500.CC/8–344
General George C.
Marshall, Chief of Staff of the United States Army,
to the Secretary of State
Washington, 3 August,
1944.
My Dear Mr. Secretary: It is quite possible
that in the coming discussions with the other principal United Nations,
concerning the proposed General International Organization, questions
will arise directly or indirectly related to the subject of post-war
territorial settlements, as for example the question of “Territorial
Trusteeships.”
It is noted that the Table of Contents of the United States Tentative
Proposals for a General International Organization dated 18 July 1944,
(which have been furnished the other governments concerned), indicates
that Section IX63 deals with “Arrangements for Territorial
Trusteeships” and that the “documents on this subject will be available
later.”
It appears to the Joint Chiefs of Staff64 after examining the 6th July draft of Section IX,
that this subject of Territorial Trusteeships is closely related to the
broader subject of territorial settlements and that the question as to
whether either subject should be discussed at this time is directly
related to two basic military considerations. These military
considerations are:
-
a.
- The incalculable importance to the United States of the early
entry of Russia into the war against Japan, and
-
b.
- The very profound changes that will be found in the relative
military strengths of the major powers of the world upon the
conclusion of the present war.
In order that our representatives at forthcoming discussions may be
informed of the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff concerning these
military considerations, the accompanying memorandum expressive of these
views is enclosed.
Sincerely yours,
For the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
G. C. Marshall
[Enclosure]
Memorandum by the Joint Chiefs
of Staff to the Secretary of
State
Subject: Fundamental Military Factors in Relation to
Discussions Concerning Territorial Trusteeships and Settlements.
- 1.
- Discussions are to be held in the near future with
representatives of the three other principal United Nations
concerning the proposed future international organization. While
these discussions are intended to be exploratory only, it is
possible that directly or indirectly, questions concerning
territorial settlements may arise. Should this be the case, it
appears certain that on some questions of this nature, Russian
aspirations will be found in conflict with those of the British
on the one hand, and with those of China on the other. The
interests of the United States would undoubtedly be involved,
particularly as to the future status of the Japanese Mandated
Islands,65 and
British and Chinese interests could be expected to come in
conflict, especially as to Hong Kong.
- 2.
- The question of whether the subject of territorial settlements
should be discussed during these conversations—either
specifically as to certain areas, or in general terms as to the
trusteeship or other status of such areas under the General
International Organization—is an important matter of policy
which should be determined only after thorough examination of
all factors involved. Among the basic factors which must be
given full weight in determining the United States policy in
this regard is the over-all military situation as it can be
foreseen both before and after the defeat of Japan.
- 3.
- While the war with Germany is well advanced toward a final
conclusion, the defeat of Japan is not yet in sight. The defeat
of Germany will leave Russia in a position of assured military
dominance
[Page 701]
in eastern
Europe and in the Middle East. While it is true that on the fall
of Germany the United States and Britain will occupy and control
western Europe, their strength in that area will thereafter
progressively decline with the withdrawal of all but their
occupational and enforcement forces, for employment against
Japan, or for demobilization.
- 4.
- At present, the war against Japan is being carried on almost
entirely by the United States. Notwithstanding British
commitments, this will continue to be substantially true after
the defeat of Germany, unless Russia effectively enters the war
against Japan. In this connection it must be borne in mind that
whether or not Russia enters the war, the fall of Japan will
leave Russia in a dominant position on continental Northeast
Asia in so far as military power is concerned.
- 5.
- The land forces of Russia can provide a major contribution by
being brought to bear directly against the most powerful element
of Japanese military strength—her Army. The air forces of Russia
or of the United States, operating from Siberian or Korean
bases, would provide the most effective short range land-based
air attack against the heart of Japan. Should Russia promptly
and effectively enter the war after the fall of Germany, she
would bring her great land and air forces into action directly
against Japan, thereby materially shortening the war and
effecting vast savings in American lives and treasure. Should
Russia abstain from such action, due to our untimely pressing
the subject of territorial settlement—or any other avoidable
cause—we must be prepared to accept responsibility for a longer
war. In other words, it should be clearly recognized by those
guiding these prospective discussions that there is an important
connection between the timeliness of discussing territorial
trusteeships or other forms of territorial settlements and the
earliest and least costly defeat of Japan and therefore that
discussion of these controversial subjects should be delayed
until that end is achieved.
- 6.
- In all discussions of post-war international arrangements it
will be of great importance that our representatives keep
clearly in mind the essential facts of the future world-wide
military situation, which, in the last analysis, not only will
largely determine the eventual territorial settlements, but
which must be recognized and accepted if we are to create a
post-war world structure on the basis of that reality without
which it can not be expected to endure. When Germany and Japan
are defeated and disarmed, and assuming they are prevented from
re-building their military power, the facts of the post-war
military situation will be those briefly stated in the following
paragraphs.
- 7.
- The successful termination of the war against our present
enemies will find a world profoundly changed in respect of
relative national
[Page 702]
military strengths, a change more comparable indeed with that
occasioned by the fall of Rome than with any other change
occurring during the succeeding fifteen hundred years. This is a
fact of fundamental importance in its bearing upon future
international political settlements and all discussions leading
thereto. Aside from the elimination of Germany and Japan as
military powers, and developments in the relative economic power
of principal nations, there are technical and material factors
which have contributed greatly to this change. Among these are
the development of aviation, the general mechanization of
warfare and the marked shift in the munitioning potentials of
the great powers.
- 8.
- After the defeat of Japan, the United States and Russia will
be the strongest military powers in the world. This is due in
each case primarily to a combination of geographical position
and extent, manpower, and vast munitioning potential. While the
United States can project its military power into many areas
overseas, it is nevertheless true that the relative strength and
geographic positions of these two powers are such as to preclude
the military defeat of one of these powers by the other, even if
that power were allied with the British Empire.
- 9.
- As a military power, the British Empire in the post-war era
will be in a lower category than the United States and Russia.
The primacy of the British Empire in the century before World
War I, and her second-to-none position until World War II, have
built up a traditional concept of British military power. It is
important that, as regards British military power, we clearly
recognize the substantial change that has taken place. Except
for the elimination of Germany as a threat and rival, nearly all
the essential factors of national power in the post-war era will
have altered, to the disadvantage of the British Empire. Both in
an absolute sense and relative to the United States and Russia,
the British Empire will emerge from the war having lost ground
both economically and militarily. In addition to the broad
effect of such losses on the military power of the Empire, there
are two factors which directly depreciate the military power of
the United Kingdom. These are the inroads of aviation and
submarine developments on the former security of her sea lanes,
and the relative decline in her munitioning capacity during the
past seventy years, from about fifty per cent to approximately
eight per cent of world totals. A future world conflict may be
expected to find British military resources so strained in the
defense of her essential sea lanes, so involved in maintaining
the integrity of her Empire, that little, if any, of these
resources will be available for offensive action against a land
power.
- 10.
- Notwithstanding her vast population and area, China possesses
at present but little military strength. This condition will not
be improved prior to her extensive industrialization, which in
turn is dependent on the firm establishment of political unity
and a stable government. Her ultimate munitioning potential,
while it may be considerable, will not be developed for a long
time and can not be expected to be of the order of magnitude of
either Russia or the United States because of the smaller size
of her reserves of iron ore.
- 11.
- As a military power, France will be found in a category below
the British Empire. Nevertheless, France after her recovery will
be in a position to exert a greater effort than Britain in land
operations on the European continent, because of her high degree
of economic self-sufficiency and the very considerable
munitioning capacity she will eventually possess after the
re-acquisition of the Lorraine ore fields and the reconstruction
of her industry.
- 12.
- In spite of her resources in manpower, Italy, because of her
very notable deficiencies in essential mineral reserves, must
remain a relatively minor military power, largely dependent upon
others for her munitioning needs.
- 13.
- To summarize:
-
a.
- From the military point of view, it is highly
desirable that discussions concerning the related
subjects of territorial trusteeship and territorial
settlements, particularly as they may adversely affect
our relations with Russia, be delayed until after the
defeat of Japan.
-
b.
- Concerning the post-war era, such discussions should
give due weight to the facts that:
- (1)
- As regards their military power, the United
States and Russia are dominant in their respective
areas.
- (2)
- The relative strength and geographic positions
of the United States and Russia are such as to
preclude the military defeat of one of these
powers by the other, even if that power were
allied with the British Empire.
- (3)
- The relative military power of the British
Empire has declined and will continue to be
considerably less than that of Russia or the
United States, but superior to that of any nation
other than those two powers.
- (4)
- The military power of China at present and for
many years to come will be very small.
- (5)
- Assuming the effective disarmament of Germany
and Japan, nations other than United States,
Russia, and the British Empire, may be potential
sources of breaches of the international peace and
security, as conceived by the General
International Organization, but even collectively
they will not possess sufficient military power to
involve the world in a global war against the
concerted will of the three great powers.
