Site menu:

Subscribe to email updates

Links:



An earlier blog post discussed the November 8, 1963, memorandum on the problem of leaks Under Secretary of State George W. Ball sent to President John F. Kennedy.  Since then, more documentation on what led to that memorandum has come to light.

By early September 1962, President Kennedy and Under Secretary Ball were discussing how to handle relations with the press.  To brief the Under Secretary and provide him with food for thought, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Robert Manning to sent Ball a long memorandum.

Memo from Manning to Ball, 1962

Memo from Manning to Ball, 1962

Among the points he made were (the following are all direct quotations):

 

  • [O]ccasionally top officials of the government display a certain lack of reality about (a) the degree to which we can expect the day-to-day coverage of foreign policy to reflect only the assessments and characteristics that we believe are the correct ones, and (b) the degree to which we react to individual stories or pieces of speculation we do not like.
  •  [I]n almost all instances where given stories or reports seem to raise serious problems for us, experience shows that a few hours or a few days later there was, in fact, no real cause for demonstrable concern. We too often allow ourselves to react when in fact the problem would disappear — or prove to have been non-existent — if we were to just relax and move on to other matters.
  •  [W]e have to give more thought to what can be done to protect the main objective, namely the pursuit of the national interest, from harm or mischief that can be done by ill-considered reporting or ill-considered talk and gossip by government officials.
  •  I would be deeply concerned — for the government, for the Administration and for the President himself — if this concern were to provoke us into oppressive practices or other inhibitions that would not solve the problem yet might very well hamper the ability of officials to get the information they need and use it for legitimate conduct of their duties.
  •  I might give a few opinions on what produces the kind of talk and gossip and bits and pieces of fact and fancy that make up a large part of the dialogue between officials and the press in Washington.
  •  There is no doubt . . . that the official State Department position is that within the limits of national security and national interests there is supposed to be direct dialogue between officiers [sic] dealing with policy and members of the press. . . . and it is in the interests of the competent men dealing with policies to take a direct responsibility for making those policies clear to responsible correspondents.
  •  People who talk to the press are supposed to be motivated by the simple purpose of the Department policy, namely to explain policies to the American people and to make a public use of the power of the press and of public discussion to help carry its policies forward.
  •  Often, however, those who talk are propelled by other impulses:

 

  1.  There are a few who get a simple personal enjoyment out of talking with newsmen, out of cultivating them, their acquaintance, their approval, and . . . out of the personal publicity and identity that can be attained by press, and . . . public attention.
  2.  There are the simply garrulous types who in fact enjoy being in the know and are apt occasionally to try to demonstrate this point. . . .
  3.  There are those who use the channel of the press to leak partial information on policies they oppose, in the hope that such publicity will defeat or amend those policies; or who, conversely, will talk prematurely in order to push a policy into the open and therefore closer to acceptance. . . .
  4.  There are those who in all sincerity believe they have all the facts at their command and that they have a mandate to make them clear and forthright within the confines of security practices and other restrictions.  This type represents the best and in my estimate should be protected should there be any attempt to bring the other types under control.
  5.  There is the person whose primary function is to talk to the press on behalf of the government in the role of information officer or public affairs adviser or spokesman or whatever you want to call him. Since this is the breed that includes . . .  myself . . . , I have a particular interest in promoting their worth and enhancing their value. . . .  I do feel strongly however that more has to be done about bringing this group or a representative of this group into the very middle of the most delicate situations. . . .   Once a correspondent knows he is talking with a person “who was there” and once he has come to trust that person, he is willing to stake his own reputation on the information he gets. . . . .

 

  • I do not believe that there are any simple mechanical ways in which the problem of leaks and unknowing conversations can be completely cured. I would be strongly opposed to any steps designed sharply to inhibit responsible officers from contacts with the press . . . [as they] would have unfortunate repercussions in the actual performance of officials in the Department.
  • It may be possible . . . to produce a sharper awareness of the problem and to get some useful result if you were to follow your idea of talking personally to officials . . . of the Department about the nature of this problem and the concern that is felt by you, the Secretary and the President.
  • [I]t would also be of immense help if some similar educational process could be applied to that area of the White House staff that maintains its own intimate and, frequently, very thorough intercourse with the press.

 

By the beginning of November, the Under Secretary had not responded followed up with the President on their conversations.  To spur action, Kennedy sent this note:

Note to Ball from President Kennedy

Note to Ball from President Kennedy

 

Ball referred the matter to the Bureau of Public Affairs.  After discussions with the Under Secretary on November 3 (a Sunday!), bureau personnel drafted an outline for a seminar on press leaks.  Ball rewrote and greatly expanded the outline (adding all of the illustrative quotations) before sending it to President Kennedy on November 8.

Source:  All documents quoted and displayed come from the file “Press Leaks” found in the Records of Under Secretary of State George Ball, 1961-1966, Entry A1-5175 (NAID 614703), RG 59: General Records of the Department of State, National Archives.



Records on Turkish atrocities against the Armenians during World War I can be found in a number of different records groups holding records of the Department of State.

(1) RG 59: General Records of the Department of State contains significant documentation relating to Turkish persecution of the Armenians.  The primary source is the 1910-29 segment of the Central Decimal File (NAID 302021).  File “867.4016” (Internal Affairs of Turkey. Social Matters. Race problems.) contains the most important documentation.  This file consists of approximately 6000 pages of documentation.  Additional documentation that may provide useful context will be found in other files, particularly file “867.00” (Internal Affairs of Turkey. Political Affairs.).  This file consists of approximately 16,000 pages of documentation.

There is also documentation relating to Armenia during the short period of time that it was an independent country before incorporation into USSR.  File “860j.4016″ (Internal Affairs of Armenia. Social Matters. Race problems.) contains about 2000 pages of documentation.  There are also about 100 pages of documentation in File “860j.00″ (Internal Affairs of Armenia. Political Affairs.)

These records are available on microfilm:

  • 867.00 National Archives Microfilm Publication M353 rolls 4-19
  • 867.4016 National Archives Microfilm Publication M353 rolls 43-48
  • 860j.00 National Archives Microfilm Publication T1192 roll 1
  • 860j.4016 National Archives Microfilm Publication T1192 rolls 4-7

Records relating to Reparations from Turkey after World War I, the so-called “Turkish Gold” file, are in file “467.00R29″.  These records are not on microfilm.

Additional materials may be found in RG 59: Unindexed Retired Office Files, 1910-1944 (NAID 1079774).  Some of this material duplicates that in the Central Decimal File.  The 1919 file contains a copy of the “Report of the American Military Mission to Armenia” by MGEN James G. Harbord and “The Armenian Question: Before the Peace Conference.”  The 1920 file contains documentation relating to the U.S. attitude toward independent Armenia and includes a May memorandum entitled “America and the Armenians.”  The 1922 files contain the “Report of the Activities of the American Committee for the Independence of Armenia, 1918-1922” and “A Memorandum . . . by American Committee for the Independence of Armenia Against the Proposal of an ‘Armenian Home’ in Turkey.” The 1928 files contain an August 1928 memo on “President Wilson’s Armenian Boundary Award.”  None of these records are on microfilm.

(2) Additional documentation can be found among the files of American diplomatic and consular posts in RG 84: Records of Foreign Service Posts of the Department of State.  The records for the period 1912 into the 1940s are arranged according to a decimal filing scheme and bound into one or more annual volumes.  File “800” covers Internal Affairs/Political affairs, and File “840.1” covers Social Matters/People, including race problems, racial disturbances and their suppression, and massacres.  The records of the American embassy in Turkey, including the files of the post-World War I High Commissioner, for the period 1914-1925, include 23 volumes or parts of volumes for file “800” and 15 volumes parts of volumes for file “840.1”.  The records of the various consular posts in Turkey may contain additional documentation.  None of these records are on microfilm.

It is important to note two things, however.  First, some files on the Armenian issue were destroyed when the U.S. entered World War I.  In January 1919, the American Commissioner in Turkey reported that the embassy’s extensive files covering the Armenian deportations were destroyed upon the break in relations with Turkey to prevent any compromise of the identities of persons who provided information.  (see Despatch #19, January 9, 1919, file “800”, Embassy Turkey (Istanbul), RG 84.)

Second, the files in RG 59 and RG 84 contain significant overlap.  In addition to the reporting from diplomatic and consular posts and the Department’s replies thereto, the RG 59 files include internal Department of State documentation, as well as inter-agency communications, and communications with the public.  The post files, in addition to communications back and forth with the Department, may contain additional background documentation and communications with local officials and the local public.

(3) Another source of documentation is RG 256: Records of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace, organized to represent the United States at the post-World War I Paris Peace Conference.  Included are the records of The Inquiry, a group of experts called on to collect and report data on various issues relating to peacemaking.  There are approximately 35 documents relating to Armenia among the records of The Inquiry.  They are listed on pages 88-90 of the inventory of RG 256.  They are available on National Archives Microfilm Publication M1107.  The General Records of the ACNP may also contain documentation relating to Armenia.  Documentation relating to the American Military Mission to Armenia (“Harbord Mission” is in File 184.021.  Those records have been microfilmed as National Archives Microfilm Publication M820.

 



On April 14, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln attended a performance of “Our American Cousin” at Ford’s Theater.  While there, he was shot in the head by John Wilkes Booth.  He died the next morning. As part of the same murderous conspiracy, Secretary of State William Henry Seward was attacked at his home and seriously wounded.

It was imperative that the Department of State notify its representatives abroad of those events.  Perhaps no such notification was as important as that to the American Minister to Great Britain, Charles Francis Adams.  The U.S. relationship with Great Britain during the period of the Civil War had been fraught with danger.  At several points over the previous four years, the relationship came close to breaking.

On April 15, William Hunter, the Acting Secretary of State, sent Minister Adams a short notification of the assassination of the President and the attack on the Secretary of State.  The same day, Edwin M. Stanton, the Secretary of War, sent Adams a long communication informing him of the circumstances of the attack on the President and the Secretary of State.  On April 17, the Department sent the following circular to all U.S. representatives abroad.  Note the black border on the first page.

Department Instruction 1352.1

Circular from the Department of State to U.S. representatives abroad informing them of the assassination of President Lincoln.

Department Instruction 1352.2

Circular from the Department of State to U.S. representatives abroad informing them of the assassination of President Lincoln, page 2.

Source: Department of State to U.S. Legation Great Britain, April 17, 1865, Notes [Instructions] From the Department, Records of the U.S. Legation and Embassy Great Britain, RG 84: Records of Foreign Service Posts of the Department of State, National Archives.

Upon receipt of the Department’s circular, Minister Adams communicated the news of the President’s death to British Foreign Secretary Russell.  Russell responded with the following note.

FO Note.1

Lord Russell to Minister Charles Francis Adams, May 1, 1865

FO Note.2

Lord Russell to Minister Charles Francis Adams, page 2.

FO Note.3

Lord Russell to Minister Charles Francis Adams, page 3.

Source: Lord Russell to Minister Charles Francis Adams, May 1, 1865, Notes From the Foreign Office, Records of the U.S. Legation and Embassy Great Britain, RG 84: Records of Foreign Service Posts of the Department of State, National Archives.

Baseball Patents

by on April 3, 2015


Today’s post is written by archivist David Pfeiffer.

Yes, spring is here.  Major League Baseball’s opening day is Monday, April 6.  Finally.  It has been a long cold winter.  As Hall of Famer Rogers Hornsby once said “People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball.  I’ll tell you what I do.  I stare out the window and wait for spring.”  In light of this, let’s talk about some baseball records in NARA.

In the records of the Patent and Trademark Office (Record Group 241) there are several invention patents relating to baseball, such as the patents for the baseball bat, glove, catcher’s mask, and the baseball itself. John A. Hillerich of Louisville, Kentucky, applied for and received many patents for the baseball bat. Hillerich was the owner of J. F. Hillerich and Sons, later to become Hillerich & Bradsby Company, manufacturer of the famous Louisville Slugger bats. One application, dated October 31, 1902 (Patent #716,541) for improvements in baseball bats involved the hardening of the surface of the bat. The purpose of this application was to promote the batter’s ability to drive the ball for more distance, to preserve the body of the bat from chipping and splintering easily and finally to improve the finish and appearance of the bat. This invention was patented on December 23, 1902.

Patent for improvements in baseball bats (Patent 716,541)

John A. Hillerich, owner of J.F. Hillerich and Sons (later Hillerich & Bradsby Company), applied for and received this patent for improvements to baseball bats. Patent number 716,541.

Another of Hillerich’s patent applications, dated June 8, 1904, declared as its objective to decrease the hitting of foul balls by the batter and to increase the number of fair balls hit (Patent #771,247, patented on October 4, 1904). Hillerich proposed modifying the hitting surface of the bat with regular indentations.

Design for a baseball bat (Patent 771247)

Design for a baseball bat by John A. Hillerich of Louisville, Kentucky. Patented October 4, 1904. Patent number 771,247

Other famous names appear in invention patents. George A. Rawlings, owner of a well-known sporting goods store in St. Louis and later manufacturer of a line of sporting goods, invented improvements in the baseball glove. In an application, patented on September 8, 1885 (Patent #325,968), Rawlings proposed the use of padding in the fingers, thumb, and the palm of the gloves for the “prevention of the bruising of the hands when catching the ball.” The felt/rubber combination in the padding provided for increased flexibility and thus improved protection from bruising.

Proposed improvements to the baseball glove by George Rawlings. Patent 325,968.

Proposed improvements to the baseball glove by George Rawlings. Patent 325,968.

Benjamin F. Shibe, one of the original owners of the Philadelphia Athletics and the person after which Shibe Park in Philadelphia was named, patented on February 27, 1883, an improvement to the baseball itself (Patent #272,984). By carefully combining the ingredients of yarn, India-rubber, and cement, Shibe claimed that his invention would better maintain the spherical shape of the ball even after repeated hits by baseball bats. Part of the improvements involved the tighter winding of the yarn and integrating the yarn in the cement to maintain the integrity of the sphere.

Design for a baseball By Benjamin F. Shibe, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Patented February 27, 1883 Patent number 272,984.

Design for a baseball by Benjamin F. Shibe, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Patented February 27, 1883. Patent number 272,984.

An improvement to the catcher’s mask was patented by Alexander K. Schaap, of Richmond, Virginia, on October 23, 1883 (Patent #287,331). Because catchers had difficulty removing their masks when a foul ball above the plate was hit, Schaap added a hinge to the upper part of the mask.

Design for Masks for Base Ball Catchers By Alexander K. Schaap of Richmond, Virginia Patented October 23, 1883

Design for Masks for Base Ball Catchers y Alexander K. Schaap of Richmond, Virginia. Patented October 23, 1883. Patent number 287,331.

Perhaps one of the most bizarre baseball-related inventions was the invention of the “baseball catcher” by James E. Bennett (Patent #755,209), patented on March 22, 1904. This contraption basically replaced the catcher’s mitt with a wire cage placed on the catcher’s chest. The object of the invention was to protect the catcher’s hands so that the hands would not come in contact with the ball until it was time to throw it back to the pitcher.

The invention was a rectangular open-wire frame body reinforced by slotted walls of wood. The impact of the ball on the catcher’s chest is protected by springs on the rear wall of the device. After the ball has passed through the open front end, it closes automatically. At the bottom of the device is an opening where the ball passes into a pocket where it is retrieved by the catcher. The device also includes a wire mesh on the top to protect the catcher’s face. The patent drawings do an excellent job of illustrating this device.

RG241_Utility_755209

Patent for “baseball catcher” by James Bennett. Patent 755,209.

 

All 89,000+ linear feet of the Patent Case Files that are in the custody of the National Archives are now at the Lenexa, Kansas, records storage facility.  The records transfer from Archives II began in 2007 and was completed in 2012.  The National Archives in Kansas City does the reference on these records.  With the PTO now transferring the files from the WNRC in Suitland directly to Lenexa, there are over three million case files at that facility, dating from 1836 to after 1968.

A good place to start research in these records is Google Patents online.  Google Patents will give you the patent drawings, specifications, and possibly claims.

 



Today’s post is written by Dr. Greg Bradsher

March 1945 would be a busy and eventful time for the Monuments Men officers, as the Allied armies advanced into Germany.  This was especially true for two of them: Ronald Balfour and Walker Hancock.

During combat operations in February 1945, Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives (MFA&A) officer, British Maj. Ronald E. Balfour, serving with the First Canadian Army, 21st Army Group, in several German cities, helped to recover and protect archival collections.  At Goch he successfully persuaded Canadian commanders not to destroy the 14th century stone entrance gate as they attempted to enter the town.  While in Goch he also found the abandoned archives from the Collegiate Church of Cleve, which he transferred to a monastery in Spyck for safekeeping.

In a report, filed March 3, 1945, he described his work in the church in Cleve: “Fragments of two large 16th century retables of carved and painted wood have been collected and removed to safety. Parish archives found in a blasted safe and strewn over the floor of the wrecked sacristy have also been removed for safekeeping.”  On that same day he wrote Lt. Col. Geoffrey Webb, in charge of the Monuments Men, that:

 It was a splendid week for my job – certainly the best since I came over. On the one hand there is the tragedy of real destruction, much of it completely unnecessary; on the other the comforting feeling of having done something solid myself.

There are no civilian officials to annoy one; the cares of quick decisions are left to oneself. Added to that, is the excitement of being right in the firing line. I met a battalion of my Regiment one day and ate my sandwiches with them at RHQ less than a mile from the front and I was actually sitting in a building when it was hit by a shell.

The plundering is awful. Not only every house is forced open and searched but also every safe and every cupboard. All that I can do is to try and rescue as much as possible and put up signs of warning. We did that in Kalkar but I do not know whether they actually had any effect.

In the meantime I’ve spent several days arranging the staff I’ve collected. What I did with the Goch archives would make the archivists’ hair stand on end, but I saved them from complete destruction.

And my storage place in Cleves [Cleve] wouldn’t be exactly approved of by Washington as it’s an attic in a building occupied by troops and refugees. The house is without proper protection and shells fall ceaselessly in the neighbourhood but it’s the only building in the town that still has a roof, doors and windows. There’s a local monk there (the only civilian who’s allowed to move freely round the town) in whose charge I can leave the things when I go.

If all goes well, I hope to be back at my headquarters next week as I’ve got a good deal of long-term work to do there. I’ve also got most of my luggage in Holland. I’m afraid I’ll never see it again. Yours very sincerely Ronald.

He did not live to see his luggage again.  Balfour was killed by a shell burst in Cleve on March 10 while he and some other men were attempting to rescue pieces of a medieval altarpiece to safety. [1]

Meanwhile, during the first ten days of March, Bonn and Cologne were captured and the American forces poured across the Remagen Bridge.  Capt. Walker Hancock, MFA&A officer with the First United States Army and Lt. George Stout, USNR, MFA&A officer with the 12th Army Group visited Cologne on March 12.  A preliminary survey of the monuments of Cologne disclosed that approximately 75 percent were destroyed. With the exception of the Cathedral the destruction included nearly all of the famous churches and museums of the city.  They found that Cathedral had received some bomb damage and that much of its contents, including the stain glass windows, were preserved in a special air-raid shelter under the north tower. They also learned that Cathedral Treasury had been removed to the east of the Rhine.  They learned from Dr. Robert Grosche, Dean of the Cathedral, the location of depositories of works of art from all important Cologne churches. He also learned that at Siegen was the largest depository for Rhineland church property and that a very large part of a mine in that city had been prepared especially for the protection of works of art and that complete inventories were said to be in possession of Count Franz Wolff von Metternich, the provincial Konservator[2], and of his assistant, Herr Weyres and Fraulein Dr. Adenauer; the latter of whom it was said served as a curator for the mine depository at Siegen.  It was believed that at Bonn he could find in the office of Denkmalpfege[3] of the Rhine Province Metternich and his assistant.  Hancock then went to Bonn in mid-March to obtain information about repositories of cultural property.  There he learned that Metternich was in Westphalia, east of the Rhine, still behind the German lines, and Herr Weyres was in Bad Godesbeg. Hancock finally tracked down Weyres, an architect, who, though having no documents with him, said he remembered all the more important repositories and could help him located them on Hancock’s map.[4]

Weyres’ information indicated that the rich art treasures of Rhineland cities had been taken to many places, including a large number of castles and monasteries.  The ancient manuscripts and incunabula of the Archbishop of Cologne were placed in the vaults under the monastery of Steinfeld, the church of which had been restored some years before by Weyres himself.  According to Hancock, “hardly a Wasserburg [moated castle] in the Rhine Province or Westphalia did not now shelter some portion of the cultural or artistic heritage of Europe’s besieged civilization.”[5]  Weyres provided complete information about the works of art that were stored in a tunnel known as a copper mine under Siegen’s old citadel.  There were two entrances leading from opposite sides of the hill. The entrance nearer to the vaulted storage room was in the Huttenweg across from a factory that supplied the heat that regulated the humidity in the mine.[6]

From March 17 to 23, Hancock visited Aachen, surveying the situation and taking photographs.  On March 24 he visited the Abbey of Maria Laach (some 60 miles southeast of Aachen) splendid example of the Romanesque style, which contained a depository in the southwest tower.  On March 28 Hancock visited Racing Ring Hotel at Nürburg, where 300,000 volumes of the University of Bonn were stored. Rooms not used for storage of books were, he found, occupied by displaced persons and thing were “in great disorder.”  The books, none in cases, had suffered slightly from dampness and the weight of the large stacks in which they were piled. The following day, March 29, Hancock visited Schloss Satzvey, owned by Count Metternich. He talked to Countess Metternich. He found two rooms in the main house contained a number of statues from Cologne, also large collection of furniture, some from Cologne. He found two large statues were in the cellar.[7]

In late March Hancock, with a wealth of information about repositories in the First Army area found that its three corps were on the opposite bank of the Rhine within a few hours’ drive of each other.  He pinpointed on a map of each corps area the important repositories within, or likely to come within, the path of each, and set off on March 27 to visit the three headquarters to deliver the maps.  The three G-5s, he would later write, showed themselves eager to do all within their power to ensure the protection of the places, and instructions to the combat units were sent out the same day, and later visits by Hancock to some of the repositories showed that prompt action had indeed taken to protect them.[8] But this would not be the case with other repositories. Hancock wrote, of all the places he later inspected, almost none were without the guard of “Off Limits” warnings. He opined that “if personnel had been available to follow up and continue this course of action throughout the vast army area untold losses might have been avoided.”[9]  He wrote on April 1, that while guards may be posted during the combat phase and the period immediately following, it is manifestly impossible to maintain them long in situations such as the present one. Depositories in monasteries or other religious institutions, where member of the clergy were present, he believed, were relatively safe, and guards could be removed from these shortly after battle has past. On the other hand, collections stored in castles were in continuous danger.  Guards should be maintained in the neighborhood wherever possible. Posting “Off Limits” he observed was of questionable value as protection against itinerant looters, though the greater danger, that of military occupation, could at times be avoided by this means.[10]

In the latter part of March Hancock met with numerous museum and university officials who volunteered information about the existence of 109 repositories of cultural property. This, Hancock, would later write, brought to 230 the number known to exist within the area then assigned to the First Army.[11]   The 12th Army Group reported on March 31 that the total number of repositories known or reported to exist in the area of 12th Army Group up to the Rhine, as of March 28 were 757.  Of the 571 in Germany, it was estimated that 380 were subject to risks of damage and deterioration as a result of occupation.  Many of these, the 12th Army Group believed, would probably have been demolished; in many others occupation could doubtless be rightly authorized.  It observed that the need for advice of specialists in such cases remains and the demands on MFA&A personnel will be great. [12]

Hancock reported on April 1 that it was obvious that the MFA&A officer “is confronted with a hopeless task in the vast area now covered by this army.”  Fortunately, he observed, competent civilian personnel were then available.  He recommended that these trained men should be put promptly to work and given all possible responsibility and freedom of action. He reported that steps had been initiated to appoint the architect Willy Weyres Konservator of the Regierungsbezirk Cologne. Weyres, he wrote, directed the restoration of a number of the most important monuments of the Rhineland, notably the Abbey of Steinfeld and the Cathedral of Limburg. This work was done in a masterful manner. He was Count Metternich’s assistant as Konservator of the Rhein provinz and was better acquainted with the monuments of that region than anyone else now available, He recommended that Weyres should be appointed Konservator of the whole Rhine Province as soon as Military Government regulations permitted.[13]

In some respects, the work of the Monuments Men during the month was challenging and, for some, dangerous, but the month ended, without them finding the mine repository at Siegen nor the vast quantity of cultural property looted by the Germans at other repositories.  That would have to wait till April 1945.

 


[1] The American Commission for the Protection and Salvage of Artistic and Historic Monuments in War Areas, Report of The American Commission for the Protection and Salvage of Artistic and Historic Monuments in War Areas (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1946), p. 128.

[2] The Landes- or Provinzialkonservator cooperated with ecclesiastical, municipal, or other local authorities.

[3] The actual supervision and protection of monuments were the responsibility of a Land, Provinz or Reichsgau bureau (Denkmalsfege) usually under the Ministry of a Department of Education, which was also generally in charge of cultural institutions.

[4] Report, Capt. Walker K. Hancock, MFA&A Specialist officer, MFA&A, Area of First United States Army, Semi-Monthly Report, March 16, 1945, File: AMG 294, Army B, Subject File Aug 1943-1945, Monuments, Fine Arts & Archives Section, Operations Branch, G-5 Division, General Staff, Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces (SHAEF), Allied Operational and Occupation Headquarters, World War II, RG 331; Walter Hancock, “Experiences of a Monuments Officer in Germany,” College Art Journal (vol. V. No. 4, May 1946), pp. 287-288.

[5] Walter Hancock, “Experiences of a Monuments Officer in Germany,” College Art Journal (vol. V. No. 4, May 1946), p. 288.

[6] Historical Report, G-5, 12th Army Group April 1945 [April 30, 1945], File 17.16, Jacket 10, Historical Report-12th Army Group-April 1945, Numeric-Subject Operations File 1943-July 1945, Historical Section, Information Branch, G-5 Division, General Staff, Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces (SHAEF), Allied Operational and Occupation Headquarters, World War II, RG 331; Walter Hancock, “Experiences of a Monuments Officer in Germany,” College Art Journal (vol. V. No. 4, May 1946), p. 288.

[7] Report, Capt. Walker K. Hancock, MFA&A Specialist Officer, First U.S. Army, Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives Area of First United States Army, Semi-Monthly Report, April 1, 1945, File: AMG 294, Army B, Subject File Aug 1943-1945, Monuments, Fine Arts & Archives Section, Operations Branch, G-5 Division, General Staff, Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces (SHAEF), Allied Operational and Occupation Headquarters, World War II, RG 331.

[8] Report, Capt. Walker K. Hancock, MFA&A Specialist Officer, First U.S. Army, Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives Area of First United States Army, Semi-Monthly Report, April 1, 1945, File: AMG 294, Army B, Subject File Aug 1943-1945, Monuments, Fine Arts & Archives Section, Operations Branch, G-5 Division, General Staff, Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces (SHAEF), Allied Operational and Occupation Headquarters, World War II, RG 331; Walter Hancock, “Experiences of a Monuments Officer in Germany,” College Art Journal (vol. V. No. 4, May 1946), p. 288.

[9] Walter Hancock, “Experiences of a Monuments Officer in Germany,” College Art Journal (vol. V. No. 4, May 1946), p. 289.

[10] Report, Capt. Walker K. Hancock, MFA&A Specialist Officer, First U.S. Army, Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives Area of First United States Army, Semi-Monthly Report, April 1, 1945, File: AMG 294, Army B, Subject File Aug 1943-1945, Monuments, Fine Arts & Archives Section, Operations Branch, G-5 Division, General Staff, Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces (SHAEF), Allied Operational and Occupation Headquarters, World War II, RG 331.

[11] Walter Hancock, “Experiences of a Monuments Officer in Germany,” College Art Journal (vol. V. No. 4, May 1946), p. 288.

[12] Memorandum, Lt. Col. Walter Sczudlo, Assistant Adjutant General, HQs, 12th Army Group to SHAEF, Attn: Assistant Chief of Staff, G-5, Subject: Monthly Report on Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives, March 31, 1945, File: AMG 292, 12 Army GP, Subject File Aug 1943-1945, Monuments, Fine Arts & Archives Section, Operations Branch, G-5 Division, General Staff, Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces (SHAEF), Allied Operational and Occupation Headquarters, World War II, RG 331.

[13] Report, Capt. Walker K. Hancock, MFA&A Specialist Officer, First U.S. Army, Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives Area of First United States Army, Semi-Monthly Report, April 1, 1945, File: AMG 294, Army B, Subject File Aug 1943-1945, Monuments, Fine Arts & Archives Section, Operations Branch, G-5 Division, General Staff, Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces (SHAEF), Allied Operational and Occupation Headquarters, World War II, RG 331.

Archives

Categories

Tags