Hull Papers
The Legal Adviser (Hackworth) to the Secretary of State 1
Open Cities
The Secretary: The following paragraphs are supplementary to my memorandum to you of August 5 (attached)2 regarding the possible recognition of Rome as an open city, which has since been declared by the Badoglio regime to be such.
1. Brussels:—On May 10, 1940 the Department, at the request of the Belgian Government, instructed the American Embassy at Berlin to inform the German Government that Brussels was an open city.3
On May 11 the Foreign Office acknowledged the Embassy’s note and stated that the competent authorities had been appropriately informed. On the same day the DNB News Service announced that the German Air Force would respect the status of Brussels as an open city as long as there were no street barriers or troop movements in Brussels. However, on May 15 the German Army High Command issued a statement that German air reconnaissance had established the passage through [Page 597] Brussels of military columns as well as military transports through the railway junctions. It declared, therefore, that it could no longer recognize Brussels as an undefended city. This statement was confirmed by the Foreign Office on May 16.
2. Paris:—On June 13, 1940 the French Government declared Paris an open city, and on June 18 of that year it declared all other French cities of more than 20,000 population to be open.
On March 8, 1942 Admiral Darlan presented a note of protest4 to the American Embassy in Vichy in regard to the bombardment of the suburbs of Paris and suggested that the Government of the United States intervene with the British Government to prevent the recurrence “of such atrocities”. He referred also to the bombardment of other French cities, such as Dunkirk, Cherbourg, Brest, and Le Havre. The Department instructed the Embassy on March 11 to reply that this Government deplored the methods of warfare forced on humanity by the German Government. It pointed out that the areas in suburban Paris in question were entirely under German occupation and that the factories in that area which were bombed were working full time for the Germans. It declared that the Government of the United States considered that the bombing operations were “against legitimate military objectives”. The Department said that it was not in a position to act as a channel of communication for such a protest.
On September 7, 1942 M. Laval made an oral, official protest to Mr. Tuck of the American Embassy in Vichy against the bombardment of the docks at Le Havre and the railway yards at Rouen by the American Air Force. Mr. Tuck replied that the attacks had been on military objectives and were, therefore, fully justified. The Department approved this statement.5
It will be seen that while Paris and the other French cities referred to in this numbered paragraph were declared to be open cities, they were used by the Germans for their war purposes and hence were not thereafter to be regarded as open cities.
3. Belgrade:—On April 10, 1941 the spokesman at the German Foreign Office in Berlin stated that it was, in the German view, ridiculous to regard Belgrade as an open city since it had been considered an important fortress for a century. The Embassy reported: “The qualifications of an open city were described as (1) no military garrison, (2) no installations of military significance, (3) transport facilities may not be used for military purposes, and (4) the city must be open for entry and passage by enemy troops without molestation”. The Foreign Office spokesman added that Belgrade, in addition to [Page 598] being a fortress, was actually a seat of great military importance and that one proof of its failure to meet the requirements of an open city was the erection and use by the Serbian army of a pontoon bridge there.
Here we have tests laid down by the German Government as to the qualifications for an open city. It will be noted from the fourth qualification that, in the view of the German Government, the city “must be open for entry and passage by enemy troops without molestation.”
4. If the condition just referred to should be attached to our recognition of Rome as an open city, we would be entitled to have our troops pass through the city without molestation. If our troops were in Rome or passing through Rome, they would be subject to bombardment by Germany and hence the city would be in the same position as French cities, including Paris, were after they were occupied by German forces or were being used for military purposes. It appears that in the last war French cities, such as Vouziers, Charleville, and Mézières, regarded as open cities, were bombarded by the French after they had been occupied by Germany. The sum and substance of these examples is that the status of a city may change from an undefended to a defended place as military operations change, and that recognition by us of Rome as an open city would mean only that we could not bomb it while it was so recognized, but that if we later used it ourselves, it would again become subject to bombardment.
- An unsigned copy of this memorandum is in the central files of the Department of State (740.00116 EW/8–1943).↩
- Ante, p. 557.↩
- This is probably a reference to the Department’s telegram No. 1278 of May 16, 1940, to the Chargé in Germany. See Foreign Relations, 1940, vol. i, p. 201.↩
- Not printed.↩
- See Foreign Relations, 1942, vol. ii, pp. 196, 197.↩