Notes

Introduction

1. The principal theoretical basis for this study is the article by Karl Kautsky, the preeminent Social-Democratic thinker of the early twentieth century, entitled “Ultra-Imperialism,” which argued that interimperialist conflict and its accompanying arms race would soon be replaced by a more rational system based on cooperation between the major capitalist powers. Kautsky had the singular misfortune to publish this article as World War I was breaking out across Europe in 1914. Nevertheless, this analysis is significant, because it was consistent with American efforts to establish economic cooperation between the capitalist powers over developmental questions in regions like China. Since World War II, the United States has presided over a system based on “ultraimperialist” principles. Kautsky’s article was originally published in Die Neu Zeit, September 11, 1914. An English translation of this essay first appeared in the New Left Review 59 (Jan.-Feb. 1970): 39–46.

This study also shares certain underlying assumptions with the work of world systems theorists who argue that the chief causal factor behind historical development since about 1500 has been the emergence of the world capitalist system, characterized by a division of labor between industrialized and developing regions. Of particular relevance is the work of Thomas J. McCormick, who emphasizes that the United States, as the dominant or “hegemonic” power of the twentieth century, has had a powerful incentive for dismantling autarkic or preferential economic systems in favor of a global environment that allows the greatest possible freedom for trade and investment. For instance, see his “Every System Needs a Center Sometimes: An Essay on Hegemony and Modern American Foreign Policy,” in Lloyd Gardner, ed., Redefining the Past: Essays in Diplomatic History in Honor of William Appleman Williams (Corvallis: Oregon State Univ. Press, 1986), 195–220.

2. In his review of Christine White’s excellent study, Thomas Zeiler cites statistics that demonstrate that Russia remained a “minuscule export market for U.S. business” in the 1920s. He also notes that White does not clarify the relationship between official governmental policy and private sector efforts to expand economic relations with the Soviet government. Thomas Zeiler, “Business Is Business,” Diplomatic History 18 (Summer 1994): 419–23. For a study that demonstrates the extensive obstacles official governmental policy placed in the path of expanded commercial relations with the Soviet Union in the 1920s, see Joan Hoff Wilson, Ideology and Economics: U. S. Relations with the Soviet Union, 1918–1933 (Columbia : Univ. of Missouri Press, 1974).

1.The Open Door, Wilsonianism, and the New Frontier in Siberia

1. This analysis is informed by the work of Carl Parrini and Martin Sklar who demonstrate that the corporate reorganization of the American economy in the late 1890s placed new demands on American foreign policy. Carl P. Parrini and Martin J. Sklar, “New Thinking About the Market, 1896–1904: Some American Economists on Investment and the Theory of Surplus Capital,” Journal of Economic History 43 (Sept. 1983); 559–78; Martin J. Sklar, The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism, 1896–1916: The Market, the Law, and Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1988). For the original analysis of the phenomenon of surplus capital see Charles A. Conant, “The Economic Basis of Imperialism,” North American Review 167 (Sept. 1898): 326–40.

2. For background on the American International Corporation, see Harry Scheiber, “World War I as Entrepreneurial Opportunity: Willard Straight and the American International Corporation,” Political Science Quarterly 84 (Sept. 1969): 461–511. Henry D. Baker, “Prospects for Investment of American Capital in Russia,” Petrograd, Feb. 14, 1916, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Record Group 151, file 620 (hereafter cited as RG 151, followed by file number). For a survey of America’s developing economic interest in Russia after the outbreak of World War I, see Jeanette E. Tuve, “Changing Directions in Russian-American Relations, 1912–1917,” Slavic Review 31 (Mar. 1972): 52–70. See also Christine A. White, British and American Commercial Relations with Soviet Russia, 1918–1924 (Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1992), 4–34.

3. Charles H. Boynton, “Russia and Its Relationships to the United States” address at the National Exposition of Chemical Industry, Sept. 26, 1917, in The American-Russian Chamber of Commerce, Service Bulletin, Samuel N. Harper Papers, box 57.

4. Boynton, “Russia and Its Relationships to the U.S.,” 4–5, 6.

5. “The Russian Opportunity,” no author, The American-Russian Chamber of Commerce, ca. 1917.

6. Boynton, “Russia and Its Relationships to the U.S.,” 5.

7. Cited in Edward H. Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution, 1917–1923 (London: Macmillan, 1953), 3: 356–57.

8. Boynton, “Russia and Its Relationships to the U.S.,” 2.

9. Boynton, “Russia and Its Relationships to the U.S.,” 2–3. Linda Killen and N. Gordon Levin also emphasize that the American approach to the Russian question was predicated on the belief that the “March Revolution” represented the true democratic impulses of the Russian people while the Bolshevik Revolution was only a temporary phase. See Linda Killen, The Russian Bureau: A Case Study in Wilsonian Diplomacy (Lexington: Univ. Kentucky Press, 1983); N. Gordon Levin, Woodrow Wilson and World Politics: America’s Response to War and Revolution (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1968).

10. Martin J. Sklar, “Woodrow Wilson and the Developmental Imperatives of Modern U.S. Liberalism,” The United Sates as a Developing Country: Studies in U.S. History in the Progressive Era and the 1920s (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992), 102–42.

11. I am indebted to Mary O. Furner, who suggested to me that Wilson’s political economy was influenced by residual republican values.

12. Woodrow Wilson, “An Address to a Joint Session of Congress,” Arthur S. Link, ed., The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, January—April, 1917 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1983), 41:524.

13. Frederick Jackson Turner, “The Significance of the Frontier in American History,” Annual Report of the American Historical Association, 1893 (Washington, D.C.: 1894), 199–27.

14. “Russia and Far Eastern Problems,” Nov. 10, 1921, an unsigned confidential memorandum drafted for American delegates to the Washington Naval Conference, in the Roland S. Morris Papers, box 7.

15. “Russia and Far Eastern Problems.”

16. “Russia and Far Eastern Problems.”

17. Woodrow Wilson, “Democracy and Efficiency,” ca. Oct. 1, 1900, Arthur Link, ed., The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, January—April, 1900–1902, 12:8.

18. Ibid., 8.

19. Wilson concludes this essay by implying that America’s new international obligations might stimulate the evolution of more rational administrative institutions in American society, ibid., 17–18.

20. Ibid., 19.

21. Donald W. Treadgold, The Great Siberian Migration: Government and Peasant in Resettlement from Emancipation to the First World War (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1957), 6.

22. Ibid., 231–32.

23. Ibid., 171–76.

24. Stishov is cited in Paul Dotsenko, The Struggle for Democracy in Siberia, 1917–1920 (Stanford: Hoover Institute Press, 1983), 5.

25. Treadgold, The Great Siberian Migration, 158.

26. Donald W. Treadgold, “Russian Expansion in the Light of Turner’s Study of the American Frontier,” Agricultural History 26 (Oct. 1952): 150.

27. Treadgold, The Great Siberian Migration, 245.

28. Eugene Kayden and Alexis Antsiferov, The Cooperative Movement in Russia During the War (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1929), 71, 169, 183.

29. Ibid., 206.

30. This overview of the Russian cooperative movement was drawn from the following sources: ibid.; Frederic E. Lee, “The Russian Cooperative Movement,” U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Misc. Series, no. 101 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1920); G. E. Corbaley to W. V. Couchman, Mar. 27, 1918, Cyrus H. McCormick Jr. Papers, McCormick Collections, series 2C, box 117, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison.

31. Eugene Kayden, joint author of The Cooperative Movement in Russia During the War, and a specialist for the War Trade Board, stressed these cultural factors throughout his half of the study.

32. Kayden and Antsiferov, The Cooperative Movement, 159.

33. William C. Huntington to Rodney Dean, Mar. 17, 1919, RG 151, file 027.0.

34. For instance, the critical role the Union of Siberian Creamery Associations played in supplying the army can be adduced by the appointment of its officials, such as Joseph Okulitch and V. N. Baschkirov, to top governmental positions in the Ministry of Agriculture and the Central Committee for Food Supply. This biographical information appeared in “Agricultural Siberia and Industrial America,” The Russian Information Bureau in the U.S., Bulletin 38, ca. 1918, Samuel N. Harper Papers, box 54; Bertron to Cyrus McCormick Jr., Dec. 5, 1918, Cyrus H. McCormick Jr. Papers, box 118.

These American views regarding “nation-building” in Russia bring to mind Antonio Gramsci’s insights into the fragility of the czarist state. Reflecting on the failure of bolshevism in the West after its success in Russia, Gramsci observed that “in Russia the State was everything, civil society was primordial and gelatinous; in the West, there was a proper relation between State and civil society, and when the State trembled a sturdy structure of civil society was at once revealed. The State was only an outer ditch, behind which there stood a powerful system of fortresses and earthworks: more or less numerous from one State to the next.” Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks (New York: International Publishers, 1971), 238.

2.A Minister Plenipotentiary for Russia’s Railroads: The Stevens Commission in Russia, June—December 1917

1. Lansing to Wilson, Mar. 19, 1917, U.S. Department of State, Personal and Confidential Letters from Secretary of State Lansing to President Wilson, 1915–1918 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives Microfilm, Microcopy 743, 1968), reel 1.

2. Ruth Amende Roosa, “Russian Industrialists During World War I: The Interaction of Economics and Politics,” in Gregory Guroff and Fred Carstensen, eds., Entrepreneurship in Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1983), 159–87.

3. Baker to Lansing, Mar. 31, 1917, RG 59, U.S. Department of State, “Records Relating to the Internal Affairs of Russia and the Soviet Union, 1910–1929,” 861.77/55 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives).

4. Lansing to Francis, Apr. 2, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/45a.

5. Francis to Lansing, Apr. 11, 1917; RG 59, 861,77/48; Lansing to Francis, Apr. 16, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/48.

6. Francis to Lansing, Apr. 25, 1917, RG 59, 861.51/137; McAddo to Francis, Apr. 28, 1917, RG 59, 861.51/138; Francis to McAddo, May 1, 1917, RG 59, 861.51/141; McAdoo to Francis, May 7, 1917, RG 59, 861.51/142; Francis to Lansing, Apr. 6, 1917, RG 59, 861.51/133; Francis to Lansing, Apr. 29, 1917, RG 59, 861.51/140.

7. McAdoo to Francis, May 17, 1917, RG 59, 861.51/148.

8. Lansing to Francis, May 3, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/64a.

9. The National Cyclopedia of American Biography (New York: White & Co., 1945): 32:326–27; David McCullough, The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal 1870–1914 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1977), 459–89.

10. Root to Lansing, May 6, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/97½, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States: The Lansing Papers, 1914–1920 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1940), 2:329.

11. Lansing to Wilson, May 7, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/97½, The Lansing Papers, 2:329–31.

12. Wilson to Lansing, May 7, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/98½, The Lansing Papers, 2:331.

13. Lansing to Francis, Apr. 14, 1917, RG 59, 763.72/4001a, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1932), Russia, 1918, 1:107 (hereafter cited as FRUS, followed by year, volume, and page number). Francis to Lansing, Apr. 19, 1917, 763.72/4002, FRUS, 1918, Russia, 1:107–8.

14. Francis to Lansing, Apr. 11, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/48.

15. Francis to Lansing, Apr. 21, 1917, RG 59, 861.00/327.

16. Francis to Lansing, Apr. 29, 1917, RG 59, 861.51/140.

17. The merits of Wilson’s position became evident in the fall of 1918, when the United States entered into the long and contentious process of negotiating an inter-Allied agreement for administering the Trans-Siberian railway system in trust of the defunct Russian government. At the end of August 1918, the State Department explained to Roland Morris, the American ambassador to Japan, and chief author of the subsequent inter-Allied Railway Agreement of February 1919, that

It has been suggested that the members of the Stevens railroad mission be commissioned in the United States Army. This government is opposed to the incorporation with the American armed forces of this civilian commission that was sent to Siberia to serve the best interests of the Russian people. The members of these railroad units are the agents of the Russian people and are being paid and supported by their Ambassador here from funds belonging to them, and it is felt that further complications would not arise and best results would be had if Mr. Stevens for and in behalf of the Russian people were to have general direction of the Trans-Siberian and the Chinese Eastern Railways and their several branches. (Lansing to Morris, Aug. 30, 1918, RG 59, 861.77/451)

18. William Rosenberg, Liberals in the Russian Revolution: The Constitutional Democratic Party, 1917–1921 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1974).

19. Lansing to Francis, May 15, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/78a.

20. Francis to Lansing, June 20, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/110.

21. “Report of George Gibbs on the Siberian Railway” (hereafter cited as Gibbs Report), enclosed in, Willard to Lansing, November 19, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/221.

22. Gibbs Report, 30, 35.

23. Stevens to Willard, July 30, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/136.

24. Stevens to Willard, Aug. 13, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/153.

25. Stevens to Willard, June 25, 1917 RG 59, 861.77/114; Willard to Stevens, July 14, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/125a; Willard to Stevens, July 20, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/126; Gibbs Report, 23.

26. Gibbs Report, 24–26; Willard to Stevens, July 20, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/126.

27. Gibbs Report, 29–30; Appendix F to Gibbs Report, General Report to the Minister Regarding Improvements Recommended on All Russian Railways, July 19, 1917, 7.

28. Appendix F to Gibbs Report, 2–6.

29. Appendix F to Gibbs Report, 6–7.

30. Appendix F to Gibbs Report, 7–20.

31. Gibbs Report, 13; Appendix F to Gibbs Report, 9–10.

32. Gibbs Report, 22, 35; Francis to Lansing, Aug. 6, 1917, RG 59, 861.00/462.

33. Gibbs Report, 22.

34. Francis to Lansing and Willard, Sept. 29, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/184.

35. Gibbs Report, 22.

36. Willard to Stevens, Aug. 27, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/150.

37. Stevens to Willard, Aug. 11, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/146.

38. Stevens to Willard, undated, received Sept. 17, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/166; Miller to Willard, Nov. 1, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/200½.

39. Francis to Lansing, Oct. 9, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/190.

40. Francis to Lansing and Willard, Sept. 28, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/183. The new Minister of Communications, A. V. Liverovskii, a member of the Social Revolutionary party, had apparently succeeded to the post after he had played an instrumental role in blocking the movement of Gen. L. G. Kornilov’s forces during the latter’s abortive coup in September. See Robert P. Browder and Alexander F. Kerensky, eds., The Russian Revolution, 1917, Documents (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press, 1961), 3:1578–79.

41. Francis to Lansing and Willard, Sept. 29, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/184.

42. Willard to Francis, Oct. 15, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/187.

43. Francis to Lansing and Willard, Oct. 23, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/200.

44. Stevens to Willard, Oct. 24, 1917, enclosed in Willard to Lansing, Dec. 11, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/239.

45. Francis to Lansing and Willard, Oct. 27, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/201.

46. Francis to Lansing, Oct. 29, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/206.

47. John Stevens, “Russia During the World War,” address before the Engineers Club, Nov. 23, 1926, Engineers and Engineering 44 (Jan. 1927): 20, enclosed in Roland S. Morris Papers, box 7.

48. Tereschenko believed that the movement of traffic had increased threefold on the Trans-Siberian Railroad. Although Stevens thought this was an exaggeration, he was confident a “decided improvement” had been made on the line, Stevens to Willard, Oct. 24, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/239.

49. Stevens to Willard, Oct. 24, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/239.

50. Stevens to Willard, undated, Received Nov. 4, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/208; Willard to Stevens, Nov. 6, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/208.

51. Stevens to Willard, Oct. 24, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/239.

52. Stevens to Willard, Dec. 28, 1917, enclosed in Willard to Lansing, Jan. 19, 1918, RG 59, 861.77/ 278. Rex Wade believes that throughout 1917 the coalition members of the Provisional Government were unwilling to consider a separate peace in large part because this course might have opened the way to German political and economic domination of Russia. See Wade’s, The Russian Search for Peace, February-October, 1917 (Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ. Press, 1969), 143.

53. Stevens to Willard, Oct. 24, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/239.

54. Stevens, “Russia During the World War,” 20.

55. Stevens to Lansing, undated, received Nov. 26, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/229; Willard to Stevens, Nov. 27, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/231a; Willard to Stevens, Dec. 24, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/267a.

56. Stevens to Willard, Dec. 17, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/244; Willard to Stevens, Dec. 19, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/244.

57. F. M. Titus to C. M. Muchnic, Dec. 18, 1917, enclosed in John K. Caldwell to Lansing, Dec. 21, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/281.

58. Titus to Muchnic, Dec. 18, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/281.

59. Titus to Muchnic, Dec. 18, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/281.

60. Titus to Muchnic, Dec. 18, 1917, RG 59, 861.77/281.

61. Francis to Lansing and Willard, Jan. 3, 1918, RG 59, 861.77/264.

3.The Specter of a Divided World: The Sources and Conduct of American Economic Warfare against Germany, January-August 1918

1. Fritz Fischer examines in detail Germany’s extensive global ambitions in his famous study, Germany’s Aims in the First World War (New York: Norton, 1967).

2. William F. Sands to Lansing, Jan. 16, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/961.

3. Basil Miles, “German Propaganda in Russia,” Jan. 4, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/939½.

4. Frank Polk to David Francis, Jan. 12, 1918, RG 59, 861.24/27.

5. W. V. Couchman to Alexander Legge, June 12, 1918, International Harvester Archives, Document no. 1373.

6. William Kent to Lansing, “German Financial Activity in Russia,” Feb. 11, 1918, RG 59, 861.51/282.

7. Maddin Summers to Lansing, May 1, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/1820.

8. Diary excerpts Siberia, Feb. 25, 1918, Breckinridge Long Papers, box 186.

9. Diary excerpts Siberia.

10. Diary excerpts Siberia.

11. Diary excerpts Siberia, Feb. 26, 1918.

12. Breckinridge Long, “Memorandum of Conversation Had with Mr. John Sookine,” Mar. 2, 1918, Long Papers, box 186.

13. Long to Wilson, Mar. 4, 1918, Wilson Papers, ser. 2.

14. House to Wilson, Mar. 3, 1918, House Papers, box 121; Betty M. Unterberger, America’s Siberian Expedition, 1918–1980: A Study of National Policy (Durham, N.C.: Duke Univ. Press, 1956), 29–33.

15. Bullitt to Polk, Mar. 2, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/1290½. While Bullitt mistakenly believed the Bolshevik government represented a rudimentary “Russian democracy” that was compatible with Wilson’s liberal-democratic world view, this misconception does not affect the crux of his argument.

16. Robert Lansing, “Memorandum on the Proposed Japanese Military Expedition into Siberia,” Mar. 19, Apr. 10, 1918, Private Memoranda, Robert Lansing Papers, 1915–1922 and undated, box 2, (Washington D.C.: Library of Congress Microfilm, 1972), reel 1 (hereafter cited as Lansing Papers, followed box and reel number).

17. “Historical Report of the Operations and Business, Accompanied by a Statement of Accounts, of the so-called, ‘Tovaro-Obmien,’ or the Allied firm of ‘Darcy, Marshall, and Stevens,’” Consul Frank C. Lee, Department of State, Russian Div., Feb. 10, 1920, RG 59, 811.20261 T/19, box 7461.

18. Lansing to Newton D. Baker, Jan. 30, 1918, RG 59, 861.24/18.

19. Lansing to Wilson, Feb. 12, 1918, Basil Miles, “Purchase of Supplies in Russia,” Feb. 12, 1918, enclosed in, Baruch to Polk, Feb. 5, 1918, RG 59, 861.77/290½; Lansing to Francis, Feb. 14, 1918, RG 59, 861.24/30.

20. Post to Cyrus McCormick Jr., Feb. 3, 1918, Cyrus H. McCormick Jr. Papers, box 117.

21. George Lomonosov, “What Can America Do to Help Save Russia,” speech before City Club of Chicago, Feb. 18, 1918; “Plead for Starving Russia: Commissioners Tell of Condition of People in New Republic,” The City Club Bulletin, Feb. 25, 1918, 67–68, McCormick Papers, box 117.

22. “Plead for starving Russia,” McCormick Papers, box 117.

23. “Plead for starving Russia,” McCormick Papers, box 117.

24. “Memorandum of Conference with Russian Representatives,” Feb. 19, 1918, McCormick Papers, box 117.

25. Lobogreikas were simple hand-rake reapers and the predominant mechanical harvester in Russia until 1910. They were considered ideal for Russian conditions because of their inexpensiveness, their low maintenance requirements, and the ease with which they could be repaired. See, Fred Carstensen, American Enterprise in Foreign Markets: Studies of Singer and International Harvester in Imperial Russia (Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1984), 120.

26. T. H. Anderson to International Harvester Corporation, “Contract with the Moscow Narodny Bank for Lubertzy Machines 1918,” Feb. 21, 1918; McAllister to H. F. Perkins, Sept. 11, 1918, International Harvester Archives, Doc. no. 1373.

27. Miles to Polk, Feb. 23, 1918, RG 59, 861.77/299.

28. Confidential memorandum by Basil Miles, Mar. 4, 1918, McCormick Papers, box 117.

29. Memo by Basil Miles, Mar. 4, 1918.

30. Cyrus McCormick’s notes from the meeting at Elihu Root’s apartment, Mar. 9, 1918, McCormick Papers, box 115.

31. McCormick’s notes.

32. Basil Miles, “Policy for Siberia,” Mar. 26, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/1434½.

33. Miles, “Policy for Siberia”; Alonzo E. Taylor, “Memorandum of the necessity of a specialized survey of the internal conditions of Russia with reference to her economic and industrial relations to the Central Powers and the Neutral Countries of Europe.” Feb. 16, 1918, in Taylor to Lansing, Feb. 19, 1918, RG 59, 661.119/79.

34. Long Diary, Mar. 29, 1918, box 186. Long’s summary of a conference with Williams, Miles, and Lay is consistent with Miles’s memo of Mar. 26, 1918.

35. Basil Miles, Memorandum for the Secretary of State: Senator Owen’s letter concerning Russia, Jan. 29, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/1048½.

36. George F. Kennan, Soviet-American Relations 1917–1920: The Decision to Intervene (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1958), 279–80.

37. Zemstvos were district and provincial institutions established by the czarist government in 1864 in an effort to encourage economic progress. Consisting of elected representatives, zemstvos constituted an important step toward self-government in the provinces. Joseph L. Wieczynski, The Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History (Gulf Breeze, Fla.: Academic International Press, 1987), 45:234–35.

38. Basil Miles, “Policy for Siberia,” Mar. 26, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/1434½.

39. Miles, “Policy for Siberia.”

40. Lansing to Leffingwell, Feb. 25, 1918, RG 59, 861.51/287.

41. Lansing to Summers, Mar. 27, 1918, RG 59, 861.24/54a; Lansing to Francis, Apr. 19, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/1457.

42. Summers to Lansing, Apr. 16, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/1616.

43. Lansing to Francis, Apr. 22, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/1457.

44. Lansing to Summers, Apr. 26, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/1616.

45. Lansing to Francis, Apr. 26, 1918, RG 59, 861.24/69a.

46. Francis to Lansing, May 11, 1918, RG 59, 861.24/74.

47. Basil Miles, “Embargo on Germany (Safeguard Russian Supplies),” May 23, 1918, RG 59, 861.24/263.

48. Miles, “Embargo on Germany.”

49. Peter Bukowski, “Report on activities directed towards restricting supplies to the enemy from Northern Russia,” enclosure-extract in Francis to Lansing, Nov. 1, 1918, 763.72112/11086, FRUS, 1918, Russia, 3:161–62.

50. Peter Bukowski, Full text of his report enclosed in Lee, “Historical Report… of the Tovaro-Obmien.”

51. Peter Bukowski in Lee, “Historical Report… of the Tovaro-Obmien.” Soviet willingness to cooperate with the Allied military missions in this instance can also be explained by immediate strategic considerations. Richard Debo has shown that during the spring and early summer of 1918 Lenin wanted to avoid a clash between Germany and the Allies over control of these supplies because it would have placed his regime in immediate danger. Richard Debo, Revolution and Survival: The Foreign Policy of Soviet Russia, 1917–1918 (Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1979), 262–99.

52. Francis to Lansing, May 31, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/1997.

53. Peter Bukowski in Lee, “Historical Report… of the Tovaro-Obmien.”

54. Miles to Lansing, June 3, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/1887; Francis to Lansing, May 20, 1918; Lansing to Francis, June 13, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/1887.

55. Poole to Lansing, July 16, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2353, 2354.

56. Poole to Lansing, July 16, 1918.

57. Unsigned (probably Darcy) to Huntington, June 27, 1918, document enclosed in Lee, “Historical Report… of the Tovaro-Obmien.”

58. Poole to Lansing, July 16, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2353, 2354; Poole to Lansing, July 19, 1918, RG 182, box 1566.

59. “Minutes of the meeting of the Tovaro-Obmien,” Aug. 15, 1918, enclosed in Lee, “Historical Report… of the Tovaro-Obmien”; Whitehouse to Lansing, Nov. 13, 1918, resume of Huntington’s letter to Francis dated Sept. 19, 1918, 861.24/105, FRUS, 1918, Russia, 3:166–68.

60. Poole to Lansing, Aug. 17, 1918, RG 59, 861.24/102; Poole to Lansing, May 8, 1919, RG 59, 861.24/151; see also file nos. 861.24/209–13.

61. Lee, “Historical Report… of the Tovaro-Obmien.”

62. Lee, “Historical Report… of the Tovaro-Obmien,” section 2, “Developments and Results,” 14.

4.Between Germany and Japan: Wilson, the Czecho-Slovaks, and the Decision to Intervene, May—July 1918

1. Reinsch to Lansing, May 10, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/1773.

2. Reinsch to Lansing, Apr. 10, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/1571.

3. Cyrus H. McCormick Jr. to Edward M. House, June 10, 1918, McCormick Collections, box 116.

4. Woodrow Wilson, “The Relation of University Education to Commerce,” address before The Chicago Commercial Club, Nov. 29, 1902, Link, ed., The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, 1902–1903, 14:230; William Diamond, The Economic Thought of Woodrow Wilson (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1943), 54.

5. Redfield to Wilson, June 26, 1918, Wilson to Redfield, June 27, 1918, Wilson Papers, ser. 2.

6. Reinsch to Lansing, May 30, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/1900.

7. Reinsch to Lansing, May 16, 1918, Wilson to Lansing, May 20, 1918, Wilson Papers, ser. 2.

8. Wiseman to Drummond, May 30, 1918, Wiseman Papers, box 9.

9. William C. Huntington to Burwell C. Cutler, Irkutsk, Siberia, Apr. 1, 1918, enclosed in Huntington to Samuel N. Harper, Irkutsk, Siberia, Apr. 15, 1918, Samuel N. Harper Papers, box 5. The reliability of this report is enhanced when it is taken into account that German manufacturers had been competitive with International Harvester in the production of mowers on the European market since 1908. Carstensen, American Enterprise in Foreign Markets, 153.

10. Wright to Secretary of State, Apr. 6, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/1455.

11. Summers to Lansing, May 1, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/1790.

12. Poole to Secretary of State, July 13, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2356.

13. Poole to Secretary of State, July 13, 1918.

14. Mirbach to Kuhlmann, June 25, 1918, in Z.A.B. Zeman, ed., Germany and the Revolution in Russia, 1915–1918 (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1958), 137–39.

15. Jules Jusserand to Lansing, May 28, 1918, enclosed in Bullitt to Wilson, June 4, 1918, Wilson Papers, ser. 2.

16. Jusserand to Lansing, May 28, 1918.

17. A. B. Coxe to Military Staff, no date, received June 6, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/1987½.

18. Rosenberg, Liberals in the Russian Revolution, 320.

19. J. Butler Wright memorandum, June 3, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2166½.

20. J. Butler Wright memorandum, June 3, 1918.

21. J. Butler Wright memorandum, May 29, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2079½.

22. J. Butler Wright memorandum, June 3, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2166½.

23. J. Butler Wright memorandum, June 3, 1918.

24. Memorandum from the War Trade Board as to Aid for Russia, submitted by Thomas L. Chadbourne, Clarence M. Woolley, John Foster Dulles, June 5, 1918, enclosed in Chadbourne to Polk, June 7, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2085½.

25. Memorandum from the War Trade Board … June 5, 1918.

26. Miles to Phillips, June 14, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2085½.

27. Basil Miles, “Non-Military Measures in Russia,” June 3, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2083½.

28. Polk to Poole, June 5, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/1967a.

29. Poole to Lansing, June 12, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2053.

30. Joseph Okulitch to Page, June 12, 1918, enclosed in Gunther to Lansing, June 15, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2152.

31. Lansing to Wilson, June 19, 1918, 861.00/2053, Wilson to Lansing, June 19, 1918, 861.00/2148½, The Lansing Papers, 2:363–64.

32. Unterberger, America’s Siberian Intervention, 54–57.

33. Ibid., 55–59; Richard Ullman, Intervention and the War (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1961), 153–56. The British War Office had always questioned the utility of transporting the Czecho-Slovak troops to the western front. It believed their presence in Siberia would make intervention more palatable to the population.

34. Unterberger, America’s Siberian Intervention, 55–56.

35. Reinsch to Lansing, June 13, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2014.

36. Wilson to Lansing, June 17, 1918, 861.00/2145½, The Lansing Papers, 2:363.

37. Knight to Secretary of the Navy, June 21, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2165½.

38. Wright to Miles, June 22, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2165½.

39. Lansing to Wilson, June 23, 1918, 861.00/2164½, The Lansing Papers, 2:364.

40. Frazier (the diplomatic liaison officer, Supreme War Council) to Lansing, July 2, 1918, RG 59, 763.72Su/145. See also Unterberger, America’s Siberian Intervention, 67–68.

41. “Memorandum on the Siberian Situation,” initialed by Robert Lansing, July 4, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2292½.

42. “Memorandum of a Conference at the White House in reference to the Siberian Situation,” July 6, 1918, Private Memoranda, Lansing Papers, box 2, reel 1.

43. Wilson to House, July 8, 1918, Ray Stannard Baker, ed., Woodrow Wilson Life and Letters (New York: Doubleday, Doran, 1939), 8:266.

44. Reading to Foreign Office, July 3, 1918, William Wiseman Papers, box 9.

45. Reading to Foreign Office, July 3, 1918.

46. Reading to Foreign Office, July 9, 1918, Wiseman Papers, box 9.

47. Examples of émigré Russian liberal opinion that advocated an Allied military intervention to prevent a Russian capitulation to Germany appear in letters to Wilson from the American ambassadors to Rome and Bern, Nelson T. Page to Wilson, June 11, 1918; Pleasant Stovall to Wilson, June 11, 1918, Wilson Papers, ser. 2.

48. “Memorandum on the Siberian Situation,” initialed by Robert Lansing, July 4, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2292½.

49. “From the Diary of Josephus Daniels,” July 6, 1918, in Link, ed., The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, 48:544.

50. Robert B. Teusler to Frank P. Keppel, Director, Foreign Operations, American Red Cross, Jan. 14, 1920, enclosed in Keppel to Secretary of State, Mar. 25, 1920, RG 59, 861.00/6683.

51. Reports on the evacuation of the Czecho-Slovak Military forces by Colonel B. O. Johnson, Chief Inspector of the Inter-Allied Technical Board, Apr. 7, 1920, enclosed in, Stevens to Colby, Apr. 12, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1570.

52. Unterberger, America’s Siberian Intervention, 70.

53. James Morley, The Japanese Thrust into Siberia (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1957), 277.

54. Aide-Mémoire from the Secretary of State to the Allied ambassadors, July 17, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/3054b.

55. Interview between Ambassador Morris and Mr. Vologodskii, Vladivostok, Sept. 21, 1918; Interview between Ambassador Morris and Mr. Vostrotin and Mr. Glukharov aboard the USS Brooklyn, Sept. 24, 1918, enclosed in Maj. David Barrows to General Graves, Sept. 21, 1918, Historical Files of the American Expeditionary Forces in Siberia, 1918–1920, file 21–21.3 (Washington D.C.: National Archives Microfilm Publication M917, 1973), reel 1.

56. Julius Lay, “Memorandum on Intervention in Siberia,” July 22, 1918, given to Second Assistant Secretary William Phillips, RG 59, 861.00/6687.

57. Lay, “Memorandum on Intervention in Siberia.”

58. Julius Lay, “Memorandum on the German Policy in Russia,” July 19, 1918, Long Papers, box 187.

59. Julius Lay, “Memorandum on an Economic Mission to Russia,” July 23, 1918, Long Papers, box 187.

60. Paul Reinsch, An American Diplomat In China (Garden City N.Y.: Doubleday, Page & Co., 1922), 356.

61. Jenkins to Lansing, Sept. 6, 1918, RG 59, 861.77/464.

5.The Genesis of the Russian Bureau: The Sources and Conduct of the American Economic Assistance Program, July-September 1918

1. Polk to American Embassy Tokyo, July 17, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2275.

2. Ullman, Intervention and the War, 226, 261; “The British Embassy to the Department of State,” Memorandum, Aug. 12, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2501.

3. Richard Ullman’s Intervention and the War, demonstrates that Wilson’s appraisal of Britain’s motives was quite accurate.

4. Balfour to Lord Reading, July 25, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2568.

5. Arno Kolz, “British Economic Interests in Siberia During the Russian Civil War, 1918–1920,” Journal of Modern History 48 (Sept. 1976): 483–91.

6. Miles to Vance McCormick, Oct. 4, 1918, RG 182, box 1551; The Moscow Narodny Bank: Its History and Achievements, 1912–1917, (London: N.p., n.d.), 20.

7. Kolz, “British Economic Interests in Siberia,” 486; Ullman, Intervention and the War, 273–79.

8. Kolz, “British Economic Interests in Siberia,” 486.

9. Memorandum of the Counselor for the Department of State (Polk) of a conversation with the British Chargé (Barclay) in regard to telegram from Mr. Balfour to Lord Reading, dated July 25, [1918], on the subject of the Proposed Mission to Siberia, RG 59, 861.00/2567.

10. Memorandum of the Counselor for the Department of State … July 25.

11. Polk to Wilson, Aug. 5, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2567.

12. Phillips to Lansing, Aug. 22, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2659.

13. Lansing to Wilson, Aug. 22, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2659.

14. Wilson to Lansing, Aug. 23, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2660.

15. Wilson to Lansing, Aug. 23, 1918.

16. Long Diary, Sept. 8 (written Sept. 15), 1918, Long Papers, box 186.

17. Long Diary, Sept. 8.

18. Lansing to Wilson, Sept. 9, 1918, Wilson Papers, ser. 2.

19. Long Diary, Sept. 8, 1918. The term “separate organization” was apparently used by Wilson, because Long placed quotation marks around it in his diary entry.

20. Long Diary, Sept. 8, 1918.

21. Long Diary, Sept. 8, 1918.

22. Long Diary, Sept. 8, 1918.

23. Gordon Auchincloss Diary, Sept. 14, 1918, Gordon Auchincloss Papers, box 2.

24. Lansing to Wilson, June 29, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2219½ b.

25. Auchincloss to Polk, June 29, 1918, Frank L. Polk Papers, box 1.

26. Caldwell to Lansing, Sept. 14, 1918, RG 182, box 1584.

27. August Heid to International Harvester Company, July 31, 1918, International Harvester Archives, Doc. no. 1350.

28. Caldwell to Lansing, June 24, 1918, RG 59, 611.61171/5–6.

29. Isaac J. Sherman to B. S. Cutler, Sept. 11, 1918, RG 182, box 1572.

30. Caldwell to Lansing, Sept. 24, 1918, RG 182, box 1553.

31. Alvey A. Adee to War Trade Board, Sept. 16, 1918, RG 182, box 1572.

32. Lansing Diary, Sept. 19 and 24, 1918, Lansing Papers, reel 2.

33. Diary of Edward M. House, Sept. 24, 1918, ser. 2:14.

34. Gordon Auchincloss Memorandum, undated, House Papers, box 7.

35. The National Cyclopedia of American Biography (New York: White & Co., 1949), 35:242–43.

36. H. B. Van Sinderen Memorandum for McCormick, Sept. 23, 1918, House Papers, box 182.

37. “Plan 1 Russ Amb,” Sept. 1918, Long Papers, box 187.

38. H. B. Van Sinderen, Memorandum of conversation with Serge Ughet, Sept. 26, 1918, RG 182, box 1585.

39. Eugene M. Kayden, “Report on Economic Assistance to Siberia,” Oct. 2, 1918, RG 182, box 1551.

40. Polk to Morris (for Heid from the War Trade Board), Oct. 10, 1918, RG 59, 861.50/29.

41. Polk to Morris, Oct. 10. 1918; E. C. Porter to Clarence W. Woolley, Oct. 8, 1918, H. B. Van Sinderen to E.C. Porter, Oct. 16, 1918, RG 182, box 1560.

42. War Trade Board to Heid, Oct. 10, 1918, RG 59, 861.50/29.

43. War Trade Board to Heid, Oct. 10, 1918.

44. War Trade Board to Heid, Oct. 10, 1918.

45. Killen, The Russian Bureau, 53–54.

46. Morris to State Department, Nov. 14, 1918, RG 59, 861.77/549½.

47. B. S. Cutler to Redfield, Aug. 26, 1918, U.S. Department of Commerce, RG 40, 77295; Redfield to Cutler, Aug. 27, 1918, RG 40, 77295.

48. Unsigned, undated memorandum attached to Caldwell to Lansing, Sept. 24, 1918, RG 182, box 1553.

49. Heid to War Trade Board, undated, received Oct. 25, 1918, RG 59, 861.77/526.

50. Cutler to McCormick, Oct. 19, 1918, McCormick to Cutler, Oct. 23, 1918, RG 151, box 2966.

51. Cutler to Preston, July 26, 1918, RG 59, 661.119/226.

52. War Trade Board to Heid, Oct, 22, 1918, RG 59, 6n.616/12a. Arthur Bullard confirmed this assessment in his The Russian Pendulum: Autocracy, Democracy, Bolshevism (New York: Macmillan, 1919), 188–91.

53. Rueben R. MacDermid to Caldwell, Sept. 18, 1918, enclosed in Caldwell to the State Department, Sept. 24, 1918, RG 182, box 1553. On the credibility of MacDermid see, Caldwell to Lansing, June 27, 1918, RG 59, 661.119/194.

54. Morley, The Japanese Thrust into Siberia, 215–16.

55. Ibid., 294–96.

6.A Stillborn Program: The Russian Bureau, October–December 1918

1. For Linda Killen’s treatment of the difficulties encountered by the Russian Bureau from October through December 1918, see The Russian Bureau, 48–77.

2. Lansing to Wilson, Sept. 21, 1918, “Memorandum for the Secretary of the Treasury,” Aug. 28, 1918, Wilson Papers, ser. 4.

3. Knight to Secretary of the Navy, July 21, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2913.

4. Memorandum initialed by Breckinridge Long, July 23, 1918, Long Papers, box 187.

5. William B. Owen to Vance McCormick, Sept. 16, 1918, Record Group 39, United States Department of Treasury, Country File: Russia, folder 47. (Hereafter cited as RG 39, followed by Russia and either a file or folder number).

6. Owen to McCormick, Sept. 16, 1918.

7. Owen to McCormick, Sept. 16, 1918; Long to Leffingwell, July 25, 1918, RG 39, Russia, folder no; Polk to Strauss, Aug. 9, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2913.

8. Leffingwell to Phillips, Aug. 16, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2542.

9. “Memorandum for the Secretary of the Treasury,” Aug. 28, 1918, Wilson Papers, ser. 4; Bakhmetev to Phillips, Aug. 21, 1918, RG 59, 86100/2443.

10. William Anderson to International Banking Corporation, Aug. 26, 1918, RG 182, box 1566.

11. Francis to Lansing, Sept. 14, 1918, RG 59, 861.51/357.

12. Francis to Lansing, Sept. 24, 1918, RG 59, 861.51/359.

13. Paraphrase of telegram from Ambassador Francis, Oct. 1, 1918, RG 59, 861.51/361.

14. Crosby to McAdoo, Sept. 26, 1918, RG 39, Russia, folder 110.

15. Crosby to McAdoo, Sept. 26, 1918; Crosby to Leffingwell, Sept. 17, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/2719.

16. Lansing to Barclay, Oct. 5, 1918, RG 59, 861.51/392a. The objections stated in this memo probably originated in the Treasury Department.

17. Lansing to Barclay, Oct. 5, 1918.

18. Extract of War Trade Board minutes, Oct. 4, 1918, RG 182, box 1551.

19. Morley, The Japanese Thrust into Siberia, 216.

20. Barclay to Lansing, Oct. 16, 1918, RG 59, 861.51/392.

21. Department of State to British Embassy, Oct. 21, 1918, RG 59, 861.51/392.

22. Cravath to McAdoo, Oct. 26, 1918, RG 59, 861.51/380.

23. Albert Rathbone to Oscar T. Crosby, Nov. 2, 1918, RG 59, 861.51/382; War Trade Board to Owen, Nov. 2, 1918, RG 39, Russia, folder 110. For background on these ruble notes, which had been printed in the United States and which the Russian Embassy in Washington wanted to use as an emergency currency, see Caldwell to Lansing, Oct. 23, 1918, RG 59, 861.51/379; Bakhmetev to Polk, Oct. 25, 1918, RG 59, 861.51/396; Lansing to Baker, Oct. 30, 1918, RG 59, 861.51/384.

24. This summary was cabled to War Trade Board representative Owen as an instruction. Owen was en route to Archangel for the purpose of examining monetary conditions there and to gain Britain’s acceptance of the United States’s position. War Trade Board to Owen, Nov. 2, 1918, RG 39, Russia, folder 110.

25. Memo by Vladimir Novitskii, Oct. 22, 1918, enclosed in, Miles to Van Sinderen, Nov. 1, 1918, RG 182, box 1586.

26. Heid to War Trade Board, Nov. 11, 1918, RG 182, box 1566.

27. Heid to War Trade Board, Oct. 21, 1918, RG 182, box 1566.

28. Heid to War Trade Board, Nov. 11, 1918, RG 182, box 1566.

29. Unterberger, America’s Siberian Intervention, 102.

30. Ibid., 96.

31. Ibid., 109. Betty M. Unterberger has noted that Britain encouraged Japan to cooperate with the United States in the management of the railroad in order to engage America more deeply in the military aspects of the intervention. Betty M. Unterberger, The United States, Revolutionary Russia, and the Rise of Czechoslovakia (Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1989), 299.

32. Basil Miles, “Control of Siberian Railways,” Oct. 28, 1918, Wilson Papers, ser. 2.

33. Vance McCormick to Lansing, Nov. 8, 1918, RG 59, 861.00/3214½.

34. Morris to Lansing, Nov. 8, 1918, RG 59, 861.77/544.

35. Morris to Lansing, Oct. 6, 1918, RG 59, 861.515/42.

36. Paraphrase of cable from John Sukin to Russian Embassy, Oct. 21, 1918, RG 182, box 1566.

37. Morris to Lansing, Oct. 6, 1918, RG 59, 861.515/42.

38. Heid to War Trade Board, Oct. 17, 1918, RG 182, box 1566.

39. Van Sinderen to Strauss, Oct. 27, 1918, Rathbone to Lansing, Oct. 30, 1918, RG 39, Russia, folder 57.

40. Owen to War Trade Board, Nov. 16, 1918, RG 182, box 1566.

41. “Memorandum for Captain Van Sinderen,” L. K. Thorne, Nov. 27, 1918, RG 182, box 1566.

42. “Memorandum for Major Dulles,” L. K. Thorne, Dec. 10, 1918, RG 182, box 1566.

43. Dulles to Thome, Dec. 10, 1918, RG 182, box 1566.

44. The Russian Embassy Proposal for a Temporary Ruble Plan, Aug. 28, 1918, Wilson Papers, ser. 4.

45. “Memorandum on Trade Certificates,” L. K. Thorne, Dec. 14, 1918, RG 182, box 1566.

46. “Memorandum for Captain Van Sinderen,” L. K. Thorne, Dec. 16, 1918, RG 182, box 1566.

47. The clauses in the Versailles Treaty that repealed the Brest–Litovsk Treaty are reprinted in John W. Wheeler-Bennett, The Forgotten Peace: Brest-Litovsk, March 1918 (New York: Morrow & Co., 1939), 451–53.

48. E. A. Brittenham to International Harvester Company, Jan. 11, 1919, International Harvester Archives, file 1241.

49. Brittenham to International Harvester, Jan. 11, 1919.

7.An Insoluble Dilemma: Economic Assistance and the Kolchak Government

1. Barclay to Lansing, Oct. 3, 1918, RG 59, 861.77/515.

2. Morris to Lansing, Nov. 8, 1918, RG 59, 861.77/544.

3. Morley, The Japanese Thrust into Siberia, 205.

4. Ibid., 204–7.

5. Morris to Lansing, Nov. 8, 1918, RG 59, 861.77/544.

6. Morris to Lansing, Nov. 30, 1918, RG 59, 861.77/563.

7. Stevens’s threat to withdraw badly needed lubricating oils unless he received complete control over the railroad can be traced through the following cables, Stevens to Lansing, Sept. 13, 1918, RG 59, 861.77/478; Stevens to Lansing, Sept. 28, 1918, RG 59, 861.77/502; Stevens to Lansing, Nov. 15, 1918, RG 59, 861.77/549; Heid to Lansing, Dec. 9, 1918, enclosed in, Woolley to Polk, Jan. 15, 1919, RG 59, 861.77/620.

8. Stevens to MacGowan, June 17, 1922, RG 59, 861.77/3387.

9. Reinsch to Lansing, Feb. 18, 1919, RG 59, 861.77/684.

10. Polk to American Mission at Paris, Jan. 14, 1919, RG 59, 861.77/612.

11. American Mission to Polk, Jan. 21, 1919, RG 59, 861.77/634.

12. Polk to American Mission at Paris, Jan. 24, 1919, RG 59, 861.77/634.

13. “Assails President for Use of Big Fund,” New York Times, Jan. 14, 1919, 4.

14. American Mission to Polk, Jan. 31, 1919, RG 59, 861.77/655.

15. American Mission to Polk, Jan. 31, 1919.

16. Polk to American Mission, Feb. 4, 1919, RG 59, 861.77/655.

17. Wilson to Lansing, Jan. 10, 1919, Wilson Papers, ser. 5B.

18. Levin, Woodrow Wilson and World Politics, 206–18. See also, John M. Thompson, Russia, Bolshevism and the Versailles Peace (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1966), 82–130.

19. Polk to American Mission, Feb. 4, 1919.

20. Polk to American Mission, Feb. 4, 1919.

21. McCormick to Lansing, Dec. 24, 1918, RG 59, 661.119/304i.

22. Extract from a report of the commander-in-chief of the Asiatic Station at Vladivostok [Admiral Knight], dated Dec. 29, 1919, in Josephus Daniels to Secretary of State (undated, early March 1919), RG 59, 661.119/338.

23. Woolley to American Embassy at Paris (for McCormick), Feb. 24, 1919, RG 39, Russia, file 212.20a.

24. Miles to Stanert, Feb. 21, 1919, RG 182, box 1571.

25. Stevens to Secretary of State, Mar. 15, 1919, RG 39, Russia, file 212.20a; Smith to Polk, Mar. 17, 1919, RG 59, 861.77/750.

26. Minutes of Inter-Allied Railway Committee, Mar. 18, 1919, enclosed in Smith to Colby, Nov. 12, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1882.

27. “Outline of the Activities of the Inter-Allied Railway Committee for the Supervision of the Siberian and Chinese Eastern Railway’s, 1919–1922,” unsigned, Oct. 1922, 31, RG 59, 861.77/3387.

28. Minutes of the Inter-Allied Railway Committee, Apr. 7–8, 1919, enclosed in Smith to Colby, Nov. 12, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1882.

29. Polk to Stevens, Mar. 14, 1919, RG 59, 861.77/7613.

30. Polk to American Mission, Mar. 21, 1919, RG 59, 861.51/526b.

31. Phillips to American Mission, Mar. 28, 1919, RG 59, 861.77/759.

32. Phillips to American Mission, Mar. 28, 1919.

33. Polk to Morris, May 6, 1919, RG 59, 861.77/827.

34. Dorothy Q. Reed to Samuel N. Harper, May 27, 1919, Samuel N. Harper Papers, box 6.

35. Morris to Polk, Apr. 12, 1919, RG 59, 861.00/4266; Morris to Polk, Apr. 19, 1919, 861.00/4332; Polk to American Mission, Apr. 24, 1919, RG 59, 861.00/4543a.

36. American Mission to Polk, Apr. 16, 1919, RG 59, 861.51/549; American Mission to Polk, Apr. 21, 1919, RG 59, 861.51/551.

37. American Mission to Polk, Apr. 16, 1919, RG 59, 861.51/549.

38. Polk to American Mission, Apr. 26, 1919, RG 59, 861.51/549.

39. American Mission to Polk, May 5, 1919, RG 59, 861.77/831.

40. U.S. Congress, House, Sundry Civil Appropriation Bill, H.R. 6176, 66th Cong., 1st Sess., June 20, 1919, 58, pt. 2:1069–2142.

41. Polk to American Mission, May 9, 1919, RG 59, 861.77/831.

42. American Mission to Polk, May 16, 1919, RG 59, 861.77/851.

43. American Mission to Polk, May 5, 1919, RG 59, 861.77/831.

44. “Memorandum of conversation with Mr. Alexander Kerensky at Paris,” May 4, 1919, RG 59, 861.00/598; see also Thompson, Russia, Bolshevism and the Versailles Peace, 291–92.

45. Polk to American Mission, May 6, 1919, RG 59, 861.00/4435.

46. Polk to Morris, May 15, 1919, RG 59, 861.00/4536b.

47. Notes of a meeting held at President Wilson’s house in the Place des Etats-Unis, Paris, on Friday, May 23, 1919, 180.03401/26, FRUS, 1919, Russia, 354–55.

48. American Mission to Polk, May 26, 1919, RG 59, 861.51/587.

49. American Mission to Polk, June 25, 1919, RG 59, 861.01/71.

50. Wilson to Lansing, May 28, 1919, Wilson Papers, ser. 5B; Phillips to American Mission, Mar. 27, 1919, Wilson Papers, ser. 5B. Subsequently, the War Department extended an $8 million credit to the Omsk regime, only $1 million more than it had given the Czechs. See D. C. Poole’s memoranda to Phillips regarding U.S. matériel aid to Russia on Nov. 8 and 11, 1919, RG 59, 861.77/2010, 861.00/5879. In June, the Omsk regime also entered into negotiations with a consortium of Allied banks, including the Equitable Trust Company and the National City Bank, in order to purchase munitions on the basis of a 10 percent initial cash payment. Polk to American Mission, June 27, 1919, 861.01/71; Harris to Polk, July 9, 1919, RG 59, 861.24/155. These negotiations were initially given full support by the Wilson administration, but the American banks backed out in the early fall when they lost confidence in the Omsk regime. British sources indicate that Ambassador Morris’s negative views of the Omsk government were responsible for the decision by the American banks to break off the loan negotiations. See O’Reilly to Lord Curzon, Sept. 27, 1919, no. 798 [136302/11/ 57], published in Rohan Butler and E. L. Woodward, eds. Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919–1939, ser. 1:3, 1919 (London: His Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1949), 573–74 (hereafter cited as DBFP).

51. Diary of Vance C. McCormick (microfilm), June 23, 1919, MS group 478, HM 74, Vance C. McCormick Papers; American Mission to Polk, June 25, 1919, RG 59, 861.01/71.

52. Diary of Vance C. McCormick, June 23, 1919; Hoover to Wilson, June 21, 1919, RG 59, 861.00/786.

53. Smith to Lansing, May 31, 1919, RG 59, 861.77/875½.

54. Smith to Lansing, Aug. 20, 1919, RG 59, 861.77/1031.

55. Polk to Morris, July 11, 1919, RG 59, 861.77/9783.

56. Wilson to the President of the Senate, July 22, 1919, FRUS, 1919, Russia, 391–94.

57. Morris to Polk, July 22, 1919, RG 59, 861.00/4905.

58. Morris to Polk, July 27, 1919, RG 59, 861.00/4931.

59. Emerson to Stevens, May 11, 1919, Stevens to Chairman of Inter-Allied Railway Committee, May 12, 1919, Record Group 43, “Records of the Advisory Commission of Railway Experts to Russia, the Russian Railway Service Corps and the inter-Allied Railway Committee, 1917–1922,” Vladivostok (U.S. National Archives Microfilm, located at the Hoover Institute Library, Stanford, California), reel 28 (hereafter cited as RG 43, U.S. Commission of Railway Experts to Russia, followed by the reel number).

60. Emerson to Stevens, May 11, 1919, Stevens to Chairman of Inter-Allied Railway Committee, May 12, 1919, RG 43, reel 28.

61. Johnson to Stevens, Jan. 3, 1920, RG 43, U.S. Commission of Railway Experts to Russia, reel 36.

62. A. G. Peterson to Tower, Sept. 22, 1919, RG 43, U.S. Commission of Railway Experts to Russia, reel 28.

63. Johnson to Stevens, Dec. 23, 1919, RG 43, U.S. Commission of Railway Experts to Russia, reel 28.

64. Charles H. Smith, “Four Years of Mistakes in Siberia,” Asia 22 (June 1922): 482.

65. Smith to State Department, May 5, 1919, RG 59, 861.51/588.

66. Smith to State Department, May 5, 1919. It is interesting to note that in 1992 most of the $670 million loaned to the Russian Republic from the World Bank was used to purchase transportation and agricultural equipment. See Louis Uchitelle, “New Man Old Burden: Moscow Owes $86 Billion,” New York Times, Dec. 16, 1992. N. Gordon Levin has described the unsuccessful attempt to establish the Hoover-Nansen Relief Commission for Soviet Russia during the spring of 1919 as a precursor to the Marshall Plan. Levin, Woodrow Wilson and World Politics, 191, 203, 218. For a discussion of the failed Hoover-Nansen proposal see, Thompson, Russia, Bolshevism, and the Versailles Peace, 247–67. Hoover’s later famine relief program for Soviet Russia during 1921–23 can also be viewed in this light. See Benjamin Weissman, Herbert Hoover and Famine Relief to Soviet Russia, 1921–1923 (Stanford, Calif: Hoover Institute Press, 1974).

67. State Department to Heid, Mar. 6, 1919, RG 59, 661.119/342b.

68. Heid to War Trade Board, Mar. 22, 1919, RG 59, 661.119/353.

69. Heid to War Trade Board, Apr. 15, 1919, RG 59, 661.119/388.

70. Polk to Heid, June 27, 1919, RG 59, 811.24/406a; Lansing to Harris, Aug. 25, 1919, RG 59, 861.00/5127a. For copies of the initial contracts see, “United States of America and Union of Siberian Co-operative Unions Inc., Purchase, Storage, and Traffic Division, U.S. Army, Contract for Sale of General Merchandise,” June 20, 1919, Morris Papers, box 9.

71. War Trade Board to Heid, Apr. 3, 1919, RG 59, 661.119/363.

72. Heid to State Department, Sept. 20, 1919, RG 59, 861.00/5248.

73. Harris to State Department, May 28, 1919, RG 59, 861.51/590.

74. Smith, “Four Years of Mistakes in Siberia,” 482.

75. Undated, Unsigned memorandum, Morris Papers, box 9.

76. Jenkins to State Department, Aug. 2, 1919, RG 59, 861.77/984; Stevens to State Department, Aug. 4, 1919, RG 59, 861.77/988; “Outline of the Activities of the Inter-Allied Railway Committee for the Supervision of the Siberian and Chinese Eastern Railways, 1919–1922,” Oct. 1922, RG 59, 861.77/3387.

77. Smith to State Department, Aug. 1, 1919, RG 59, 861.77/978.

78. Smith, “Four Years of Mistakes in Siberia,” 482.

79. Stevens to Emerson, July 17, 1919, RG 43, U.S. Commission of Railway Experts to Russia, reel 28.

80. Emerson to Johnson, Aug. 2, 1919, RG 43, U.S. Commission of Railway Experts to Russia, reel 28.

81. Smith to Lansing, Aug. 6, 1919, RG 59, 861.77/997.

82. Morris to State Department, Aug. 4, 1919, RG 59, 861.00/4990.

83. Memorandum on meeting between Finance Ministry and Allied Representatives, July 30, 1919, Roland S. Morris Papers, box 9; Morris to State Department, Aug. 4, 1919, RG 59, 861.51/646.

84. Morris to Lansing, Aug. 16, 1919, RG 59, 861.01/116.

85. Morris to Lansing, Aug. 4, 1919, RG 59, 861.00/4990.

86. Morris to Lansing, Aug. 11, 1919, RG 59, 861.01/106.

87. Emerson to Stevens, Sept. 14, 18, 1919, RG 43, U.S. Commission of Railway Experts to Russia, reel 28.

88. Johnson to Stevens, Jan. 3, 1920, RG 43, U.S. Commission of Railway Experts to Russia, reel 36.

89. O’Reilly to Gregory, Aug. 25, 1919, no. 404 [140080/11/57], DBFP, ser. 1:3, 1919, 529.

90. Basil Miles Memorandum, “Russia and the Peace Conference,” Sept. 9, 1919, RG 59, 861.00/ 5461.

91. Basil Miles Memorandum for the Secretary of State, Sept. 29, 1919, RG 59, 861.00/5288.

92. Robert Lansing, “The Suggested Recognition of the Kolchak Government,” Oct. 9, 1919, Lansing Papers, Private Memoranda, box 2, reel 1.

93. Lansing to Morris, Nov. 19, 1919, RG 59, 861.00/5665.

94. Lansing to Wilson, Dec. 3, 1919, RG 59, 861.00/58298, enclosed in Lansing to Wilson, Dec. 4, 1919, RG 59, 861.00/5845a.

95. Lansing to Wilson, Dec. 3, 1919; Carl P. Parrini, Heir to Empire: United States Economic Diplomacy, 1916–1923 (Pittsburgh: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, 1969), 49.

96. Lansing to Wilson, Dec. 3, 1919. In a memorandum to William Phillips on Nov. 7, 1919, Poole explained that some force would be needed to “oust” the Bolsheviks when their social basis of support had eroded following an improvement in social and economic conditions. He therefore placed military assistance under the category of a “police measure.” Enclosed in Poole to Phillips, Nov. 11, 1919, RG 59, 861.00/5879.

97. Norman G. O. Periera, “The Partisan Movement in Western Siberia, 1918–1920,” Jahrbucher fur Geschichte Osteuropas 38 (1990): 87–97.

8.A Critical Juncture: The Chinese Eastern Railway in Far Eastern Rivalries, 1920–22

1. Memorandum by Thomas W. Lamont of his conversation with John Stevens May 2, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1574.

2. Stevens to Lansing, Dec. 12, 1919, RG 59, 861.77/1247.

3. Notes on Economic Conditions in Foreign Countries, Manchuria, Department of State, Foreign Trade Adviser’s Office, Economic Intelligence Section Weekly Report, no. 16, Nov. 22, 1919, RG 151, file 151.2.

4. Stevens to Lansing, Jan. 6, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1281.

5. Stevens to Lansing, Dec. 12, 1919, RG 59, 861.77/1247.

6. “Outline of the Activities of the Inter-Allied Railway Committee for the Supervision of the Siberian and Chinese Eastern Railways, 1919–1922,” unsigned, Oct. 1922, RG 59, 861.77/3387. In early May, the Technical Board announced it would no longer accept Siberian rubles as payment for transportation charges on the Chinese Eastern Railway. Stevens to the Administration of the Chinese Eastern Railway, May 3, 1920, enclosed in, Stevens to Vyvodtzev, May 24, 1920, RG 43, U.S. Commission of Railway Experts to Russia, reel 2.

7. Stevens to Colby, July 21, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1629.

8. E. H. Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution, 1917–1923 (London: Macmillan, 1953), 3:504–6.

9. Davis to Colby, Apr. 28, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1493; Colby to Bell, May 17, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1533C.

10. Tenney to Colby, Apr. 15, 1920, RG 59, 893.51/2773.

11. Memorandum from Bakhmetev to Polk, May 7, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1513.

12. Colby to Bell, May 17, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1533c.

13. Davis to Colby, May 22, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1534.

14. Colby to Davis, May 27, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1534.

15. Colby to Tenney, Apr. 21, 1920, RG 59, 893.51/2775.

16. Colby to Davis, May 27, 1920.

17. Memorandum by John V. A. MacMurray, June 15, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1569; Colby to Bell, June 19, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1568; Davis to Davis, June 30, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1583.

18. Geddes to Curzon, June 15, 1920, no. 444 [F 1179/19/10], DBFP, ser. 1:14, Apr. 1920–Feb. 1922, 42.

19. Colby to Davis, June 19, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1568.

20. Stevens to Colby, May 19, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1527; Smith to Colby, May 22, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1535; Davis to Davis, June 30, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1583.

21. Bell to Colby, June 23, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1583.

22. Davis to Davis, June 30, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1583.

23. Davis to Colby, July 8, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1600.

24. Memorandum by Ashton-Gwatkin on Japan and the Open Door, July 7, 1920 [F 2142/2142/ 10], DBFP, ser. 1:14, Apr. 1920–Feb. 1922, 57–66.

25. Curzon to Sir B. Alston, Oct. 24, 1921, no. 1013 [F 3924/2635/10], DBFP, ser. 1:14: Apr. 1920–Feb. 1922, 451–52.

26. Stevens to Colby, July 19, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1614.

27. Lamont to Davis, Oct. 18, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1773.

28. Bell to Colby, Nov. 5, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1804.

29. Davis to Davis, Dec. 28, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1902.

30. “Memorandum by the Department of State,” Jan. 13, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2082b.

31. Poole to Colby, Jan. 14, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2390.

32. Portion of a conversation between Secretary Colby, the British ambassador and Mr. Norman H. Davis, Feb. 24, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2015.

33. Hughes to Crane, Apr. 13, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2033; Hughes to Geddes, Apr. 25, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2054a; Hughes to Wright, Apr. 27, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/1962.

34. Chilton to Hughes, May 14, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2077.

35. Memorandum by John MacMurray to Hughes, May 18, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2427.

36. E. W. Edwards, British Diplomacy and Finance in China, 1895–1914 (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1987), 184–86.

37. Memorandum by John MacMurray to Hughes, May 18, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2427; MacMurray to Hughes, May 25, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2426.

38. This information is derived from daily letters Benjamin Johnson, the acting Technical Board president in Stevens’s absence, received regarding social and political matters from Paul T. Pastall, acting special transportation inspector. See Pastall to Johnson, Nov. 6, 9, 10, 1920, RG 43, U.S. Commission of Railway Experts to Russia, reel 19. See also, the biographical sketch of the Russian and Chinese directors of the Chinese Eastern Railroad enclosed in, Crane to Hughes, Mar. 18, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2053.

39. Johnson to Stevens, Feb. 19, Apr. 25, 1921, RG 43, U.S. Commission of Railway Experts to Russia, reel 16.

40. Johnson to Stevens, Mar. 18, 1921, RG 43, U.S. Commission of Railway Experts to Russia, reel 16.

41. Minutes of the Technical Board, May 6, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/3387.

42. Johnson to Stevens, May 16, 1921, RG 43, U.S. Commission of Railway Experts to Russia, reel 16.

43. Johnson to Crane, Apr. 28, 1921, enclosed in Crane to Hughes, May 28, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2164.

44. “The Chinese Eastern Railway,” Peking and Tientsin Times, July 11, 1921, enclosure 6F, in Ruddock to Hughes, July 16, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2209.

45. “Col. J. F. Stevens to Fight New C.E. Bonds,” The Peking Leader, July 10, 1921, enclosure 6E, in Ruddock to Hughes, July 16, 1921.

46. Memorandum of interview between A. B. Ruddock and Dr. Yen, July 13, 1921, enclosure 4, in Ruddock to Hughes, July 16, 1921; Stevens to Hughes, July 6, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2143.

47. Ruddock to Hughes, July 16, 1921. This dispatch summarizes the contents of the seven enclosed documents, RG 59, 861.77/2209.

48. Ruddock to Stevens, July 8, 1921, enclosure 1, in Ruddock to Hughes, July 16, 1921.

49. Interview between A. B. Ruddock and W. W. Yen, Aug. 3, 1921, enclosure 1, in Ruddock to Hughes, Aug. 6, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2232.

50. Edwards, British Diplomacy and Finance in China, 94–95.

51. Addis to Morgan Grenfell and Company, June 29, 1921, enclosed in Morgan Grenfell to J.P. Morgan and Company, June 30, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2184.

52. Hughes to Bell, Aug. 2, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2167.

53. J. P. Morgan and Company to Hughes, Aug. 2, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2184.

54. J. Paul Jameson Memorandum on J. P. Morgan and Company note to State Department, Aug. 2, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2184.

55. Hughes to J. P. Morgan and Company, Aug. 8, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2184.

56. Stevens to Hughes, Aug. 11, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2199, 2200.

57. Stevens to Hughes, Aug. 9, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2196.

58. J. P. Morgan and Company to Hughes, Aug. 23, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2214.

59. For a very good survey of the Washington Naval Conference see, Thomas H. Buckley, The United States and the Washington Conference, 1921–1922 (Knoxville: Univ. of Tennessee Press, 1970).

60. Warren to Hughes, Oct. 29, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2301.

61. John F. Stevens, “Memorandum in Connection with a Suggested Plan for the International Control of the Chinese Eastern Railway submitted at the request of the Department of State,” Dec. 9, 1921, Charles Evans Hughes Papers, box 161, reel 124.

62. D. C. Poole to Hughes, Dec. 3, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2465.

63. Hughes to Schurman, Dec. 24, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2364a.

64. Schurman to Hughes, Jan. 1, 1922, RG 59, 861.77/2370.

65. Hughes to Schurman, Jan. 10, 1922, RG 59, 861.77/2377.

66. Hughes to Schurman, Jan. 19, 1922, RG 59, 861.77/2390.

67. Schurman to Hughes, Feb. 2, 1922, RG 59, 861.77/2404.

68. Fletcher to Warren, Feb. 16, 1922, RG 59, 861.77/2425a.

69. “Report of the Technical Sub-Committee on the Chinese Eastern Railway,” enclosed in Charles Evans Hughes Papers, box 161, reel 124.

70. “Observations Made by Dr. Hawkling Yen, Chinese Representative of the Sub-Committee on the Chinese Eastern Railway,” Hughes Papers, box 161, reel 124.

71. Westel W. Willoughby, China at the Conference: A Report (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1922), 230–32; U.S., Congress, Senate, Conference on the Limitation of Armament, S. Doc., 126, 67th Cong., 2nd Sess., 10:1922, 750–53.

72. Hughes to Schurman, Feb. 3, 1922, RG 59, 861.77/24083.

73. Schurman to Hughes, Feb. 22, 1922, RG 59, 861.77/2431.

74. Stevens to Hughes, Jan. 31, 1922, Hughes to Root, Jan. 31, 1922, RG 59, 861.77/2588.

75. Stevens to Hughes, May 25, 1922, RG 59, 861.77/2552.

76. Schurman to Hughes, Mar. 25, 1922, RG 59, 861.77/2489; Schurman to Hughes, Mar. 28, 1922, RG 59, 861.77/2494.

77. Johnson to Hughes, Mar. 13, 1922, RG 59, 861.77/2457.

78. This ratio refers to the difference between the prewar gold standard value of the ruble and the depreciated value of the ruble following its devaluation after the outbreak of war in August 1914.

79. Technical Board Minutes, July 15, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/3387.

80. Technical Board Minutes, Sept. 6, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/3387.

81. Technical Board Minutes, Aug. 19, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/3387; Inter-Allied Railway Committee Minutes, Oct. 13, 1921, RG 43, U.S. Commission of Railway Experts to Russia, reel 5.

82. Technical Board Minutes, Sept. 6, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/3387.

83. Beckett to Stevens, June 12, 1922, RG 43, U.S. Commission of Railway Experts to Russia, reel 26; Technical Board Minutes, June 19, 29, 1922, RG 59, 861.77/3387.

84. Stevens to Hughes, May 3, 1922, RG 59, 861.77/2519.

85. Stevens to Hughes, July 8, 1922, RG 59, 861.77/2603; Stevens to D. B. MacGowan, “Enclosed Memo of Changchun Conference,” July, 10, 1922, RG 59, 861.77/3387.

86. For a discussion of the 1920 Transportation Act see, K. Austin Kerr, American Railroad Politics, 1914–1020: Rates, Wages, Efficiency (Pittsburgh: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, 1968), 222–27.

87. Inter-Allied Railway Committee Minutes, Feb. 24, 1922, RG 59, 861.77/3387.

88. Stevens to Hughes, Jan. 6, 1920, RG 59, 861.77/1283.

89. Poole to Hughes, Dec. 3, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2465.

90. Warren to Hughes, Jan. 17, 1922, RG 59, 861.77/2382; Warren to Hughes, Dec. 6, 1921, RG 59, 861.77/2342.

91. Johnson to Stevens, Mar. 3, 1922, RG 59, 861.77/2439.

92. Stevens to Johnson, Mar. 14, 1922, RG 59, 861.77/2460; D. C. Poole to Hughes, Mar. 9, 1922, RG 59, 861.77/2543.

93. Johnson to Stevens, Mar. 17, 1922, RG 59, 861.77/2470.

94. Stevens to Hughes, May 8, 1922, RG 59, 861.77/2526.

95. Hanson to Hughes, Sept. 20, 1922, RG 151, file 520.

96. E. G. Pauly to T. R. Taylor, Nov. 9, 1922, RG 151, file 520.

Conclusion

1. Martin Walker, “Russia and the West: What Is to Be Done Now” World Policy Journal 11:1 (Spring 1994): 1–10. For a good explanation of the European Payments Union see Philip A. S. Taylor, A New Dictionary of Economics (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969), 99–101. Also see, Fred Block, The Origins of International Economic Disorder: A Study of United States International Monetary Policy from World War II to the Present (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1977), 100–102.

2. Dean Acheson, “A Democrat Looks at His Party,” in his Private Thoughts on Public Affairs (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1955), 156–57. For Woodrow Wilson’s views see his, The State: Elements of Historical and Practical Politics (Boston: Heath, 1918). Thomas Knock’s To End All Wars: Woodrow Wilson and the Quest for a New World Order (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1992) demonstrates that Wilson’s progressivism, both in the national and international arenas, was influenced by the broad social democratic reform currents of the time.

3. Walter LaFeber has noted that the Marshall Plan “marked the last phase in the Administration’s use of economic tactics as the primary means of tying together the western world,” in his America, Russia and the Cold War, 1945–1902, 7th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993), 62.

4. Charles S. Maier, “American Visions and British Interests: Hogan’s Marshall Plan,” Reviews in American History 18 (Mar. 1990): 107. Maier and Michael Hogan also note that American officials were divided over the question of currency convertibility in the late 1940s. Keynesian-influenced officials in the European Cooperating Committee preferred to be flexible about currency convertibility and payments deficits in the short and medium term because they could use Marshall Plan aid to reduce the external pressure on European currencies. In contrast, Treasury Department officials and IMF representatives insisted on rapid convertibility, even if it resulted in deflation. Charles Maier, “The Two Post-War Eras and the Conditions for Stability in Twentieth-Century Europe,” in his In Search of Stability: Explorations in Historical Political Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987), 153–84; Michael J. Hogan, The Marshall Plan: America, Britain, and the Reconstruction of Western Europe, 1947–1952 (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987).

5. Richard M. Freeland, The Truman Doctrine and the Origins of McCarthyism: Foreign Policy, Domestic Politics, and Internal Security: 1946–1948 (New York: Schocken, 1971).