DOCSLIB.ORG

APPENDIX .A. Note on the Present Position of the Munich Agreement of 29 September 1938

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
APPENDIX .A. Note on the Present Position of the Munich Agreement of 29 September 1938 APPENDIX .A. Note on the Present Position of the Munich Agreement of 29 September 1938 THE Munich Agreement, concluded between Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Italy for the cession of the Sudeten German territory by Czecho­ slovakia, although officially dated 29 September 1938, was in reality signed in the small hours of the morning of 30 September. l To it was annexed a declaration by the British and French Governments guaranteeing the new boundaries of the Czechoslovak state against unprovoked aggression. Germany and Italy also agreed to give a similar guarantee to Czechoslovakia 'when the question of the Polish and Hungarian minorities in Czechoslovakia had been settled'. It was further declared that the problems of these minorities in Czechoslovakia, if not settled within three months by agreement between the respective Governments, 'shall form the subject of another meeting of the Heads of the Governments of the four Powers here present'. Because of its nature, the Munich Agreement was not subject to the usual forms of ratification, and no provision for such procedure was included in its text. Parliamentary approval was accorded to Mr Chamberlain and to M. Daladier, on 6 and 5 October respectively, by means of votes of confidence but by the time these had been given in the House of Commons and the Chamber of Deputies the terms of the Munich Agreement were already a fait accompli. On 2 November 1938 the German and Italian Foreign Ministers, Ribben­ trop and Ciano, handed down the First Vienna Award, which, without consultation with, or reference to, the British and French Governments, adjudicated the fate of the Polish and Hungarian minorities in Czechoslovakia, in violation of the annexe to the Munich Agreement.2 The structure set up by the Munich Agreement was destroyed on 15 March 1939 when Hitler proclaimed that 'Czechoslovakia has ceased to exist'. Slovakia and Ruthenia proclaimed their independence on 14 March and the provinces of Bohemia and Moravia were annexed to the German Reich as a Protectorate.3 On the second anniversary of the signing of the Munich Agreement (30 September 1940), Winston Churchill in a broadcast to the Czechoslovak people announced that the Agreement had been destroyed by the Germans,4 and on 18 July of the following year the Czechoslovak Provisional Government was officially recognized by the British Government and by General de Gaulle's National Committee.s It was not, however, until 5 August 1942 that this statement was given official form. On that day the British Foreign Secretary, 612 The Semblance of Peace Anthony Eden, announced in the House of Commons that he had sent a Note to the Czechoslovak Ambassador, Jan Masaryk, declaring that 'as Germany has deliberately destroyed the arrangements concerning Czechoslovakia reached in 1938, in which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom participated, His Majesty's Government regard themselves as free from any engagements in this respect. At the final settlement of the Czechoslovak frontiers to be reached at the end of the war, they will not be influenced by any changes effected in and since 1938.'6 Of the other two signatories, France and Italy, General de Gaulle declared on 29 September 1942 that France considered the Munich Agreement to be null and void/ and a similar statement was made by the Government of Ivanoe Bonomi, on behalf ofItaly, on 26 September 1944.8 At the conclusion of hostilities in Europe in May 1945 and the consequent resumption by Czechoslovakia of her full sovereignty and independence, the Czechoslovak state reconstituted itself within its pre-Munich frontiers. This act received tacit approval from the British, American, Soviet and French Governments, but the question of the Munich frontiers was not raised at the Potsdam Conference and therefore finds no mention in the Protocol of 2 August 1945. The reason for this was that three of the four signatory Munich Powers had repudiated the Agreement and that no German Govern­ ment existed at that moment. The matter was therefore left over until a final peace treaty with Germany was formally concluded. When it became apparent, however, that the conclusion of such a peace treaty would be long postponed, successive German Federal Chancellors announced their repudiation of the Munich Agreement. Thus, on 15 October 1964, Dr Ludwig Erhard declared that in no circumstances would Western Germany present territorial claims against Czechoslovakia,9 and his successor, Dr Kurt Kiesinger, on 5 July 1968, was even more definite, announcing explicitly that in so far as Germany was concerned 'the Munich Agreement no longer exists'. 10 Thus all the four participants in the Pact of Munich have repudiated their signatures and, as far as Her Majesty's Government is concerned, there has been no basic change in policy since Mr Eden's statement of August 1942. Indeed it has been re-emphasized. Michael Stewart, during his first tenure of office as Foreign Secretary, took the opportunity, during an official visit to Prague in April 1965, to assure Czechoslovak Ministers that 'the Munich Agreement was detestable, unjust and dangerous as events have shown to the peace of Europe'. He added that it was 'completely dead and had been dead for many years .. .'. The mere historical fact that it was once made could not justify any future claims against Czechoslovakia. When the time came for a final determination of Germany's frontiers by a peace treaty, the treaty discussions would start from the basis that Czechoslovak frontiers were not in question.u Explicit though this statement may appear to be, it was not sufficiently definite to satisfy the Czechoslovak Government, who took advantage of the thirtieth anniversary of the signing of the Munich Agreement to make a further demarche. On 27 September 1968 the Czechoslovak Ambassador called at the Foreign Office and made a formal request to the Minister of State, Appendix A 61 3 Goronway Roberts, that Britain should make a formal declaration to the effect that the Pact of Munich was null and void. He was informed that his request would be 'examined'." Though the matter is of purely academic interest - except perhaps to the Czechoslovaks - there might possibly be a good reason to make a formal Four-Power Declaration which should bury the ghost of the Munich Agree­ ment once and for all. In view of the powerful initiative taken by the British Government to bring the Agreement into being in 1938, it might well be considered a gracious act on their part to take the initial steps towards its formal repudiation. APPENDIX B The Yoshida Letter IN the secret agreement reached between John Foster Dulles and Herbert Morrison, then Foreign Secretary, in June 1951, it was agreed that neither the Nationalist Chinese Government in Taipeh nor the Communist regime in Peking should be invited to the Conference of San Francisco and, more­ over, that Japan's future attitude towards 'China' 'must necessarily be for determination by Japan itself in the sovereign and independent status contemplated by the treaty'.' * The agreement was to have some interesting repercussions. It was on Mr Dulles's personal plea that the British Foreign Secretary agreed to the terms of secrecy, this being alien to both his own personal inclination and to the avowed policy of the Labour Party, who were tradition­ ally averse to 'secret diplomacy'. However, Mr Dulles had specifically asked that no public statement disclosing the nature of their agreement should be made, as 'it would embarrass me', and Mr l\1.orrison therefore reluctantly assented. 2 For a while all went well. Shigeru Yoshida, the Japanese Prime Minister, who knew of the Anglo-American agreement, behaved throughout the San Francisco Conference with impeccable dignity and in conformity with all that Mr Dulles could have desired, and there is good evidence that American influence was even exerted on him to restrain his obvious anti-Communist sympathies. Up to the moment of the signing of the treaty on 8 September 1951, therefore, both sides had remained loyal to the terms of the Morrison-Dulles accord and to the preservation of its secrecy, but almost immediately there­ after the situation became complicated and murky. The kindest explanation of what followed is that it was the result of bungling misunderstanding on the part of the State Department, but there do not lack those who interpret the result as one of deliberate sharp practice on the part of John Foster Dulles. The interpretation placed upon the Morrison-Dulles accord by the British Foreign Office was that 'the sovereignty and independent status' of Japan, to which reference was made in the accord, could only exist when the treaty which created it had become effective upon the ratification, and this interpre­ tation was known - and presumably understood - by both the United States and Japanese Governments.3 However, an unforeseen difficulty now arose. The rejection of the Treaty of Versailles by the United States Senate in * See above, p. 524. AppendixB 615 1920 and the consequent mortification of President Woodrow Wilson has had a traumatic and lasting effect upon successive Presidents, Secretaries of State and majority party leaders in the Senate. 'Never again' has become their watchword, and they are determined that no President and Administration shall again be subjected to so humiliating a defeat. Inevitably, therefore, it has become axiomatic that when a major treaty is about to come before the Senate and its powerful Committee on Foreign Relations, every possible precaution is taken so to prepare the ground in advance that the danger of rejection is avoided. It was in accordance with this policy that by mid-September, shortly before the Treaty of San Francisco was to be submitted to the Senate, some fifty-six Senators sympathetic to its ratification wrote warningly to President Truman that 'Prior to the submission of the Japanese Treaty to the Senate, we desire to make it clear that we would consider the recognition of Com­ munist China by Japan or the negotiating of a bilateral treaty with the Communist China regime to be adverse to the best interests of the people of both Japan and the United States'.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Allen Dulles - Wikipedia
    8/6/2020 Allen Dulles - Wikipedia Allen Dulles Allen Welsh Dulles (/ˈdʌləs/; April 7, 1893 – January 29, 1969) was an American diplomat and lawyer who became the Allen Dulles first civilian Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), and its longest-serving director to date. As head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the early Cold War, he oversaw the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, the Lockheed U-2 aircraft program, the Project MKUltra mind control program and the Bay of Pigs Invasion. He was dismissed by John F. Kennedy over the latter fiasco. Dulles was one of the members of the Warren Commission investigating the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Between his stints of government service, Dulles was a corporate lawyer and partner at Sullivan & Cromwell. His older brother, John Foster Dulles, was the Secretary of State during the Eisenhower Administration and is the namesake of Dulles Airport.[1] Director of Central Intelligence In office Contents February 26, 1953 – November 29, 1961 Early life and family President Dwight Eisenhower John F. Kennedy Early career OSS posting to Bern, Switzerland in World War II Deputy Charles P. Cabell Preceded by Walter B. Smith CIA career Coup in Iran Succeeded by John McCone Coup in Guatemala Deputy Director of Central Intelligence Bay of Pigs In office Dismissal August 23, 1951 – February 26, 1953 Later life President Harry S. Truman Dwight Eisenhower Fictional portrayals Preceded by William H. Jackson Publications Articles Succeeded by Charles P. Cabell Book reviews Deputy Director of Central Intelligence Books for Plans Books edited In office Book contributions January 4, 1951 – August 23, 1951 President Harry S.
    [Show full text]
  • Exclave: Politics, Ideology, and Everyday Life in Königsberg-Kaliningrad, 1928-1948
    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Exclave: Politics, Ideology, and Everyday Life in Königsberg-Kaliningrad, 1928-1948 Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6r33q03k Author Eaton, Nicole M. Publication Date 2013 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Exclave: Politics, Ideology, and Everyday Life in Königsberg–Kaliningrad, 1928-1948 By Nicole M. Eaton A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Yuri Slezkine, chair Professor John Connelly Professor Victoria Bonnell Fall 2013 Exclave: Politics, Ideology, and Everyday Life in Königsberg–Kaliningrad, 1928-1948 © 2013 By Nicole M. Eaton 1 Abstract Exclave: Politics, Ideology, and Everyday Life in Königsberg-Kaliningrad, 1928-1948 by Nicole M. Eaton Doctor of Philosophy in History University of California, Berkeley Professor Yuri Slezkine, Chair “Exclave: Politics, Ideology, and Everyday Life in Königsberg-Kaliningrad, 1928-1948,” looks at the history of one city in both Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Russia, follow- ing the transformation of Königsberg from an East Prussian city into a Nazi German city, its destruction in the war, and its postwar rebirth as the Soviet Russian city of Kaliningrad. The city is peculiar in the history of Europe as a double exclave, first separated from Germany by the Polish Corridor, later separated from the mainland of Soviet Russia. The dissertation analyzes the ways in which each regime tried to transform the city and its inhabitants, fo- cusing on Nazi and Soviet attempts to reconfigure urban space (the physical and symbolic landscape of the city, its public areas, markets, streets, and buildings); refashion the body (through work, leisure, nutrition, and healthcare); and reconstitute the mind (through vari- ous forms of education and propaganda).
    [Show full text]
  • Woman War Correspondent,” 1846-1945
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Carolina Digital Repository CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTANCE: THE UNITED STATES MILITARY, THE PRESS, AND THE “WOMAN WAR CORRESPONDENT,” 1846-1945 Carolyn M. Edy A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication. Chapel Hill 2012 Approved by: Jean Folkerts W. Fitzhugh Brundage Jacquelyn Dowd Hall Frank E. Fee, Jr. Barbara Friedman ©2012 Carolyn Martindale Edy ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii Abstract CAROLYN M. EDY: Conditions of Acceptance: The United States Military, the Press, and the “Woman War Correspondent,” 1846-1945 (Under the direction of Jean Folkerts) This dissertation chronicles the history of American women who worked as war correspondents through the end of World War II, demonstrating the ways the military, the press, and women themselves constructed categories for war reporting that promoted and prevented women’s access to war: the “war correspondent,” who covered war-related news, and the “woman war correspondent,” who covered the woman’s angle of war. As the first study to examine these concepts, from their emergence in the press through their use in military directives, this dissertation relies upon a variety of sources to consider the roles and influences, not only of the women who worked as war correspondents but of the individuals and institutions surrounding their work. Nineteenth and early 20th century newspapers continually featured the woman war correspondent—often as the first or only of her kind, even as they wrote about more than sixty such women by 1914.
    [Show full text]
  • Japan, Russia and the "Northern Territories" Dispute : Neighbors in Search of a Good Fence
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Calhoun, Institutional Archive of the Naval Postgraduate School Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 2002-09 Japan, Russia and the "northern territories" dispute : neighbors in search of a good fence Morris, Gregory L. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/4801 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, California THESIS JAPAN, RUSSIA AND THE “NORTHERN TERRITORIES” DISPUTE: NEIGHBORS IN SEARCH OF A GOOD FENCE by Gregory L. Morris September, 2002 Thesis Advisors: Mikhail Tsypkin Douglas Porch Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED September 2002 Master’s Thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE: Japan, Russia And The “Northern Territories” Dispute: 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Neighbors In Search Of A Good Fence n/a 6. AUTHOR(S) LT Gregory L.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography
    Bibliography I. Primary Sources A. Manuscript Collections and Government Archives Foreign Affairs Oral History Program (FAOHP), Georgetown University Washington, D.C. (copies also deposited at George C. Marshall Library) Everett Bellows (February 1989) David S. Brown (March 1989) Vincent V. Checchi (July 1990) Lincoln Gordon (January 1988) John J. Grady (August 1989) William Parks (November 1988) Melbourne Spector (December 1988) Joseph Toner (October 1989) Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. W. Averell Harriman Papers George C. Marshall Library, Lexington, Virginia Dowsley Clark Collection European Recovery Plan Commemoratives Collection William C. Foster Papers George C. Marshall Papers Marshall Plan Photograph Collection Forrest Pogue Interviews (Paul Hoffman and John McCloy) Harry B. Price Interviews (conducted 1952–54) ECA and OEEC Leland Barrows Richard M. Bissell Samuel Board Harlan Cleveland H. Van B. Cleveland John O. Coppock Glenn Craig D. A. Fitzgerald William C. Foster Theodore Geiger Lincoln Gordon W. Averell Harriman Carroll Hinman Paul Hoffman E. N. Holmgren John Lindeman Shaw Livermore Robert Marjolin Orbun V. Powell MacDonald Salter Melbourne Spector Harold Stein Donald C. Stone Allan Swim Samuel Van Hyning Greece (Americans) Michael H. B. Adler Leland Barrows Dowsley Clark John O. Coppock Helene Granby Joseph F. Heath Robert Hirschberg Paul A. Jenkins Brice M. Mace Lawrence B. Myers Walter E. Packard Paul R. Porter 163 Bibliography Greece (Americans—continued) Alan D. Strachan Edward A. Tenenbaum John O. Walker Greece (Greeks) Costa Hadjiagyras Constantin D. Tsatsos Italy (Americans) Vincent M. Barnett William E. Corfitzen Henry J. Costanzo Bartlett Harvey Thomas A. Lane Dominic J. Marcello Walter C. McAdoo Guido Nadzo Chauncey Parker Donald Simmons James Toughill Italy (Italians) Giovanni Malagodi Donato Menichella Ernesto Rossi Turkey (Americans) Clifton H.
    [Show full text]
  • Treaty of San Francisco - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia Page 1 Sur 5
    Treaty of San Francisco - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 1 sur 5 Treaty of San Francisco From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Treaty of San Francisco The Treaty of San Francisco or San Francisco Peace (San Francisco Peace Treaty) Treaty between the Allied Powers and Japan, was Treaty of Peace with Japan officially signed by 49 nations on September 8, 1951 in San Francisco, California. It came into force on April 28, English Treaty of Peace with Japan 1952. It is a popularly known name, but its formal French Traité de paix avec le Japon English name is Treaty of Peace with Japan. Spanish Tratado de Paz con Japón This treaty served officially to end World War II, to end Japanese 日本国との 平和条約 formally Japan's position as an imperial power and to ( Nihon-koku tono Heiwa- allocate compensation to Allied civilians and former Jōyaku? ) prisoners of war who had suffered Japanese war crimes. This treaty made extensive use of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to enunciate the Allies' goals. This treaty, along with the Security Treaty signed that same year, is said to mark the beginning of the "San Francisco System", this term, coined by historian John Dower, signifies the effects of Japan's relationship with the United States and its role in the international arena as determined by these two treaties and is used to discuss the ways in which these effects have governed Japan's post-war history. Contents n 1 Attending countries n 1.1 Signatories and ratification n 2 The fate of Japanese overseas territories n 3 Compensation
    [Show full text]
  • The History of the Slovak-Hungarian “Little War” and Its Interpretations in National Histories
    The History of the Slovak-Hungarian “Little War” and Its Interpretations in National Histories István Janek Before tackling the events of the “Little War”, let us take a brief outlook on the study of it in Hungarian and Slovak historical literature. A great number of Slovak histori- ans have written on this issue producing many articles and conference publications in Slovakia. Here I would like to highlight the most important ones from four his- OPEN ACCESS torians: Ladislav Deák, František Cséfalvay, Zoltán Katreba and Ján Petrik. A lot has been written on the air warfare between the two armies as well: Juraj Rejninec and Ján Petrik from Slovakia and Iván Pataky, László Rozsos together with Gyula Sárhidai and Csaba B. Stenge from Hungary must be mentioned.1 A thorough study of the dip- lomatic aspect has been done only by István Janek in Hungary.2 Ján Petrik has worked at the local history level and he also published a short but detailed monograph on the Hungarian bombing of Spiška Nová Ves.3 Cséfalvay and Katreba are military histori- ans who work for the Slovak Institution of Military History. They focus on the mili- tary events and publish in various Slovakian historical periodicals.4 Cséfalvay has also shown the political connections of military events.5 It is the merit of the works 1 J. RAJNINEC, Slovenské letectvo 1939/1944, Vol. 1, Bratislava 1997; I. PATAKY — L. ROZ- SOS — G. SÁRHIDAI, Légi háború Magyarország felett, Vol. 1, Budapest 1992; B. C. STENGE, A magyar légierő 1938–1945, in: Rubicon, Vol. 23, No.
    [Show full text]
  • Country Comparison • 1587. Two Young Japanese Men Named
    Country comparison Japan United Kingdom Population 127,769,994 (2005 census) 60,975,400 (2007 estimates) Area 377,873 km (145,883 sq mi) 244,820 km (94,526 sq mi) Population 338/km (875.8/sq mi) 249/km (645/sq mi) density Capital Tokyo London Largest city Tokyo – 8,652,700 (12,790,000 Metro) London – 7,556,900 (13,063,441 Metro) Parliamentary system and Parliamentary system and Government Constitutional monarchy C Constitutional monarchy Official Japanese English (other languages recognised) languages Head of state Emperor Akihito Queen Elizabeth II Head of Prime Minister Naoto Kan Prime Minister David Cameron government GDP $4.886 trillion ($38,341 Per Capita) $2.772 trillion ($45,845 Per Capita) (nominal) Chronology of Anglo-Japanese relations 1587. Two young Japanese men named Christopher and Cosmas sailed on a Spanish galleon to California, where their ship was seized by Thomas Cavendish. Cavendish brought the two Japanese men with him to England where they spent approximately three years before going again with him on his last expedition to the South Atlantic. They are the first known Japanese men to have set foot in England. William Adams (1564–1620). 1600. William Adams, a seaman from Gillingham, Kent, was the first Englishman to arrive in Japan. Acting as an advisor to the Tokugawa Shogun, he was renamed Miura Anjin, granted a house and land, and spent the rest of his life in his adopted country. 1605. John Davis, the famous English explorer, was killed by Japanese pirates off the coast of Thailand, thus becoming the first Englishman to be killed by a Japanese.[1] 1623.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Ground
    1 Common Ground The Papal Encyclical, Science and the Protection of Planet Earth Hans Joachim Schellnhuber Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany; Santa Fe Institute for Complex Systems Research, USA Laudato si’, the Papal Encyclical[1], is compiled at a crucial moment in the history of humanity: today. We are faced with the great challenge of limiting global warming to below 2°C while fostering development for the poorest. But we are also experiencing a special window of opportunity because the knowledge about the Earth system has never been greater. Moreover, we have the technical and economic solutions at hand to overcome the challenges we are confronted with. The urgency to act on these pressing issues that is expressed in the Encyclical mirrors the scientific findings which have accumulated into an overwhelming body of evidence. The science is clear: global warming is driven by greenhouse-gas emissions which are the result of burning fossil fuels. If we fail to strongly reduce these emissions and to bend the warming curve, we, our neighbors and children will be exposed to intolerable risks. The scientific consensus as represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been continuously reaffirmed by the most eminent scientific academies, including the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences which have congregated several times over the past years to address the topics of climate change and global sustainability ([2]–[5]). As any further delay to mitigation measures may jeopardize climate stability and thus our future, it is time to form alliances, find common ground and act together as humankind -- but also to take on individual responsibility and change what is in our power to change.
    [Show full text]
  • The London Gazette, 4 December, 1942 5299
    THE LONDON GAZETTE, 4 DECEMBER, 1942 5299 LUXEMBURG I —MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT Prime Minister M Pierre Dupong May 17, 1941 Minister of State and Minister for Foreign Affairs M Joseph Bech Minister of Labour M Pierre Kner Minister of Justice M Victor Bodson Aug 30, 1941 II —OFFICIAL STAFFS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT Under the direction of the Minister for Foreign Affairs M Andre1 Clasen M Georges Schommer Aug 30, 1941 THE NETHERLANDS I —MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT Prime Minister and Minister for the Co-ordination of Warfare Professor Pieter Gerbrandy Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Eelco van Kleffens Minister for Home Affairs and Acting Minister for General Affairs Mr Hendnk van Boeijen Minister of Education, Arts and Science Mr Gemt Bolkestem Minister of Public Works and Acting Minister of Finance Mr Johan Albarda Minister for Commerce, Industry and Shipping, and Acting Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries Mr Piet Kerstens Nov 20, 1941 Minister for Social Affairs Dr Jan van den Tempel Minister for Naval Affairs Lieutenant-Admiral Johannes Furstner Minister of Justice Dr Joannes van Angeren Minister for the Colonies Dr Hubertus van Mook May 25, 1942 Minister for War Jonkheer Otto van Lidth de Jeude Minister without Portfolio Jonkheer E Michiels van Verduynen Dec 29, 1941 Minister without Portfolio Pangeran Ano Soejono June 9, 1942 II —OFFICIAL STAFFS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT Under the direction of the Prime Minister Under the direction of the Minister for Naval Affairs Mr Berend Shngenberg Commander Jonkheer Willem Boreel
    [Show full text]
  • Download CV (.Pdf)
    Titus von der Malsburg Curriculum Vitae Address: Institute of Linguistics Homepage: tmalsburg.github.io University of Stuttgart GitHub: github.com/tmalsburg Keplerstraße 17 OSF: osf.io/pfkez 70174 Stuttgart OCRID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5925-5145 Phone: +49-(0)711 / 685-84873 E-mail: [email protected] Academic employment 2021 – University of Stuttgart, Assistant Professor, tenure-track Institute of Linguistics 2017 – Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Research Affiliate Department Brain and Cognitive Sciences 2018 – 2021 University of Potsdam, Researcher and Lecturer Department of Linguistics 04 – 08/2019 – Parental leave – 2016 – 2018 University of Potsdam, Visiting Professor for Psycho- and Neurolinguistics Department of Linguistics 2014 – 2016 UC San Diego, Research Fellow Department of Psychology, Department of Linguistics Funded through two-year grant awarded to my by the Alexander von Human Foundation Supervisors: Keith Rayner, Roger Levy 2014 University of Oxford, Research Associate St John’s College, Department of Experimental Psychology Supervisor: Kate Nation 2012 – 2013 University of Potsdam, Postdoctoral Researcher DFG Research Group 868: Mind and Brain Dynamics Supervisors: Frank Rösler, Shravan Vasishth Education 2008 – 2012 Dr. phil. in Cognitive Science, grade: summa cum laude University of Potsdam Advisors: Shravan Vasishth, Reinhold Kliegl 2009 Summer School on Embodied Language Games and Construction Grammar, Cortona, Italy 2008 15th International Summer School in Cognitive Science, New Bulgarian
    [Show full text]
  • Role of the United States in the Indonesian Independence Movement: 1945-1949
    INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of die page in tfie adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation.
    [Show full text]