Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-x5cpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T08:42:12.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The United States and Chile during the Second World War: the Diplomacy of Misunderstanding *

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Michael J. Francis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During most of 1942 the United States Department of State attempted to cajole, flatter, or force the Government of Chile to break diplomatic relations with the Axis powers. The reluctance of both Chile and Argentina to join the other Latin American countries in severing relations with Germany, Italy, and Japan soon reached the level of a major foreign policy controversy, and United States officials became incensed at Chile's ‘timidity’ in joining the crusade against fascism. The misunderstanding between them, this analysis will argue, stemmed from the nature of the situation and of the parties involved.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , May 1977 , pp. 91 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

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 Mecham, J. Lloyd, The United States and Inter-American Security, 1889–1960 (Austin, 1961), p. 211.Google Scholar

2 Documents cited by number are from the United States National Archives, Department of State, Washington, DC. The citation of these documents is sufficient to locate them although the author has not attempted to describe each document in terms of authorship or address because he feels that these citations are usually misleading due to the diplomatic practice of having them signed by, and sent to, the highest ranking official of the entity involved. For example, all messages to the Department of State are sent to the Secretary of State although he very well may not see the document, and all messages sent from the Department are signed by the Secretary who may know nothing of the contents of the message. For the same reason, the author's citations from the Foreign Relations of the United State: (FRS) series only uses the volume and page number.Google Scholar

3 For an account of this meeting, see Francis, Michael J., ‘The United States at Rio, 1942: the Strains of Pan-Americanism,’ Journal of Latin American Studies, 6, 1 (05 1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 e.g., with the exception of the Communist paper El Siglo, the major newspapers in Chile were not advocating a quick break in relations. 710. Consultation (3)/650: telegram, Embassy in Santiago to S/S, 17 Feb. 1942.Google Scholar

5 825.00/1528, Bowers' letter to President, 15 Dec. 1942.Google Scholar

6 ‘El General Ibáñez y los Estados Unidos,’ El Mercurio, 17 Dec. 1941.Google Scholar

7 825.00/1525, Bowers' letter to Duggan, 21 Dec. 1941.Google Scholar

8 Bowers, Claude, Chile Through Embassy Windows: 1939–1953 (New York, 1958), p. 299 and 825.00/1594, memo, Jan. 1942.Google Scholar

9 825.00/1602: telegram, Embassy in Santiago to S/S, 25 02 1942; and 710. CONSULTA. TION (3)/722: telegram, Embassy in Santiago to S/S, 14 Mar. 1942.Google Scholar

10 825.00/1640, memo, 5 Mar. 1942.Google Scholar

11 825.00/2003, letter of Bowers to Welles, 15 Apr. 1942.Google Scholar

12 Bowers, op. cit., p. 98.Google Scholar

13 825.00/1605, U/S to Embassy in Santiago, 28 Feb. 1942.Google Scholar

14 Bowers, op. cit., p. 100.Google Scholar

15 825.00/1607; telegram, Embassy in Santiago to S/S, 2 Mar. 1942.Google Scholar

16 825.24/706, Embassy in Santiago to S/S, 24 Nov. 1942.Google Scholar

17 Francis, op. cit., p. 89–90.Google Scholar

18 825.24/582½, memo, 29 July 1942.Google Scholar

19 810.0 DEFENSE/3172, memo, 12 Aug. 1942.Google Scholar

20 FRS, 1942, VI, p. 39.Google Scholar

21 Ibid, p. 38.

22 Ibid, p. 29.

23 825.24/732/2. memo, 19 Dec. 1942. The list included 48 40-mm. anti-aircraft guns instead of the 20 27-mm. guns originally specified, 50 more 20-mm. anti-aircraft guns, 18 P 43 pursuit planes, 18 dive bombers, 12 75-mm. howitzers, 12 motor torpedo boats, and other supplies.Google Scholar

24 FRS, 1942, vi, p. 45–6.Google Scholar

25 FRS, 1943, v, p. 852.Google Scholar

26 723.25/73, Embassy in Santiago to S/S, 1 Mar. 1943.Google Scholar

27 825.00/1650, Embassy in Santiago to S/S. 25 April 1942.Google Scholar

28 e.g., 711.25/224, memo, 16 Oct. 1942.Google Scholar

29 825.00/2094, Embassy in Santiago to S/S, 12 Feb. 1944.Google Scholar

30 825.01/178, memo, 13 July 1942. Also see FRS, 1942, VI, p. 28–9.Google Scholar

31 740.0011, European War 1939/21968: telegram, Embassy in Santiago to S/S and U/S, 2 June 1942.Google Scholar

32 825.00/1650, Embassy in Santiago to S/S, 25 Apr. 1942;Google Scholarand 825.51/1450, Embassy in Santiago to S/S, 18 May 1942.Google Scholar

33 FRS, 1942, VI, p. 22–3.Google Scholar

34 Ibid, p. 23.

35 Ibid, p. 24.

36 825.51/1453, Embassy in Santiago to S/S, 20 June 1942.Google Scholar

37 FRS, 1942, VI, p. 95.Google Scholar

38 835.001 RIOS, JUAN ANTONIO/91, memo, 19 Sept. 1942.Google Scholar

39 Bowers, op. cit., p. 99.Google Scholar

40 Ibid.

41 825.911/91: telegram, Embassy in Santiago to S/S, 26 July 1942;Google Scholar825.911/91: telegram, S/S to Embassy in Santiago, 1 Aug. 1942;Google Scholarand 825.911/107, memo, 26 Dec. 1942.Google Scholar

42 (Notre Dame, Indiana, 1963). See the chapter ‘The Chilean Right and the United States,’ pp. 243–56.Google Scholar

43 FRS, 1943, V, p. 797.Google Scholar

44 123 Bowers, Claude G/292½, memo, 6 Feb. 1943.Google Scholar

45 An excellent example of this attitude is the book of former Department of State official Munro, Dana G., The United States and the Caribbean Republics, 1921–1933 (Princeton, N.J., 1974).Google Scholar

46 825.00/1689, Bowers to President, 29 Apr. 1942.Google Scholar

47 FRS, 1942, VI, p. 24–5.Google Scholar

48 825.24/499, memos of 11 April 1942 and 13 April 1942 and minutes of meeting of Liason Committee, 22 June 1942.Google Scholar

49 825.00/1691, Embassy in Santiago to U/S, 31 May 1942;Google Scholar825.00/1687; telegram, U/S to Embassy in Santiago, 20 June 1942;Google Scholarand 825.00/1736, Embassy in Santiago to U/S, 11 Aug. 1942.Google Scholar

50 725.00/18: telegram, Embassy in Santiago to S/S, 8 July 1942.Google Scholar

51 Some Ambassadors may hate the country or the government to which they are assigned but Bowers' memoirs certainly refute any possible reasoning along these lines.Google Scholar

52 This same situation can be found in a reading of many of the memoirs written by former Ambassadors. It is particularly obvious, and at times the phenomenon is directly discussed, in Gaibraith's, John KennethAmbassador's Journal (New York, 1969) which deals with Galbraith's two years as Washington's representative to India.Google Scholar

53 Another example of Bowers taking the Chilean side on an issue is to be found in the 1939 trade agreement negotiations between the two countries. See in particular FRS, 1939, v, p. 432 and 438–9.Google Scholar

54 Bowers, , My Life (New York, 1962), p. 304.Google Scholar

55 FRS, 1942, VI, p. 28.Google Scholar

56 862.20225/747A: telegram, U/S to Embassy in Santiago, 29 Oct. 1942.Google Scholar

57 FRS, 1942, v, p. 100–1.Google Scholar

58 Unlike his counterpart in the United States, the Minister of the Interior in Latin American countries has responsibility for internal order.Google Scholar

59 FRS, 1942, v, p. 237–9.Google Scholar

60 Luis Palma Zúñiga y Meléndez, Julio Iglesias, Presencia de Juan Antonio Ríos (Santiago, 1957), p. 169.Google Scholar

61 740.0011 European War 1939/25883: telegram, Embassy in Santiago to S/S, 20 Nov. 1942.Google Scholar

62 FRS, 1942, VI, p. 40.Google Scholar

63 740.0011 European War 1939/27116, memo, 17 Dec. 1942.Google Scholar

64 FRS, 1942, VI, pp. 42–3.Google Scholar

65 FRS, 1943, v, p. 800.Google Scholar

66 Ibid, p. 198.

67 Ibid, p. 800.

68 Ibid, p. 805.

69 Ibid, pp. 809–10.

70 Ibid, p. 901.

71 710. CONSULTATION 3/855A, memo, no date.Google Scholar

72 FRS, 1944, VII, p. 684.Google Scholar

73 85.00/1972, Embassy in Santiago to S/S, 27 Aug. 1943.Google Scholar

74 825.00/2155, Hull to Bowers, 3 May. 1944.Google Scholar

75 A most interesting account of how this resignation was finally precipitated is in May, Ernest R., ‘The “Bureaucratic Politics” Approach: U.S.-Argentine Relations, 1942–47’, in Cotler, Julio and Fagen, Richard R., eds. Latin America and the United States: The Changing Political Realities (Stanford, 1974), p. 149–50.Google Scholar

76 This account is based on FRS, 1944, VII, p. 691–700.Google Scholar

77 Ibid, p. 695 and FRS, 1945, IX, p. 756–7.

78 Ibid, 1945, IX, p. 767.

79 Ibid, p. 769.