710.Consultation (2)/457
The Ambassador in Argentina (Armour) to the Secretary of State
No. 955
Buenos Aires, July 17,
1940.
[Received July 27.]
Sir: With reference to the Embassy’s telegram
no. 294 of July 13, 1 p.m. and its despatch no. 951 of July 16,62 as well as
previous despatches, reporting German propaganda in Argentina hostile to
the [Page 805] United States, I have the
honor to enclose a translation of the first page of the daily news
bulletin of the German Embassy here for July 10 last, which criticizes
the Monroe Doctrine. As the Embassy has noted in previous
communications, these bulletins appear under German Embassy letter-heads
and purport to be “official news received by cable from Berlin”.
Respectfully yours,
[Enclosure—Translation]
Press Release by the German Embassy in Argentina,
July 10, 1940
The Monroe Doctrine
In connection with the military preparations of British warships
against the French island Martinique63 in Central America
[sic] and with the publication of the
reply of the Government of the Reich to the note of the United
States regarding the interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine,64
statements were made in Washington65 and Hyde Park which could not be understood even by
those who are well acquainted with American opinions. It is now
being pointed out that the occupation of French colonies in America
by British forces does not necessarily imply a change of
sovereignty. A difference is also being made now between the real
transfer of territorial property and political intervention. It is
finally declared that all the American nations should gather
information relative to British measures against Martinique since
the United States does not wish to assume responsibility regarding
those possessions. For the first time there arises in Washington in
this respect the idea of allocating American possessions of European
powers in the form of mandates.
On top of this, the statements made by competent American sources
also refer to the possibility of a new territorial order in Asia.
Roosevelt’s secretary said that this matter in the sense of an
Asiatic Monroe Doctrine should be discussed exclusively by Asiatic
countries. It is not easy to form an accurate idea of the present
trend of the American policy based on this number of new and
disconcerting versions. Is this supposed to be a new generous
distribution of the world, for which Washington accepts as a “fait
accompli” the defeat of the British Empire and the future status of
France? Do the governments of Australia, The Netherland Indies and
French Indo-China react against that attitude? Has approval from
London been obtained or is this an independent act of American
policy? Or do the speakers [Page 806]
consider themselves as interpreters of the President’s personal
opinion? Is it a non-transparent electoral maneuver? As long as
these questions remain unanswered, the countries directly affected
by the statements referred to will continue to feel confused and in
doubt. At present all that can be said with certainty is that the
reply of the Government of the Reich has created a great impression
in the United States, and it shows that in addressing its note to
Berlin the American Government did not consider the possibility that
territorial changes in the Western Hemisphere might turn into
serious problems, particularly between France and England.
Finally, the indecision with which Washington observes the British
greediness, allowing the Martinique problem to approach a state
which every day can assume the nature of the butchery which took
place in Oran,66 has caused uneasiness in Latin American
countries. Evidently at the latter’s initiative the problem of the
transfer of possessions assumes in Washington the importance of a
question of Pan American significance. The future development of
this question awakens all the more interest, inasmuch as the spirit
of a doctrine lies in the unalterability of principles once they are
adopted.