354-357, has a full report on the Anglo-American military discussion; see also Pogue1, p. 268; Stimson Diary, Dec. 21, 1941. Stimson’s role: Stimson Diary, Dec. 20, 1941; and “Memorandum of Decisions at White House,” Dec. 21, 1941, Stimson Papers. Churchill’s view of the American approach to strategy: Churchill3, p. 673; see also Gwyer and Butler, pp. 350, 358; McNeill, pp. 102-108; and for a dissenting British view of Churchill’s plan: Bryant2, p. 236. The question of unified command: Sherwood, p. 455; Gwyer and Butler, p. 368; Pogue1, p. 276. Diversion of MacArthur-bound forces to the British: Stimson Diary, Dec. 25, 1941; Pogue1, pp. 265-266. Dill’s report on the American command setup to Brooke: Bryant2, p. 234. Wavell appointment: Churchill3, p. 673; Bryant2, p. 235; Gwyer and Butler, p. 370; Sherwood, p. 457; Moran, p. 18. Combined command structure: British proposal, Gwyer and Butler, p. 372; Roosevelt’s handwritten modifications: Sherwood, p. 469; see also Matloff, p. 125. On the War Department’s early support for a “Supreme War Command” to be established in Washington, see “Memorandum of Decisions at White House,” Dec. 21, 1941, Stimson Papers. Admiral King: King and Whitehill, chap. 29; Rogow, pp. 102-105. Wilson’s comment: Moran, pp. 23-24.

  Senior Partners, and Junior. Roosevelt’s negotiations with Litvinov over a religion clause: Sherwood, pp. 448-449; Hull, p. 1120. Churchill3, pp. 682-683, relates Roosevelt’s alleged effort to save Litvinov’s soul; see also Lash, p. 266. Formulating the Charter of the United Nations: Hull, chap. 81; Sherwood, pp. 449ff. (with text showing Russian amendments); Churchill3, pp. 666, 683-685; Lash, p. 270; McNeill, pp. 94-102; Davies Papers, May 1942 Folder, Box 11, LC. Text of the Charter: PPA, 1942, pp. 3-4; Rothstein1, p. 114. Lash, p. 271, quotes Churchill on “four-fifths of the human race.”

  Relations with China; Roosevelt to Morgenthau, Jan. 9, 1942, PL, p. 1270; PSF, Diplomatic Corr., China, 1933-1943; Blum2, pp. 87-102; Currie to Roosevelt, Sept. 13, 1941, PSF, Currie Folder. Attitudes of Pacific allies: Matloff, pp. 87-96; Roosevelt to Marshall, Jan. 9, 1942, PL, p. 1271; Roosevelt to Berle, Jan. 29, 1942, PL, p. 1281. Lash, p. 268, relates the exchange among Churchill, Hopkins, and Roosevelt on Russia. Stalin’s complaints about war supplies: Stimson Diary, Nov. 24, 1941. Eden-Stalin discussions: Eden, pp. 289 ff. (with texts of some of the exchanges); Churchill3, pp. 694 ff.; see also Gwyer and Butler, pp. 319-325. Churchill to Eden on likely postwar considerations: Churchill3, p. 696. Washington reaction: Hull to Roosevelt, May 5, 1942, PSF, Hull Folder. Stalin’s earlier interest in American troops on his front: Sherwood, pp. 342-343. Later Soviet attitudes and developments: Eden, p. 300; Churchill3, pp. 627-628; Russian Correspondence, AR, 4557-31, Dec. 15, 1941; see also Roosevelt to Currie, and attached cable, Dec. 12, 1941, PSF, China, Box 4. Hoped-for Soviet intervention against Japan: Stimson Diary, Dec. 10, 1942; Gerow to Marshall, Dec. 17, 1941 (marked “Not Used”), AR, 4557-32 (but see Stark to Roosevelt, Dec. 13, 1941, AR, 4557-32); see also Matloff, p. 239, and sources cited therein; Correspondence2, pp. 17-18. MacArthur’s advice: MacArthur to Marshall, Dec. 10, 1941, AR, 4544-26. Roosevelt on Stalin: Lash, pp. 262, 267, 268. Roosevelt to Mrs. Churchill on Churchill: Sherwood, p. 478.

  The Sinews of Total Victory. Roosevelt’s State of the Union message, Jan. 6, 1942: PPA, 1942, pp. 32-42. Mobilization situation after Pearl Harbor: Matloff and Snell, p. 108; Hopkins to Roosevelt, Jan. 2, 1942, HHP, Maritime Commission Folder; Frankfurter to Roosevelt (with enclosed memorandum), Dec. 17, 1941, Freedman, pp. 628-632; Roosevelt to Land, Feb. 21, 1942, PSF Safe File.

  The mobilization situation pre-Pearl Harbor: Novick et al., pp. 83 ff.; Industrial Mobilization for War, pp. 181 ff. Lubin reports: PSF, Currie Folder, Box 45. Influences close to the administration for reorganized production machinery: Stimson to Roosevelt, fan. 7, 1942, PSF, Stimson Folder; Frankfurter letter cited above; Smith Diary, LC. Baruch: Clapper Papers, Personal File, Cont. 23, LC. Knudsen shift: E. M. W. (Watson) to Roosevelt, Dec. 8, 1941, with Wallace memorandum, PSF, Wallace Folder; Sherwood, pp. 475-476; Smith Diary, Jan. 12, 13, 16, 1942, LC. For Stimson’s general view, see his letter to Roosevelt cited above. Frankfurter’s praise: Frankfurter to Roosevelt, Jan. 17, 1942, Freedman, pp. 643-644. Labor’s attitude toward union security: Harry A. Millis and Royal E. Montgomery, Organized Labor (McGraw-Hill, 1945), p. 695. Captive mine labor situation: John L. Lewis to Roosevelt, Nov. 19, 1941, PSF, Strikes Folder; William H. Davis to Roosevelt, Nov. 22, 1941, PSF, Strikes Folder. An appraisal of labor leadership of the time: Frankfurter to Roosevelt, March 20, 1942, Freedman, pp. 652-654. Origins of White House labor-management conference: Lubin to Roosevelt, Nov. 6, 1941, PSF, Strikes Folder. Interest-group concerns in price-control policy-making are amply reflected in “Hearings before the Committee on Banking and Currency,” House of Representatives, on H.R. 5479, 77th Congress, 1st Session. I have used my dissertation, “Congress and the Formation of Economic Policies,” Harvard University, 1947, chap. 4, “The Emergency Price Control Act of 1942,” in connection with the price-control situation of early 1942. Roosevelt’s statement on signing the Emergency Price Control Act, Jan. 30, 1942: PPA, 1942, pp. 67-70.

  CHAPTER SIX

  Eleanor Roosevelt reports her husband’s remark about all being killed except Miss Perkins: Eleanor Roosevelt, p. 249. Roosevelt’s White House life: PSF, Eleanor Roosevelt Folder, Box 55. Stimson saw the President’s map room: Stimson Diary, April 12, 1942. Roosevelt and Lucy Mercer Rutherfurd: Daniels1, chaps. 11, 13; Clapper Papers, Nov. 3, 1942, Box 23, LC; confidential sources. Detailed accounts of Roosevelt’s weekend trips to Hyde Park: Hassett, pp. 1-81. Roosevelt’s veto of Eleanor’s proposal to make Hyde Park a convalescent home: PL, p. 1283, Feb. 9, 1942. Hassett, pp. 26-28, and Lash, pp. 271-275, picture Roosevelt’s March (26-30) 1942 weekend at Hyde Park; the Lash diary item evidently refers to the same weekend.

  Defeat in the Pacific. For the Japanese plan of attack, see Morton, pp. 103 ff., and Butler, Vol. 3, Pt. II, pp. 293 ff., both of which make extensive use of Japanese sources. MacArthur’s initial reports to Washington: see references for chap. 4. Morison3 describes the American naval defeats feelingly. Kirby, The War Against Japan, Vol. I, The Loss of Singapore (London, 1957), chaps. 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 20, narrates in detail the British retreat in Malaya. Churchill4, pp. 5-6, 8, provides documentation of his exchanges with the Australians; on later developments, see Hopkins to Roosevelt, March 25, 1942, PSF, Australia; Freedman, pp. 650-651, 654-655. Early American planning on the Philippines: Pogue1, pp. 238-239; see also Stimson and Bundy, p. 396; Stimson Diary, Dec. 14, 1941; and “Our Preparations for Supporting MacA,” handwritten, Stimson Papers. Churchill’s feelings about the Chinese: Churchill4, p. 135; on the Chiang-Wavell issue, see also Butler, pp. 410-412; Stimson Diary, Dec. 29, 1942, and Dec. 30, 1942. Wavell’s comment on American sentiment toward China: Churchill4, pp. 134-135.

  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 S
aw 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.