Mont Tremblant Conference

Mont Tremblant Conference
*Eighth International Conference of the Institute of Pacific Relations*
Mont Tremblant Conference; Eighth International Conference of the Institute of Pacific Relations;
	The conference was held at Mont-Tremblant, Quebec
Host country	Canada
Date	December 4–14, 1942
Venue(s)	Mount Tremblant Lodge
Cities	Mont Tremblant
Participants	Australia ; Canada ; China ; Dutch East Indies ; Free France ; India ; Korea (government in exile) ; Netherlands ; New Zealand ; Philippines ; Thailand ; United Kingdom ; United States ;
Chair	Alfred Sao-ke Sze
Precedes	Hot Springs, Virginia conference, 1945

Last updated July 24, 2024

The Mont Tremblant Conference, or the Eighth International Conference of the Institute of Pacific Relations, was a conference held at Mont-Tremblant in Quebec, Canada, in December 1942, organized by the Institute of Pacific Relations. Unofficial delegates from 12 countries met to discuss the waging of World War II in the Pacific theatre, and the structure of international affairs after the war, with a particular focus on the welfare of countries in East Asia and Southeast Asia.

The conference was held shortly after the signing of the Atlantic Charter and nearly a year after the initial creation of the United Nations,^[2] so delegates to the conference debated their competing interpretations of the Charter, and discussed what the war in the Pacific portended for the postwar order. The main dispute in the conference was the American delegation's critiques of British colonial policy, and the British delegation's concerns that America might return to isolationism after the war, which they worried could threaten world stability if Britain also pursued decolonization.

Historians have tended to view the conference as a reflection, more than a cause, of wartime and postwar international policy. Historical analyses of the conference have focused on its role as an early forum for conversation about decolonization, which was made possible by its timing, its focus on the Pacific, and its inclusion of delegates from a number of countries that had not been included in other major wartime conferences. Substantial time at the conference was devoted to the interests of India and Korea, which was a departure from the focus on Europe that had characterized most previous discussions about the postwar order.

Setting and composition

The conference began on December 4 and ended on December 14, 1942.^[3] It was convened by the Institute of Pacific Relations, the eighth such unofficial war conference organized by that body, to discuss the prosecution of World War II in the Pacific theatre as well as the structure of international cooperation after the end of the war.^[4]

The conference was chaired by Alfred Sao-ke Sze, who had been the Chinese ambassador to the countries that supplied the two largest delegations to the conference, the United States and the United Kingdom.^[4] In nearly contemporaneous accounts the number of delegates ranged from 100^[1] to 150,^[5] but the historian Jung-hyoo Ko has placed the total at 131 delegates from 12 countries: Australia, the British Raj, Canada, China, Free France, Korea, the Netherlands and the (occupied) Dutch East Indies, New Zealand, the Commonwealth of the Philippines (in exile in Washington),^[5] Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.^[4]

The delegates were attending as private citizens and not as official representatives of their governments, and members of the press were not invited to cover the event, so accounts after the fact described the conversations as being unusually candid.^[1] The attendees included members of government and prominent diplomats, including the sitting United States Senator Elbert D. Thomas and diplomat Stanley Hornbeck, with the British delegation led by the colonial administrator Malcolm Hailey, 1st Baron Hailey.^[4] The political writer Frederick Vanderbilt Field wrote shortly after the conference that "many of the leading figures at the conference represented very conservative political thought", though this was less true of those delegates who represented British Dominions, whom Field identified as "conspicuously more progressive".^[5]^: 3

The conference was notable for the diversity of its delegates. This was the first time that such a conference had been attended by an Indian delegation^[5] or a Thai delegation.^[4] The inclusion of a Korean observer, Younghill Kang, was also noteworthy, particularly since the conference would discuss the future of the Korean peninsula.^[4] However, the lack of any representative from the Soviet Union also drew attention.^[1]

Topics

The goal of the conference was to address how the United Nations could help to prosecute the war in the Pacific theatre, with a focus on improving "racial, political and economic justice and welfare" both during and after the war.^[5]

Frederick Field analyzed the central point of contention in the conference as a split between, on the one hand, the American and British Dominion delegates, and on the other, the delegates from Britain, the Netherlands, and the Dutch holdings.^[5] Specifically, the American delegates viewed the war as a people's war that was being waged to advance the cause of liberation, so that a natural continuation of the war would be an end to imperialism, including British imperialism.^[5] This argument was put in stark terms; for example, the historian and American government advisor on East Asia policy Tyler Dennett wrote in a statement to the conference that the American people supported the liquidation of the prewar colonial order.^[4]^: 438 In contrast, the British delegates were concerned with American participation in a post-war world order, and sought assurances that America would not simply withdraw into isolationism after the war.^[5] In advancing these aims, both sides argued that the other side was not being consistent with the recent Atlantic Charter.^[5] Field interpreted the whole conference as hinging on the interpretation of the Atlantic Charter: did the Charter's defense of self-governance and sovereign rights apply narrowly to the states that had been invaded by Nazi Germany, or were they applicable to all peoples, including those under British dominion?^[5] This also raised the question of what would replace the British Empire, and what the British delegates perceived as its stabilizing influence on the world; they argued that the only sufficient force would be vigorous American participation in international affairs.^[5]

In a report issued shortly after the conference, the Royal Institute for International Affairs remarked that the conference included many harsh critiques of the British Empire, which it viewed as largely unfounded.^[1] Much later, Suke Wolton described the conference as a moment when British delegates were placed on the defensive about British imperialism; in a book chapter called "Defending the Empire", Wolton describes how Malcolm Hailey defended the idea that British imperialism was a force for social progress and improved the welfare of colonized peoples.^[6]^{: ch. 4} Wolton points out that the conference took place in a difficult period for the Colonial Office, when Allied rhetoric during World War II against tyranny and in defense of democracy seemed to also threaten the justifications for colonialism, and ambiguous language in the Atlantic Charter appeared to have promised independence to colonized peoples, although British authorities denied that.^[6]^: 94 However, questions were quickly raised at the conference about American commitment to the ideals of the Atlantic Charter: this was done by bringing up their own record of imperialism (for example, the conference included delegates from the Philippines, which had been an American colony prior to its recent invasion by Japan),^[1] by arguing that their isolationism and slow entry into the war while much of Europe and East Asia were conquered seemed to undermine the credibility of their commitment to ensuring sovereignty rights, and was also underscored with hints about the prevalence of racism in the United States.^[6]

The inclusion of delegates from East Asia and Southeast Asia, including China, Thailand, and Korea, as well as the focus on Pacific policy, heavily influenced the discussions at the conference. Delegates from China voiced concern that China was being excluded from military decision-making even within its own theatre of war, and were concerned that this exclusion would be continued in the postwar world order.^[5] They urged the creation of an executive body within the new United Nations, with responsibilities for example in the enforcement of disarmament agreements,^[1] which would ensure that large countries could not be sidelined in postwar decision-making.^[5] The inclusion for the first time of Indian delegates similarly had the effect of bringing their interests to the negotiations. Field wrote that problems faced by India "arose again and again in connection with every aspect of Pacific policy."^[5]^: 10 The Indian delegation successfully argued that India, if established as an independent state, would need substantial economic assistance to transform its largely agricultural economy into an industrial one, and that it would benefit from military cooperation like naval security guarantees.^[1]

Conclusions

The conference delegates ultimately agreed on a memorandum that not only advocated for a transition away from colonial governance, but spelled out in detail the structure of regional transitional governments that would allow the colonized to transition out of imperial dominion.^[5] A report by the Royal Institute for International Affairs concluded that those who discussed colonization at the conference "agreed that the basic object of policy in the areas at present in colonial or dependent status must be the attainment of self-government at the earliest possible moment".^[1]^: 244 Field, who interpreted the fate of colonialism as the central question in the conference, wrote that "the discussions that had to do with Southeast Asia were particularly significant".^[5] On this point, the attendees concluded that after the end of the war, Korea should become an independent country, but substantial international loans would have to be guaranteed to build up industrial economy in the new country.^[4] They also conjectured about the political structure that would best support an independent Korea.^[4] The delegates agreed that Burma and Thailand too could quickly become (or return to being) independent.^[1]^: 243 However, they argued that "the time in which self-government could be obtained must vary for different people", since they believed that the people of some colonized regions were not capable of self-governance.^[1]^: 244

The conference also reached conclusions about the structure of the economic order after the war, especially in light of the poverty in East Asia and Southeast Asia at the time.^[1] The conference adopted statements to the effect that after the war countries must work together to ensure that everyone has some minimum standard of material well-being.^[1]

In Wolton's analysis, the conference's emphasis on the economic development of colonized areas was partly a political tactic used by the British delegation: by emphasizing that the economies of these areas needed to be developed, and further asserting that this economic development had to precede political development, they successfully postponed decisions about the political fates of their colonies.^[6]^: 109 Wolton argues that even if the delegates generally agreed that colonial holdings should eventually be liberated, Hailey had been successful in providing a new defense of colonization for the near future: that Britain was a trustee that would ensure economic and social development in colonized areas, goals which were also grounded in the Atlantic Charter.^[6]^: 113

There were also some proposals brought up at the conference which failed completely to win support and were not included in its concluding documents. For example, some delegates recommended ending racial and ethnic quota in immigration to wealthy countries,^[1] and Hailey even raised this point in his opening address to the conference.^[6] However, most delegates believed that this was politically infeasible, even if they agreed that it should be done, and it was ultimately not a recommendation of the conference.^[1]

Influence and legacy

Though the conference was about the prosecution of the war effort in the Pacific theatre as well as the postwar world order, it has mostly been studied for its engagement with the central question of how the colonial era would transition into a postwar international structure.^[4] Wolton wrote that "[t]he arguments raised at the conference engaged many of the issues of race and empire at stake during the war", and that these discussions are what make the conference historically interesting.^[6]^: 94 The conference was an unofficial conference and the delegates met in their private capacity, so it has largely been studied as a moment that reflects discussions of the time, not as a cause of later developments.^[6]^: 118 However, the historian Dayna Barnes has argued that wartime think tank conferences − of which Barnes names the Mont Tremblant conference as one example − did have real historical impact.^[7]

The main feature of the conference in historical analyses of it is its detailed discussion of post-colonialism, and the way that delegates negotiated the transition from a world order in which stability was guaranteed by imperial power to a world order in which that same stability could only be achieved through international cooperation.^[6]^: 93 The dispute between the British and American delegates on whether and how to transition away from colonialism was made obvious during the conference,^[5] and some delegates from other countries concluded that both the United Kingdom and the United States were not living up the ideals of the Atlantic Charter.^[7] The dispute between the American and British delegates, and the alignment of the remaining delegates into these two camps, has also been described as an important event in its own right; the historian Priscilla Roberts identified the Mont Tremblant conference as a landmark event in Canada's efforts to grow its role in international affairs and distance itself from British imperialism.^[8]

Modern analyses have drawn particular attention to the conference's rare − and in some cases unprecedented − inclusion of representatives from conquered or colonized countries in the Pacific region under discussion. Jung-hyoo Ko describes the Mont Tremblant conference as not just an early discussion of decolonization in general, but as one of the earliest detailed discussions about the structure and fate of a modern independent Korean state.^[4]

Even if the conference did not cause any major changes to the war effort or postwar international structure, some proposals at the conference did foreshadow important events. In one example, delegates from China proposed at the Tremblant Conference to create a decision-making nucleus within the United Nations that would give powerful countries a permanent voice in international affairs,^[5] and they voiced this idea a few years before the creation of the security council. Hailey's references to American racism, used as a rhetorical device to draw attention away from similar phenomena in other places, would also prove to be a useful device in later negotiations.^[6]^: 118

The fact that Alger Hiss and Frank Coe recommended Adlai Stevenson as an American delegate to the Mont Tremblant conference was used by Joseph McCarthy as a smear against Stevenson, after Hiss and Coe were revealed to have been spies; this attack was cited by Edward R. Murrow in the documentary on McCarthy, on See It Now , as an unreasonable attack.^[9]

Related Research Articles

Imperialism is the practice, theory or attitude of maintaining or extending power over foreign nations, particularly through expansionism, employing both hard power and soft power. Imperialism focuses on establishing or maintaining hegemony and a more or less formal empire. While related to the concepts of colonialism, imperialism is a distinct concept that can apply to other forms of expansion and many forms of government.

In historical contexts, New Imperialism characterizes a period of colonial expansion by European powers, the United States, and Japan during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The period featured an unprecedented pursuit of overseas territorial acquisitions. At the time, states focused on building their empires with new technological advances and developments, expanding their territory through conquest, and exploiting the resources of the subjugated countries. During the era of New Imperialism, the European powers individually conquered almost all of Africa and parts of Asia. The new wave of imperialism reflected ongoing rivalries among the great powers, the economic desire for new resources and markets, and a "civilizing mission" ethos. Many of the colonies established during this era gained independence during the era of decolonization that followed World War II.

The Dumbarton Oaks Conference, or, more formally, the Washington Conversations on International Peace and Security Organization, was an international conference at which proposals for the establishment of a "general international organization", which was to become the United Nations, were formulated and negotiated. The conference was led by the Four Policemen – the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China. It was held at the Dumbarton Oaks estate in Washington, D.C., from August 21, 1944, to October 7, 1944.

The Atlantic Charter was a statement issued on 14 August 1941 that set out American and British goals for the world after the end of World War II, months before the US officially entered the war. The joint statement, later dubbed the Atlantic Charter, outlined the aims of the United States and the United Kingdom for the postwar world as follows: no territorial aggrandizement, no territorial changes made against the wishes of the people (self-determination), restoration of self-government to those deprived of it, reduction of trade restrictions, global co-operation to secure better economic and social conditions for all, freedom from fear and want, freedom of the seas, abandonment of the use of force, and disarmament of aggressor nations. The charter's adherents signed the Declaration by United Nations on 1 January 1942, which was the basis for the modern United Nations.

The Paris Peace Conference was a set of formal and informal diplomatic meetings in 1919 and 1920 after the end of World War I, in which the victorious Allies set the peace terms for the defeated Central Powers. Dominated by the leaders of Britain, France, the United States and Italy, the conference resulted in five treaties that rearranged the maps of Europe and parts of Asia, Africa and the Pacific Islands, and also imposed financial penalties. Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey and the other losing nations were not given a voice in the deliberations; this later gave rise to political resentments that lasted for decades. The arrangements made by this conference are considered one of the great watersheds of 20th-century geopolitical history.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1954 Geneva Conference</span> 1954 international conference on the dismantling of French Indochina

The Geneva Conference was intended to settle outstanding issues resulting from the Korean War and the First Indochina War and involved several nations. It took place in Geneva, Switzerland, from 26 April to 20 July 1954. The part of the conference on the Korean question ended without adopting any declarations or proposals and so is generally considered less relevant. On the other hand, the Geneva Accords that dealt with the dismantling of French Indochina proved to have long-lasting repercussions. The crumbling of the French colonial empire in Southeast Asia led to the formation of the states of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, the State of Vietnam, the Kingdom of Cambodia, and the Kingdom of Laos. Three agreements about French Indochina, covering Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, were signed on 21 July 1954 and took effect two days later.

The unequal treaties were a series of agreements made between Asian countries and foreign powers during the 19th and early 20th centuries. They were often signed following a military defeat suffered by the former party, or amid military threats made by the latter. Their terms specified obligations to be borne almost exclusively by the former party: provisions included the cession of territory, the payment of reparations, the opening of treaty ports, the relinquishment of the right to control tariffs and imports, and the granting of extraterritoriality to foreign citizens.

The Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR) was an international NGO established in 1925 to provide a forum for discussion of problems and relations between nations of the Pacific Rim. The International Secretariat, the center of most IPR activity over the years, consisted of professional staff members who recommended policy to the Pacific Council and administered the international program. The various national councils were responsible for national, regional and local programming. Most participants were members of the business and academic communities in their respective countries. Funding came largely from businesses and philanthropies, especially the Rockefeller Foundation. IPR international headquarters were in Honolulu until the early 1930s when they were moved to New York and the American Council emerged as the dominant national council.

The first large-scale Asian–African or Afro–Asian Conference, also known as the Bandung Conference, was a meeting of Asian and African states, most of which were newly independent, which took place on 18–24 April 1955 in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. The twenty-nine countries that participated represented a total population of 1.5 billion people, 54% of the world's population. The conference was organized by Indonesia, Burma (Myanmar), India, Ceylon, and Pakistan and was coordinated by Ruslan Abdulgani, secretary general of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of colonialism</span>

The historical phenomenon of colonization is one that stretches around the globe and across time. Ancient and medieval colonialism was practiced by the Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Turks, Han Chinese, and Arabs.

The United Nations Conference on International Organization (UNCIO), commonly known as the San Francisco Conference, was a convention of delegates from 50 Allied nations that took place from 25 April 1945 to 26 June 1945 in San Francisco, California, United States. At this convention, the delegates reviewed and rewrote the Dumbarton Oaks agreements of the previous year. The convention resulted in the creation of the United Nations Charter, which was opened for signature on 26 June, the last day of the conference. The conference was held at various locations, primarily the War Memorial Opera House, with the Charter being signed on 26 June at the Herbst Theatre in the Veterans Building, part of the Civic Center. A square adjacent to the Civic Center, called "UN Plaza", commemorates the conference.

The "Four Policemen" was a postwar council with the Big Four that US President Franklin Roosevelt proposed as a guarantor of world peace. Their members were called the Four Powers during World War II and were the four major Allies of World War II: the United Kingdom, the United States, the Soviet Union, and China. Roosevelt repeatedly used the term "Four Policemen" starting in 1942.

The League against Imperialism and Colonial Oppression was a transnational anti-imperialist organization in the interwar period. It has been referenced as in many texts as World Anti-Imperialist League or simply and confusingly under the misnomer Anti-Imperialist League.

The Greater East Asia Conference was an international summit held in Tokyo from 5 to 6 November 1943, in which the Empire of Japan hosted leading politicians of various component parts of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The event was also referred to as the Tokyo Conference.

Australia and Canada have a longstanding relationship fostered by both countries' shared history and culture as well as the links between residents of the countries. The two countries are former British Dominions and have a common head of state in King Charles III. Both countries are members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, Cairns Group, Commonwealth of Nations, Five Eyes, OECD and the United Nations.

The Asian Relations Conference was an international conference that took place in New Delhi from 23 March to 2 April, 1947. Organized by the Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA), the Conference was hosted by Jawaharlal Nehru, then the Vice-President of the interim Viceroy's Executive Council, and presided by Sarojini Naidu. Its goal was to promote cultural, intellectual and social exchange between Asian countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Asian Socialist Conference</span> Organization of socialist parties

The Asian Socialist Conference (ASC) was an organisation of socialist political parties in Asia that existed between 1953 and 1965. It was established in an effort to build a Pan-Asian multinational socialist organization, clearly independent from earlier European colonial centres, yet free from the new superpowers of the Cold War.

The Racial Equality Proposal was an amendment to the Treaty of Versailles that was considered at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. Proposed by Japan, it was never intended to have any universal implications, but one was attached to it anyway, which caused its controversy. Japanese Foreign Minister Uchida Kōsai stated in June 1919 that the proposal was intended not to demand the racial equality of all coloured peoples but only that of members of the League of Nations.

The history of Japanese foreign relations deals with the international relations in terms of diplomacy, economics and political affairs from about 1850 to 2000. The kingdom was virtually isolated before the 1850s, with limited contacts through Dutch traders. The Meiji Restoration was a political revolution that installed a new leadership that was eager to borrow Western technology and organization. The government in Tokyo carefully monitored and controlled outside interactions. Japanese delegations to Europe brought back European standards which were widely imposed across the government and the economy. Trade flourished, as Japan rapidly industrialized.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tricontinental Conference (1966)</span> Political meeting in Cuba

The Tricontinental Conference was a gathering of countries that focused on anti-colonial and anti-imperial issues during the Cold War era, specifically those related to Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The conference was held from 3rd to 16 January 1966, in Havana, Cuba and was attended by roughly 500 delegates from 82 different countries. It founded the Organization of Solidarity with the People of Asia, Africa and Latin America (OSPAAAL). The key issues discussed at the conference were countries that were in midst of revolutions, with a specific focus on Cuba and Vietnam.

References

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Royal Institute of International Affairs (March 20, 1943). "The Conference of the Institute of Pacific Relations". Bulletin of International News. 20 (6): 239–252.
↑ "1942: The Declaration by United Nations". United Nations. Retrieved 12 July 2021.
↑ Woolbert, Robert Gale (October 1943). "Capsule Review: War and Peace in the Pacific". Foreign Affairs . Retrieved 17 June 2021.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Ko, Jung-hyoo (June 2014). "The Institute of Pacific Relations and the Korean problem during the Pacific War". Acta Koreana. 17 (1): 429–453. doi: 10.18399/acta.2014.17.1.016 .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Field, Frederick V. (January 11, 1943). "The Mont Tremblant Conference". Far Eastern Survey. 12 (1): 3–10. doi:10.2307/3022402. JSTOR 3022402.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Wolton, Suke (2000). Lord Hailey, the Colonial Office and the Politics of Race and Empire in the Second World War. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230514768. ISBN 978-0-230-51476-8.
1 2 Barnes, Dayna (2015). "Think Tanks and a New Order in East Asia: The Council of Foreign Relations and the Institute of Pacific Relations During World War II" (PDF). Journal of American-East Asian Relations. 22 (2): 89–119. doi:10.1163/18765610-02202002.
↑ Roberts, Priscilla (November 30, 2012). "Tweaking the Lion's Tail: Edgar J. Tarr, the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, and the British Empire, 1931–1950". Diplomacy & Statecraft. 23 (4): 636–659. doi:10.1080/09592296.2012.736329. S2CID 154941762.
↑ "Dems list 18 lies in McCarthy speech". Madison Capital Times. November 3, 1952.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[riia43-1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Royal Institute of International Affairs (March 20, 1943). "The Conference of the Institute of Pacific Relations". Bulletin of International News. 20 (6): 239–252.

[2] "1942: The Declaration by United Nations". United Nations. Retrieved 12 July 2021.

[3] Woolbert, Robert Gale (October 1943). "Capsule Review: War and Peace in the Pacific". Foreign Affairs . Retrieved 17 June 2021.

[ko14-4] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Ko, Jung-hyoo (June 2014). "The Institute of Pacific Relations and the Korean problem during the Pacific War". Acta Koreana. 17 (1): 429–453. doi: 10.18399/acta.2014.17.1.016 .

[field43-5] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Field, Frederick V. (January 11, 1943). "The Mont Tremblant Conference". Far Eastern Survey. 12 (1): 3–10. doi:10.2307/3022402. JSTOR 3022402.

[wolton00-6] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Wolton, Suke (2000). Lord Hailey, the Colonial Office and the Politics of Race and Empire in the Second World War. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230514768. ISBN 978-0-230-51476-8.

[barnes15-7] 1 2 Barnes, Dayna (2015). "Think Tanks and a New Order in East Asia: The Council of Foreign Relations and the Institute of Pacific Relations During World War II" (PDF). Journal of American-East Asian Relations. 22 (2): 89–119. doi:10.1163/18765610-02202002.

[8] Roberts, Priscilla (November 30, 2012). "Tweaking the Lion's Tail: Edgar J. Tarr, the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, and the British Empire, 1931–1950". Diplomacy & Statecraft. 23 (4): 636–659. doi:10.1080/09592296.2012.736329. S2CID 154941762.

[9] "Dems list 18 lies in McCarthy speech". Madison Capital Times. November 3, 1952.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]