ý

ýs

ý.

ýy aY

,o

It

FCO HISTORICAL BRANCH

OCCASIONAL PAPERS

No. 9

Documents on British Policy Overseas Publishing Policy and Practice

Torei m and Commonwealth Office , anua y 1995

FOREWORD

Publishing diplomatic documents as part of the record of a country's foreign

policy has its roots in the nineteenth century. Although, in the past, some foreign ministries went through phases of competitive historicism, today such publications are seen as a necessary means for providing foreign policy specialists, both at home and overseas, with the basic building blocks for

research and interpretation. Over the years the British series, along with those of other major countries, has become an established part of the interchange of historical information and analysis between foreign ministries and scholarly communities, in most parts of the world.

These papers record the evolution of the British series and describe the principles that have guided it, as well as including a vade mecum for the researcher. Their publication coincides with a watershed in FCO practice and policy as Documents on British Policy Overseas moves forward to extend coverage to issues less than thirty years old. The international significance of this activity will also be underlined by making British foreign policy documents available on INTERNET.

Richard Bone Library and Records Department

Foreign & (commonwealth Office

HIS'l'ORI(AI. BRANCH Occasional Papers

No. 9 January 1995

CONTENTS

Working with British diplomatic documents: publication, editing and research. A collection of'papers by the Editors of'D131'O

page

Documents on British Policy Overseas: Project Statement i-2

DBPO: Editorial Principles and Practice Roger Bullen &ME Pelly, November 1987 3-18

Sensitive Documents and Editorial Freedom 11 F, Pally, November 1989 19-23

Official History: Editing DBPO HJ Yasamee, June 1993 24-26

The Publication of the Documents of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Ann Lane, November 1993 27-34

The Foreign Office Archive: A Source for Contemporary Historians

Isabel Warner, lý ebruary 1994 35-44

page Annex 1

British Documents on the Origins of the War, 1898-1914 Correspondence between Dr. Seton-Watson and the Rt. Hon. 45-47 Austen Chamberlain published in The Times, November 1924

Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919-1939 Parliamentary Announcement by the Rt. Hon. Anthony Eden,

48 Parl. Debs. H. C. 5th ser. vol. 398,29 March 1944

Documents on British Policy Overseas, 1945-1955 Parliamentary Announcement by the Rt. Hon. Sir Alec Douglas- Home, Parl. Debs. H. C. 5th ser. vol. 859,2 July 1973

Annex 2 List of Historical Branch Publications 1917-94 50-57

Copies of this pamphlet will be deposited with the National Libraries

FCO Historical Branch, Library and Records Department,

Clive House, Petty France, London SW 1H 9HD

Crown Copyright

DOCUMENTS ON BRITISH POLICY OVERSEAS: PROJECT STATEMENT

Documents on British Policy Overseas is published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It continues for the post-war period the FCO

tradition of publishing collections of the most important documents for the

study of British foreign policy edited by independent historians working in

the FCO. It succeeds two earlier publications British Documents on the Origins

of the War 1898-1914 (11 volumes, 1926-38) and Documents on British Foreign

Policy 1919-1939 (64 volumes, 1946-86). DBPO is divided into two series (Series 1: 1945-50 and Series II: 1950-55), which are published concurrently.

The volumes are edited by a small team of six Historians, employed by the FCO as full-time established civil servants in the Historical Branch of Library and Records Department. The current publishing programme is

based on a series of land-mark volumes on significant events in British

foreign policy. Each volume has a main theme covering related topics with documents arranged in chronological order. Time spans vary. Present policy is to extend the period covered in a single volume as far as possible. Within

the mandate of the Parliamentary announcement of DBPO in 1973, the Editors are given full access to FCO archives and have the customary freedom in the selection and arrangement of documents, subject only to the

requirement to seek permission to publish closed papers.

The material published in DBPO comes mainly from the archives of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, supplemented where necessary by

papers from the Cabinet Office, the Prime Minister's Office, Treasury, Ministry of Defence and other relevant Government Departments. Personnel files and intelligence material are not normally consulted. Although the Editors try to look at all the most important files of relevant FCO departments, the volume of immediate post-war material (over half a million papers a year) means that they cannot see every paper. Nonetheless

the Editors sift through more than 50,000 papers for each volume of which perhaps some 2,000 are included in the final selection.

The Editors operate a two-tier system of publishing: volumes and microfiches. The volume includes printed texts of key documents with footnotes and summaries (calendars) of supplementary documents which are reproduced in full on accompanying microfiches. This system, introduced by DBPO, aims to make more of the raw material of history accessible to researchers at a fraction of the cost of visiting the archives available at the Public Record Office.

Using a Desk Top Publishing system, tin' Editorial staff produce virtual camera-ready copy for the publisher, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, who recover costs through the sale of volumes. The editorial costs of the volume are met by the FCO. Most of the volumes, which have an average print run of 1000 copies, go to the Libraries of Governmr'nts, Universities and Historical Institutes, and are also distributed within the FCO and to

selected British Missions overseas. Publishing programmes and pOºlicy are reviewed regularly by the Editors.

Volumes of Documents on British Policy Overseas au-ee:

Series I (1945-1950)

I The Conference at Potsdam, July- - August 1945

II Conferences and Conversations 1945: London, Washington and Moscow

III Britain and America: The Negotiation of the United States Loan, August - December 1945

IV Britain and America: Atomic Energy, Bases and Food, December 1945 -July 1946

Series II (1950-1955)

I The Schuman Plan, the Council

of Europe and Western European Integration, May 1950 - December 1952

II The London Conferences: Anglo-American Relations and Cold War Strategy, January -, June 1950

III German Rearmament, September - December 195()

IV Korea, June 1950 - April 1951

V Germany and Western Europe, In preparation: August - December 1945 V Germany and European

Security, 1952-4 VI Eastern Europe, August 1945 - April 1946 VI The Middle East, 1951-3

New January 1995: VII The United Nations: Iran, Cold War and World Organisation, 1946-7

Volumes can be ordered from: HMSO Publications Centre, PO Box 276, LONDON SW8 5DT, United Kingdom

2

DBPO: EDITORIAL PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE*

Roger Bullen &ME Pelly November 1987

Historical Background Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles, the so called guilt clause, was clearly the main reason why in the 1920s so many of the governments which had

participated in the First World War authorised the publication of documents from their archives in officially sponsored series. The German government was anxious to refute the claims that Germany and her allies were the aggressors in 1914. The scholarly endeavours of historians were thus caught up in this acute and bitter diplomatic controversy. Many believed that the legitimacy of the peace settlement as a whole was bound up in the inquiries into the truth or falsehood of article 231.

It would, however, be misleading to suggest that the war guilt controversy was solely responsible for these various decisions to publish diplomatic documents. In the half century between 1870 and 1920 there was consistent pressure on governments either to open their archives or to sponsor publications of relevant documents from them. Historians had long since argued that archival research was the only basis of `scientific' and `definitive' history. The `truth' was in the archive, hidden and buried. Once the historian had access to these archives he could discover what had happened and reveal it. Governments themselves also believed this to be true. After the war of 1870 both the French and German governments published documents from their diplomatic archives, each intending to suggest that the other had been the aggressor. Other governments, particularly those with revolutionary origins, had ransacked the archives of their predecessors in the search for documents of a discreditable kind. In 1918 the Soviet government embarrassed the British, French and Italian governments by revelations from the Tsarist archives about allied war aims in 1915. Such disclosures appeared to strengthen the already growing movement in the western democracies for `open diplomacy'. Secrecy, it was alleged, bred mistrust and this was how wars broke out. To the historians' search for truth was thus added `the people's right to know'. It was this combination of pressures which proved irresistible.

Why Documents In 1924 Mr Ramsay MacDonald who was both Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary agreed that the Foreign Office should publish a selection of

* Abridgement of a paper presented at the FGO Seminar 'Valid Evidence', 6 November 1987; full text published in Occasional Paper No. 1.

3

documents from its archives on British foreign policy leading up to the

outbreak of war in 1914. This decision raised the question: why commission a publication of diplomatic documents rather than a narrative history? In

the first instance it must be said that Mr Marl)onald, who had favoured a narrative history, accepted the recommendations of the then Historical Adviser, James Headlam-Morley, whose views were endorsed by G0 Gooch that a documentary series was more likely to be well received by

the historical profession.

It was his successor as Foreign Secretary, Mr Austen Chamberlain, who made the final arrangements for the launch of the new series. He accepted two principles which have proved of enduring validity. Firstly that independent historians should undertake the selection and editing and secondly that `the reputation of the editors offers the best guarantee of the historical accuracy and impartiality of their work. It is to these principles that the conventional phrase used in the preface to each volume, `the

editors have had the customary freedom in the selection and arrangement of documents' looks back. It is a phrase, we can assure you, which means exactly what it says. The attempt by some historians in the early years of DBFP to impugn editorial integrity was vigorously rebutted and time has

shown it to be groundless. It is ironic that those who made these charges themselves based their later work on the Series. The revelation after the second world war that the German series Die Grosse Politik had not observed these principles not only had a devastating effect on its reputation and integrity but also on the political end it was designed to serve.

The undoubted success of British Documents on the Origins of the War clearly vindicated the decision not to commission a narrative history of British diplomacy. The type of arguments then employed remains, in our view, valid. The traditions, the practice and the standards of narrative history are, we believe, less well adapted than a documentary publication to silence controversy and reveal what happened in all its detail and complexity. It is harder for the narrative historian to be impartial in his evaluation of' the salient facts and in the marshalling of arguments in such a way as to reveal their original weight and balance. Moreover every diplomatic historian has assumptions about the nature of international relations which are bound to be more intrusive in a narrative history. Indeed it is his task to make a critical analysis which editors of diplomatic documents find it proper only to indicate in prefaces.

The publication of diplomatic documents does not necessarily overcome all these difficulties but if it is done according to Chamberlain's precept of historical accuracy and impartiality then many of the defects of narrative

4

history can be mitigated or avoided. It is noteworthy that whereas the official histories of the Second World War carry an endorsement that the individual authors are `alone responsible for the statements made and the views expressed', no such disclaimer has ever been thought necessary in the publication of British diplomatic documents. Moreover at the end of the day historians and the interested public have at their disposal the various national collections of documents which they can themselves compare and collate, and in the light of the 30 year rule the editorial selection can be assessed against the original files.

The success of British Documents on the Origins of the War was followed, soon after the outbreak of the Second World War, by consideration within the Foreign Office which led to the announcement of Documents on British Foreign Policy by Mr Eden, the Foreign Secretary, on 29 March 1944. Earlier Sir L Woodward had been commissioned to write a narrative history of British foreign policy in war time as part of the Cabinet Office official series on the History of the Second World War. After the war some thought was given to a possible documentary series to bridge the gap between Gooch and Temperley and DBFP but work on this project lapsed.

When Dr Rohan Butler as Historical Adviser came later to plan a post 1945 series similar arguments in favour of documents rather than a narrative still held and were now supported by a general international preference for such a treatment of foreign policy in peacetime. It was recognised when DBFP was launched that there could be criticism of the decision to begin in 1945, thus leaving the war time period undocumented but it was accepted that, in the light of the Woodward history and the desirability of not falling too far behind the 30 year rule and the publication of the FRUS, it would be advantageous to take the clear starting point of the conference at Potsdam for the new series. The decision in favour of documents is also in line with the established policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that its function is to make the documents available whether through publication or at the Public Record Office rather than to enter into controversy itself.

The Aim of the Series The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has three closely related aims in sponsoring DBPO. Firstly to enable the people of the United Kingdom to read for themselves an accurate and impartial documentary record of the conduct of foreign policy under the direction of Parliament. Secondly to provide students of recent history with first hand material for their studies. Thirdly in a competitive world in which other governments also sponsor similar publications the FCO aims to ensure that assessments of British

5

diplomacy are in the first instance based on B itish records. It would be

singularly unfortunate if the history of British policy was ýý ritten frone the archives and publications of either her allies or, worse still, her adversaries. For example it could be argued that many of the ideas of' the American Cold War revisionist historians have appeared sadly wanting when viewed in

the light of the evidence from British archives. We also believe that the publication of the Schuman Plan volume is now dispelling many of' the myths propagated about British policy towards European integration by

contemporary continental critics.

As editors we share the three aims of the FCO and it is from these that we derive our instructions. Within these broad aims, however, we seek to fulfil

more specific objectives, particularly in relation to the second, that of providing the historical profession with the raw materials of history. Before the introduction of public access to recent government archives under the 30

year rule, the editors were providing the scholarly community with the only available texts. Since then and particularly in view of the immense size of the archives, the editors with their special facilities provide a comprehensive survey of the archives which other scholars could not, without the greatest difficulty, match. In particular we can assemble the scattered pieces of a story told in more than one Foreign Office or Whitehall Department: it

could be said that we are part of the service sector of the historical

profession. What then is the nature of the service we provide?

Firstly we aim to provide historians with collections of documents in which each volume and then the series as a whole tell at first hand a story. We are at all stages of editing very conscious of our story-telling function and examine our work carefully to make sure that we are not, even unconsciously, arguing a case. Our role is to let the documents speak for themselves and never to use them to prove a point. That is for the authors of scholarly monographs, articles and general surveys for whom our documents provide a basis. A good deal of the hard work of research is done for historians of all future generations. Equally the volumes provide indispensable material for special subjects in universities, polytechnics and schools in which the next generation of historians can be trained. These activities of writing and teaching require an accurate and accessible text such as our volumes provide.

In our selection from the archives we start from the assumption that we need to look at as much of the material available as possible and it is no false modesty that leads us to say that we probably see more of the archive than any independent researcher, not least because the files are brought to us here. We do not have the same restrictions and difficulties as those who

6

pursue their research at Kew. We also airn to establish criteria of significance and discrimination in the use of evidence which raise the level

of historical assessments and debate. In this sense DBPO is part of the moving frontier of contemporary history.

When we speak of'volumes we mean both the printed documents and those on the accompanying microfiches. Later we shall return to the dual nature of the volumes; printed and microfiche documents. Our purpose is to provide as many documents as cheaply as possible. Like the Victorian novel the volumes have a main plot, the printed documents, and the usual variety of sub plots, whose story is told in the notes and the microfiches. For those who want to go even further - and this probably means the research student

- our volumes provide, we believe, extremely useful signposts in the search for further detail from the full archive at the PRO.

The Scope of the Series The Parliamentary announcement defines the scope of the series as a collection of the most important documents in the archives of the Foreign

and Commonwealth Office relating to British policy overseas for the decade

after the Second World War. It was also decided, in order to speed up publication, that the period would be divided into two series, 1945-1950 and 1950-1955 and that they would be published simultaneously. For a variety of reasons work on the second series did not begin until the end of 1982. Within this mandate the editors are free to decide for themselves how they plan the series. We start from the assumption that we can only cover the most important issues and problems of foreign policy. It is our belief that it gives a better understanding of policy to focus on the major issues and to document them as fully as possible within the limits of what can feasibly be printed. It is already clear to us that secondary and subsidiary issues are drawn forward with and alongside the major ones and that either their resolution or their disappearance can be briefly signposted. It has to be said, however, that minor issues or no great consequence are unrecorded. It is important to bear in mind that civil servants, whatever their rank and function, generate an immense amount of paper. Minor officials engaged in routine work can contribute a surprisingly large amount to the archive.

It is also our experience that rigid long-term plans are as inappropriate for the editors of documents as they are for policy makers. We freely acknowledge that we do not have blueprints for the next decade but we do have a sense of purpose, indeed of urgency, and a clear aim. A rigid framework would prevent us from responding to the archive itself; to the unexpected and as yet unknown twists and turns of policy. There is an important balance to be struck between documenting those issues and

7

events to which historians now accord significance and those to which the policy makers gave their attention and priority.

In view of the thematic and topical approach which we employ in our editing we have found that strict adherence to our base years (1945 and 1950) is not necessarily the quickest way forward. We invest an enormous amount of time in acquiring specialist knowledge. For example in Series I

we found it appropriate to carry the story of Anglo-American relations in the aftermath of war through the first year of peace and then to turn to the myriad problems of occupation policy in Germany and their implications and in Series II we have had to unravel and explain the enormously complex structure of NATO in its formative years. In view of this investment it can make sense to carry topics and themes forward rather than abandon then for unrelated subjects. We bear in mind, and ask you to do the same, that in the fullness of time the series will add up to a complete whole and when this is achieved the particular sequence of volumes is not of great significance.

The Organisation of Volumes One of the principal features of continuity between the three publications is the way we organise our volumes. There is of course general agreement on an international basis, that any arrangement of diplomatic documents must be ordered in chronological sequence and that the date and time of a document at the place of its composition, irrespective of the difference between time zones, should form the basis of the order within the arrangement. The time and date of the receipt and distribution of a document are universally regarded as valuable additional information but

not as a basis on which a collection of documents can be organised.

Beyond this common-sense approach to the problem of chronology, national traditions and style have entered into the different formulae adopted for the organisation of documents within each volume. Briefly three different methods emerged. The French method was to print all documents whatever their subject in strict chronological order. The American way was to take a regional focus for each volume with further sub-divisions within. It has proved necessary to make exceptions to this rule and organise some volumes by topics. The British way was to select either broad themes or individual topics, and sometimes both, and organise the documents within a volume into chapters reflecting these themes and topics. Clearly the difference between the British and American methods is not as great as between them and the French.

8

lt is perhaps useful to point out why in the editing of DBPO we have

continued with the formula established by British Documents on the Origin of the War and subsequently upheld by the editors of DBFP. In the first place the

organisation of volumes by topics reflects the organisation of the Foreign Office. The division of the Office into departments is essential for the efficient conduct of business, so much so that the departmental structure is

constantly adapting. The flow of correspondence within the Office and between the Office and posts overseas was and is firmly anchored within the departmental structure as anyone who has consulted FO 371 will know. Our progress would be unacceptably slow if we had to start from the assumption that our first task as editors was to unravel the archives and organise our material on a chronological rather than a subject basis.

Clearly such thematic and topical volumes reflected the way in which policy was made. Very few officials, apart from the Permanent Under-Secretary of State had an overview of policy; their attention was focused on particular geographical areas or problems of policy. In order to understand the origin and development of policy it is necessary to follow its progress upwards; from the department to the superintending under-secretary, then to the PUS and on to the Secretary of State. Consultation with other Whitehall departments frequently takes place at any or indeed all levels in this process. In those instances when the Secretary of State consults the Prime Minister and/or other Cabinet colleagues or a memorandum is presented to the Cabinet, the departmental origins of such initiatives can be seen in the successive drafts. In a very strict sense, therefore, the way we organise our volumes is a mirror of the policy making process.

It is proper that an official series should concentrate on the execution of policy, to show what decisions were taken and how they were implemented. The majority of the documents in the archive are concerned with this process. In DBPO, however, we are able to take a slightly more relaxed view than was possible for our earlier predecessors on the difficult question of documenting policy formulation and the discussion of alternative lines of policy, both within the Foreign Office and at Cabinet level. In the pre-1939 period much of the discussion of the formulation of policy was conducted through minutes. On 21 November 1932 Lord Grey of Fallodon wrote to The Times deploring in principle the publication of the advice given by officials, both because he feared this would prejudice their freedom of expression in future, and because it might mislead the public, since minutes were not, in his words, `authoritative documents'; the actual instructions of Ministers alone determining policy.

9

Lord Grey's intervention was too late to have much influence on Gooch and Temperley, but in his editing of DI3hP Professor Woodward was conscious of the weight of Grey's argument. In the postwar period more decisions are taken, within the context of existing instructions, at a lower level, and the discussion documents are of a more varied nature, for example some minutes, semi-official correspondence both with posts and other government departments, papers of the Permanent Under-Secretary's Committee, briefs for the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister and memoranda for the Cabinet. We are able to use all of these. In practice therefore we arc able to illuminate those aspects of policy formulation which take place weithin an official context or which have an official impact. An example of the later is

the Labour Party pamphlet on European Unity, published in 1950, the story of which is documented in the Schuman Plan volume.

Editing by theme and topic enables us to concentrate upon the major issues

of policy. There is of course sometimes a difference between what, after the passage of time historians consider to be the important landmarks of policy and those problems and crises which at the time greatly preoccupied policy makers but which historians have consigned to a lesser place in their assessments of the past. For example the question of access to Berlin was initially regarded as a matter of low priority: as we all know it dramatically increased in importance and still remains a vital concern. Before the summer of 1950 the division of Korea was not regarded as a key issue of Asian diplomacy and was dealt with at a relatively low level in the Foreign Office. On the other hand in 1945-46 there was a high level consideration of the American desire for bases in British Commonwealth territories which had to be documented for its effect on a Anglo-American relations but was an issue which quickly faded out. On this matter our aim is to strike a balance but in the last resort our documents can only reflect the archive and this in its turn reflects the priorities and preoccupations of the policy makers.

The Problem of the Archive The basic problem for historians working in the postwar FCO archives is sheer size. For our period of 1945-1955 the number of papers coming into the Foreign Office climbed from just over 540,000 to over 570,000 peaking at 630,000 in 1950 when the Foreign Office's responsibilities for German

administration swelled the bulk.

The FCO is the successor department not only of the Foreign Office but also of the Colonial and Commonwealth Relations Offices, and in accordance with the Parliamentary announcement of 1973 documents from these Departments are included where appropriate. There is in fact a good

10

deal of overlapping of papers between these Departments, which can be helpful in filling gaps. Since our Series is focused on foreign policy, we follow

our mandate to `keep the work within manageable proportions' by

concentrating on Foreign Office documents.

For our decade the main FO political class, FO 371, contains nearly 75,000

pieces, rising to not far short of 80,000 when other strictly' Foreign Office

classes such as Private Office Papers, Cultural Relations and Information, FO 800,924 and 953, are included. In addition the archives of the British Element of the Control Commission, listed in the bracket of classes FO 1005-1082, contain over 30,000 pieces, while the Control Office for Germany and Austria contributes a further 6,000 pieces in classes FO 935- 46. All this explains at the outset why we have to he selective in our plan for documentation, which has to be restricted to key areas for British policy.

Let me give some idea of the problems for one volume. We hope that Volume V of Series I, covering Western Europe for the last five months of 1945, is something of a special case. The number of jackets for the main relevant Departments is nearly 6,000 for Central, covering Germany and Austria, and over 7,000 for Western, including Italy. Adding a guess for

other Departments partially used, such as Economic and Northern, brings

our figure up to 15,000. Bearing in mind that most jackets contain more than one document we reckon that consideration of 30,000 documents for this one volume is probably an underestimate.

We realise that we are fortunate in having unique facilities for making a systematic search of this vast an intricate archive. We do our best to use it as fully as possible for the benefit of historians, but these figures tell their own story of the pressures of selection. Nevertheless the archive itself inevitable contains many documents where the same facts or views are repeated in different forms. One service which we can provide is to avoid duplication and select the best formulations for our readers.

In addition we have to go to the Cabinet Office archives for a full collection of Cabinet material from 1948 onwards, and in any case a trawl through these archives, and those in the PREM collection of Prime Minister's papers, is necessary to add both important material not included in the FCO archives and particularly items which can add depth to our coverage. A similar trawl is also required in the archives of any other Government department especially concerned in the subject being covered - for example, Treasury and Board of Trade papers for the Schuman Plan volume. Obviously time forbids our scanning all the archives in Whitehall

and we have to restrict ourselves to a quick plunge into those of the greatest relevance.

There are also the lesser problems of tracing papers. The main finding aids are the PRO shelf-lists and the Main Index. We are fortunate that there are still some useful registers, especially after 195(1 when a more logical filing system was introduced. We reckon that we can usually, if not quite always, find what we are seeking, and that our archives are easier to find

one's way through than many others.

How we start: the Concept of the Group of Documents It has long been recognized within Historical Branch that the challenge of the vast bulk of modern archives can only be met by adapting the successful style which the Editors of DBFP evolved. Experience has shown, as explained in the Introduction to the Second Series of DBPO, printed in Volume I of that Series, that the editorial approach to selection must be to groups of documents rather than to individual approach to selection must he to groups of documents rather than to individual documents. The idea of employing calendars, printed below substantive documents and briefly indicating the contents of related documents or runs of documents, together with copies on microfiche of the calendared documents, was the formula proposed by Rohan Butler, who made the first use of them in the Potsdam

volume. Since then as work on the Series has proceeded we have had to make new developments.

A further adaptation from DBFP has also become necessary since it has become apparent that the high cost of printing has made the old style of generous selection unacceptably expensive. We have found that there are not only marketing but also practical advantages in producing slimmer volumes, dealing with a manageable number of documents, thus speeding production. By use of microfiches and extracts or summaries of further documents in footnotes we can cover as many documents as in the traditional fat volumes, and can exploit the cheapness of microfiches to keep the overall cost down. Having embarked on these slimmer volumes selection for printing becomes an extremely rigorous process.

The treatment has to be flexible, determined by the nature of the topics covered as well as by the documents which record them. Thus a volume on Conferences, such as Series I, Volume II, does not use many calendars because supporting documents will probably fit better in the subsequent geographical volumes.

12

The political differences between the period immediately after the war and the latter part of' our decade inevitably call for rather (Efferent editing techniques, though we keep in close touch to make sure that the editorial principles do not diverge. Thus the early volumes of Series I have to combine treatment of major foreign policy questions, such as peace treaties,

with that of issues arising from clearing up after a world war, for example relief and refugees, which involved delicately balanced decisions of politics and humanity in allocation of resources.

By the late 1940s the pattern of world affairs had settled down in the sense that foreign policy dealt with more conventional political and politico- economic issues. The major example here is that the German question had lost the administrative aspect of' day-to-day control and was becoming one of relations with Germany as well as diplomatic exchanges about Germany. Nevertheless the outbreak of war in the Far East in

, June 195() has

presented different documentary problems, with the blurring of the demarcation line between political and military considerations calling fi)r

new editorial techniques.

If we try to explain how we tackle a new volume it may clarify r our thinking for your. Let us take as an example Series I, Volume V. Having established the foundations of this Series by dealing with the major postwar conferences of 1945 - Potsdam, Foreign Ministers and Attlee-"Truman - in Volumes I-1l, and relations with the United States in Volumes I-IV, policy on Germany

was the obvious next step. It followed that we should include a treatment of' other Western European countries since a basic problem for Britain was the allocation of scarce resources as between the British Zone of Germany and the liberated countries. The next decision was that in the light of the many cross connexions it was better to print the documents in a single series than to divide them into topical chapters.

The next question was the time span. Though a final decision need not be taken until a late stage, we try to work towards a clear historical break. In this case the Reparation Plan of March 1946 would be a good target, but looking at two cupboards bulging with photocopies of papers for August to December 1945 we realised that it would be a struggle to get through to the end of the year, even with a ruthless selection within the new limits which we have set ourselves.

With this plan in mind our procedure is to trawl through our collection of photocopies, from a very full reading of the relevant archives, to eliminate the least important documents and begin putting together groups of related documents. We try at this stage to make a provisional assessment as to

13

which to print, with candidates for noting and calendaring attached behind. Groups of documents of secondary interest are collected separately for

reconsideration when we have completed our main sclection.

The next stage is to reassess our groups. We first look at their from the point of view of estimating whether wwe are likely to he within our limits of' size, and if not, whether we should, in the light of the historical significant e of the documents, deliberately go over the top or split the volume into two or whether we could make economies. The next task, which is l)eerhaps the most important and interesting aspect of editing, is taking the final decision

as to which documents to print.

The criteria here are many and the choice involved most difficult. This is

the point which stimulates the most discussion between Editor and Assistant Editor. Some documents seem to say `Print me' as they have the kind of quality one instinctively recognizes as especially illuminating. Unfortunately these are not as frequent as we would wish, and at the other end of the spectrum sometimes a choice has to be made from a group of documents,

none of which is wholly satisfactory. In some cases documents are selected because they are of such a high level that they cannot be ignored, for

example relevant Cabinet minutes or papers, or reports of conversations with important foreign statesmen. Occasionally, if such records are discursive

or of inordinate length we print an extract and calendar the remainder. Other documents cover a lot of ground in condensed form; these may he high level - Cabinet minutes are often very good here - or low level as when a junior has written a good brief for his senior. Others are descriptive, setting a scene, and giving the reader a little relief from more technical material. We also like to give a selection of the varied types of documents on which the Foreign Office worked.

In this context Foreign Office minutes are documents which like all others must be treated on their merits. If they contribute something worth while we use them; if they do not we ignore them. The exceptions are the rather rare minutes by the Secretary of State which we quote in footnotes if they have something to reveal about his thinking.

There is also the question of balance, as for instance on the practical level, between documents coming into and being despatched by the Foreign Office, and between policy decisions and their implementation. Far more important, and indeed basic to our whole concept of impartiality, is the political balance which may be between the good and had aspects of British policy, or between favourable and unfavourable presentation of foreign Governments, whether regarded as friendly to the United Kingdom or not.

14

We make no apologies for returning to this point because we know that acceptance of the validity of our evidence depends on the impartiality of our presentation. This informs not only our handling of the broad sweep of' policy but also the care we take to ensure that we have fully understood what a summarized document says and have made an accurate precis of its

salient arguments. Thus the style of editorial matter tends to be studiously flat, avoiding innuendoes. jokes come in inverted commas. Ehe only exceptions are our prefaces where we permit ourselves the luxury of' giving some pointers to conclusions which might be drawn. Ultimately the volumes exist to tell a story and we must select for printing documents which take this along in a way which clarifies for the reader a confusing medley of discussion and events.

Having chosen the documents for printing - and the decision on what not to print is often agonising - the next stage to decide which of' the subsidiary ones in each group will be summarized or quoted in footnotes, which will be calendared for microfiches and which will be rejected. We ask ourselves such questions as how much of the document in question do we need to use; is the information in which we are interested too complicated to be reduced to the bare bones of a calendar; alternatively is it going to he worth the reader's paying for a microfiche when the essence could go into a short footnote; on the other hand is a long footnote going to hold up the flow of the story in the printed document. Broadly speaking we footnote documents when we have to use so much that there is nothing worth leaving for the microfiche.

We are not, however, always thinking in terms of individual subsidiary documents. Very often the decision to calendar is unavoidable when we have a supporting group of documents on an aspect of the subject which we are treating. Here footnoting would probably be long, whereas a calendar, sometimes introduced by a footnote which can include information not appropriate for a calendar, seems to be the convenient way to carry the story forward. On the other hand sometimes we feel that the topic covered in a subsidiary group has ceased to be significant. In this case it may appear appropriate to handle it in what we call a `write-off note', which may give a brief indication of' what happened or may merely state where further correspondence can be found.

Although the reader of the printed volume may not wish to read the calendared documents in full in the microfiches it remains the policy of the Editors that he should be given a sufficient indication of their contents to gain an impression of what they record so that he is not deprived of a significant episode in the story. We feel that it is essential that the reader

15

should be conscious that the printed material is buttressed by an organised substructure of supporting evidence in the niicrc, ficlies. Inevltal)l)' much of this material is of a specialist or technical kind. At the sane time the calendars should leave something new for the reader of the microfiches. We

strive to achieve the happy mean, especially by choosing key quotations which give the flavour of the documents from which they come. Often we use a chain of calendars or occasionally a very long calendar to bridge the gap between the printed documents. We try to avoid the last calendar on an earlier document overlapping in chronology the first on a later one on the subject.

Such is the complexity of the documentation that we find it necessary from

the early stages of editing to begin compiling the chapter summaries and index for our own use. Because we ourselves are using our straightforward index of main subjects and persons as a working tool we hope it is providing our readers as well as ourselves with essential information. It is perhaps worth mentioning that the index for the Potsdam volume is incorporated in the index in Volume II of Series I. We remain convinced that these two aids, one at the beginning and one at the end of each volume, provide the best practicable help for readers with different requirements. At some stage we shall have to consider the question whether some finding aid for the Series as a whole may be needed.

Sensitive Papers As set out in the Parliamentary announcement of the Series, and repeated in each volume published, a special procedure has been devised for papers which remain sensitive. By this procedure `microcopies of these calendared documents will be available for purchase, except in exceptional cases where it is necessary on security grounds to restrict the availability of a particular document, as will be indicated in the text of the calendars'. This procedure was agreed in order to avoid damaging confrontation between the Editors and the FCO and is an insurance to both parties. As Editors we accept this need to protect the national interest and we believe that this is understood by our readers.

As explained in their Prefaces the Editors have the right to see papers retained here under Section 3(4) of closed at the Public Record Office under Section 591) of the Public Records Act of 1958. Such access does not, however, give them the right to use such material. Sanction for its use has to be sought from the relevant Political Department or other authority. The Editors have also the right to ask for enquiries to be made on their behalf where they consider that there is a gap in the documentation. Such a case arose in respect of Mr Attlee's talks with Mr Truman in Washington in

16

November 1945, documented in Volume II of' Series I. No records of the

main conversations on atomic energy were traced.

When the Editors wish to use a withheld document they have to weigh up how to obtain the maximum for their readers without incurring a veto from

the FCO, which would bring into operation the special procedure, which both the Editors and the FCO are anxious to avoid.

The first choice is obviously to print the document in füll. If' the Editors

consider that they have a good case and that publication would not be damaging to the national interest, which is the criterion, they request this. If, however, permission to print or calendar is not forthcoming the fäll-hack

positions are either to print the document with omissions accompanied by

an acknowledging footnote, as in the Potsdam volume, or to summarize the document in a footnote. Such a footnote, which has to he cleared with the F(; O, must give a balanced summary of the document, to take some account of what cannot be revealed in detail. If such a summary is not acceptable then the special procedure cannot be avoided.

In practice the Editors have found that it does not follow that retained documents are of' historical significance. For example, many contain trivial but wounding comments on foreign statesmen still in public life. In any case, very flew of those that we have seen have contained essential information

not already available in an open File. So far editorial requests to use these few have been accepted.

The FC() has only once exercised its right to refuse editorial request. This

arose in relation to Volume IV of Series I. Documentation on the question of' Belize has had to he omitted and the Editors have therefore for the first time had to use the special procedure for a calendar without the accompanying microfiched documents. This has been indicated by square brackets on calendar i to No 6. The relevant Department of' the FGO did, however, accept a wording for the calendar which gave some indication of the scopc of the withheld documents.

Such restriction is naturally very disappointing for the Editors. Conscious that their work is incomplete until the documents are released, the Editors will continue to make representations to this end. At the same time they recognise that the procedure preserves them from wrangles with the FCO, which could be as damaging to the Series as were those of' Gooch and Temperley, while enabling them to keep faith with their readers by acknowledging the omission and giving at least indication of what has had to be omitted.

17

As stated in the preface to each volume we do not have access either to personnel or intelligence material, although the decisions which we document may well have been haled on reports vdhich draw on such material. It is interesting to note that in this respect we stand on the same ground as the Editors of FRUS in the State Department.

The Editors consider that it is only fair to the FCO toi record that in every case which has arisen their own appreciation of the political standpoint of' the FCO has been matched by a parallel understanding of the historical

position by the great majority of the officials concerned.

18

SENSITIVE DOCUMENTS AND EDITORIAL FREEDOM''`

ME Telly November 1989

With this topic we come, I believe to the heart of our discussion together. It is almost certainly the most difficult problem which we face, because it is

the one about which we Editors are most likely to find ourselves in conflict

with our governments. Worse still we find ourselves facing our own

consciences, as we balance the possible harm to the national interest of' publishing a potentially sensitive document against our commitment to historical truth, to telling the full story.

The most helpful contribution which I can make is, I believe, to tell you how the British system for dealing with sensitive papers works, so far as we,

as Editors, are concerned.

Oddly enough the problem of handling documents which, for whatever

reason, are withheld by governments from files which have been released to

the public, is a comparatively recent one. In the case of British records,

when I joined the editorial team of Documents on British Foreign Policy 1919-

1939 in 1953, official archives were open only to 1906. We were therefore

working on closed archives and we had to submit proofs of the volumes to

relevant political departments and to seek permission from friendly foreign

governments to publish documents emanating from them. The Editors'

exercise of their customary freedom in the selection and arrangement of' documents was accordingly always at risk.

So far as I am aware there were very few instances of the use of documents

selected for publication being refused, though sometimes Editors had to agree to small omissions, for instance a reference to a source of information. I know of' only two major vetoes: firstly, Foreign Office insistence on deleting references to British use of bribery in Iran just after the first war; and secondly, the Belgian Government's objection to publication of seven documents, whose omission was formally noted in the preface to "Third Series, Volume V, about King Leopold's attitude to the extension northwards of' the Maginot Line in 1939. Considering that some of' the earliest volumes of DBFP were published just over ten years after the events they documented, this is a remarkable record of tolerance by the Foreign Office. Clashes between the Office and the Editors, which might have

* Paper presented at the First Conference of Editors of Diplomatic Documents in London, 9 November 1989; originally published in Occasional Paper No. 2.

19

culminated in an editorial resignation on grounds of' interference in editorial freedom, were thus avoided through mutual understanding.

The fifty-year rule on the opening of government archives, introduced by the Public Records Act of 1958, barely advanced the open period and thus had

virtually no effect on the editing of DBFP. 'I'hc Act did, however, provide in Section 5(1) for extended closure of sensitive documents held at the Public Record Office, and in Section 3(4) for the retention of other sensitive documents in the Department of origin. 'T'hese sections are applied under criteria laid down by the Government and under the supervision ofthe Lord Chancellor.

Roughly speaking extended closure now means fifty years of more: this applies to information supplied in confidence or which could cause danger or distress to individuals and to matters of international sensitivity, such has documents relating to unresolved territorial disputes. Records retained in

the Department or origin, which may relate to intelligence and defence

matters, are subject to periodical review. The fact of' closure is not concealed. Where a complete piece is withheld this is noted in the shelf list

at the Public Record Office: where a paper or papers have been removed a slip is inserted in their place in the file. 't'hough withholding is a regrettable necessity this precise legal framework makes possible a relaxed relationship between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its historians, because both parties have a clear understanding of their rights and of their limits.

It was only when the fifty-year period was reduced to thirty by the amending Act of 1967 that the editing of DBFP was affected. In the first

place the Editors had the same rights as any other person researching in

papers of the period up to 1936 to publish what they found on open files,

and it was otiose to seek permission from any authority, British or foreign:

there was thus a benefit to editorial freedom. But in the second place the Editors were close to leaving the period when many pre-war sensitivities had been wiped out by the war and were entering one when unsettled issues

proliferated and when the United Kingdom had become less powerful and had therefore to protect its national interests more carefully. Inevitably there were, from 1940 onwards, more withheld papers than on pre-war files. The more frequent application of Section 3(4) and 5(1) of the Public Records Act is the price which historians have to pay for access to more recent archives.

It was taken for granted by the FCO and the Editors that the latters' rights of access would apply to withheld papers. The danger to the Editors was, however, that in exercising these rights, they would find themselves involved

20

in damaging confrontations with FC() Departments and other authorities with responsibilities für protecting the national interest, whose permission to use such documents would have to be sought, in the same way that such permission had been necessary when the Editors were working on closed archives. Since these documents were deliberately withheld the likelihood of disagreements was obvious.

I)r Rohan Butler, the founding Editor of Documents on British Policy Orerseas, had the inspiration that his editorial innovation of calendars and related microfiches, which could be adapted to provide a procedure to avoid such confrontations. His scheme was that, if there were a deadlock between

editorial views and those of the FCO on the release of' a document which an Editor wishes to use, the Editor would accept the FCO's veto. In return the FCO would sanction a formula in the calendar giving as much information as could he released without prejudicing the national interest. The calendar would be printed in a square bracket to indicate that the calendared document was not available on microfiche. This procedure, which had been worked out by Dr Butler and FCO officials and ultimately approved at a high level, was set out in the Parliamentary announcement of D13PO in 19 7 3.

The procedure is mutually advantageous in that the FCO's right to block the release of documents considered prejudicial to the national interest is preserved, while the Editors are able to protect the credibility of' their customary freedom. The square-bracketed calendar in of ect certifies that they have exercised their right of access at the salve time as it admits that a document or documents cannot be released. The Editors further consider it appropriate to record any limitation on the availability of editorially selected material in the preface of the volume concerned. There is thus no concealment. The Editors believe that this procedure is understood and accepted by their readers.

The use of the square-bracketing procedure is a last resort which has been used only once, in Volume IV of Series 1. The material in question, which came from files withheld until 1996-7, related to Belize, then British Honduras, British sovereignty over which was challenged by Guatemala. The Editors wished to publish briefing on the British case for Mr 13evin at the end of 1945, together with his comments, but the relevant political Department and Legal Adviser considered that some of this material could prejudice the British position, and that it was against the national interest to publish it. The Editors ultimately had to bow to this view but they were able to mention in the square-bracketed calendar the kind of documents omitted and the names of the principal authors. They were also able to

21

indicate that there was a historical survey of the dispute and discussion of the courses open to HM Government and to give a pointer to the

recommendations on policy.

In other cases where withheld documents have been used, the Editors have, by various devices, been able to avoid the square-bracketed calendar either when a request to print a particular document in full has been refused or when they anticipate such a refusal. An obvious choice to print the document, or include it on microfiche, with omissions accompanied by an acknowledging footnote stating, for instance, that a confidential reference has been omitted or simply that a passage has not been released. The most usual alternative is to summarise the document in a footnote, which must give a balanced summary of the document to take some account of' what cannot be revealed in detail. Often an innocent document is withheld because it is filed with another which is sensitive. In such a case permission to use it should be readily forthcoming. The handling of all such documents has, of course, to be cleared with the FCO.

The Editors also have the right to make representations for the release of documents withheld from the microfiches in the hope that they can eventually be reproduced with a subsequent volume. In any case they make representations about withheld documents which they have seen and which in their view could be released. The Editors' representations are carefully considered by the FCO and, at a rough guess, nearly half of the documents

are released, often because with the passage of time they have ceased to be

sensitive; for example those containing trivial but wounding information

about foreign statesmen. In practice probably only a minority of withheld documents record information of historical interest not available elsewhere.

It is an open ' secret that possibly all Foreign Ministries have

unacknowledged files, probably intelligence related, which are beyond the reach of historians, even official historians. This inevitably creates a weakness in the coverage and acceptance of official histories, especially at this time when the history of intelligence is fashionable. Dr Butler was conscious of this lacuna and was able to obtain from the FCO an editorial right to ask for enquiries to be made on behalf of the Editors, where they consider that there is a gap in the documentation. The only such request made so far, which related to Mr Attlee's talks with Mr Truman in Washington in 1945, produced nothing. This procedure leaves the historian

wholly dependent on the relevant authority for what may or may not be

produced and is thus rather faint hope, but at least it is better than nothing.

22

So far the procedure has worked well, but it is possible that there may he

more difficulties in the more tense atmosphere of the 1950s. In these

circumstances there may he more pressure to conceal and, in general, a greater reluctance on the part of governments to take a liberal view.

This is a grey area, on which discussion here may he particularly helpful,

especially since pressure to open archives may increase the use of' hidden

archives. On the other hand it is conceivable that political developments of the future may make such security precautions unnecessary, to the advantage of history.

23

OFFICIAL HISTORY: EDITING DBPO*

Hj Yasamec JUfl( 1993

In some contrast to the early staffing arrangements for Gooch and Temperley and DBFP, the postwar series is now staffed entirely by historians employed by the FCO as full time established civil servants. Does this mean that the Editors can no longer claim to be independent historians

with the `customary freedom' to select and edit documents? Has the changed position of Editors altered the basis of the series in any way?

The short answer is no. The long answer is still no, but clearly the position of Editors has changed over the years -- if only in terms of establishment -- just as the status of the records on which we work has changed. We are now working within the 30 year rule -- for the most part on open records.

What then are the implications for DBPO? Now that we are all füll time in- house historians are we more or less free than our predecessors? The original plans for DBPO were worked out by Rohan Butler over a number of years in minute detail with just about every contingency provided for. The intention was to create an entirely fresh and more selective series, symbolised by a different title and distinctive new red colour dustjacket. More significantly the DBFP format was transformed into a two-tier publication comprising a volume of printed documents and accompanying pack of microfiches tied together by summaries ---- or calendars as we call them ---- in the printed volume.

This new calendar and microfiche device was not just a means of making more of the archive available to scholars in a low-cost form of publication. It was also devised as a means of protecting editorial freedom by offering a way out of the kind of damaging confrontations between Office and Editors which had characterised the Gooch and Temperley era --- and which it was thought could be a problem again as Editors started to work through some of the more sensitive post-war areas.

Calendars apart, the differences between DBFP and DBPO have always been more apparent than real. Editorial principles and practices have continued largely unchanged, with the same scrupulous attention to detail and accuracy. More fundamentally, however, the basic aim of the series

Abridged edition of a paper presented at the Conference `Historians and Officials: The Development of International History in Britain and the World', London School of Economics, 28 June 1993.

24

remains the same, that is to present the British record on foreign policy from the archives of the FCO and other government departments, selected as it says in our terms of reference, `with due regard to the principle of editorial freedom'. This increasingly quaint-sounding formula means as it has

always done:

- the right to see - the right to decide

- but no absolute right to publish

Access: the right to see The right to see is the right of access --- given to all Editors past and present - to all the files whether closed or open held by the FCO with the exception of personnel records. We do not have (and never have had) the right to see intelligence material held outside the Office by other agencies. We do have (and this was an advance secured by Rohan Butler) the right to ask for searches into these records to be made, if we feel there is a significant gap in the Office-held documentation. We have taken advantage of this before now and will be doing so again in the case of the Iranian oil crisis in the early 1950s and the fall of Mussadiq on which I am currently working.

Selection: the right to decide As regards selection, the Editor's mandate is to select the most important documents from the FCO archives and other government departments which tell the story of British foreign policy warts and all. The decision as to what these documents are is left entirely to the judgement of individual Editors. Our claim to independent status rests on this freedom, which is unique in civil service terms. As Head of Historical Branch, my non-DBPO work is subject to the approval of a Head of Department. I have to accept that my drafts may be altered and my views overriden in the same way as every other civil servant has to. But in the case of DBPO,. I do not have to accept -- nor does the Office ever seek otherwise -- any questioning of the actual selection or editing of documents in any one volume. Of course I consult with those in an informed position to help me --- whether inside or outside the Office. This is an important part of the selective process, but in the end it is the Editor's decision not the Office's or any outside adviser. I think it is also true to say that the Office attaches quite as much importance to this as do the Editors themselves.

Right to Publish Where the Office does of course have a say (and always has had) is in the clearance of documents for publication. The introduction of the 30 year rule and the fact that we are currently working in the open period means that in

25

practice the Office has much less of' a say than it used to. We do not need to seek clearance from the OfTice to publish documents already open at the PRO ---- nor, unlike DBFP, do we need to ask per-mission of' foreign

governments. The 30 year rule has also given us more freedom toi select from the files of other government departments. In particular it has ended some of' the difficulties encountered with DJFP of getting permission to use Cabinet papers from the Cabinet Office.

In the case of closed and retained documents, we must of' course get permission. It is a measure of the tolerance of the FCO and its concern to make as much as the record publicly available as possible that only once in 10 year of publishing have the Editors been prevented from publishing a document which they considered necessary to an objective account of' British foreign policy. The material in question related to Belize and the case for British sovereignty as challenged by Guatemala. Deadlock between the Editors and the Office was broken by resort to the square-bracketed calendar compromise procedure which had been devised by Rohan Butler for precisely this kind of contingency. Under this procedure an agreed summary of the document is included in the Volume as a calendar but with square brackets round it to show that it is retained and to signal that the Editors have not been allowed to include as much of the document as they would have liked.

It took us several years to get clearance for the Chief's of Star paper on defence policy and global strategy and the history of this is an illustration of how the in-house position of an Editor can be advantageous in ultimately getting one's way. Working closely alongside the Foreign Office Records

operation as we do, with the status of insiders rather than outsiders, can give a kind of inside-edge which we do our best to exploit when exercising the customary freedom in the selection, editing and publication of Documents

on British Policy Overseas.

26

THE PUBLICATION OF THE DOCUMENTS OF THE FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE*

Ann Lane November 1993

Diplomacy, that is the peaceful conduct of relations amongst independent

political entities by accredited agents, requires the keeping of füll and accurate records of communications, negotiations and other transactions. When such records are open to the public, international historians are particularly fortunate in having available to them ample documentary

evidence upon which to base their research. As Lord Acton said, `History

must stand on documents and not opinion'. But diplomatic archives are not only the raw material of international history. They are also an invaluable

asset for those who administer and conduct foreign policy. Most importantly

to the policy-maker they provide a record of' past developments and precedents for current and future negotiations. But they also usually contain material for education and propaganda.

Effective diplomacy requires the efficient management of archives, and few archives are better organised and ordered than those of foreign ministries. Moreover, few government departments are more actively engaged in the publication of their records than are foreign ministries. Although diplomacy is often portrayed as a secret craft, an art practised behind closed doors by individuals who are remote from the public at large, it is doubtful that any government department in this country has a record equal to the FCO in the regular publication of departmental archives. The Cabinet Office sponsors official histories, the Ministry of Defence supports historical research, and other departments issue reports and statistics of one kind or another, but none have anything equivalent to Documents on British Policy Overseas.

This pattern is mirrored in the attitude of foreign ministries overseas: the State Department, the Quai d'Orsay and the Auswärtiges Amt have adopted similar attitudes towards publishing their archives. Throughout the world foreign ministries have been and are engaged in the process of editing

* Abridged edition of a paper presented at the University of Westminster, November 1993. The author would like to thank Keith Hamilton, Joint-Editor of Documents on British Policy Oaerseas, whose articles `The Pursuit of "Enlightened Patriotism": The British Foreign Office and Historical Researchers during the Great War and its Aftermath', Historical Research 61 (1988), pp. 316-44 and `The Historical Diplomacy of the Third Republic', Diplomacy and Statecraft, 4 (1993) No. 2, pp. 175-209, supplied much of the source material for this paper.

27

and publishing dcýcumcntary scri("s. Inderd it is, Iwi1iaps instructive that sinus' the end of* tlw Cold War we in Historical Branch have been visited by In 1Ii Russian and Czech historians vdho seem m lv' to() anxious to establish publishing programmes A' their own. For the moment the publication ( diplomatic documents is a growth industry. And this prompts flic question why'

There are föur basic reasons why f'Oreign 1ninistrie> ltavc chosci-i t() publish

selections of their correspondence: to inform, to persuaclc", tu c"Iiliglitc"n and to instruct.

Firstly, the provision of information which is an obvious requirement 1'()i- foreign ministries to fulfil. Individuals travelling abroad and companies engaged in trade and international finance require basic information about the economic and political state of' the countries they may be travelling, trading or investing in. To this end it is important that publicity he givrn to international treaties, agreements and frontier changes. in this light it is hardly surprising that a great trading nation like Britain should have become actively engaged in the publication of' such information from an early stage in the 19th century.

Secondly, the motivation of persuasion: the early 19th century h)rcign Office was, like other foreign ministries, concerned with the management of' public opinion. By public opinion I mean those non-governmental opinions expressed in the press and pamphlets, national and provincial assemblies, the universities and other centres of' learning and in the great houses and societies of intellectual and political elites. 'l'he growth of literacy in this period and the simultaneous emergence of mass circulation newspapers and the establishment of popularly elected parliaments led to the greater involvement of' chancelleries, ministries and diplomats in defending their actions at home and in seeking to influence governments abroad, by the manipulation of the press and other means of' public communication.

It is in this context that we can best understand the British Foreign Office's

publication of selections of its diplomatic correspondence in the form of diplomatic Blue Books which was taken up in earnest during the 1820s and 1830s. These were published for the purposes of persuasion. They were intended to influence parliamentarians and the public both at home and overseas, and documents were often selected for frankly propagandistic ends. Foreign Secretaries thereby sought to justify their conduct and to win support against domestic opponents and foreign rivals. To achieve this end documents were sometimes emasculated and occasionally falsified. 't'here

28

were also instances when despatches were deliberately drafted with publication in mind.

The publication of documents for the purpose of enlightenment began

during the last quarter ofthe 19th century. Foreign ministries and diplomats

became engaged in publishing programmes which in reality were part of that

process of state forming and nation building which so characterised these

years. The work was usually accomplished in association with academics -- historians who would not be embarrassed at being called patriotic historians. It was in the new German empire that this forth of historical enlightenment Found some of its most enthusiastic practitioners as patriotic history became

a social integrating factor in the new Reich and this tradition, in time, was to act as a spur to the British to publish.

The use of the publication of documents for the purposes of instruction is, however, a peculiarly French notion. Before the First World War, the French Foreign Minister, Pichon, claimed in the preface to the first volume of Les Origines diplomatiques de la Guerre de 1870-71 that a democracy had the right to be truthfully instructed so that it might

, judge the men whose actions

had so profoundly affected its destiny. Moreover, in 1874, the then French Foreign Minister, Elie Decazes, in his request to the Commission des Archives Diplomatiques in April 1874 asked them to recommend documents for publication which would provide a true diplomatic education. He

wanted, he said, to give French diplomats the means to penetrate the details and procedures of the policies of the past which had given France her grandeur. In other words he wanted models which contemporary French diplomats could follow in seeking to restore France to her proper position in Europe. Whether any young French diplomats ever did read the volumes is

another matter. But the idea that diplomats could learn from history, indeed that there were lessons to be learned, was a constant theme in French thinking about the publication of diplomatic documents before the First World War.

It is just worth pausing momentarily to reflect that France's historians believed that they had through their publishing of documents altered the course of history. A reading of the minutes of the Commission des Archives tempts one to believe that France's historians had single handedly brought about the First World War, achieved France's victory in it, and ensured her restoration to her proper place as the pre-eminent power in Europe.

The First World War was in any case a great stimulant to the publication of documents by foreign ministries. No sooner had the war begun than foreign ministries hurried to publish selections of their pre-war documents, not as an

29

act of enlightenment or education, but rather as an attempt to justify

stances taken on the war crisis of 1914. Governments were anxious to rally popular support at home and abroad, and sought to demonstrate that they had not been responsible for the ensuing catastrophe. In time the British

published their Blue Book, the French their Yellow Bock, the Germans

their White Book, the Russians their Orange Book and the Austrians their Red Book. But these publications were often very little more than

sophisticated propaganda, often prepared in great haste and frequently

without too much attention being paid to accuracy and detail.

Of more significance perhaps for the future of publishing diplomatic documents were the new demands for more open diplomacy which grew in intensity as the conflict developed into total war. In Britain, for example, the Union of Democratic Control, an organisation which counted amongst its members a future Labour Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald, was particularly critical of the secret diplomacy of the I)re-1914 era, which it held in large part responsible for the war. If such conflicts were to he

avoided in future then, its members maintained, diplomacy must be

conducted more openly and be subject to democratic controls. It was the need to respond to such criticism that led the British Foreign Office to consider a more comprehensive publication of documents, than that originally contained in the Blue Book of 1914. It is possible to discern five reasons why the Foreign Office began to show more enthusiasm for this work:

In the first place Lord Grey was troubled by doubt about his own diplomacy in 1914 and became anxious to ensure that the record was set right by a thorough publication of the documents relating to his period as foreign

secretary. In July 1916 he issued instructions that a sample volume of documents covering the Bosnia crisis of 1908 should be assembled.

Secondly the employment in the Foreign Office during the war of 'a number of historians in the Political Intelligence Department and the Historical Section on propaganda and research work, heightened the awareness ofthe value of publishing documentary material.

Thirdly there was a growing belief in official circles that in a more democratic world the Foreign Office would have to educate its new masters and achieve what Professor Charles Webster called `enlightened patriotism'.

At the same time the Bolshevik Revolution and the decision of the Soviet leadership to publish the secret treaties of imperial Russia offered a tremendous boost to British liberals who had long advocated more open diplomacy and paralleled Woodrow Wilson's appeal for `open covenants

30

openly arrived at'. It also led to a rash of pamphlets and articles on the

origins of the war, many of them based on half truths from the archives, and led to an intense debate within the Foreign Office on how best to make more documents more readily available to the public.

Finally there was a growing concern among British diplomats that the

exigencies of war and the growth of prime ministerial diplomacy had eroded the role of the Foreign Office in the making and conduct of policy and that the Office required a popular constituency to support its cause. The Historian, Headlam Morley, then Assistant Director of PID, made much of this point. He argued in 1918 that the Foreign Office had become too aloof and that in modern times that aloofness `must tend to diminish the weight and authority of the Office'. It was therefore necessary to provide the

educated and interested members of the public with information -- not inspired guidance - but the kind of information that governments had before them when they took decisions.

The commencement of this post-war publishing programme was delayed, however, as a consequence of government spending cuts which in 1919 put an end to both the PID and the Historical Section, and although Headlam

stayed on as Historical Adviser and was able to assist historians in acquiring privileged access to Foreign Office documents, it was not until the election of a Labour Government in 1924 that the decision was taken to proceed with the publication of Britain's pre-war diplomatic records.

I would stress that if the officials had had their way, the work on this project would have started much earlier. Eyre Crowe, then Permanent Under-Secretary, was devoted to the idea of educating the public about foreign affairs in general and British foreign policy in particular. As early as 1908 he had gone so far as to propose that some historians should be given privileged access to Foreign Office correspondence and recommended the establishment of an Historical Section or Research Department in the Office to undertake such projects. `We have', he wrote, `nothing to lose as a nation and a good deal to gain by the widest possible publicity being given to our transactions with foreign countries'. And other diplomats and officials were only too anxious to ensure that the public should have a full understanding of what had happened before 1914. They genuinely believed that they had nothing to hide. What tended to delay publication was the reluctance of the Treasury to finance the project. In Britain public parsimony seemed to triumph over patriotic enlightenment.

But during the early 1920s the British Government also found it increasingly difficult to ignore German reactions to the Treaty of Versailles. The so-

31

called `war guilt' article of the treaty, meant that diplomatic historians in

general, and German historians in particular, would for much of the following decade focus their attention not on the historical question of how did the war originate, but on the legal and mural question of Who caused it

which power was to blame? The result was a diplomacy which was both

open and retrospective, in which the writing of' international history be'came

closely intertwined with current international problems.

The German Foreign Office was to play a major role in initiating this debate. German diplomats became masters in the art of' what one historian has called `pre-emptive historiography'. A war guilt section `Kýi as. ýclauldreferut' was established in the Wilhelmstrasse with the object of sponsoring the publication of documents and other material specifically aimed at demonstrating that Germany could not be held responsible fror the war and thereby undermining the claims of the victorious allies. But the collection of documents for which the Wilhelmstrasse will always be remembered is Die Grosse Politik der Europdischen Kabinette, a series of 54 volumes published between 1922 and 1927 and covering the period 1871-1914. These volumes were not intended to enlighten or instruct --- they were meant to persuade. They were, quite simply, part of the German campaign to seek a revision of the peace treaty.

The Foreign Office in London was, among the allies, particularly concerned about the impact of the Grosse Politik on historians and the public at large

especially in North America. At the same time they were worried by the way in which doubt had been cast upon the validity of the Foreign Office's Blue Book of 1914. This prompted the publication of the British series of eleven volumes which appeared between 1926 and 1938 under the title British Documents on the Origins of the War. FO officials were determined that the British series would have editors who would be seen to be impartial and in this they were probably successful in obtaining the services of GP Gooch,

a pre-war critic of the Office, and Harold Temperley, a historian of distinctly leftist leanings. The series they edited was intended both to persuade and enlighten. It responded to desires both to combat the German interpretation of the past and the long-standing desire of officials and historians to be able to educate the British public in the principles and traditions of British diplomacy.

However, the decision of the Foreign Office that other friendly governments would have to be consulted before the publication of communications originating with them created considerable problems for the editors. These, it has to be said, stemmed primarily from the attitude of the government of France. French politicians and some diplomats were reluctant to admit that

32

there could even be a debate on the origins of the war. After all, if

Germany's war guilt was questionable then so also were reparations and the

French presence in the Rhineland. Protests from the Quai d'Orsay delayed

the publication of the first volume of the British Documents and provoked the

editors into making what was to be their first of several threats of'

resignation. Only slowly did the French Foreign Ministry begin to appreciate

that an historical debate could not be halted by France assuming a purely

negative attitude.

The feeling that the Germans had won, nonetheless, an immense

propaganda victory in the inter-war years persisted in British official circles

and this was to have a considerable influence upon the publishing of diplomatic documents into the post-Second World War period. In December

1939 the British historian, Llewellyn Woodward, reflected that the Wilhelmstrasse had, in acting so quickly in presenting its case to the world, done much to influence American opinion in a sense unfavourable to Britain. And it was to prevent this happening again that Woodward, who showed signs of being markedly anti-German, began to press for the early publication of a set of documents on Anglo-German relations in the 1930s. There was some resistance to this project especially from politicians who feared what the effect of publishing British documents relating to Munich

would be. But the prospect of the Americans themselves publishing their documents on the inter-war years in their series, Forei Relations of the United States, encouraged ministers to take a more sympathetic attitude towards Woodward's plea and in 1944 the decision was taken to publish another series of British documents --- Documents on British Foreign Policy - to cover the inter-war years. This, in some ways, was another example of pre- emptive historiography in so far as it sought to establish the British case.

By the time consideration was being given to the continuation of DBFP in a new series, which was to by-pass the war and begin in 1945, the publication of diplomatic documents had developed extensively. Most Western countries had begun their own series and although it would be going too far to suggest there was any rivalry over the publication of documents there was undoubtedly an element of upholding national prestige, plus the desire to see British history written from British sources, which weighed with the British government when taking the decision in the 1970s to begin the present series - Documents on British Policy Overseas.

I will conclude by briefly setting DBPO in the context with which I opened: the rationale for publishing diplomatic documents. I think the principal raison d'etre for the work of Historical Branch is that of providing a service to the academic community and thereby ensuring that the widest possible

33

distribution is given to our records. "Through D13PO we are seeking to provide historians with the means to achieve a better understanding of the making and conduct of British foreign policy. In a sense are engaged in

an educational process -- we are assisting in the process of enlightenment. But we are also still engaged in persuasion - not, I would argue, in the sense of propaganda. I try to he as objective as possible in my selection of documents I am not driven by any patriotic motive, I am not in editing DBPO engaged in deknding the past decisions of British Governments.

Yet, I, like the Office, want to ensure that the story of' British foreign policy is told in the main from our documents and not from those of other nations. In 1887 the Cambridge historian, Oscar Browning urged the government to fünd the editing of' British diplomatic documents of' the revolutionary and Napoleonic eras, If' there were any connection between history and politics then, he reasoned, it was vital for the British public to be infOrmed of the basis upon which governments had acted in the past. As matters stood, he claimed, `We not only neglect to place our case before Europe, but we allow it to stated by foreigners'. That argument is as valid today as it was then. In the end the value one places on publishing documents depends on the value one places on history itself. It depends upon the function of' the historian in society.

34

THE FOREIGN OFFICE ARCHIVE: A SOURCE FOR CONTEMPORARY HISTORIANS*

Isabel Warner February 1994

The main aim of this paper is to provide a short guide to finding records on

post-war British foreign policy. The main focus will he on published and

unpublished FCO records and the filing system operating in the Foreign

Office after the Second World War with some reference to the records of the other government departments with an input into foreign policy.

What is a Foreign Office Record? `Operational data worthy of preservation' is a useful definition. This takes

many different forms from formal notes, aide memoires, despatches,

telegrams, submissions, records of meetings to more informal minuting and even personal correspondence. These are the papers either created in or received by departments for the purpose of conducting their daily business

which in the case of the Foreign Office means the formulation and execution of foreign policy.

Papers are kept in each of the FCO's 71 departments as current records before transfer - normally after 3 years - to the main archives managed by Library and Records Department. Here they are sorted, collated, listed and generally looked after until they are 30 years old when they are released to the Public Record Office at Kew, where they provide the raw material for

researchers in international history. Every year the FCO transfers some 550 feet of records. Altogether the Foreign Office records for this century alone add up to 12 miles.

Published Documents One of the shortcuts to finding the records relevant to your research is to buy or borrow a published volume of documents in one of the official series of documents on British foreign policy emanating from the Foreign OfTcc. The volumes that scholars working on the post-war period will find most useful are those published in the current series Documents on British Policy Overseas (DPBO). In this series documents are selected as objectively as possible to present the facts or story of what happened rather than to show

* Abridged edition of a paper presented at the Department of Historical and International Studies, De Montfort University Leicester, February 1994. 1 G. P. Gooch and Harold Temperley, British Documents on the Origins of the First World War (1 1 volumes covering the years 1898-1914) and Documents on British Foreign Policy (64 volumes covering the years 1919-1939).

35

British policy in any particular light, whether good or bad. These kinds of' interpretations, i. e. whether the Foreign Ollice got it right or wrong, are for

scholars to decide. The Editor's job is simply to present in user-friendly form

the main elements of' what this policy was on any given issue how it was formulated and by whom and ,, hat happened when it Was put into practice. In this way the volumes provide a mirror image (A' the p()Iicy-inaking process -- the understanding of which is important in determining the significance of' any particular paper, about which I shall he saying more later.

Published volumes of' documents -- however comprehensive are not of course a substitute for original research into the archives. I do, however,

recommend them as a first port of' call, since matching as they do subjects to specific file references they provide an easy way into the record labyrinth. This is I hope especially true of'the present series, since chile we may paint fewer documents than the generous selections of' our predecessors, we do

give far more references in footnotes and editorial notes to material available in the PRO but not necessarily covered in the actual volume.

We collect up to 50,000 documents for any one volume of' which less than 2,000 may feature in the end product. We like to pass on the benefit of' this very wide file trawl to researchers by including the kind of 'v'rite oil' footnote which you see at the bottom of the extract from the DBP() volume on the Korean War (I)oci. ument No. 29) reproduced on pp. 37-38.

As this example illustrates, we operate a three-tier system of documents, i. e. documents printed in füll, extracts of documents quoted in f iotnotes and calendared documents whereby a short summary is printed in the volume with the full text reproduced from the original on an accompanying set of microfiches. The latter is a new feature, which was devised to help meet the problem of the greatly increased modern archive.

Whereas Gooch and Temperley were faced with an archive which ranged from 50,000 documents in 1898 to 68,000 in 1913, the number of documents received in the Office during the period covered by the Editors

of'the inter-war series ranged, with some fluctuations, from 185,000 in 1919 to 270,000 in 1939. The Editors of'DBPO now work with an archive ten times the size of that facing Gooch and 'l'emperley - well over half a million documents for our period, which peaked at 630,000 documents in 1950.

This is not the only way our work has changed. Since 1990 the series is produced on an Apple Mac desktop publishing system. Documents are keyed-in and annotated on-screen and the finished product is sent to our publisher, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, on disk.

36

Extract from DBPO, Series II, Vol. IV: Korea 1950-51 (London 1991)

No. 29

Sir G. jebb (New Tork) to Mr. Bevin (Received 28 July, 4.37 a. m. )

, No. 752 Telegraphic [UP 213 /92]

Immediate. Confidential NEW Yoiuc, 27 July 1950,6.57 p. m.

Repeated to Moscow and Saving to Paris, Washington. As already reported by telephone to the Resident Clerk, Malik Head of

the Soviet delegation, has asked the Secretary General to call a meeting of the Security Council on August ist. ' Malik said that he would let the Secretary General have the agenda later.

2. There is at present no indication of the line which the Soviet delegation

will take at this meeting. The agenda when it is issued may give some indication.

3. Secretary General feels that this move makes it most desirable that at tomorrow's meeting the Council should pass a resolution on relief for i{orea. 2 Plan he has in mind is the one summarised in my telegram 746.3 United States delegation are still without instructions on this but hope to receive them in time for tomorrow's meeting. '

Please repeat Moscow as my telegram 24 and Saving Paris 36. 1 On i August the rotating presidency of the Security Council passed to the Soviet Union.

2 Following informal U. N. discussions on the means of providing relief for Korea in Geneva by ECOSOC on 20 July and in New York on 22 July, Sir G. Jebb reported on 26 July that the U. S. delegation intended to raise the question in the Security Council on 28 July since `(a) the

problem of refugees and the danger of epidemics are urgent and (1 unless the Council takes

control developments at Geneva and elsewhere may get out of hand' (New York telegram No.

742 on US 171113; see further calendar i). 3 Sec calendar i. 4 On 28 July Sir G. Jebb was informed that the instructions sent in response to his telegram

No. 746 (calendar i), which warned against taking any quick decisions, still stood. `Indeed

return of the Russians makes adoption of insufficiently considered project by Security Council

less rather than more desirable' (F. O. telegram No. 868 to New York on UP 213/92). This

view was not shared by Mr. Lie in informal discussion of procedure with the French, Norwegian, U. S. and U. K. delegations on 2g July. The Secretary-General `was sure Malik

would veto' the resolution and that since the North Koreans now controlled nearly go% of Korea, they might claim to be the only effective government of Korea for peace and reconstruction. It was therefore `essential for the Council to seize the initiative' (New York

telegram No. 765, see calendar i). After this meeting the U. S. delegation circulated a draft

resolution (printed in F. R. U. S i95o, vol. vii, pp. 496-7) asking the Unified Command under General MacArthur, to whom all offers of relief should be passed, to take responsibility for determining relief requirements and procedures invoking the assistance of ECOSOC under Article 65 of the U. N. Charter. This resolution, co-sponsored by Norway, France and the United Kingdom, was passed by 9 votes to o with i abstention (Yugoslavia) on 31 July and further discussion resumed in ECOSOC on 2 August, for which see F. O. 371188729-35, and F. O. 369/4311-2,4571 for Red Cross activities.

37

CALENDAR TO No. 29

i 20-29 Juy 1950 Relief for Korea. Discussions in Geneva and New York on 20-22 July bring warning from F. O. on 23 July that U. N. has no existing finds for relief

and U. K. would find it difficult to make substantial contribution to any special fund which might be financed by voluntary contributions from governments (Geneva telegram No. 352, N. Y. telegrams Nos. 28,3 Saving, 740,742 and F. O.

telegram to N. Y. No. 829). Serious problem of i million refugees with rice stocks

of only I month reported in Korea telegram No. 18. U. S. proposals for action in

Security Council include programme of emergency relief and medical aid detailed

in N. Y. telegram No. 746 and to be administered by Colonel Katzin in Korea.

F. O. in favour of associating U. N. with relief work, but since relief operations will be in battle areas plans and organisation must be acceptable to General MacArthur and come under his jurisdiction. F. O. hope U. S. resolution will not appeal for relief contributions which would be difficult to refuse but 'embarrassing'

to undertake. Practical difficulties of administering relief (shortage of transport, congestion of ports) mentioned in F. O. letter of 27 July along with Red Cross

proposals for aid. On 2g July (N. Y. tel. 765) Mr. Gross admits relief programme

will be 'large scale', in excess of the 150 million dollars a year spent by U. S.

before the war to reconstruct South Korean economy [US 1711/1-4,8, Io, 24, 170; FK 1821/1].

Foreign Series of Diplomatic Documents 'I'll(- British are, of course, not the only ones to l)uhlish diplomatic documents. Since 19139 Editors of l)iplomatic I)ocuments from several countries have met every two years to discuss editorial practice, advances in

publishing technology etc. Between meetings they keep in touch via a Newsletter edited by the r'GO's Historians.

Some of the main series for the post-war period currently publishing are the State Department's Foreign Relations of the United States, which has now reached the 1960s and also follows the thematic approach. The ten volumes of Documents on Australian Foreign Policy published to date have been on a chronological year by year basis, but with their next volume on 1947 the Australians are also switching to subject volumes. The French Documents Diplomatiques hrancais and the Canadian Documents on Canadian External Relations are published chronologically. The French post-war series started with coverage of' the year 1954 and has now reached the year 1958,

whereas Canadian volumes for the period 1948-51 are due to be published

38

over the next four years with volumes covering the years 1952 and 1953

already available. Both the Italians (I Documenti Diplomatic" Italiani) and the Swiss (Documents Diplomatiques Suisses) have recently launched post-war series,

as has the German Foreign Ministry. The first three volumes of Akten zur Auswärtigen Politik: der Bundesrepublik Deutschland covering the events of' the year 1963 went on sale in January 1994.

Finding your way around post-war Foreign Office Records I would now like to look at unpublished records. Another quick way into

the archives are the collections of Confidential Print. These are convenient

collections of those papers, grouped by geographical area, which were

considered at the time to merit wide Office distribution. Such papers,

usually despatches, records of meetings or annual reviews would be

commissioned for print by the originating department or Under-Secretary

and circulated to all departments and overseas posts. File references are usually given with the print number. Whenever I begin a volume, I always start with a read through these collections to see which look to be the main files to follow up on any particular subject. Collections of Confidential Print

can be identified at the PRO by reference to the Subject Guide to FCO

classes on the open shelves in the Search Room. There is also a Numerical

Guide, which gives details of the period covered. The Subject Guide will also point you in the direction of Embassy, Private Office, Control Commission and all of the other 1000 or so classes which make up the Foreign Office archive at the PRO. A useful publication to consult at this stage is the PRO Readers' Guide No. 7 to the records of the Foreign Office and State Paper Office 1500 - c. 1960.2

The single most important class there is FO 371 which contains the correspondence of the political departments from 1906 (divided

geographically). Hence Northern Department, Eastern Department, Southern Department etc. All departments and the countries they cover have a file code or departmental designation - some obvious such as N for Northern followed by S for Soviet Union so that NS was the file code for the Soviet Union in the 1940's and 1950's, others less so. For example, j

stands for African Department. Unfortunately like all organisations the FCO is always changing its structure and names of departments -- even geography itself changes -- so that Eastern Department, originally responsible for Near Eastern countries like Persia, is now the name given to the department dealing with Russia and the states of the former Soviet Union. Although this may seem all very confusing there are some simple finding aids to guide you through, i. e. the Index, Shelf List and FO Lists.

2 Louise Atherton, `. Never Complain, never Explain'. Records of the Foreign Office and the State Paper Office 1500-c. 1960, (PRO Publications, London 1994)

39

Extract from 1950 PRO Shelf List l º, ' FO 3i1 I" 11('s

UNITED NATIONS - POL IT ICAl.:

s FFO }' Refetnc 19 50 Departmental designation UP 1

Fib aurgio act to be

 e&

88498

88499

88500

88501

88502

88503

88504

88505

88506

88507

88508

88509

88510

88511

88512

88513

88514

Description Filcs

Anglo-French relations at the Fifth Session 2029

Suggestion that Seventh Session of the UN General 2030

Assembly of 1952 be held in London on Festival of Britain Site

Sir Gladwyn Jebb's speeches in the Security Council 211

Question of the Security Council procedure on items 212

of which it is seized or whether it can "unseize"

itself of an item

Chinese representation on the Security Council: 213 Soviet Union quits the Council, then rejoins

Ditto 213 (pp 25-45)

Ditto 213 (pp 46-76)

Ditto 213 (pp 77 to end)

Voting in the Security Council: M Spaak advocates 216

abolition of the "veto" in his Philadelphia

speech

Security-General proposes a special meeting of the 219

Security Council in London to consider China (pp to 14) and the control of atomic energy

Ditto 219 (pp 15 to end)

Behind-the-scenes discussions on procedure in the 2110 Security Council

Elections to the Security Council 2112 (pp t_ 19)

Ditto 2112 (pp 20 to end)

Debates and discussions on Korea: Secretary-General's 2113

appeal for more assistance to the UN Security (pp to 42) Council

Ditto 2113 (pp 43-103)

Ditto 2113 (pp 126-149)

" Closed for 50 years

f Closed for 75 years 0 Retained by department under Sec. 3(4)

40

Index The marvellous Index to Foreign Office correspondence for the period 1920-513 available at the PRO, is an invaluable finding aid to FO 371

papers arranged by subject. In addition, the relevant departmental designations for a given year are listed at the front of each volume. So

turning back to our earlier example, it is possible to establish from the

square-bracketed reference in the heading of Document No. 29 that the telegram from the UK's Permanent Representative to the UN, Sir Gladwyn Jebb, to Ernest Bevin was filed under United Nations (Political) Department. The numbers (213/92) listed after the departmental designation (UP) provide the reference to the relevant Foreign Office file

and now have to be converted to the corresponding PRO reference. To do

this it is necessary to consult the Shelf Lists at the PRO, which give both

sets of references.

Shelf Lists For our example UP 213/92, the conversion is as follows: Turn to the extract from the 1950 PRO Shelf List for FO 371 files headed `United Nations - Political' on page 40. The first half of the reference number tells

you that the piece you are looking for is on file 213. The second half gives you the number of the specific paper you are looking for, i. e. number 92. Having located these numbers in the right hand column move across to the left hand column for the PRO reference under which you can then order up the piece in question. In our case it transpires that Sir Gladwyn Jebb's

telegram can be found on file FO 371/88505.

dust to complicate matters, I should point out that prior to 1950 a slightly different system of numbering operated in the FO in that file and paper numbers were inverted. This was changed in 1950 with the exception of papers from German Department and Refugees Department, which continued to operate under the old system of numbering.

Some researchers may prefer to go straight to the shelf lists which, as you can see, list file titles for all departments' files. But do refer back to the index at some stage in your research. Since this is an index to individual

papers you can often pin-point exactly what you are looking for without having to know in advance which Foreign Office department was in the lead

on a particular issue. Whereas the reference for the telegram in our example above shows up where you would expect to find it in the Index, i. e. under the heading UN Security Council, the file on Attlee's visit to Washington in 1950 was not filed with the papers of American Department

3 Index to the Correspondence of the Foreign Office 1920-51 (published by Kraus-Thomson, Nendeln/Liechtenstein 1969! ).

41

as might have been expected. Instead, as the index repeals (under the heading Clement R. Attlee, NIP), it was filed in Far Eastern Department

on file F1027. This is not as surprising as it may seem at first sight, when one considers that the December visit (4-8th) was arranged as a result of' President Truman's remarks on 30 November concerning the possible use of the atomic bomb in the Korean War. }

FO Lists 'Ite I; oreign Oflicc I. ists - an annual publication dating hack to 1852 - are a useful reference tool when working on FO papers. 'I'hry list not only all Foreign Office departments and overseas posts for a given year, but also the officials working in them and as such are indispensable when it come', to identifying the owners of the initials by which officials so often sign themselves off'. Furthermore, the main areas of' responsibility of each department are listed, which is helpful when trying to establish the lead department on a given issue. 'l'hc biographical notes at the back of' each FO List are helpful in trying to trace where an official has served in the course of' his or her career.

Apart from FO 371 other main FO classes include:

- Embassy and Consular

- Private Office/Private Papers

- Colonial

- Control Office for Germany

Embassy and Consular files are weeded heavily at post before return to the main archive in London because they duplicate the holdings in FO 371. They therefore tend to be pretty patchy and erratic, in the post-war period at any rate, and are often not worth bothering about unduly.

Similarly, I am often disappointed with the Private Papers of Ministers or officials, classed in FO 800, since there does not tend to he much for the post-war period which cannot he found in FO 371. They do, however, provide a good bird's eye view of the main issues in any particular period and as such are very useful for those who do not have the time to comb exhaustively through the archives. The papers of Selwyn Lloyd (FO 800/691-746; Secretary of' State from 1955 -july 1960) are, for instance,

much less fruitful than those of Ernest Bevin (FO 800/434-522; Secretary of State from 1945-51). The National Register of Archives lists and indexes

4 See DBPO, Series II, Vol. IV: Korea 1950-51 (London 1991) Document Nos. 81-2 and 87- 90.

42

collections of private papers held outside official archives and gives details of' their availability. -`'

My heart tends to sink when I have to turn to Colonial files, because they

are so much less well-ordered than FO files. Nonetheless, a hunt through these papers can pay dividends since you may find papers open here which are closed in FO 371. In the past, researchers working with these records were hampered by the scarcity of finding aids - in particular there was no index. However, the Institute of Commonwealth Studies in London is

currently producing, in association with the PRO, a guide to these

records. 61t is appearing in Series C (Sources for Colonial Studies in the PRO) of the British Documents on the End of Empire project, whose volumes I

commend to you as a good lead-in to these files. Series A comprises General Volumes7 and Series B covers individual countries. A volume on Ghana has already been published and further volumes on Sri Lanka, Malaya, Egypt and the Sudan are in the pipeline.

Papers on the British occupation of Germany after the war originating from

the old Control Office for Germany now form part of the FCO archive. These papers said to weigh 240 tons - the equivalent of 40 elephants were transferred en ' bloc to the PRO a few years ago. The publication in 1993, by the German Historical Institute in London, of an eleven volume inventory to these records has done much to make this material more accessible. 8 Each of the c. 29,000 files has been described in detail and the reference number under which each one can be ordered at the PRO is

supplied.

Records of other Government Departments As far as non-FCO papers go, the most important other archive to turn to for foreign policy coverage is that of the Cabinet Office, to be found at the PRO in a series of CAB classes. Apart from the actual minutes of Cabinet

meetings (in CAB 128) and memoranda (in CAB 129) conveniently kept together and available on the open shelves, the two classes to keep a

5 See also the publications in the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts' series Guides to Sources for British History (e. g. No. 4: Private papers of British diplomats 1782-1900, HMSO 1985). 6 Anne Thurston (ed. ), Records of the Colonial Office, Dominions Office, Commonwealth Relations Office and Commonwealth Office (HMSO forthcoming). 7 Already published: Vol. II Ronald Hyman (ed. ), The Labour Government and the End of Empire 1945-51 (London 1992) and Vol. III David Goldsworthy (ed. ), The Conservative Government and the End of Empire 1951-57, (London 1994). 8 Control Commission for Germany British Element. Inventory 1945-55 (edited by Adolf M Birke, Hans Booms & Otto Merker, Munich/New Providence/London/Paris 1993).

43

weather eve on are CAB 21, which corresponds to the F( ; O's FO 371, and CAB 134 in which all the Cabinet (; ommittec s ; so much a feature of post- war gover11m nt) can be found. The PRO (iuidc to Cal)Inct ( )fllcc records

from 1945 is invaluable fOr identifying many of the e c) minittees. The

papers of the Prime : Minister's 011-we in the PREI class are lass

comprehensive than Cabinet Ollicc papers. They tend to he somewhat patchy, but when von do get a hit it's generally, a hulls-eve. T1w \lilitarv

always make life complicated with their acronyms and line (& numbers, but

with especially for (: Miefs OI' Staff `101) files are worth persevering paper,. The 'T'reasury are poor on finding aids but files can be re'aarrün .

Assessing the Archive Having (kund the material how to start making sense of it and sorting the wheat from the chaff'! In the case cif' Furei rn Ofiic"e material determining the status coFthe paper is more than half the battle:

- \V110 wrote the haper'

- \A'hat was his or her hcositicýn?

- Who saw the paper at wvhat level. '

- Did it influence the action taken'

t here are the sorts of' questions to ask and those that I weigh when selecting documents for the published volumes. In the case of' minutes or memoranda the fastest w a\- to short-circuit this thought-process is to 1()()k Cor thce blue. Anything can thick blue paper, usually means this was a paper going up to Under-Secretary level and above. Written by a Head of' Department or Assistant, it represents the views/advice ()f' the department

reached on the basis of' internal minuting (on N\ hire paper) initiated by the most junior member cof' staff. Another tip is to look f i. )r am-thing written in reel pen, since to this day the Foreign Secretary is the only person in the Office to use red ink.

Piecing together what happened and why is like unravellint; a detective

story the archives contain the clues, but they do not of course necessarily hold all the answers. 't'hese may he lcuc"kced away in the pcrsc)nal memory cif' key l)lav('rs who alone might know what or who tij)1)eCl the balance in deciding a closely argued Issue. Of ten deals are struck not in the recorded minutes c>f' a meeting 1>u( in the corridors outside. 't'hat having been said, (lie richness c>f' the l'coreign Office archive is such that it is possible to gret pretty ('lese tc> a fair understanding of' the ways and wherefores of what happened.

44

ANNEX 1

BRITISH DOCUMENTS ON THE ORIGINS OF THE WAR, 1898-1914

Correspondence between Dr. Seton-Watson and the Rt. Hon. Austen Chamberlain published in The Times, November 1924

A collection of official documents bearing on the European situation out of which the war arose is to be issued by the Foreign Office. These documents

will be edited by Mr GP Gooch and Mr HWV Temperky. This decision is contained in a letter from Mr Austen Chamberlain to Dr RW Seton- Watson, who had called the attention of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the harm that neglect to publish official papers connected with the origin of the war was doing us abroad. Mr Chamberlain also says that in future the records of the Foreign Office down to 1878 will be available. At

present only the records down to 1860 are available. This arrangement will come into force as soon as the consent of the Dominions has been obtained. The text of Dr Seton-Watson's letter and Mr Chamberlain's reply is as follows: -

Sir November 25

May I be allowed to draw your personal attention to a matter on which both Sir Sidney Lee and myself have recently written to The Times and which I hope may appeal to your special interest? I have for some time past been engaged upon historical work closely connected with the origins of the war, and find myself almost at every turn confronted by one fundamental difficulty. While a great mass of documentary evidence has been made available by the German and Austrian Governments, illustrating the course of events from the standpoint of the Central Powers, and while the Russian Bolshevists have also published material supplementing our knowledge in various directions, historians have no authentic first-hand material on the British side and are in consequence gravely handicapped when they come to deal with the charges and insinuations directed against British policy in the period preceding the war. A study of the more important Continental publications on recent diplomatic history forces one to the conclusion that slowly but steadily very serious injury is being done by the continued silence of the British Government; and I therefore venture to ask you whether it would not

45

he possible to make our archives accc-fessihle to students up to a

considerably later date than is at pr('sent allowed, or alternatively to

publish and official collection of' documents on lines similar to the

monumental series now being issued by the German Govrrnment.

Such a policy \, ww()uld, I venture to think, be v, -eleOmed not mercly hV historical studcents, but by very' vv-ide circles of' public opinion who at present fiel keenly on the question of war responsibility and believe that the reputation of British policy can only gain by fuller light being thrº º« n upon it. Moreover, it would only be an extension of the precedent established with such hcnefirial results by Lord Grey in 1y14, "'B(en he

made public a collection of documents far fuller and franker than any previous publications of the kind. With that notable exception, nothing seems to have been published during the present centur), by the British Government on their European policy. Hoping that the importance of' the subject will serve as excuse for m}v troubling you in this matter.

I beg to remain your obeIIi(mt servant.

R `V SE"I'ON-\VATSO

Dear Mr Seton Watson Foreign Office, SW I, Nov 28

The published letters in which you and Sir Sidney Lee drew attention to the difliculties created for the historians anxious to present a full and fair account of recent events by the traditional rules governing the publication of our national records immediately attracted by attention and commanded my sympathy. I found on making inquiry; that Mr Ramsay MacDonald had already liven instructions which, in substance, meet the suggestions contained in your letter of November 25, and that it only remained for me to confirm them. The records of the Foreign Office have hitherto been open at the Public Record Office to historical researchers to the end of the year [860; that period will now he extended to the end of the year 1878, and I hole that the records of' other Government Departments will he opened to the same data. 'Ehe new arrangement will come into farce as soon as the consent of the self-governing Dominions has been secured. Most of' these have already assented. As regards the publication of' the official documents hearing on the general European situation out cif' which the war arose, a collection of'

46

these documents will he edited for the Foreign Office by Mr GP Gooch

and Mr H `V V Temperley, who will, I hope, be in a position to begin

serious work at a very early date. The reputation of the editors offers the best guarantee of the historical accuracy and impartiality of their

work. Let me add that if at any time you or equally competent authorities feel

that we can properly do more for historical study, I shall welcome any suggestions that you may make, and, if desired, I shall he glad to discuss

the whole question personally with any representative deputation.

Yours very truly

AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

47

DOCUMENTS ON BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY, 1919-1939

Parliamentary Announcement by the Rt. Hon. Anthony Eden, Parl. Debs. H. C. 5th ser. vol. 398,29 March 1944

2 and 4. Mr Ellis Smith asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) if he will issue a White Paper dealing with the consultations and negotiations that took place between three years prior to the war and stating who took part; (2) whether he has any statement to make regarding the publication of documents relating to British foreign policy in the years to before the outbreak of the present war.

Mr Eden: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have decided to publish the most important documents in the Foreign Office

archives relating to British foreign policy between 1919 and 1939. The documents will be published in a series of volumes which will be issued one by one as and when they are ready. The volumes will form a continuous chronological series, but in order to make available as soon as possible documents dealing with events most relevant to the outbreak of the present war, it is proposed, for purposes of publication, to divide the work into two parts; the first part to begin with the year 1919, and the second part to begin with the year 1930. The preparation of each part will he undertaken simultaneously. Mr Smith: That is very good as far as it goes but will the right hon. Gentleman have another look at my second Question? He will find that what I am getting at is whether he will consider issuing a White Paper in order that people may know who were engaged in the loan negotiations that took place.

Mr Eden: That is a specific question. What I am dealing with here is giving the country full information. I do not know whether it would be wise of proper to draw up on particular White Paper.

48

DOCUMENTS ON BRITISH POLICY OVERSEAS, 1945-1955

Parliarncntary Announcement by thc R t. Hon. Sir Alec Douglas-Hoinc, Parl. lkbs. H. C. 5th sfr. vol. 851L, 2

, July 1 ¶)73

Overseas Policy (Official Documents)

Mr Gurden asked the St crctarv of' State fier f oreign and Comm )nw c'ailtli Aflairs whether he has any proposals for the puhlic atiun of' a further seric; OI'

official documents relating to overseas pcdic"y.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Her Majesty's Government have decided to

extend into the post-war period the practice adopted for 1919-1939 of' publishing documents on British foreign policy. The new collection of' the

most important documents in the archives of the Foreign and (: ommonwealth Office relating to British policy overseas will initially

comprise two series to (-()\, (-r foreign policy in the periods 19'f5-195t) and 1950-1955, respectively. The preparation of' both series will be undertaken simultaneously. So as to keep the work within manageable proportions, at the start the new series Nvill normally include only Foreign Office documents, but, where appropriate, documents from the archives of the Colonial and Commonwealth Relations Office will also he included. The

existing publication by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of' India Office documents on the transfer of power and events leading tip to it (1942-1947) will continue in accordance with the statement made in the House on 3Oth June 1967.

The title of the new series will be `1)ocuments on British Foreign Policy 1919-1939' and the editors will have the customary freedom in the selection and arrangement of' documents. For the post-war period, however, the great increase in the hulk of' the archives presents a special problem. To meet this, it is intended that in some cases the documents printed in the collection shall be followed by printed calendars briefly summarising related documents. NIicro-copies of'these calendared documents will he available for

purchase, except in exceptional cases where it is necessary on security grounds to restrict the availability of a particular document, as will he indicated in the text of the calendars. 'I'hre provision of calendars and micro- copies should make it easier to deal with the problem inherent in the greater volume of' post-war records while, at the same time, making available to scholars more, and hitherto unpublished documents.

Mr Ikohan Butler, my historical adviser, has agreed to hei the senior editor o& the new series.

4()

ANNEX 2 LIST OF HISTORICAL BRANCH PUBLICATIONS 1917-1994*

1. Peace Handbooks 2. British Documents On The Origins Of The War 1898-1914 3. Documents on British Foreign Policy 1919-1939 4. Documents on British Policy Overseas 1945-1955 5. Occasional Papers 6. History Notes

7. Bibliographies

8. Editors' of Diplomatic Documents Newsletter

1. Peace Handbooks

Prepared under the direction of the Historical Section of the Foreign Office from the spring of 1917 onwards, these volumes were commissioned to provide British Delegates with information on subjects likely to arise at tim Peace Conference at Paris. In 1919 it was decided to make the information available for public use.

(A) Europe

Austria-Hungary (1) (1919). II Austria-Hungary (2) (1919). III The Balkan States (1) (1918). IV The Balkan States (2) (1918). V Holland, Belgium, and Luxembourg (1919). III France, Italy, Spain (1919). VII Germany (1919). VIII Poland and Finland (1919). IX The Russian Empire (1920).

(B) Asia

X Mohammedism: Turkey in Asia (1) (1919). XI Turkey in Asia (2) (1919). XII China, Japan, Siam (1919). XIII Persia: French and Portuguese Possessions (1919). XIV Dutch and British Possessions (1919).

* All published by HMSO unless otherwise stated.

50

(C) Africa

XV Partition of Africa: British Possessions (1) (; 1919). XVI British Possessions (2): The Congo (1919).

XVII French Possessions (1919). XV III German Possessions (1919). XIX Portuguese Possessions (1919). XX Spanish and Italian Possessions: Independent States (1919).

(D) America: Atlantic and Pacific

XXI Aortli, Central and South America; Atlantic Islands (191 R). XXII Pacific Islands (1919).

(E) General Questions

XX III International :1 fairs (1919). XXIV Congresses: German Opinion (1918). XXV Indemnities, Plebiscites, &c. (1918). XXVI Maritime International Law (1919).

(F ) Volumes of Maps

1. Austria-Hungary (10 maps). 2. The Balkan Peninsula (8 maps). 3. Poland (8 maps). 4. Ethnography of Central and South-eastern Europe and Western

Asia (6 maps).

2. British Documents On The Origins Qf The War 1898-1914

The decision to publish a collection of British documents bearing on the European situation out of'which the First World War arose was announced by the Prime Minister and Secretary of' State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, in the summer of 1924.

Edited by GP Gooch and Harold'I'empcrlcy

I "1 he End Of British Isolation (1927). II The Anglo , Japanese Alliance and the Franco-British Entente (1927). III 'Ihe '1 e. sting of th, e Entente 1904-(i (1928). IL' The Anglo-Ravsian Rapprochement 1903-7 (1929).

51

V The Near East. the Macedonian problem and the annexation of Bosnia

1903-9 (1928). VI Anglo-German Tension: armaments and negotiation, 1907-12 (1930).

VII The Agadir Crisis (1932). VIII Arbitration, Neutrality and Security (1932). IX The Balkan Wars: Part ]: The Prelude; The Tripoli War (1933).

IX The Balkan Wars: Part IT The League and Turkey (1934). X Part I: The Near and Middle East on the Eve of War (1936). X Part II. - The Last Years of Peace (1938). XI The Outbreak of War (1926).

3. Documents on British Foreign Policy 1919-1939

On 29 March 1944 the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Anthony Eden, informed the House of Commons of His Majesty's Government's intention to publish a collection of the most important British documents

on foreign policy between 1919 and 1939.

Editors: Professor EL Woodward, Dr R Butler, Mr JPT Bury, Professor WN Medlicott, Professor D Dakin and Miss ME Lambert (Mrs ME Pelly).

First Series 1919-1925

I Proceedings of the Supreme Council July-October 1919 (1947). II Proceedings of the Supreme Council October 1919 January 1920. Meetings

in London and Paris of Allied Ministers December 1919 January 1920 (1948).

III Withdrawal of German forces from the Baltic Provinces July-December 1919. Policy of H. M. G. with regard to Russia, May 1919-March 1920. Eastern Galicia, June-December 1919 (1949).

IV Adriatic and the Near East 1919-February 1920 (1952). V Western Europe, June 1919 January 1920 and Viscount Grey's mission to

Washington, August-December 1919 (1954). VI Central Europe, June 1919 January 1920 and H. M. G's Relations with

Japan, June 1919-April 1920 (1956). VII First Conference of London, February-April 1920 (HMSO, 1958). VIII Conversations and Conferences, 1920 (1958). IX German Affairs, 1920 (1960). X German Affairs and Plebiscites, 1920 (1960). XI Plebiscite in Upper Silesia, January 1920-March 1921, and Poland,

Danzig and the Baltic States, January 1920-March 1921 (1960).

52

XII

XIII XIV V' XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX

xx' XXII XXIII xxiv

xxv xxv'

XXVII

It'ectorn and (. 'vntrn/ [; drohe and the Balkan . State. 1920; 7 ran iý <<ýýr ý: ý ýu

and Russia, February 1920-March 1921 (1962). Near East, February 1920-March 1921 (1963). Far Eastern affairs 1920-22 (1966). International Conferences and Conversations 1921 (1967). Upper Silesia 1921-2 and Germany 1921 (1968). Greece and Turkey 1921-22 (1970). Greece and Turkey 1922-23 (1972). Vie Conferences of Cannes, Genoa and the Hague 1922 (1974). German Reparations and Allied Military Control 1922 and Russia 1921-December 1922 (1976). German Reparations and Alilitay Control 1923 (1978). Central Europe and the Balkans 1921 and Albania 1921-2 (1980). Poland and the Balkan states 1921-23 (1981). Anglo-Italian Conversations 1922 and Central Europe and the 1922-23 (1983). Russia 1923-25 and the Baltic States 1924-25 (1984). Central Europe and the Balkans; German Reparation and Allied Control, 1924 (1985). Germany 1925 and the Locarno Treaty (1986).

Series 1a 1925-1930

Alarch

Balkans

ý1 Iilitary

I The Aftermath of Locarno 1925-26 (1966). II The Termination of Military Control in Germany and Middle East and

American Questions 1926-27 (1968). III European and Naval Questions 1922 (1970). IV European and Security Questions 1927-28 (1971). V European and Security Questions 1928 (1973). VI The Young Report and the Plague Conference: Security Questions 1928-29

(1975). VII German, Austrian and Middle East Questions 1929-30 (1975).

Second Series 1929-1938

I London Naval Conference and European affairs 1929-31 (1946). II Austrian and German affairs and the world monetary crisis 1931 (1947). III Reparations and disarmament 1931-32 (1948). IV The disarmament conference and the internal situation in Germany 1932-

33(1950). V European affairs and war debts March-October 1933 (1956). VI European affairs and war debts October 1933-August 1934 (1957). VII Anglo-Soviet relations 1929-34 (1958).

53

VIII Chinese cffairs and Japanese action in Manchuria 1929-31 (1960).

IX The Far Eastern crisis 1931-32 (1965).

X Far Eastern affairs March-October 1932 (1969).

XI Far Eastern affairs October 1932June 1933 (1970).

X1I European affairs August 1934-April 1935 (1972). XIII Naval policy and defence requirements July 1934-March 1936 (1973).

XIV The Italo-Ethiopian dispute March 1934-October 19.75 (1976).

XV The Italo-Ethiopian war and German affairs October 1935-February 1936 (1976).

XVI The Rhineland crisis and the ending of sanctions March July 1936 (1977).

XVII Western Pact Negotiations: Outbreak of Spanish Civil War, June 1936- January 1937 (1979).

XV III European Affairs, January June 1937 (1980). XIX European Affairs, July 1937-August 1938 (1982). XX Far Eastern Affairs, May 1933-November 1936 (1984). XXI Far Eastern Affairs, November 1936- July 1938 (1984).

Third Series 1938-1939

I The German invasion of Austria and the first phase of the Czechoslovak crisis, March July 1938 (1949).

II The Development of the Czechoslovak crisis from the Runciman Mission to the Munich Conference, July-September 1938 (1949).

III Polish and Hungarian claims on Czechoslovak territory; the enforcement by Germany of the Munich Agreement; Anglo-Italian Relations: September 19,38 January 1939 (1950).

IV Hopes of general European appeasement abandoned; attempts are made to form a 'common front' against further German aggression, January-April 19.39 (1951).

V Increasing German threats to Poland and British efforts to create a common front against further German and Italian aggression, April June 1939 (1952).

VI An important phase in Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations; Anglo- Turkish

negotiations; and the German menace to Poland, June-August 1939 (195 3) VII Unsuccessful attempts to deter Germany from aggression against Poland;

diplomatic exchanges immediately preceding the British declaration of war on Germany, August-September 1939 (1954).

VIII Policy in the Far East; attitude of H. M. G. towards the Sino Japanese

conflict; interaction of events in the Far East and Western Europe, August 1938-April 1939 (1955).

IX Policy in the Far East during the five months preceding the outbreak of war in Europe, April-September 1939 (1955).

X Index (1961).

54

4. Documents on British Policy Overseas

In 1973 the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth AfTairs, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, announced in the House of Commons that it had been decided to extend into the post-war period the practice adopted fier 1919-39

of publishing the most important documents on British fiireigii policy. Each

volume is accompanied by a wallet of' related documents reproduced ()il microfiche.

Editors: Dr R Butler, Mrs M I; Pelly, Dr R I3ullen, Mrs G Bennett, Mrs Hj Yasamee, Dr KA Hamilton, Dr Isabel Warner, Dr Ann Lane

Series I: 1945-1950

I The Conference at Potsdam, duly-August 1945 (1984). II Conferences and Conversations 1945: -London, Washington and , llosc: ow

(1985). III Britain and America:

. Negotiation of the t %nited States Loan, August-

December 1945 (1986). IV Britain and America: Atomic Enemy, Bases and Food, December 1945- July

1946 (1987). V Germany and Western Europe, August-December 1945 (1990). VI Eastern Europe, August 1945-April 1946 (1991).

. Nein

, January 1995

VII The United Nations: Iran, Cold War and World Organisation, 1946-7.

Series II: 1950-1955

I The Schuman Plan, the Council of Europe and Western European Integration, May 1950-December 1952 (1986).

II The London Conferences: Anglo-American Relations and Cold War Strategy, January Tune 1950 (1987).

III German Rearmament, September-December 1950 (1989). 1V Korea, June 1950-April 1951 (1991).

In Preparation V Germany and European Security, 1952-4. VI The Middle East, 1951-3

55

5. Occasional Papers This series publishes the papers presented at FCO seminars organised by

the Editors of DBPO.

1. Valid Evidence (FCO Historical Branch, November 1987). 2. Meeting of Editors of Diplomatic Documents (FCO Historical

Branch, November 1989). 3. Germany Rejoins the Club (FCO Historical Branch, November

1989). 4. Eastern Europe (FCO Historical Branch, April 1992). 5. Korea (FCO Historical Branch, April 1992). 6. Russia: Tsarism to Stalinism (FCO Historical Branch, May 1993). 7. Changes in British and Russian Records Policy (FCO Historical

Branch, November 1993). 8. Diplomacy and Diplomatists in the 20th Century (FCO Historical

Branch, August 1994).

6. History Notes An occasional series produced by the staff of Historical Branch to provide background information on issues of interest to the Office.

1. Korea: Britain and the Korean War, 1950-51 (FCO Historical Branch, June 1990).

2. The FCO: Policy, People and Places, 1782-1991 (FCO Historical Branch, April 1991 - revised 3rd Edn: March 1993).

3. Locarno 1925: The Treaty, the Spirit and the Suite (FCO Historical Branch, October 1991).

4. FCO Records: Policy, Practice and Posterity, 1782-1992 (FCO Historical Branch, August 1992 - revised 2nd Edn: November 1993).

5. FCO Library: Print, Paper and Publications, 1782-1993 (FCO Historical Branch, March 1993).

6. Women in Diplomacy. The FCO, 1782-1994 (FCO Historical Branch, May 1994).

7. `My Purdah Lady'. The Foreign Office and the Secret Vote, 1782-1909 (FCO Historical Branch, September 1994).

History Notes and Occasional Papers are available from: Historical Branch, LRD, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Clive House, Petty France, London SW I 9HD, United Kingdom Tel (071) 270 4215 Fax (071) 270 4216

56

7. Bibhgrapluei

.1., (. Il(. s Of srlective ann(atiitcd bilºliº)graphic 1wº(luc'Cd in n)[IjunCti(ýn \\itlc

the I. iI)rarv as background to the Internati(ºnal 1{i"t()rN, lecture s(-n(-s.

1. German), ." fter 1941 (1, R I ), \ovemhrr 1990

2. "I/' Ifiddle East L RD, , Jana 1991).

3. ßntzsh 1"orngn 1'olu_) in the 'Iweutieth (, entut) : LRI), O(-tw l)(-r 1991 4. Britain and the L'uropean (Jonimwnit)- , IRI), Jun(' 1'º'º2,. : ý. From Empire to Commonwealth: lau s, w and it,

. \Fi,; hbours I

.R 1).

October 1992).

ti. Diplomacy in the Twentieth Genturf I. R1), O(-to I)(-r 1993). 7.

. Vitionalit), and .

Vationaiicm in I; nct-Central Europe since the 18th C Century I. RI), October 1994, ý.

8. Editors' of htp/ornati< 1)oaLrn nt. s .V Pwsltttrr

Initiated by the Editor, 0F /BPO to keep in touch with the Editors ()f other govicernment-sponsored series of ' 1)iplomatj(D, )( cunents.

1. No. 1 (, F(; O Histc ºrical Branch, October 1991). 2. No. 2 (F(; O Historical Branch, April 1992). 3. No. 3 Historical Branch. No k-c1flt)c"r 1992,. 4. No. 4 ITC(. ) Historical Branch, April 199'3). ý. Nc>. 5 (FCO Historical Branch, Noývvc"rnfb("r 1993). 6. No. AFCO Historical Branch, April 1994). 7. No. 7 (1~'(: O Historical Branch, July 1994).

57

FCO HISTORICAL BRANCH

OCCASIONAL PAPERS

Valid Evidence

Meeting of Editors of Diplomatic Documents

Germany rejoins the Club

No. 4

Eastern Europe

No. 5

Korea

No. 6

Russia: Tsarism to Stalinism

Changes in British and Russian Records Policy

Diplomacy and Diplomatists in the 20th Century