Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1943, China

893.014/263

Memorandum by the Geographer of the Department of State (Boggs)

[Washington,] July 13, 1943.

American Map Makers and Foreign Governments

The letter of June 10, 1943, from the Chinese Ambassador, regarding an American made globe on which Chinese territories are shown as under Japanese sovereignty or Russian influence, presents a problem which assumes a different aspect in wartime.

Considerable harm may be done to the cause of the United Nations in the war effort if private map publishers follow their own hunches and predilections, at least in the absence of any reliable information or suggestion regarding cartographic policy. Representatives of the press, in press conferences, are frequently given background information, which most of them respect scrupulously. If private map publishers and globe makers were given information and suggestions intimating the effect of their map practices upon international comity I believe many, if not all, of the publishers would welcome it, always upon the condition that freedom of the press as they understand it is not infringed. They are, of course, jealous of their right, in attempting to keep their maps “realistic” and up-to-date in order to sell their maps to advantage, to adopt a policy which sometimes disregards the official viewpoint of the Department of State.

The National Geographic Society, however, has been very considerate of international public opinion, especially since about 1932, when Dr. Hornbeck¹ and I discussed with Dr. Grosvenor the undesirability of their publishing and distributing a map showing “Manchukuo” under Japanese sovereignty; and ever since that time the National Geographic Society has always been very conscious of the mischief that might be done by their maps, because of their very wide distribution in all continents, if they unduly offend the sensibilities of the governments and peoples in the foreign countries in which they are circulated. The Renner article and maps in Collier’s did much harm, and the maps in the new Britannica atlas might have produced very unfortunate results if they had not been modified shortly before publication last winter.

The following courses are open to the Department in such matters:

(1) Reply to specific inquiries and protestations from foreign governments, as in the present instance from China, saying that freedom of the press in the United States makes it difficult to suggest to private publishers what policies they should follow in such matters; and to do nothing except when representations are received from foreign governments;

(2) Send tactful letters to various map publishers, signed by one of the principal officers of the Department, apprising them of the effect upon international relations and the war effort of maps which, in their attempt to be realistic and up-to-date, are unfortunate in their treatment of sovereignty matters.

(3) Through personal contacts which we in the Office of the Geographer already have with a number of firms, and similar contacts which may be established with other firms, undertake to influence the practice of private map publishers with reference to the indication of sovereignty and territorial claims on their maps and globes.

The attached draft letter to Rand McNally and Company accords with the second of the alternatives indicated above. To restrict such a letter to Chinese interest in the matter may suggest that the Department has received a communication from the Chinese Government. On the other hand, to give additional illustrations from Europe would be very difficult under present conditions—unless we were simply to suggest that 1937 international boundaries be shown in Europe until post-war settlements shall have clarified the situation.

We have enough problems without inviting the map manufacturers to write the Department more frequently for assistance. It is a question whether the interests of the war and the coming peace require a more active policy in these matters.

A list of map publishers² is attached, to which letters may be addressed, in accordance with the last paragraph of the draft letter to the Chinese Ambassador.³

S. W. Boggs

[Enclosure]

The Secretary of State to Rand McNally and Company ⁴

Washington, July 31, 1943.

Sirs: Because of the harm that may be inadvertently done to the war effort and to the interest of friendly relations among the United Nations, your attention is invited to situations that sometimes arise in foreign countries from the publication in the United States of maps and globes which portray unilateral territorial claims of one country, to the disadvantage of another country which claims sovereignty.

It is very difficult both for government officials and for private citizens in some foreign countries to understand how maps and globes can be published in the United States representing sovereignty and claims of sovereignty in a manner which may be wholly at variance with the policy of the United States Government, because in those countries no private publisher is permitted to produce and distribute maps which are not in accord with the policy of the government. Hence, such maps published in the United States sometimes become the subject of representations to the Department of State by the governments of the countries concerned. In such instances the Department explains, in effect, that under our freedom of the press, publishers in the United States are at liberty to produce and distribute maps and other publications without regard to viewpoints or policies of the Government.

I have thought that, in the light of present world conditions and of our common interest in the furtherance of friendly and cooperative relations among the United Nations, you may wish to be apprised of the fact that such situations arise, and that, in this connection, you might like to have an illustration of the Department’s own cartographic practice. Thus, if a map of China were being prepared in the Department, the entire territory of the Republic of China would be included without distinction between its constituent parts, although the inner limits of Tibet and Outer Mongolia might be shown as internal boundaries similar to those of the provinces of “China Proper” including those of Manchuria, and of the provinces of Sinkiang, Sikang (Chwanpien), Tsinghai (Kokonor), Mngsia, Suiyuan, Chahar, and Jehol. In general, unilateral claims of any country, and occupation of territory by force, would not be represented as valid, or as constituting anything more than a claim by that country.

Very truly yours,

For the Secretary of State:

Adolf A. Berle, Jr.

1. Stanley K. Hornbeck, Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs, 1928–1937; Adviser on Political Relations, 1937–1944.
2. See footnote 4, below.
3. Letter to Chinese Ambassador, dated July 23, 1943, missing from Department files.
4. Identical letter sent to Denoyer-Geppert Company, Matthews-Northrup Works, International Map Company, Hagstrom Company, the George F. Cram Company, American Map Company, A. J. Nystrom and Company, Replogle Company, C. S. Hammond and Company, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Weber Costello Company, McKnight and McKnight.