Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-26T16:12:03.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘A Mess of Pottage for Your Economic Birthright?’ The 1941–42 Wheat Negotiations and Anglo-American Economic Diplomacy*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Alan P. Dobson
Alan P. Dobson
Affiliation:
University College, Swansea
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Communications
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , September 1985 , pp. 739 - 750
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Drummond, I. M., Imperial economic policy 1917–39 (London, 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, chapters VI–VIII; Hull, C., Memoirs (2 vols., London 1948), 11Google Scholar;Hinton, H., Cordell Hull (London, 1941)Google Scholar; Anglo-American trade agreement, 1938, Cmd. 5882; and for Hull's panacea for the problems of world trade, text of his national foreign trade week inauguration speech at Halifax to Eden, 18 May 1941, A4395/3795/45 P.R.O. F.O. 371 London.

2 See Savers, R. S., History of the Second World War, U.K. civil series, financial policy (London 1956), pp. 246Google Scholarff. For American reactions see Hull memo. ‘Representations to the British Government on Effects of Import Controls on American Business and Agriculture’, 22 Jan. 1940, State Dept. 641.116/2578 N.A. Wash.

3 See Board of Trade to Stirling, 9 May 1941, A3435/2354/45 P.R.O. F.O. 371.

4 Draft attached to letter Kinglsey Wood to Eden, 8 Aug. 1941, W 9748/37/49 P.R.O. F.O. 371.

5 Kinglsey Wood at Cabinet, 12 Aug. 1941 WM81/41: Eden to Amery, 6 June 1941, W 6669/37/49: Amery to Eden, 30 May 1941 W 6669/37/49: Keynes on the Pasvolsky Memorandum', 5 Jan. 1942, W 749/81/49 P.R.O. F.O. 371. Although the latter is dated 1942 it gives a concise and witty picture of Keynes' attitudes towards postwar economic controls. Of Pasvolsky, who had advocated policies of economic de-control for Britain, Keynes impishly commented, ‘Mr. Pasvolsky looks like Rip Van Winkle and evidently is, in fact, he!’

Arthur Greenwood, minister without portfolio, was in charge of a ministerial committee on reconstruction policy, established February 1941, CAB 87/1. This ‘Greenwood Committee’, along with a sub-ministerial committee on external economic problems and Anglo-American co-operation established by Greenwood in August 1941 (see W 9915/426/49, F.O. 371), both met infrequently but were part and parcel of the co-ordinating role which Greenwood performed in the sphere of Anglo-American economic diplomacy during 1941 and which thus made him an influential figure. Members of the Greenwood Committee included Wood, Attlee, Cranborne and Hudson.

6 See minutes by Richard Law, 30 December 1941, W 193/19/49 P.R.O. F.O. 371.

7 Ibid, and SirLeith-Ross, Frederick, Money talks: fifty years of international finance. The autobiography of Sir Frederick Leith-Ross (London, 1968), pp. 290–1Google Scholar. Sir Frederick was in the ministry of economic warfare and Law was the parliamentary under-secretary for foreign affairs.

8 For a full account of this see Dobson, A. P., ‘Economic diplomacy at the Atlantic Conference August 1941’, Review of International Studies, X (1984)Google Scholar: for the text of paragraph four of the Atlantic Charter, which contained provisions for postwar economic policy see Churchill, W. S., The grand alliance (London, 1950), pp. 443–4Google Scholar.

9 Hull to Winant and the reply 25 Aug. and 1 Sept. 1941, State Dept. 740.0011 European War 1939/14454 and /14570 respectively N.A.

10 This latter line of attack was conducted mainly through the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934, which had been heavily sponsored and promoted by Hull.

11 See Walker, J. S., Henry A. Wallace and American foreign policy (Connecticut, 1976)Google Scholar.

12 Campbell to Sargent, 1 April 1942 W 5914/19/49 P.R.O. F.O. 371.

13 Hearings before House subcommittee of committee of appropriations, 23 Sept. 1941, lend-lease hearings. Quoted from Albertson, D., Roosevelt's farmer (New York, 1961), p. 235Google Scholar.

14 See Hammond, R.J., History of the Second World War, U.K. civil series, Food I (London 1951), p. 350Google Scholar and Halifax to Hull, 3 May 1941, State Dept. 561.311 F.I. advisory committee/1002 N.A.

15 Hammond, , Food I, p. 351Google Scholar.

16 Ibid.

17 Winant to Hull, 23 Aug. 1941, State Dept. 102.78/2959 N.A.

18 Leith-Ross, , Monty talks, pp. 290–2Google Scholar.

19 Winant to Hull, 23 Aug. 1941, State Dept. 102.78/2959, Lloyd Steere was agricultural attaché at the U.S. embassy.

20 See desk diary entries, 4 March 1940 and 29 Jan. 1942, Breckinridge Long papers box 5, Lib. of Cong., Washington.

21 Signed by Breckinridge Long for S.S. to Winant, 4 Sept. 1941, State Dept. 561.311 F1 advisory committee/1033b, N.A.

22 Minutes by N. B. Ronald, 29 Sept. 1941, W 10969/37/49 PRO. F.O. 371.

23 Winant to Hull, 17 Sept. 1941, State Dept. 561.311 F1 advisory committee/1935 N.A.

24 See Winant to Hull, 12 Oct. 1941, State Dept. 561.311 F1 advisory committee/1049 N.A.

25 W.S.C. to F.D.R., 8 Oct. 1941, State Dept. 561.311 F1 advisory committee/1055 N.A.

26 Ibid.

27 F.D.R. to W.S.C. 17 Oct. 1941 State Dept. 561.311 F1, advisory committee/1053.

28 Minutes by T. N. Whitehead, F.O., American Dept., 10 Feb. 1942, on records of five meetings 20–27 Oct. 1941, Washington. W 19/19/49 P.R.O. F.O. 371.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid.

31 Ibid.

32 Hull to Winant, 31 Oct. 1941, State Dept. 561. 311 F1 advisory committee/1049 N.A.

33 B.E.O. meeting, 17 Nov. 1941, Berle papers, box 56, folder B.E.O. Oct.–Dec. 1941, F.D.R. Library.

34 See minutes by Sir D. Scott, 3 Feb. 1942, W 1579/19/49, P.R.O. F.O. 371.

35 Hull to Winant, 26 Nov. 1941, State Dept. 561.311 F1 advisory committee/1060 N.A.

36 Ibid.

37 Minutes by R. Law, 30 Dec. 1941, W 193/19/49, P.R.O. F.O. 371.

38 Ibid.

39 Minutes by N. B. Ronald, 18 Dec. 1941, W 193/19/49, P.R.O. F.O. 371.

40 Ibid.

41 Leith-Ross on wheat policy, 24 Dec. 1941, W 302/19/49, P.R.O. F.O. 371.

42 ‘Notes by Sir A. Salter on the wheat conference’, W 302/19/49, P.R.O. F.O. 371.

43 Minutes by N. B. Ronald, 20 April, 1942, W 5914/19/49, P.R.O. F.O. 371.

44 Penrose, E. F., Economic planning for the peace (Princeton, N.J. 1953), p. 66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 See Winant to Hull, 28 Dec. 1941, 561–311 F1 advisory committee/1066 N.A. and Salter to F.O., 19 Jan. 1942 W 1004/19/49, P.R.O. F.O. 371.

46 W.S.C. to F.D.R., 8 Oct. 1941, State Dept. 561.311 F1 advisory committee/1055 N.A.

47 Minutes by N. B. Ronald, 20 April, 1942, W 5914/19/49, P.R.O. F.O. 371.

48 Text at H. W. Smith to N. Butler, 26 Sept. 1941, W 11797/37/49: *suggested by Amery in letter to Greenwood, 27 Aug. 1941, W 10480/37/49: **this previously read ‘special’ but caused some concern; see Cranborne to Kingsley Wood, 7 Sept. 1941, W 10480/37/49. ‘Harmful’ was eventually substituted on Churchill's recommendation; see marginal notes in Smith to Butler, loc.cit. above. For detailed analysis of the text, see N. B. Ronald to T. Daish, Offices of the war cabinet, 8 Sept. 1941, W 10480/37/49. All references P.R.O. F.O. 371.

49 Acheson, D., Present at the creation (New York, 1967), p. 31Google Scholar.

50 For the full text see A decade of American foreign policy, basic documents (Washington, 1950), p. 5Google Scholar.

51 F.O. to Washington, 13 Dec. 1941, W 14652/37/49, P.R.O. F.O. 371.

52 Halifax to London, 20 Dec. 1941, W 15249/37/49, P.R.O. F.O. 371.

53 See minutes by N. B. Ronald, 30 Dec. 1941, W 193/19/49, P.R.O. F.O. 371.

54 See the ‘Pasvolsky Memorandum’ at Halifax to Eden, 16 Dec. 1941, W 367/81/49, P.R.O. F.O. 371.

55 This view was disclosed to Halifax by Acheson and Feis ‘confidentially’ on 29 Jan. 1942 and reported to London; Halifax to F.O. 30 Jan. 1942, W 1508/122/49 P.R.O. F.O. 371.

56 See 6 Feb. 1942, ‘Proposed Exchange of Notes’, State Dept. 841.24/1186 N.A. The proposals were put forward by Eden at a cabinet on 4 Feb. 1942 after discussions with Kingsley Wood WP(42)62; the tactic was strongly supported by Lord Cranborne; see Cranborne to Greenwood 13 Jan. 1942 W 585/122/49, P.R.O. F.O. 371.

57 F.O. to Washington, 6 Feb. 1942, W 1508/122/49, P.R.O. F.O. 371.

58 Acheson, , Present at the creation, p. 33Google Scholar: Halifax to F.O. 8 Feb. 1942, W 1979/122/49, P.R.O. F.O. 371.

59 Loewenheim, F. L. et al. Roosevelt and Churchill: their secret wartime correspondence, (London, 1975)Google Scholar; F.D.R. to W.S.C. 11 Feb. 1942, pp. 177–8.

60 Ibid.

61 See WM(42) 20, P.R.O.

62 Loewenheim, , Churchill-Roosevelt correspondence W.S.C. to F.D.R., 12 02 1942, pp. 178–9Google Scholar.

63 Churchill, House of Commons, 21 April 1944; H. of C. debates, 399: 579–80.

64 Washington to F.O., 26 April 1944, report of press conference given by Hull, U 3169/6/70, P.R.O. F.O. 371.

65 See minutes by Ronald, 30 Dec. 1941, though clearly some members of the F.O. notably Eden, would have preferred further clarification via an exchange of interpretative notes, W 193/19/49, P.R.O. F.O. 371.

66 Ronald to Hopkins, 23 Jan. 1942, W 749/81/49, P.R.O. F.O. 371.

67 Minutes of conversation between Ronald and Sir Hubert Henderson, treasurery adviser, 26 Feb. 1942, W 2458/27/49, P.R.O. F.O. 371.

68 Harrod, R. F., The life of J. M. Keynes (London, 1951), p. 531Google Scholar.