Subscribe to email updates
Today’s post is written by David Langbart, Archivist at the National Archives in College Park. This blog post is derived from an article published on the web site “American Diplomacy: Foreign Service Despatches and Periodic Reports on U.S. Foreign Policy”
An essential aspect of the U.S. foreign policy program, especially since the 1930s, is the use of cultural representatives abroad. Having major musicians perform overseas under the auspices of the U.S. government is a major component of the cultural program. Planning for such events did not always proceed smoothly. In June 1974, the attempt to arrange for one such event led to a unique bureaucratic response, if not the specific performance itself.
In late June 1974, the U.S. embassy in the Philippines informed the Department of State of the impending inauguration of a new folk art theater, part of a cultural complex on Manila Bay. The embassy reported that while the Philippine Government had invited ministers of culture from a number of friendly countries, and the embassy expected several “significant” attendees, the U.S. had not received such an invitation because it had no cabinet level equivalent.
The embassy further reported that the noted pianist Van Cliburn had agreed to perform concerts on July 3 and 4, just a matter of days away. In order to give Cliburn an official imprimatur, the Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs requested that the U.S. designate the performer as a “special cultural representative” or similar title. The ambassador, William Sullivan, noting that Cliburn was a “local favorite,” endorsed the idea, writing that “This strikes me as an easy and painless gesture for the U.S. Government to make in order to earn a useful return of Philippine appreciation.” Given the timing, however, he noted that the issue needed to be resolved quickly. 
The Department’s same-day response was short: “Regret any USG designation or special title representing USG would require Presidential appointment.”  At the time, President Nixon was traveling in the USSR.
The embassy responded the next day with a telegram filled with frustration. Referring to his earlier message, Ambassador Sullivan acknowledged recognizing that formal designation for Cliburn required a Presidential appointment. “That is why I sent Ref A to Washington.” He also noted that some designations did not require outside approval and could be handled “expeditiously.” Furthermore, Sullivan explained, he assumed that communication with the President was possible even though he was in the USSR and that White House staff knew how to make such arrangements and that the Department could “take the limited initiative to accomplish the designation.” He closed with “Please advise soonest result of mountainous labors directed toward this musical mouse.” 
The Department responded the same day with a list of requirements that had to fulfilled for White House consideration of the proposal. First, was the need for an official invitation from the Philippine government to the U.S. government requesting the designation of a Presidential representative (but not naming any specific person). Upon receipt of that invitation, the Department indicated that it would pursue the matter “vigorously” based on the initial rationale and any further justification the embassy wished to provide. In addition to the invitation, the embassy was told to provide information on dates; related events, such as presentation of credentials; who from other countries was expected to attend; inclusion of spouse, if appropriate; other noteworthy aspects of the opening of the new folk art theater; and whether Cliburn’s already-planned presence was as an official guest of the Philippine government and if his performances were commercial or non-commercial in nature. The Department’s message closed “We have your interests at heart.” 
In response to the Department’s instruction, the embassy responded with this telegram:
1974 Manila 07657, June 27, 1974, Central Foreign Policy Files, 1973-1979, Record Group 59, General Records of the Department of State, NAID 654098. The document in the central file contains no drafting information, but a retired Foreign Service Office with personal experience working with Ambassador Sullivan told me that it reads like a telegram he would have written.
There are no further telegrams relating to the matter in the Central Foreign Policy File in the National Archives. Since the embassy admitted defeat, it seems likely the subject was dropped.
 1974 Manila 07539, June 25, 1974, Central Foreign Policy Files, 1973-1979, Record Group 59, General Records of the Department of State. All the telegrams cited can be viewed on-line through the web site under the heading of “Diplomatic Records.”
 1974 State 136706, June 25, 1974, Central Foreign Policy Files, 1973-1979, Record Group 59, General Records of the Department of State.
 1974 Manila 07594, June 26, 1974, Central Foreign Policy Files, 1973-1979, Record Group 59, General Records of the Department of State.
 1974 State 138046, June 26, 1974, Central Foreign Policy Files, 1973-1979, Record Group 59, General Records of the Department of State.
Today’s post is written by Cody White, Archivist at the National Archives at Denver
“This is only one more step in our national disintegration, a loss of respect for things sacred to our history. This guardianship has been entrusted to you and it’s high time you did something about it.”
It was August 1959 and an issue which the National Park Service thought it had resolved 11 months earlier erupted once again as angry citizens across the country were under the impression that the final scene in North by Northwest had actually been filmed on Mount Rushmore. Even though 2014 marks the 55th anniversary of the film’s premiere, this saga can still be seen in a general correspondence file for the Mount Rushmore National Monument within our Record Group 79 National Park Service (NPS) holdings here at the National Archives at Denver (National Archives Identifier 651765). Entitled “A-9027 Motion Picture North by Northwest,” the folder includes correspondence from NPS officials, MGM studio officials, politicians, and the general public that all comes together to detail an interesting bit of Hollywood history right here in our region.
As with any good Hollywood drama the story begins earlier, in this case the summer of 1958. Charles Coleman, the North by Northwest location manager, wrote the NPS inquiring about permits to film on Mount Rushmore. He lobbies hard in the letter, adding near the end that in regards to the plot of the film, “we sincerely believe it will be symbolically and dramatically satisfying to the people of the United States that this great National Memorial, standing there in all its granite glory, becomes the very stumbling block of those who would undermine our country.” Inquiries were made to the NPS Region 5 Director for his experiences when Alfred Hitchcock filmed at the Statue of Liberty (for the film Saboteur, 1942) and the reply was positive, leading the Region 2 Assistant Director to opine that “we think we can take Mr. Coleman at his word when he says he will treat the memorial with the utmost respect.” Russell Apple, park historian, was not so sure. Noting that a similar filming proposal at the Lincoln Memorial caused several cabinet members and congressmen to “raise hell,” he worried that “similar foolishness at MR [Mount Rushmore] would bring a storm of criticism on NPS heads.” There were going to have to be conditions.
Filming Proposal from MGM, 1958
Before filming on location in September 1958 an agreement was struck between the NPS and MGM. The intent was clear. No scenes of violence were to be shown on the sculpture or the talus slope, the area below the sculpture, or with those areas in the background regardless if done on location or a studio mockup. Within days of filming, however, concerned citizens alerted by newspaper articles began writing the NPS regarding the use of Mount Rushmore in the film. “Just who does the English director Alfred Hitchcock think he is that he can send another Englishman running up and down Lincoln’s face?” “Are you going to allow these crazy Hollywood producers to desecrate our National Park?” The NPS patiently replied to these letters with the details of the studio agreement and sought to assure the citizens that the film would treat the monument tastefully. In October 1958 Charles Humberger, the former superintendent of Mount Rushmore, and Don Spalding, the acting superintendent, flew to Los Angeles to meet with Hitchcock and his staff to further discuss these concerns. MGM pressed for use of the monument as a background in the violence scenes but were flatly denied. MGM then proposed to use the monument as a background but out of focus. Once again the request was shot down with Spalding and Coleman reiterating the NPS position that the filming and ultimate editing could not lead viewers to “believe that violence occurred on or near the sculpture, talus slope, or public use area.” They pointed out that a mockup of the area could be used as long as the characters only move through and no violence occurs. The studio apparently relented and agreed as Humberger and Spalding returned to South Dakota reporting that they “held the line very well indeed.” Four months later MGM wrote to Leon Evans, the new superintendent of Mount Rushmore, to confirm how the NPS wanted the credits acknowledgement to read. Everything seemed to be on track, until that is the agency screened the finished film.
Despite the agreement, scenes of violence were indeed filmed on Mount Rushmore mockups and further violent scenes used Mount Rushmore as the background. Stating that there was no intention to stop MGM from showing the film, on July 9 the NPS pressed to “make the record clear on what the agreement provided and who failed to live up to it.” On July 28, the film’s official release date, a formal protest was lodged by the Acting Secretary of the Interior requesting that the NPS acknowledgment in the film credits be removed. There was little else the NPS could do as yet another wave of angry correspondence arrived to the agency. Reflecting on the whole affair, NPS Assistant Director Hillory Tolson wrote in August 1959, “The crass violation of its permit by the company was enlightening, as well as distasteful, and will be useful in guiding us in future negotiations over motion picture permits.”
The most prescient voice in the file is that of F.C. Christopherson, editor of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader. As the sole letter in favor of the film, Christopherson argued that he saw nothing derogatory toward the monument and even went on to add that “obviously this picture is worth its weight in gold to Rushmore from a publicity viewpoint.” Fifty-five years later, as North by Northwest has slipped into the canon of classic film, the only outrage left over the inclusion of Mount Rushmore in it seems to be in this lone correspondence file in our collection.
Letter from South Dakota Senator Mundt to NPS Director Wirth, offering to enter the North by Northwest correspondence into the Congressional Record
All documents referenced and quotes come from RG 79 Records of the National Park Service, Accession NRG-079-99-174, “General Correspondence, Mixed, Mount Rushmore National Monument A-7619 to C-34,” NAID 651765
Today’s post is written by Chris Naylor, Director of Textual Records for Research Services, Washington DC.
The Nazis and their collaborators engaged in widespread and systematic confiscation of art and cultural property between 1933 and 1945 through various means including theft, coercion, and forced sales. These activities resulted in the displacement of millions of items of cultural property. During and after the war, the Allies undertook major efforts to identify and restitute the property to its rightful owners. In recent years, the international community has recognized the critical need to ensure access to relevant archival materials dispersed across institutions throughout the world in order to facilitate provenance and claims research to ensure looted art and cultural property is identified and returned to the rightful owners.
On May 5, 2011, the National Archives launched the International Research Portal for Records Related to Nazi-Era Cultural Property, which is a collaboration of national and other archival institutions with records that pertain to Nazi-Era cultural property. These archival institutions, along with expert national and international organizations, are working together to extend public access to the widely-dispersed records through this single internet portal that links researchers directly to the digitized records and online finding aids of the 18 participating institutions. The Portal enables families to research their losses; provenance researchers to locate important documentation; and historians to study newly accessible materials on the history of this period. This collaborative project was established to fulfill the objectives of the 1998 Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art, the 2000 Vilnius Forum Declaration and the 2009 Terezin Declaration, particularly to make all such records publicly accessible.
The Portal links researchers to archival materials consisting of descriptions of records and, in many cases, digital images of the records that relate to cultural property that was stolen, looted, seized, forcibly sold, or otherwise lost during the Nazi era. These records, which are in many different languages, include Nazi documentation, governmental records from 1933 onwards, inventories of recovered artworks, post-war claims records and auction house and art dealer records. Cultural property documented in these records ranges from artworks to books and libraries, religious objects, antiquities, archival documents, carvings, silver and more.
The records that are available on the Portal from the U.S. National Archives (NARA) document the activities of several U.S. Government agencies involved in the identification and recovery of looted assets, including the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and U.S. occupation forces in Germany and Austria. The materials also contain captured German records regarding the seizure of cultural property, such as the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg (ERR) albums, card file, and related photographs. The records have been described in NARA’s online catalog. Many of the records have additionally been digitized and made available for free online by our partner Fold3.com (Holocaust Era Assets records). Records that have not yet been digitized are available for research at the National Archives at College Park, MD.
These records were created or received by the U.S. Government during and after World War II as part of its investigations into cultural assets that were looted or otherwise lost during the war. Many of the records available through the Portal highlight the work of the U.S. Army Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives Section (MFA&A), commonly known as the “Monuments Men.” In total, the records of the U.S. National Archives that can be found through the Portal include over 2.3 million pages of documents, and they are available for your research today.
Today’s post, written by Dr. Greg Bradsher, is the next installment in an ongoing series of posts on real-life Monuments Men.
The movie, The Monuments Men, has focused great attention on the Monuments Men (and women) and their work during and after World War II. Of course the movie cannot tell the story of the over 300 individuals involved in Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives (MFA&A) work, so it focuses on three: George Stout, James Rorimer, and Rose Valland, played by George Clooney, Matt Damon, and Cate Blanchett respectively. Beginning in December 2013, Dr. Greg Bradsher and Dr. Sylvia Naylor thought it would be illustrative to discuss some of the lesser known individuals, and thus started a series of blog posts. This blog post on Lester K. Born is the thirteenth in this series.
In 1950, Lester Kruger Born wrote about the first day he went to work as a Monuments Man in 1945:
The rain was pouring down. The hour was 0630. The day was Monday, 12 June 1945. The place was Hoechst, Germany, headquarters of the US Group Control Council. A lone figure, bundled up in hooded officers’ fieldcoat, with musette bag slung over should, and with pistol and extra clip of ammunition fastened at the waist sloshed down the street. This was the only Archivist then on the regular Table of Organization (T/O) of US Gp CC. At the appointed rendezvous bedraggled figures appeared. Trucks arrived. The Archivist and other officers climbed up beside drivers of 2 ½ ton trucks, and the little convoy started up the Autobahn from Frankfurt to Kassel. This was the Advance Party sent to open the Ministerial Collecting Center….
The story of Born joining the Monuments Men began during the fall of 1944 when there were several attempts to get Army Captain Born, then serving with the First Army in Belgium, assigned to work with the Monuments Men. At the end of October, Fred W. Shipman, Adviser to War Department on Archives, then in Europe, wrote Brig. Gen. Frank J. McSherry, Chief, Operations Branch, G-5, Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF), recommending Born for a Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives (MFA&A) position. Shipman pointed out that Born read, spoke, and understood French and German fluently. Shipman added that he also read Dutch and Italian and understood the latter. Born, he wrote, traveled widely in Europe before the war, including to England, France, Germany, Poland, Austria, and Italy. He noted that Born was a special student of medieval Latin and medieval manuscripts and paleography and that his fields of interest professionally had been the history of political theory as well as the history of archival theory and practice. Shipman added that Born had published a number of articles in professional journals and translated Erasmus’ Education of a Christian Prince , with a scholarly introduction, and for several years published systematic abstracts of archival publications in Western Europe (France, Belgium, Holland, and Germany) quarterly in The American Archivist . He noted that Born “is a thorough scholar, and an energetic and conscientious worker.” Although he had never been on the staff of the National Archives, Shipman added, he had many contacts with staff members of the institution, and was highly recommended by all who know him well. Unfortunately, there was no vacancy that Born could fill.
Lester Kruger Born was born in Alameda, California on January 23, 1903. He studied Classical Philology at the University of California, Berkeley, where he received his bachelor’s degree in 1925 and master’s degree in 1926. In 1928 he received a master’s degree from Princeton University where he studied Classics and in 1929 received his Ph. D. from the University of Chicago. From 1929 until 1938 Born taught at Ohio State University (Classical Languages), Western Reserve University (Classics), and George Washington University (Classical Languages and Literature). In the latter years he became Assistant Archivist of the Works Progress Administration’s Historic Records Survey, a position he held until 1941 when he joined the Office of Price Administration. In 1942 he entered the Army. From 1928 to 1941 he authored articles in Political Science Quarterly, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Journal of Modern History, and, American Journal of Philology. He also wrote “Baldassarre Bonifacio and his essay ‘De Archivis’ ,” in The American Archivist 4 (1941). His most important work was the translation of Erasmus’ Education of a Christian Prince , with a scholarly introduction on ancient and medieval political thought (1936).
On January 20, 1945, SHAEF MFA&A requested the services of Born (then with V Corps of First U.S. Army, as archivist at 12th Army Group area). In making the request, Capt. Marvin C. Ross, United States Marine Corps Reserve, MFA&A, G-5 Operations Branch, indicated that Born was highly recommended for this work by the Archivist of the United States and by Fred Shipman, and that Born had worked in German archives and was fluent in German. But SHAEF was not to be Born’s initial Monuments Men assignment. On May 29, he joined the MFA&A Branch of U.S. Group Control Council (USGCC) (Germany), as Archivist Specialist Officer, joining civilian archivist Sergeant B. Child, who served as Adviser on Archives and Libraries. Both Born and Child were soon assigned to temporary duty with SHAEF. In mid-June Born began a new assignment, noted above.
On June 12 the advance party of six officers, including Born, and fifteen enlisted men arrived at Fuerstenhagen, some 12 miles southeast of Kassel, to get the Ministerial Collecting Center (MCC) going. The actual site was in the area of the munitions factory known as Fabrik Hessisch Lichtenau. The primary mission of the MCC was to accession and take archival control of German ministerial records. It was Born’s job to get archival operations up and running at the MCC. Born expected his assignment would last a week. But he was still at the MCC on July 4, when the USGCC, placed staff supervision of operational activities at MCC in the Office of the Director of Intelligence. The scope and activities of the MCC expanded, and so did the work and the necessity for having an archivist, i.e., Born, on site.
During the fall of 1945 the volume of documents was increased at Ministerial Collecting Center by the acquisition of the Foreign Office (FO) and other records. At the end of 1945 there were over 1,420 tons of records and 40 tons of film and equipment, with over 1,500 Germans (mainly former Ministry civil servants) working with the records and assisting the Military Government to ascertain the workings of the German ministries. It would be a challenging assignment; and there was continual push to get records accessioned and processed, ready to move to Berlin by February 1, 1946. Before the end of the year Born would be assigned to Berlin with the MFA&A Section of the Office of Military Government (US) for Germany [OMGUS], but he would continue to work at Kassel on temporary duty.
In mid-December, Monuments Man Seymour Pomrenze visited the MCC and Born. After this visit he wrote Oliver W. Holmes at the National Archives that:
I was greatly impressed with the manner in which this place operates and the important position Born as archivist occupies on the operational and technical staff. Born himself is a person of unusual ability, a scholar, and one of the finest officers I have met in the last 40,000 miles of my travels. He is all work and lets nothing deter him from his objective. Having a background in classics and medieval history (he had written a book on Erasmus and many other articles) he appreciates the problems connected with gathering and storing properly documents and books. His addition the staff of The National Archives at some future date would be a most valuable gain for our institution.
By the end of December 1945 a rough screening of the essential part of documents was completed with the exception of those received in December. Most of the ministerial records were moved during January 1946, to MCC Berlin. The MCC was officially closed on February 1, and the 6689th Berlin Document Center (BDC) became fully responsible for its operation. The former MCC would be renamed the Ministerial Documents Branch of the Berlin Document Center. Appreciative of Born’s work Colonel Henry C. Newton, Director, Ministerial Collecting Center, Berlin, on February 12, wrote General Lucius D. Clay, Deputy Military Governor (Office of Military Government, US), that through Born’s work at the MCC, that organization had been efficiently and smoothly operated. He indicated that Born showed initiative, imagination and determination and should be promoted. Born would be promoted to major.
During the 1946-1949 period Born played an important role in the reconstruction of German archival operations and in the restitution and return of archival materials. After his return to the United States in 1950, Born coordinated the microfilming of important holdings of the Library of Congress. He also authored two important works in 1950: “The Archives and Libraries of Postwar Germany,” American Historical Review, Vol. 56, No. 1 (October 1950) and “The Ministerial Collecting Center near Kassel, Germany,” The American Archivist, Vol. 13, No. 3 (July 1950). Born served as a cultural affairs officer at the American Embassy in Manila from 1956 to 1959. He returned to the United States in 1959 to head the manuscripts section of the Descriptive Cataloging Division of the Library of Congress. In 1963 he became head of the European Exchange Section of the Library of Congress. Lester Born died October 7, 1969 in Washington, D.C.
Information about Born’s activities in Germany from 1945 to 1949 can be found in numerous series of records within Records of the Office of Military Government (U.S.) OMGUS (RG 260), and within numerous documents contained in Material Accumulated for a Conference on Captured German and Related Records at the National Archives, 1968 (NAID 6922180), RG 242.
Today’s post was written by Dr. Greg Bradsher, Senior Archivist at the National Archives in College Park.
The term “Doughboy” has been part and parcel of the American scene for almost a century. The term “G.I.” dates back some seventy-five years. Buster Keaton, in 1930, starred in the movie Doughboys, about soldiers during World War I. A popular song in 1942 was Johnny Doughboy found a rose in Ireland, performed by Kay Kyser and Sammy Kaye, among others. G.I. Jive, a song written and originally performed by Johnny Mercer hit number one on the Harlem Hit Parade in 1944 and later that year, performed by Louis Jordan, made it to number one on both the Harlem Hit Parade and the pop chart. The song begins:
This is the G.I. Jive, man alive,
It starts with the bugler blowin’ reveille
over your bed when you arrive.
Jack, that’s the G.I. Jive
In the 1960 movie G.I. Blues, Elvis Presley sung a song with the same title, which included the lyrics:
I’ve got those hup, two, three, four
occupation G.I. Blues
From my G.I. hair to the heels of my G.I. shoes
And if I don’t go stateside soon
I’m gonna blow my fuse
The terms “Doughboy” and “G.I.” have been variously defined (see Wikipedia for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GI_(term) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughboy ). Generally the former refers to American military personnel (especially U.S. Army) during World War I while the latter usually refers to American soldiers since the 1940s.
In looking for something relating to the Berlin Museum Masterpieces exhibit in the United States after World War II, I stumbled across a 1946 Army response to an inquiry regarding the two terms. The letter was from the Army Adjutant General to a private citizen who had initially written the Treasury Department on October 25, 1946, asking for an explanation of the differences of meanings of the terms “Doughboys” and “G.I.” The response provides the Army’s view on the meaning and origins of the two terms. The letter is contained in File 000.4 Central Decimal Correspondence Files, 1946-1948 (National Archives Identifier 6626121), Record Group 407.