There are several ways for assessing the role played by a currency $C$ in the world economy.

1. The first is the share of $C$ in official central bank reserves.

A useful distinction can be made between industrial countries and emerging countries which comes from the fact that the situation in industrial countries is almost frozen in the sense that the shares of the dollar and euro have remained basically unchanged since 2000 whereas the picture is changing fairly rapidly in emerging countries.

In the later case, between 2002 and 2006 the share of the euro increased from 20% to about 30%. As a consequence of the European debt crisis the share of the euro fell back to 25% between 2010 and the last quarter of 2012. However this fall did not translate into a same-size increase of the dollar's share (the increase was only 2%).

2. Share of $C$ in financial and economic transactions.

One should keep in mind that financial transactions (i.e. transaction in futures markets, currency markets, share markets, and transactions in other financial products) dwarf economic transactions (commodity spot markets, international trade) by a wide margin.

Whereas in financial transactions the dollar's share is overwhelming, in economic transactions (also called "trade finance") the situation is evolving rapidly. The share of the Chinese renminbi increased from 1.9% in January 2012 to 8.6% in October 2013. In the same time interval the share of the euro decreased from 7.9% to 6.6% and the share of the dollar fell from 85% to 81%$^{55}$.

If the previous trend continues, the share of the renminbi in trade finance should be around 15% at the end of 2015. These data suggest that the renminbi is quickly replacing the euro as the dollar's main competitor, at least in trade transactions.

**The case of the Baltic states as seen by the New York Times**

Surprising as it may seem, despite the eurozone crisis three new countries joined it, namely Estonia on 1 January 2011, Latvia on 1 January 2014 and Lithuania which is expected to join on 1 January 2015$^{56}$.

How did the New York Times react to these news?

*   **Title:** "As Latvia adopts euro, future growth is slowing" (NYT Jan 1, 2014). This is a curious title for the future slowing is not presented as a possible outcome but as a fact.

*   "The euro zone is a club that few potentially eligible countries are eager to join. Lithuania may be the last new member of the euro zone until the end of the decade, or even longer. Even in Lithuania, a poll last year showed that opponents of

<footnote>$^{55}$Source: Blomberg: 3 December 2013, article entitled "Yuan passes euro as 2nd-most used trade-finance currency".</footnote>

<footnote>$^{56}$From 1994 to 2002 the currency of Lithuania was pegged to the dollar.</footnote>
There are several ways for assessing the role played by a currency $C$ in the world economy.

1. The first is the share of $C$ in official central bank reserves.

A useful distinction can be made between industrial countries and emerging countries which comes from the fact that the situation in industrial countries is almost frozen in the sense that the shares of the dollar and euro have remained basically unchanged since 2000 whereas the picture is changing fairly rapidly in emerging countries.

In the later case, between 2002 and 2006 the share of the euro increased from 20% to about 30%. As a consequence of the European debt crisis the share of the euro fell back to 25% between 2010 and the last quarter of 2012. However this fall did not translate into a same-size increase of the dollar's share (the increase was only 2%).

2. Share of $C$ in financial and economic transactions.

One should keep in mind that financial transactions (i.e. transaction in futures markets, currency markets, share markets, and transactions in other financial products) dwarf economic transactions (commodity spot markets, international trade) by a wide margin.

Whereas in financial transactions the dollar's share is overwhelming, in economic transactions (also called "trade finance") the situation is evolving rapidly. The share of the Chinese renminbi increased from 1.9% in January 2012 to 8.6% in October 2013. In the same time interval the share of the euro decreased from 7.9% to 6.6% and the share of the dollar fell from 85% to 81%$^{55}$.

If the previous trend continues, the share of the renminbi in trade finance should be around 15% at the end of 2015. These data suggest that the renminbi is quickly replacing the euro as the dollar's main competitor, at least in trade transactions.

**The case of the Baltic states as seen by the New York Times**

Surprising as it may seem, despite the eurozone crisis three new countries joined it, namely Estonia on 1 January 2011, Latvia on 1 January 2014 and Lithuania which is expected to join on 1 January 2015$^{56}$.

How did the New York Times react to these news?

*   Title: "As Latvia adopts euro, future growth is slowing" (NYT Jan 1, 2014). This is a curious title for the future slowing is not presented as a possible outcome but as a fact.

*   "The euro zone is a club that few potentially eligible countries are eager to join. Lithuania may be the last new member of the euro zone until the end of the decade, or even longer. Even in Lithuania, a poll last year showed that opponents of

<footnote>$^{55}$Source: Blomberg: 3 December 2013, article entitled "Yuan passes euro as 2nd-most used trade-finance currency".</footnote>

<footnote>$^{56}$From 1994 to 2002 the currency of Lithuania was pegged to the dollar.</footnote>
euro membership outnumbered supporters by a wide margin.” (NYT 4 June 2014)

## Conclusion

Why did we use the expression “test-experiment” in the title of this section?

For the dollar the euro is a competitor, possibly a weak competitor but a competitor nonetheless. So, if our thesis that the United States is aiming for world leadership at all cost, is correct, one would not expect the US State Department or Treasury to welcome the success of the euro. In other words, analyzing US attitude toward the euro can be seen as a kind of “natural experiment” through which our thesis could be tested.

## Was Jean Monnet a spokesman of US interests?

It is often said that together with French minister Robert Schuman and Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, Mr. Jean Monnet was one of the founding fathers of the European Union. This may indeed be true. However, his vision was one of a subservient European Union. One may argue that he was in favor of a partnership with the United States, but in fact in the conditions prevailing at the time there could be no partnership between equals but only an association dominated by the United States. In other words, Mr. Monnet was either very short-sighted or an undercover spokesman of US Interests. The second option may be the most likely.

### Monnet's role in Algiers in early 1943

When Mr. Monnet was sent to Algiers by President Roosevelt on the advice of Mr. Harry Hopkins he had both an official mission and an unofficial mission. The official mission was about supply problems for the French troops in North Africa. The unofficial mission was to meet General Giraud in order to make him more acceptable by the American press. During his stay in Algiers he sent numerous messages to Mr. Harry Hopkins. For some reason, he sent some of his messages to Hopkins through a third person: General Marshall on 28 May 1943 or his wife (who remained in Washington) on 7 July 1943.

In early May 1943 he became a member of the “French Committee of National Liberation”. In this Committee, for some reason that we do not understand clearly, he sided with General de Gaulle instead of supporting General Giraud. For that reason he was named a traitor by Secretary of State Cordell Hull. Probably he came to realize that even with his support, General Giraud would not prevail anyway. So he joined the winning side. It seems that when Monnet returned to Washington in October 1943 he got a fairly cool reception. In JMDS-41 (i.e. “Jean Monnet Duchene Source” from the European University Institute) there is a memorandum “concern-
euro membership outnumbered supporters by a wide margin.” (NYT 4 June 2014)

## Conclusion

Why did we use the expression “test-experiment” in the title of this section?

For the dollar the euro is a competitor, possibly a weak competitor but a competitor nonetheless. So, if our thesis that the United States is aiming for world leadership at all cost, is correct, one would not expect the US State Department or Treasury to welcome the success of the euro. In other words, analyzing US attitude toward the euro can be seen as a kind of “natural experiment” through which our thesis could be tested.

## Was Jean Monnet a spokesman of US interests?

It is often said that together with French minister Robert Schuman and Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, Mr. Jean Monnet was one of the founding fathers of the European Union. This may indeed be true. However, his vision was one of a subservient European Union. One may argue that he was in favor of a partnership with the United States, but in fact in the conditions prevailing at the time there could be no partnership between equals but only an association dominated by the United States. In other words, Mr. Monnet was either very short-sighted or an undercover spokesman of US Interests. The second option may be the most likely.

### Monnet's role in Algiers in early 1943

When Mr. Monnet was sent to Algiers by President Roosevelt on the advice of Mr. Harry Hopkins he had both an official mission and an unofficial mission. The official mission was about supply problems for the French troops in North Africa. The unofficial mission was to meet General Giraud in order to make him more acceptable by the American press. During his stay in Algiers he sent numerous messages to Mr. Harry Hopkins. For some reason, he sent some of his messages to Hopkins through a third person: General Marshall on 28 May 1943 or his wife (who remained in Washington) on 7 July 1943.

In early May 1943 he became a member of the “French Committee of National Liberation”. In this Committee, for some reason that we do not understand clearly, he sided with General de Gaulle instead of supporting General Giraud. For that reason he was named a traitor by Secretary of State Cordell Hull. Probably he came to realize that even with his support, General Giraud would not prevail anyway. So he joined the winning side. It seems that when Monnet returned to Washington in October 1943 he got a fairly cool reception. In JMDS-41 (i.e. “Jean Monnet Duchene Source” from the European University Institute) there is a memorandum “concern-
ing decision not to divulge to Monnet any information on matter of supplies". As the question of supplies was the main task of Monnet in Washington the decision to keep him in the dark is of significance.

## Jean Monnet's support for the European Defense Community

In the 1950s the United States had two main objectives. The first was to organize the defense of Western Europe under American leadership. The second, which indeed resulted from the first, was to prevent any European country apart from the UK to develop nuclear weapons. In this way, the United States would remain solely in charge of providing a nuclear umbrella. This would put Western Europe in the same situation as Japan. The project of the European Defense Community would have realized these two objectives at the same time.

Indeed, the EDC would have set up an integrated European Army. Because of the German participation and of the fact that Germany had pledged to renounce to nuclear weapons the same would have been true for the other countries taking part in the EDC. In addition the Treaty even comprised a control of civilian nuclear activity in order to prevent any country from producing fissile material that could have military applications particularly plutonium.

After the EDC project was rejected by the French parliament in 1954, Mr. Monnet proposed the Euratom project which, with respect to nuclear research had basically the same objective as the EDC, namely to prevent the nations which would become members to develop nuclear weapons

## Monnet's support for the Euratom project

Much can be said about the Euratom but we think that the crux of the matter was the following point. There are basically two types of nuclear reactors (i) those which use natural uranium and (ii) those which use enriched uranium that is to say uranium that contains some 4% of U235 as compared to 0.7% for natural uranium. A country with reactors using natural uranium can be independent in terms of nuclear fuel. On the contrary a country which uses enriched uranium and does not have a facility to produce it must buy it from a supplier.

Around 1955 there were only two suppliers of enriched uranium, namely the United States and the Soviet Union. If Euratom could persuade its members to choose a type of reactor which requires enriched uranium the United States will become their only possible supplier because of strenuous relations with the USSR during the Cold War. This would put the United States in a most favorable situation. First it would be able to export its reactors to Europe. Secondly, when the European countries would wish an agreement with the US for the supply of enriched uranium, the American Congress would be able to set its conditions. This is precisely what happened in
ing decision not to divulge to Monnet any information on matter of supplies". As the question of supplies was the main task of Monnet in Washington the decision to keep him in the dark is of significance.

## Jean Monnet's support for the European Defense Community

In the 1950s the United States had two main objectives. The first was to organize the defense of Western Europe under American leadership. The second, which indeed resulted from the first, was to prevent any European country apart from the UK to develop nuclear weapons. In this way, the United States would remain solely in charge of providing a nuclear umbrella. This would put Western Europe in the same situation as Japan. The project of the European Defense Community would have realized these two objectives at the same time.

Indeed, the EDC would have set up an integrated European Army. Because of the German participation and of the fact that Germany had pledged to renounce to nuclear weapons the same would have been true for the other countries taking part in the EDC. In addition the Treaty even comprised a control of civilian nuclear activity in order to prevent any country from producing fissile material that could have military applications particularly plutonium.

After the EDC project was rejected by the French parliament in 1954, Mr. Monnet proposed the Euratom project which, with respect to nuclear research had basically the same objective as the EDC, namely to prevent the nations which would become members to develop nuclear weapons

## Monnet's support for the Euratom project

Much can be said about the Euratom but we think that the crux of the matter was the following point. There are basically two types of nuclear reactors (i) those which use natural uranium and (ii) those which use enriched uranium that is to say uranium that contains some 4% of U235 as compared to 0.7% for natural uranium. A country with reactors using natural uranium can be independent in terms of nuclear fuel. On the contrary a country which uses enriched uranium and does not have a facility to produce it must buy it from a supplier.

Around 1955 there were only two suppliers of enriched uranium, namely the United States and the Soviet Union. If Euratom could persuade its members to choose a type of reactor which requires enriched uranium the United States will become their only possible supplier because of strenuous relations with the USSR during the Cold War. This would put the United States in a most favorable situation. First it would be able to export its reactors to Europe. Secondly, when the European countries would wish an agreement with the US for the supply of enriched uranium, the American Congress would be able to set its conditions. This is precisely what happened in
1958 when Euratom negotiated a treaty of cooperation with the United States. Thus, without being itself a member of Euratom, the United States would be able to impose conditions that are not mentioned in any of the articles of the Euratom treaty.

One may think that this was a clever strategy but in fact the outcome could have been predicted easily. When a nation holds a monopoly in a given technology this will sooner or later lead to a situation where the dominant country imposes its conditions to its unfortunate partners.

Among the 6 counties which composed initially Euratom, only France had the wish to develop a nuclear deterrence force. In other words, the Euratom treaty was (as had already been the case of the EDC) mainly directed against France. Contrary to the EDC which had been rejected by the French parliament, the Euratom treaty was approved but it would never receive the supra-national powers that its creators wanted to give it. Therefore it did not prevent France from developing a nuclear deterrence force. Whether or not this force has been of much usefulness is another debate. The same question can be raised for all countries who have a nuclear deterrence force.

## Acknowledgments

Many thanks to the colleagues who provided comments and encouragements, particularly to Prof. Yuji Aruka (Chuo University, Tokyo), Prof. Belal Baaquie (National Singapore University).

# Appendix A: The American Forces Network (AFN)

The American Forces Networks (AFN) were established in all countries where there were US troops. At first they were radio broadcasts but subsequently they also provided TV and Internet content. This Appendix provides a chronology of the development of such networks.

Source: Official Website of AFN Europe.

http://www.afneurope.net/AboutUs/tabid/85/Default.aspx

During the 1950s and 60s civilian audiences in Europe widely listened to AFN which contributed to make American music very popular. This was particularly the case in Communist bloc countries. It had the added bonus of not being subjected to radio jamming unlike such stations as Radio Free Europe which carried news in Eastern European languages.

1943 July 4 - The American Forces Network Europe (AFNE) provides its first broadcast to US troops in Britain from BBC Studios in London. On October 25 the 5th Army Mobile Expeditionary Radio Service began broadcasting in Naples, Italy.
1958 when Euratom negotiated a treaty of cooperation with the United States. Thus, without being itself a member of Euratom, the United States would be able to impose conditions that are not mentioned in any of the articles of the Euratom treaty.

One may think that this was a clever strategy but in fact the outcome could have been predicted easily. When a nation holds a monopoly in a given technology this will sooner or later lead to a situation where the dominant country imposes its conditions to its unfortunate partners.

Among the 6 counties which composed initially Euratom, only France had the wish to develop a nuclear deterrence force. In other words, the Euratom treaty was (as had already been the case of the EDC) mainly directed against France. Contrary to the EDC which had been rejected by the French parliament, the Euratom treaty was approved but it would never receive the supra-national powers that its creators wanted to give it. Therefore it did not prevent France from developing a nuclear deterrence force. Whether or not this force has been of much usefulness is another debate. The same question can be raised for all countries who have a nuclear deterrence force.

## Acknowledgments

Many thanks to the colleagues who provided comments and encouragements, particularly to Prof. Yuji Aruka (Chuo University, Tokyo), Prof. Belal Baaquie (National Singapore University).

# Appendix A: The American Forces Network (AFN)

The American Forces Networks (AFN) were established in all countries where there were US troops. At first they were radio broadcasts but subsequently they also provided TV and Internet content. This Appendix provides a chronology of the development of such networks.

Source: Official Website of AFN Europe.

http://www.afneurope.net/AboutUs/tabid/85/Default.aspx

During the 1950s and 60s civilian audiences in Europe widely listened to AFN which contributed to make American music very popular. This was particularly the case in Communist bloc countries. It had the added bonus of not being subjected to radio jamming unlike such stations as Radio Free Europe which carried news in Eastern European languages.

1943 July 4 - The American Forces Network Europe (AFNE) provides its first broadcast to US troops in Britain from BBC Studios in London. On October 25 the 5th Army Mobile Expeditionary Radio Service began broadcasting in Naples, Italy.
1944 November AFN administrative Headquarters remains in London but operations move to newly liberated Paris. As Allied forces continue to push German Soldiers back into Germany, AFN moves east as well. Following the liberation of Belgium, Luxembourg, France and the Netherlands, more than 60 AFN stations spring up along the Allied front.

1945 June 10 - AFN Munich signs on the air. AFN Bremen and AFN Berlin sign on the air later that year. August 15 AFN Frankfurt signs on the air from a mobile radio studio on the back of a truck parked outside General Dwight Eisenhower's Frankfurt Headquarters.

1948 March 17- AFN Stuttgart signs on the air. AFN closes all stations in France.

1950 July - AFN Nuremburg signs on the air at the Grand Hotel in Downtown Nuremberg.

1958 May 23 - AFN returns to France with a station in Orleans.

1959 July 15 After being one of the 11 original transmitter sites in Europe, AFN Heidelberg becomes its own station and signs on the air.

1962 March 20 AFN Berlin becomes the first station to provide 24 hour operations.

1967 AFN Orleans shuts down as France withdraws from NATO and asks US troops to leave. The station moves to Belgium and sets up at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) as AFN SHAPE.

1970s Air Force Television at Ramstein provides TV to the troops in Central Europe until the early 70's when AFN Europe assumes the mission.

1976 October 28 AFN broadcasts the first color television signal from the Frankfurt studio.

1987 December - AFN Benelux adds satellite reception service, and adds AFN television service to Brussels audience.

1991 January AFN Europe sends troops to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in support of Operations Desert Storm/Desert Shield. February 14 - AFN Munich signs off the air. Following the Gulf War as the US military begins a partial drawdown in Europe, a leading German politician says, "The U.S. Military can leave Europe, but AFN must stay."

1992 AFN Munich closes.

June 20 - AFN Somalia signs on the air.

1994 March 8 AFN Somalia signs off the air.

July 15 - AFN Berlin signs off the air.
1944 November AFN administrative Headquarters remains in London but operations move to newly liberated Paris. As Allied forces continue to push German Soldiers back into Germany, AFN moves east as well. Following the liberation of Belgium, Luxembourg, France and the Netherlands, more than 60 AFN stations spring up along the Allied front.

1945 June 10 - AFN Munich signs on the air. AFN Bremen and AFN Berlin sign on the air later that year. August 15 AFN Frankfurt signs on the air from a mobile radio studio on the back of a truck parked outside General Dwight Eisenhower's Frankfurt Headquarters.

1948 March 17- AFN Stuttgart signs on the air. AFN closes all stations in France.

1950 July - AFN Nuremburg signs on the air at the Grand Hotel in Downtown Nuremberg.

1958 May 23 - AFN returns to France with a station in Orleans.

1959 July 15 After being one of the 11 original transmitter sites in Europe, AFN Heidelberg becomes its own station and signs on the air.

1962 March 20 AFN Berlin becomes the first station to provide 24 hour operations.

1967 AFN Orleans shuts down as France withdraws from NATO and asks US troops to leave. The station moves to Belgium and sets up at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) as AFN SHAPE.

1970s Air Force Television at Ramstein provides TV to the troops in Central Europe until the early 70's when AFN Europe assumes the mission.

1976 October 28 AFN broadcasts the first color television signal from the Frankfurt studio.

1987 December - AFN Benelux adds satellite reception service, and adds AFN television service to Brussels audience.

1991 January AFN Europe sends troops to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in support of Operations Desert Storm/Desert Shield. February 14 - AFN Munich signs off the air. Following the Gulf War as the US military begins a partial drawdown in Europe, a leading German politician says, "The U.S. Military can leave Europe, but AFN must stay."

1992 AFN Munich closes.

June 20 - AFN Somalia signs on the air.

1994 March 8 AFN Somalia signs off the air.

July 15 - AFN Berlin signs off the air.
December AFN mobile radio station deploys to support troops serving in the Balkans on a NATO peacekeeping mission.

2003 AFN Europe starts to send military journalists and engineers to combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

2006 February 27 - AFN BC launches a new TV channel targeted at 18-24 year olds. AFN Europe's Eagle Radio goes on the air in the former Warsaw Pact nation of Bulgaria.

2009 November 7 - AFN Europe simulcasts live the 2009 DoDDS Super Six Football Championships over TV and the Internet.

2010 February 27 - AFN Europe simulcasts live the 2010 DoDDS European High School Basketball Championships over TV and the Internet.

2013 January - Two stations formerly managed by the Defense Media Activity, are moved under AFN Europe: AFN Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and AFN Honduras.

# Appendix B: American Football leagues in Europe and Asia

In which countries does the "International Federation of American Football" have domestic affiliate organizations?

In 2007 I was surprised to see a presentation of American Football on the TV screens set up in the coaches of the Shanghai metro. Then, in 2009 as well as in following years, I saw whole weekends devoted to the presentation of American football on the campus of "Beijing Normal University". Such weekends were organized by special teams who brought with them appropriate inflatable devices. At that time I did not realize that this diffusion of American football was in fact a world-wide phenomenon.

## Europe

Source: Official website of the IFAF (International Federation of American Football)

All European countries (with the possible exception of Iceland) have local organizations which are members of the "International Federation of American Football".

Below, for each country, we give the dates of initial membership. For some countries the date is not given but even in such cases there is nevertheless a local organization whose address is given.

Austria (1982), Belarus (1991), Belgium (1988), Bulgaria (2008), Croatia (2006), Czech Republic (1993), Denmark (1989), Estonia (1995), Finland (1979), France (1983), Germany (1979), Great Britain (1979), Greece (?), Hungary (1992), Ireland (Irish American Football Association), Israel (Kraft Family, 2000), Italy (2002),
December AFN mobile radio station deploys to support troops serving in the Balkans on a NATO peacekeeping mission.

2003 AFN Europe starts to send military journalists and engineers to combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

2006 February 27 - AFN BC launches a new TV channel targeted at 18-24 year olds. AFN Europe's Eagle Radio goes on the air in the former Warsaw Pact nation of Bulgaria.

2009 November 7 - AFN Europe simulcasts live the 2009 DoDDS Super Six Football Championships over TV and the Internet.

2010 February 27 - AFN Europe simulcasts live the 2010 DoDDS European High School Basketball Championships over TV and the Internet.

2013 January - Two stations formerly managed by the Defense Media Activity, are moved under AFN Europe: AFN Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and AFN Honduras.

# Appendix B: American Football leagues in Europe and Asia

In which countries does the "International Federation of American Football" have domestic affiliate organizations?

In 2007 I was surprised to see a presentation of American Football on the TV screens set up in the coaches of the Shanghai metro. Then, in 2009 as well as in following years, I saw whole weekends devoted to the presentation of American football on the campus of "Beijing Normal University". Such weekends were organized by special teams who brought with them appropriate inflatable devices. At that time I did not realize that this diffusion of American football was in fact a world-wide phenomenon.

## Europe

Source: Official website of the IFAF (International Federation of American Football)

All European countries (with the possible exception of Iceland) have local organizations which are members of the "International Federation of American Football".

Below, for each country, we give the dates of initial membership. For some countries the date is not given but even in such cases there is nevertheless a local organization whose address is given.

Austria (1982), Belarus (1991), Belgium (1988), Bulgaria (2008), Croatia (2006), Czech Republic (1993), Denmark (1989), Estonia (1995), Finland (1979), France (1983), Germany (1979), Great Britain (1979), Greece (?), Hungary (1992), Ireland (Irish American Football Association), Israel (Kraft Family, 2000), Italy (2002),
Luxembourg (?), Moldova (?), Netherlands (?), Norway (Norwegian Federation of American Sports: cheerleading, lacrosse, frisby, american football, 2010), Poland (2004), Portugal (?), Romania (2007), Russia (?), Serbia (?), Slovenia (?), Spain (2007), Sweden (1984), Switzerland (1982), Turkey (1993), Ukraine (2005)

## Asia

Source: Official website of the IFAF

India (?), Japan (1934, in 2012 there were 190 teams), Kuwait (2012), Mongolia (2009), South Korea (1947), Thailand (2006).

# Appendix C: Baseball leagues in Europe and Asia

Source: Wikipedia article entitled “List of organized baseball leagues”.

## Europe

Austria, Croatia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands (with the UK the Netherlands is one of the two major European baseball nations), Spain (baseball was somewhat popular in the 1950s and 1960s but was eclipsed by the growing interest in soccer), Sweden, United Kingdom, Finland, Latvia, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Switzerland.

## Asia

Japan (1878), Korea (1905), Philippines (1898), Taiwan (1906)

## Acronyms

AC: Allied Commission (the commission in charge of Italy until the signature of the Peace Treaty)

ACUE: American Committee on United Europe.

AFN: Armed Forces Network [media network for US forces in overseas bases]

AIS: Allied Information Service (it was working hand in hand with the Psychological Warfare Division)

AMGOT: Allied Military Government of Occupied Territories

AMG: Allied Military Government

BMA notes: British Military Authority bank notes (were introduced during the invasion of North Africa in November 1942)

CAD: Civil Affairs Division

CAFT: Combined Advance Field Team (a component of the Technical Intelligence Teams whose role it was to identify useful scientific sources)
Luxembourg (?), Moldova (?), Netherlands (?), Norway (Norwegian Federation of American Sports: cheerleading, lacrosse, frisby, american football, 2010), Poland (2004), Portugal (?), Romania (2007), Russia (?), Serbia (?), Slovenia (?), Spain (2007), Sweden (1984), Switzerland (1982), Turkey (1993), Ukraine (2005)

## Asia

Source: Official website of the IFAF

India (?), Japan (1934, in 2012 there were 190 teams), Kuwait (2012), Mongolia (2009), South Korea (1947), Thailand (2006).

# Appendix C: Baseball leagues in Europe and Asia

Source: Wikipedia article entitled “List of organized baseball leagues”.

## Europe

Austria, Croatia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands (with the UK the Netherlands is one of the two major European baseball nations), Spain (baseball was somewhat popular in the 1950s and 1960s but was eclipsed by the growing interest in soccer), Sweden, United Kingdom, Finland, Latvia, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Switzerland.

## Asia

Japan (1878), Korea (1905), Philippines (1898), Taiwan (1906)

## Acronyms

AC: Allied Commission (the commission in charge of Italy until the signature of the Peace Treaty)

ACUE: American Committee on United Europe.

AFN: Armed Forces Network [media network for US forces in overseas bases]

AIS: Allied Information Service (it was working hand in hand with the Psychological Warfare Division)

AMGOT: Allied Military Government of Occupied Territories

AMG: Allied Military Government

BMA notes: British Military Authority bank notes (were introduced during the invasion of North Africa in November 1942)

CAD: Civil Affairs Division

CAFT: Combined Advance Field Team (a component of the Technical Intelligence Teams whose role it was to identify useful scientific sources)
CCAC: Combined Civil Affairs Committee

CCS: Combined Chiefs of Staff (“combined” referred to the joint US-UK participation)

CINCEUR: Commander in Chief, Europe (refers to the Commander of US forces in Europe)

CINCUSAFE: Commander in Chief, United States Air Forces in Europe

ECSC: European Coal and Steel Community

EDC: European Defense Community

FCNL: French Committee of National Liberation

FEA: Foreign Economic Administration

FRUS: Foreign Relations of the United States (publication of select documents from the State Department, many volumes, available on the Internet)

G-5: Code name of the “Civil Affairs Division” within the US Army (in the same way G-1 is personnel, G-2 is intelligence, G-3 is operations, G-4 is logistics)

JAMAG: Joint American Military Advisory Group (coordinated the actions of the MAAGs)

MAAG: Military Advisory Assistance Group

NARA: National Archives and Records Administration

NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NSC: National Security Council (weekly council in charge of security issues in the US administration)

NYT: New York Times

OWI: Office of War Information

SACEUR: Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (a US four-star general or admiral who heads the Allied Command Operations (ACO) located at SHAPE, Mons, Belgium)

SCAP: Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers [Headquarters of occupation forces in Japan]

SCAPIN: SCAP Instruction [for the Japanese government]

SHAEF: Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Force

SHAPE: Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers (Europe)

USFET: United States Forces, European Theater

USAFIK: US Army Forces in Korea

USAMGIK: US Army Military Government in Korea
CCAC: Combined Civil Affairs Committee

CCS: Combined Chiefs of Staff (“combined” referred to the joint US-UK participation)

CINCEUR: Commander in Chief, Europe (refers to the Commander of US forces in Europe)

CINCUSAFE: Commander in Chief, United States Air Forces in Europe

ECSC: European Coal and Steel Community

EDC: European Defense Community

FCNL: French Committee of National Liberation

FEA: Foreign Economic Administration

FRUS: Foreign Relations of the United States (publication of select documents from the State Department, many volumes, available on the Internet)

G-5: Code name of the “Civil Affairs Division” within the US Army (in the same way G-1 is personnel, G-2 is intelligence, G-3 is operations, G-4 is logistics)

JAMAG: Joint American Military Advisory Group (coordinated the actions of the MAAGs)

MAAG: Military Advisory Assistance Group

NARA: National Archives and Records Administration

NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NSC: National Security Council (weekly council in charge of security issues in the US administration)

NYT: New York Times

OWI: Office of War Information

SACEUR: Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (a US four-star general or admiral who heads the Allied Command Operations (ACO) located at SHAPE, Mons, Belgium)

SCAP: Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers [Headquarters of occupation forces in Japan]

SCAPIN: SCAP Instruction [for the Japanese government]

SHAEF: Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Force

SHAPE: Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers (Europe)

USFET: United States Forces, European Theater

USAFIK: US Army Forces in Korea

USAMGIK: US Army Military Government in Korea
## Archive documents

MAAG 2: US National Archives and Records Administration at College Park.

Title: MAAG France, the “Top secret chronological correspondence, 1949-1954.

Record Group 334, Box 6.

[MAAG2 refers to the 20 first pages of this file which has about 1,500 pages. They cover 15 June 1951 to 20 July 1951.]

## References

Aldrich (R.J.) 1997: OSS, CIA and European unity: the American Committee on United Europe, 1948-1960. Diplomacy and Statecraft 8,1,184-227.

[This study is mostly based on the records of the ACUE that are publicly available. However, the author is well aware of the fact that the most interesting parts of these records are probably those which are still classified.

The paper contains some 10 excerpts from Rebattet's thesis (see below) but which are of fairly small significance.]

Boivin (M.) 2003: Les Manchois dans la tourmente de la Seconde guerre mondiale : 1939-1945. [The residents of the Manche département during the Second World War, 1939-1945.] Thesis, University of Caen. 8 vol (2144 p.).

[Two volumes are devoted to the time interval after June 1944: vol. 4 (the last text volume) and vol. 8 (the last volume of notes)]

In 2004 the thesis was published by the Editions Euribles, Marigny (6 vol.)]

Bourliaguet (B.) 2009: L'AMGOT: contingence militaire ou outil de politique étrangère?

[AMGOT: Military necessity or foreign policy instrument?] Master Thesis, Laval University, Canada.

[This interesting study gives a detailed view of the plans. Needless to say, it would be of great interest also to know what were the aspects of these plans which were actually implemented. Yet, one must realize that this task would be a real challenge because it requires micro-historical investigations and appropriate sources.]

Branca (E.) 2017: L'ami américain. Washington contre de Gaulle, 1940-1969. Perrin, Paris.

[Une analyse ła fois soigneusement documentée et qui se lit comme un roman du cas français. Le rôle joué par Jean Monnet dans le torpillage de l'accord franco-allemand par le parlement allemand est un épisode-clé qui marque bien les limites de l'indépendance française dans une optique américaine.]

Carson (J.A.) 2003: Nation-Building. The American Way. Report for the US Army
## Archive documents

MAAG 2: US National Archives and Records Administration at College Park.

Title: MAAG France, the “Top secret chronological correspondence, 1949-1954.

Record Group 334, Box 6.

[MAAG2 refers to the 20 first pages of this file which has about 1,500 pages. They cover 15 June 1951 to 20 July 1951.]

## References

Aldrich (R.J.) 1997: OSS, CIA and European unity: the American Committee on United Europe, 1948-1960. Diplomacy and Statecraft 8,1,184-227.

[This study is mostly based on the records of the ACUE that are publicly available. However, the author is well aware of the fact that the most interesting parts of these records are probably those which are still classified.

The paper contains some 10 excerpts from Rebattet's thesis (see below) but which are of fairly small significance.]

Boivin (M.) 2003: Les Manchois dans la tourmente de la Seconde guerre mondiale : 1939-1945. [The residents of the Manche département during the Second World War, 1939-1945.] Thesis, University of Caen. 8 vol (2144 p.).

[Two volumes are devoted to the time interval after June 1944: vol. 4 (the last text volume) and vol. 8 (the last volume of notes)]

In 2004 the thesis was published by the Editions Euribles, Marigny (6 vol.)]

Bourliaguet (B.) 2009: L'AMGOT: contingence militaire ou outil de politique étrangère?

[AMGOT: Military necessity or foreign policy instrument?] Master Thesis, Laval University, Canada.

[This interesting study gives a detailed view of the plans. Needless to say, it would be of great interest also to know what were the aspects of these plans which were actually implemented. Yet, one must realize that this task would be a real challenge because it requires micro-historical investigations and appropriate sources.]

Branca (E.) 2017: L'ami américain. Washington contre de Gaulle, 1940-1969. Perrin, Paris.

[Une analyse łà fois soigneusement documentée et qui se lit comme un roman du cas français. Le rôle joué par Jean Monnet dans le torpillage de l'accord franco-allemand par le parlement allemand est un épisode-clé qui marque bien les limites de l'indépendance française dans une optique américaine.]

Carson (J.A.) 2003: Nation-Building. The American Way. Report for the US Army
War College, Carlyle Barracks, Pennsylvania.

[This report by Colonel Jayne Carson was published at the time of the invasion of Iraq. It starts with the cases of Cuba and the Philippines where the United States started nation-building in 1898. Among the other cases being considered there is Haiti, and also, of course, Germany and Japan. It continues with Bosnia and Kosovo and ends with Afghanistan.

The story for Haiti starts with the US-led occupation of September 1993 (so-called “Operation Uphold Democracy”) omitting the previous US occupation which lasted from 1915 to 1934.

The account for Kosovo does not mention the establishment of the huge US base of Camp Bondsteel with its 7,000 US soldiers. One wonders what is its role in nation-building. Part of the answer may be that it is easier to establish such a base in a country ruled by a weak government brought to power and supported by Western countries. Afghanistan and Iraq are two other countries where US bases have flourished during the past decade.]

Coles (H.), Weinberg (A.) 1964: Special studies, Civil Affairs: Soldiers become governors. US Government Printing Office, Washington.

[This is the official US Army account of Civil Affairs activities. It contains reproductions of many archive documents, which however are not always given in their entirety (there are numerous ...). Moreover, following a standard practice in the official history of US wars, several specific facets of the question are just omitted.

Chevènement (J.-P.) 2006: La faute de Mr. Monnet. Fayard, Paris.

Coulet (F.) 1966: Vertu des temps difficiles. Plon, Paris.

Donnison (F.S.V.) 1961: Civil affairs and military government, North-West Europe, 1944-1946. Published by the British Council of Foreign Relations; printed by: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

[This is an official British publication. That is perhaps why its main emphasis is on official documents and legal aspects.]

European Movement 1949: European movement and the Council of Europe. With forwords by Winston Churchill and Paul-Henri Spaak. Hutchinson and Co, London.

[The establishment of the Council of Europe by the Treaty of London of 5 May 1949 was the main achievement of the "European Movement". The first session of the Assembly of the Council of Europe took place at Strasbourg on 10 August 1949. This book was published around June 1949 in order to celebrate this success. But was it really a success? Was such a start not an ideal recipe for a powerless Europe?
War College, Carlyle Barracks, Pennsylvania.

[This report by Colonel Jayne Carson was published at the time of the invasion of Iraq. It starts with the cases of Cuba and the Philippines where the United States started nation-building in 1898. Among the other cases being considered there is Haiti, and also, of course, Germany and Japan. It continues with Bosnia and Kosovo and ends with Afghanistan.

The story for Haiti starts with the US-led occupation of September 1993 (so-called “Operation Uphold Democracy”) omitting the previous US occupation which lasted from 1915 to 1934.

The account for Kosovo does not mention the establishment of the huge US base of Camp Bondsteel with its 7,000 US soldiers. One wonders what is its role in nation-building. Part of the answer may be that it is easier to establish such a base in a country ruled by a weak government brought to power and supported by Western countries. Afghanistan and Iraq are two other countries where US bases have flourished during the past decade.]

Coles (H.), Weinberg (A.) 1964: Special studies, Civil Affairs: Soldiers become governors. US Government Printing Office, Washington.

[This is the official US Army account of Civil Affairs activities. It contains reproductions of many archive documents, which however are not always given in their entirety (there are numerous ...). Moreover, following a standard practice in the official history of US wars, several specific facets of the question are just omitted.]

Chevènement (J.-P.) 2006: La faute de Mr. Monnet. Fayard, Paris.

Coulet (F.) 1966: Vertu des temps difficiles. Plon, Paris.

Donnison (F.S.V.) 1961: Civil affairs and military government, North-West Europe, 1944-1946. Published by the British Council of Foreign Relations; printed by: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

[This is an official British publication. That is perhaps why its main emphasis is on official documents and legal aspects.]

European Movement 1949: European movement and the Council of Europe. With forwords by Winston Churchill and Paul-Henri Spaak. Hutchinson and Co, London.

[The establishment of the Council of Europe by the Treaty of London of 5 May 1949 was the main achievement of the "European Movement". The first session of the Assembly of the Council of Europe took place at Strasbourg on 10 August 1949. This book was published around June 1949 in order to celebrate this success. But was it really a success? Was such a start not an ideal recipe for a powerless Europe?
In its introduction the book contains a list of the members of the "International Council of the European movement". Altogether there are 126 names. All of them are from European countries. There is not even a single American observer in spite of the strong interest of the United States in this project. Yet 14 members (i.e. 11%) are from East European countries<fnref n="57" />. In this respect the policy of the European Movement was (p. 155) to invite exiled leaders from East European countries "to form National Committees of the European Movement". Therefore, one can hardly be surprised that the Soviet Union was not very pleased with the European Movement and with its creation, the European Council.

Chapter 11 is entitled "Attitude of Russia and America". Of its 6 pages, one and a half are about the attitude of Russia while the rest is devoted to long excerpts of speeches by President Truman and by John F. Dulles, chief adviser of the Republican Party on foreign affairs.

The economic union considered in this project was a prolongation of the Marshall Plan: "The Union would start with the 16 countries included in the European Recovery Plan (i.e. the Marshall Plan). The closest association of all the members of the British Commonwealth is essential to the success of the union". (p. 66)

In 1948-1949 Mr. Georges Rebattet already had an important role in the "European movement". For instance, on 13 April 1948 he wrote to Joseph Retinger a letter about the organization of the Hague Congress (source: CVCE). Yet, surprisingly his name does not appear in this book. It is not in the index and even more surprisingly Mr. Rebattet did not take part in the deputation of the European Movement which visited the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 9 December 1948 (as shown by the caption of the picture on p. 80-81).]

Demory (J.-C.) 1995: Georges Bidault 1899-1983. Julliard, Paris.

Foreign Relations of the United States; 1943,1944,1945,1946.
[Available on Internet at: http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu]

Fransen (F.J.) 2001: The supra-national politics of Jean Monnet. Ideas and origins of the European Community. Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut.

FRUS: Foreign relations of the United States. A collection of volumes available on line on the website of the library of Wisconsin University.

Gaulle (C. de) 1954a: Mémoires de guerre. Vol. 2. L'unité 1942-1944. Plon, Paris.
[An English translation was published under the title: "War memoirs, Unity."]

Gaulle (C. de) 1954b: Mémoires de guerre. Vol. 3. Le salut 1945-1946. Plon,

<footnote n="57">⁵⁷It is surprising to find among the members the Minister of the Interior of the Basque Government in exile. However, this simply parallels the fact the presence of the members in exile belonging to East European countries.</footnote>
In its introduction the book contains a list of the members of the "International Council of the European movement". Altogether there are 126 names. All of them are from European countries. There is not even a single American observer in spite of the strong interest of the United States in this project. Yet 14 members (i.e. 11%) are from East European countries<fnref n="57" />. In this respect the policy of the European Movement was (p. 155) to invite exiled leaders from East European countries "to form National Committees of the European Movement". Therefore, one can hardly be surprised that the Soviet Union was not very pleased with the European Movement and with its creation, the European Council.

Chapter 11 is entitled "Attitude of Russia and America". Of its 6 pages, one and a half are about the attitude of Russia while the rest is devoted to long excerpts of speeches by President Truman and by John F. Dulles, chief adviser of the Republican Party on foreign affairs.

The economic union considered in this project was a prolongation of the Marshall Plan: "The Union would start with the 16 countries included in the European Recovery Plan (i.e. the Marshall Plan). The closest association of all the members of the British Commonwealth is essential to the success of the union". (p. 66)

In 1948-1949 Mr. Georges Rebattet already had an important role in the "European movement". For instance, on 13 April 1948 he wrote to Joseph Retinger a letter about the organization of the Hague Congress (source: CVCE). Yet, surprisingly his name does not appear in this book. It is not in the index and even more surprisingly Mr. Rebattet did not take part in the deputation of the European Movement which visited the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 9 December 1948 (as shown by the caption of the picture on p. 80-81).]

Demory (J.-C.) 1995: Georges Bidault 1899-1983. Julliard, Paris.

Foreign Relations of the United States; 1943,1944,1945,1946.
[Available on Internet at: http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu]

Fransen (F.J.) 2001: The supra-national politics of Jean Monnet. Ideas and origins of the European Community. Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut.

FRUS: Foreign relations of the United States. A collection of volumes available on line on the website of the library of Wisconsin University.

Gaulle (C. de) 1954a: Mémoires de guerre. Vol. 2. L'unité 1942-1944. Plon, Paris.
[An English translation was published under the title: "War memoirs, Unity."]

Gaulle (C. de) 1954b: Mémoires de guerre. Vol. 3. Le salut 1945-1946. Plon,

<footnote n="57">⁵⁷It is surprising to find among the members the Minister of the Interior of the Basque Government in exile. However, this simply parallels the fact the presence of the members in exile belonging to East European countries.</footnote>
Paris. [An English translation was published under the title: "War memoirs, Salvation."]

Grosbois (T.) 2006: La stratégie de Ford à l'égard de l'intégration européenne [Ford's strategy on European unification.] Helsinki Congress of the International Economic History Association, 21-25 August 2006.

Grosbois (T.) 2009: Ford's Strategy towards European Integration after World War II, in American Firms in: "Europe 1880-1980. Strategy, Identity, Perception and Performance", Bonin (H.) and De Goey (F.) editors, Geneva, p.459-483.
[The Oxford thesis by F.-X. Rebattet is cited p. 471 (footnote no 20). However, whether the author was really able to read the thesis is not completely clear because the footnote gives only the title without any specific page reference.]

Grosbois (T.) 2010: La stratégie européenne de General Motors, de l'adaptation au protectionnisme à la mise en place du marché unique 1920-1993 [General Motors' European strategy: protectionism and adaptation 1920-1993]. Revue du Nord 92,387 (October-December),857-876.

Kersaudy (F.) 2004: De Gaulle et Roosevelt. Perrin, Paris.
[The book gives a very interesting and detailed account of the political struggle between the Provisional French government of General de Gaulle and President Roosevelt. Basically, Roosevelt wanted to prevent the emergence of a strong alternative to the Vichy government. As observed by Antony Eden, the head of the British Foreign Office, that would allow the United States to shape the French political landscape in the aftermath of their invasion of France. In Roberston's book (cited below) "When Roosevelt planned to govern France" the author tries to prove that the view expressed by the title was an exaggeration. François Kersaudy shows that "to govern France" was indeed Roosevelt's objective throughout the war. This objective can be seen at work in all the actions regarding France undertaken by President Roosevelt.]

Lamache (S.) 2010a: La Normandie américaine. [When the Normandy was American]. Larousse, Paris.
[This book is based on the extensive research done by the author in French and American archives (see below the reference of the original academic publication).]

Lamache (S.) 2010b: Les Américains dans la région de Cherbourg en 1944 et 1945. 4 volumes. Vol. 1-160, Vol. 2 161-463 (303 p), Vol.3 464-807 (344 p), Vol.4 Annex 1-204. Thesis, University of Caen.
[This thesis provides a broad picture and describes many facets of the relations between US forces in the Cherbourg area and the French population. It gives also an interesting comparison with a city located in the eastern part of France.]
Paris. [An English translation was published under the title: "War memoirs, Salvation."]

Grosbois (T.) 2006: La stratégie de Ford à l'égard de l'intégration européenne [Ford's strategy on European unification.] Helsinki Congress of the International Economic History Association, 21-25 August 2006.

Grosbois (T.) 2009: Ford's Strategy towards European Integration after World War II, in American Firms in: "Europe 1880-1980. Strategy, Identity, Perception and Performance", Bonin (H.) and De Goey (F.) editors, Geneva, p.459-483.

[The Oxford thesis by F.-X. Rebattet is cited p. 471 (footnote no 20). However, whether the author was really able to read the thesis is not completely clear because the footnote gives only the title without any specific page reference.]

Grosbois (T.) 2010: La stratégie européenne de General Motors, de ladaptation au protectionnisme à la mise en place du march unique 1920-1993 [General Motors' European strategy: protectionism and adaptation 1920-1993]. Revue du Nord 92,387 (October-December),857-876.

Kersaudy (F.) 2004: De Gaulle et Roosevelt. Perrin, Paris.

[The book gives a very interesting and detailed account of the political struggle between the Provisional French government of General de Gaulle and President Roosevelt. Basically, Roosevelt wanted to prevent the emergence of a strong alternative to the Vichy government. As observed by Antony Eden, the head of the British Foreign Office, that would allow the United States to shape the French political landscape in the aftermath of their invasion of France. In Roberston's book (cited below) "When Roosevelt planned to govern France" the author tries to prove that the view expressed by the title was an exageration. François Kersaudy shows that "to govern France" was indeed Roosevelt's objective throughout the war. This objective can be seen at work in all the actions regarding France undertaken by President Roosevelt.]

Lamache (S.) 2010a: La Normandie américaine. [When the Normandy was American]. Larousse, Paris.

[This book is based on the extensive research done by the author in French and American archives (see below the reference of the original academic publication).]

Lamache (S.) 2010b: Les Américains dans la région de Cherbourg en 1944 et 1945. 4 volumes. Vol. 1-160, Vol. 2 161-463 (303 p), Vol.3 464-807 (344 p), Vol.4 Annex 1-204. Thesis, University of Caen.

[This thesis provides a broad picture and describes many facets of the relations between US forces in the Cherbourg area and the French population. It gives also an interesting comparison with a city located in the eastern part of France.]
However, on some crucial points it provides but a fairly superficial view. For instance the question of the currency introduced in France by the Allies is treated in a few pages which do not go to the bottom of the story. It is said that the Allied currency was introduced to pay French workers in the reconstruction of crucial facilities but this explanation cannot be the whole truth for it does not account for the introduction of Allied currency in Denmark or Norway which were liberated in May 1945 that is to say at the end of the war.

A similar comment can be made about the chapter concerning public safety. Despite its length (71 pages) the chapter does not contain any statistical data about crimes and other incidents. It is true that there is a table in the Annex (p. 4) but it covers only one and a half month from 1 August to 14 September 1944. As the thesis covers a much longer time interval (1944-1946) such a table seems fairly inadequate.

Incidentally, for persons who care about objectivity there seems to be a kind of paradox in the work of the author. On the one hand, as is indeed natural for an historian, the author claims that his objective is to give a balanced account. In line with this pledge, he denounces (p. 621-623) the well-known fact that the pictures made by the “Signal Corps” were a major element in a vast public relation campaign and therefore cannot be seen as providing an objective view. Often, before a picture was shot, the very scenery was set up following guidelines given by Public Relations Officers. Yet, the author took an active part in this disinformation operation.

* Firstly, about one half of the Appendix is devoted to the reproduction of some 200 photographs all of which come from the “Signal Corps” collection. In order to give a balanced view would it not be essential to also include pictures from other sources? The author has had many contacts with residents who certainly had personal collections of pictures. Would it not have been of much greater interest to include such pictures rather than the “Signal Corps” pictures many of which anyway are (or will be) made available on the Internet by NARA?

* During the summer of 2003, the author visited the American National Archives on a mission paid by French taxpayers and planned by the “Conseil Général de la Manche”, a local elected assembly for the département of the Manche. The purpose was to digitize 3,956 “Signal Corps” photographs which would later be included into the collections held by the Archives of the département of the Manche. May be the members of the Conseil Général who gave their agreement to this operation were not aware of the fact that the pictures were mostly for propaganda purpose; however, Mr. Lamache himself was well aware of this aspect. These pictures would anyway have been digitized by NARA in the near future. Was it wise for the département of the Manche to subsidize this operation?]
However, on some crucial points it provides but a fairly superficial view. For instance the question of the currency introduced in France by the Allies is treated in a few pages which do not go to the bottom of the story. It is said that the Allied currency was introduced to pay French workers in the reconstruction of crucial facilities but this explanation cannot be the whole truth for it does not account for the introduction of Allied currency in Denmark or Norway which were liberated in May 1945 that is to say at the end of the war.

A similar comment can be made about the chapter concerning public safety. Despite its length (71 pages) the chapter does not contain any statistical data about crimes and other incidents. It is true that there is a table in the Annex (p. 4) but it covers only one and a half month from 1 August to 14 September 1944. As the thesis covers a much longer time interval (1944-1946) such a table seems fairly inadequate.

Incidentally, for persons who care about objectivity there seems to be a kind of paradox in the work of the author. On the one hand, as is indeed natural for an historian, the author claims that his objective is to give a balanced account. In line with this pledge, he denounces (p. 621-623) the well-known fact that the pictures made by the “Signal Corps” were a major element in a vast public relation campaign and therefore cannot be seen as providing an objective view. Often, before a picture was shot, the very scenery was set up following guidelines given by Public Relations Officers. Yet, the author took an active part in this disinformation operation.

* Firstly, about one half of the Appendix is devoted to the reproduction of some 200 photographs all of which come from the “Signal Corps” collection. In order to give a balanced view would it not be essential to also include pictures from other sources? The author has had many contacts with residents who certainly had personal collections of pictures. Would it not have been of much greater interest to include such pictures rather than the “Signal Corps” pictures many of which anyway are (or will be) made available on the Internet by NARA?

* During the summer of 2003, the author visited the American National Archives on a mission paid by French taxpayers and planned by the “Conseil Général de la Manche”, a local elected assembly for the département of the Manche. The purpose was to digitize 3,956 “Signal Corps” photographs which would later be included into the collections held by the Archives of the département of the Manche. May be the members of the Conseil Général who gave their agreement to this operation were not aware of the fact that the pictures were mostly for propaganda purpose; however, Mr. Lamache himself was well aware of this aspect. These pictures would anyway have been digitized by NARA in the near future. Was it wise for the département of the Manche to subsidize this operation?]
McClintick (D.) 2006: How Harvard lost Russia. Institutional Investor magazine.
[A 18,000 word investigative article about the inappropriate role played by the
“Harvard Institute for International Development” during the privatization pro-
cess in Russia.]

Marty (D.) 2006: Information memorandum II on the alleged secret detentions in Council of Europe state. Published on 22 January 2006 by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. [Available on the Internet]

Mazon (B.) 1985: Fondations américaines et sciences sociales en France, 1920-1960.
De la genèse de la VIe Section de l'Ecole pratique des hautes études à la fonda-
tion de la "Maison des sciences de l'homme". [Influence of US foundations on
the development of social sciences in France, 1920-1960. From the creation of
the 6th section of the "Ecole pratique des hautes études " in 1868 to the creation
in the 1960s of the "Maison des sciences de l'homme".]
Thesis (thèse de 3e cycle), Two volumes. Vol. 1: pp.1-198, Vol.2: pp.199-369
Paris.

[In 1975, the 6th section of the “Ecole pratique des hautes études ” became the “Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales”. The thesis advisor was the historian François Furet (1927-1997). It is probably an understatement to say that, except in his 20s when he was a member of the French Communist Party, he was fairly pro-US. As a matter of fact, after 1979 he has been working much of the year at the University of Chicago where he served as a professor in the “Committee on Social Thought” This was the committee which recruited Friedrich Hayek, the proponent of neoliberalism. It may be remembered that in 1950, despite the financial support of the Volker's fund (who would have covered his salary) and of the President of the University, Hayek was refused by the Department of Economics of the University of Chicago and became instead a member of the Committee.

It comes hardly as a surprise that with Furet as advisor the thesis proposes a
fairly sanitized account. For instance the fact that almost immediately after
being recruited in March 1955, Jean Chesnaux was barred by the Rockefeller
Foundation ("none of the RF assistance would go to Chesnaux", 9 December
1955) for his studies on China, is told in a footnote (p. 196). So, in spite of
mentioning Chesnaux 8 times, the thesis reports this important fact in such a
way that few readers will be able to notice it.]

Monnet(J.) 1976: Mémoires. Fayard, Paris.

Rebattet (François-Xavier) 1962: The European Movement 1945-1953. A study in national and international non-governmental organisations working for European unity. PhD Thesis, Oxford, St Anthony's College.
McClintick (D.) 2006: How Harvard lost Russia. Institutional Investor magazine.
[A 18,000 word investigative article about the inappropriate role played by the
“Harvard Institute for International Development” during the privatization pro-
cess in Russia.]

Marty (D.) 2006: Information memorandum II on the alleged secret detentions in Council of Europe state. Published on 22 January 2006 by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. [Available on the Internet]

Mazon (B.) 1985: Fondations américaines et sciences sociales en France, 1920-1960.
De la genèse de la VIe Section de l'Ecole pratique des hautes études à la fonda-
tion de la "Maison des sciences de l'homme". [Influence of US foundations on
the development of social sciences in France, 1920-1960. From the creation of
the 6th section of the "Ecole pratique des hautes études " in 1868 to the creation
in the 1960s of the "Maison des sciences de l'homme".]
Thesis (thèse de 3e cycle), Two volumes. Vol. 1: pp.1-198, Vol.2: pp.199-369
Paris.

[In 1975, the 6th section of the “Ecole pratique des hautes études ” became the “Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales”. The thesis advisor was the historian François Furet (1927-1997). It is probably an understatement to say that, except in his 20s when he was a member of the French Communist Party, he was fairly pro-US. As a matter of fact, after 1979 he has been working much of the year at the University of Chicago where he served as a professor in the “Committee on Social Thought” This was the committee which recruited Friedrich Hayek, the proponent of neoliberalism. It may be remembered that in 1950, despite the financial support of the Volker's fund (who would have covered his salary) and of the President of the University, Hayek was refused by the Department of Economics of the University of Chicago and became instead a member of the Committee.

It comes hardly as a surprise that with Furet as advisor the thesis proposes a
fairly sanitized account. For instance the fact that almost immediately after
being recruited in March 1955, Jean Chesnaux was barred by the Rockefeller
Foundation ("none of the RF assistance would go to Chesnaux", 9 December
1955) for his studies on China, is told in a footnote (p. 196). So, in spite of
mentioning Chesnaux 8 times, the thesis reports this important fact in such a
way that few readers will be able to notice it.]

Monnet(J.) 1976: Mémoires. Fayard, Paris.

Rebattet (François-Xavier) 1962: The European Movement 1945-1953. A study in national and international non-governmental organisations working for European unity. PhD Thesis, Oxford, St Anthony's College.
[A copy of this thesis is held at the Bodleian Library. Unfortunately it cannot be borrowed through the inter-library loan. According to Worldcat there is no other library holding this thesis.]

Robertson (C.L.) 2011: When Roosevelt planned to govern France. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst.

[The author has found and read many documents about the case of France and he gives a vivid account of this episode. However, because he did not have the curiosity or perhaps the time to study other cases (e.g. South Korea or Denmark) he comes to the conclusion that introducing Civil Affairs officers in a liberated country like France would have been something exceptional. It can hardly be denied that banknotes printed in the United States were introduced in almost all liberated European countries just as they were in France. Moreover, agreements for the establishment of US bases were signed with almost all European countries. Historically, this was something completely new.

So, the real challenge would be to identify the issues for which “Civil Affairs” did have a determining influence. No doubt that among these issues there will be the important question of the reconstitution of armed forces in all European countries. The relevant sections of Civil Affairs started these processes and the Military Advisory Assistance Groups (MAAG) continued it. Unfortunately, most of the NARA archives about the activities of the MAAGs are still classified (as of January 2014).

In short, France and other European countries were of course not openly ruled by Civil Affairs as were Italy, Germany and Japan but substantial encroachments on their sovereignty occurred in the wake of their occupation.]

Roehner (B.M.), Syme (T.) 2002: Pattern and repertoire in history. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

[The book is an invitation to develop a comparative approach in history.]

Roussel (E.) 1996: Jean Monnet 1888-1979. Fayard, Paris.

[This is a dense and detailed biography of Jean Monnet. For instance it gives *in extenso* the text of several of the long letters that Monnet wrote to Harry Hopkins from Algiers, notably those of 6 and 9 May 1943 (p. 336 and following).]

Schrijvers (P.) 2012: A modern liberation. Belgium and the start of the American Century, 1944-1946. European Journal of American Studies, Special issue: Wars and new beginnings in American history.

Stimson (H.L.): Diaries. Microfilm, reel 8. [available at the National Diet Library in Tokyo]

Stirk (P.M.) 2009: The politics of military occupation. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
[A copy of this thesis is held at the Bodleian Library. Unfortunately it cannot be borrowed through the inter-library loan. According to Worldcat there is no other library holding this thesis.]

Robertson (C.L.) 2011: When Roosevelt planned to govern France. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst.

[The author has found and read many documents about the case of France and he gives a vivid account of this episode. However, because he did not have the curiosity or perhaps the time to study other cases (e.g. South Korea or Denmark) he comes to the conclusion that introducing Civil Affairs officers in a liberated country like France would have been something exceptional. It can hardly be denied that banknotes printed in the United States were introduced in almost all liberated European countries just as they were in France. Moreover, agreements for the establishment of US bases were signed with almost all European countries. Historically, this was something completely new.

So, the real challenge would be to identify the issues for which “Civil Affairs” did have a determining influence. No doubt that among these issues there will be the important question of the reconstitution of armed forces in all European countries. The relevant sections of Civil Affairs started these processes and the Military Advisory Assistance Groups (MAAG) continued it. Unfortunately, most of the NARA archives about the activities of the MAAGs are still classified (as of January 2014).

In short, France and other European countries were of course not openly ruled by Civil Affairs as were Italy, Germany and Japan but substantial encroachments on their sovereignty occurred in the wake of their occupation.]

Roehner (B.M.), Syme (T.) 2002: Pattern and repertoire in history. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

[The book is an invitation to develop a comparative approach in history.]

Roussel (E.) 1996: Jean Monnet 1888-1979. Fayard, Paris.

[This is a dense and detailed biography of Jean Monnet. For instance it gives *in extenso* the text of several of the long letters that Monnet wrote to Harry Hopkins from Algiers, notably those of 6 and 9 May 1943 (p. 336 and following).]

Schrijvers (P.) 2012: A modern liberation. Belgium and the start of the American Century, 1944-1946. European Journal of American Studies, Special issue: Wars and new beginnings in American history.

Stimson (H.L.): Diaries. Microfilm, reel 8. [available at the National Diet Library in Tokyo]

Stirk (P.M.) 2009: The politics of military occupation. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
[This study focuses mostly on international law and legal aspects of military occupations. As a great number of cases are considered which range from 1800 to 2006 and cover many countries, one can hardly expect detailed descriptions.]

Temperton (P.) 1993: The European currency crisis. What chance now for a single European currency? Irwin Professional Publishing (1 Septembre 1993).

Thomson (A.A.) 1996: Americans in France, 1944-1945. Americans in the Liberation of France: their perceptions of and relations with France and the French. PhD thesis, University of Kent at Canterbury, England.

[This thesis has some sections about “Civil Affairs” but the emphasis is mostly on interactions between US soldiers and French people at a personal level. In order to find out what were the opinions of French people about American soldiers (some 50 years after the war) the author organized a survey which was answered by about 200 persons.]

Needless to say, such a study cannot explain why the French government authorized the establishment of US bases along with the “American Forces Network” or why the French army accepted to host a “Military Assistance Advisory Group”.

Was that an inevitable consequence of the Cold War? Probably not, because these agreements were made before the Cold War really started. Moreover, the end of the Cold War did not terminate the occupation of US bases in Germany or in other European countries.]

Wedel (J. R.) 2009: Shadow Elite: How the World's new power brokers undermine democracy, government, and the free Market. Basic Books Group, New York.
[This study focuses mostly on international law and legal aspects of military occupations. As a great number of cases are considered which range from 1800 to 2006 and cover many countries, one can hardly expect detailed descriptions.]

Temperton (P.) 1993: The European currency crisis. What chance now for a single European currency? Irwin Professional Publishing (1 Septembre 1993).

Thomson (A.A.) 1996: Americans in France, 1944-1945. Americans in the Liberation of France: their perceptions of and relations with France and the French. PhD thesis, University of Kent at Canterbury, England.

[This thesis has some sections about “Civil Affairs” but the emphasis is mostly on interactions between US soldiers and French people at a personal level. In order to find out what were the opinions of French people about American soldiers (some 50 years after the war) the author organized a survey which was answered by about 200 persons.]

Needless to say, such a study cannot explain why the French government authorized the establishment of US bases along with the “American Forces Network” or why the French army accepted to host a “Military Assistance Advisory Group”.

Was that an inevitable consequence of the Cold War? Probably not, because these agreements were made before the Cold War really started. Moreover, the end of the Cold War did not terminate the occupation of US bases in Germany or in other European countries.]

Wedel (J. R.) 2009: Shadow Elite: How the World's new power brokers undermine democracy, government, and the free Market. Basic Books Group, New York.