Talk:Atlantic Charter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 5 / Society and social sciences
WikiProject iconAtlantic Charter has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do.


The article states that Hitler adopted the Final Solution in retaliation for the US/UK Atlantic Charter - what's the evidence for this claim?

Atlantic Charter[edit]

I see you still report that the "atlantic Sharter" was signed on Aug. 14, 1941. Signing implies affixing your signature to paper to attest to something. I'm fond of fountain pens. Churchill used Conway Stewart fountain pens. So, what color ink did Churchill use to sign the "Charter"? What brand of pen did FDR use? Parker? Sheaffer? This was a momentous occasion, was it not? He wouldn't have used a Papermate. Didn't exist. Funny thing is that you won't find the original document with their original signatures on it because none exist. But you say it was signed. Okay. What does the Office of War Information do in 1943? You should know. You show an example in your references. Do a search under "OWI No. 50" and you'll find a propaganda poster printed by the OWI in 1943. 1943. Since this was such a momentous occasion, what was the earliest date that Roosevelt actually used the term "Atlantic Charter"? You say it was signed Aug. 14, 1941. Roosevelt must have made mention of the signing of such an important document. Do you think he mentioned it in his report to Congress? September 1941? How about October 1941? Not until November 1941?? But it was so important! Well, how about Churchill? When did Churchill first use the term "Atlantic Charter"? Better yet, what was the very first recorded instance of the the term "Atlantic Charter" being used in public? During the "Atlantic Conference" that was officially known as "Operation Riviera"? No one used the term "Atlantic Charter" before the London Daily Herald, a Socialist Newspaper, on or about August 19, 1941. Prior to that the thing was referred to as the "Joint Statement" or "Joint Declaration" because that's what it was: It was a press release issued on Aug. 14, 1941 at 9:00 am EST in Washington, DC. Oh yes. Churchill first used the term "Atlantic Charter" on August 24th during the world-wide broadcast of his report to Parliment.So how did "history" get it wrong? You'll have to credit FDR with that. He tried to pull a fast one on Churchill. FDR knew it wasn't signed and he knew Churchill wouldn't agree to break up the Great British Empire. The truth never stopped FDR. We have copies of his original coded radio-telegram telling Stephen Early exactly what to say in the press release. FDR uses the term "signed" and he uses Churchill's name. During a press conference on December 19, 1944 FDR admits that "Nobody ever signed the Atlantic Charter."

I was just looking for a source document. The Avalon Project doesn't have any source documents.

Again, I have to wonder at how many millions of history books exist that claim that the Atlantic Charter was signed off Newfoundland on Aug. 14, 1941 or Aug. 12, 1941. Americans use the 14 date and the British tend to use the 12 date. No, there weren't two signings. That's another story, but FDR and Churchill were thousands of miles apart on Aug. 14, 1941 on different ships.

If you still think there really was a signed "Atlantic Charter", please contact the U.S. National Library of Congress and ask for the location of the archival document. Then try the same thing with the Churchill Society in England. Keep looking. Keep asking. You'll learn something about how "history" becomes history.

Frank Branzuela Anchorage, Alaska

Frank, thanks for the fascinating info. I removed an Aug 21, 2004 edit that had added the signing bit back in, but you know, you are able to edit the article yourself. You seem quite knowledgable about this matter. olderwiser 22:41, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)Y

Haha! I just watched an episode of the documentary miniseries Hell On Earth that dates the signing of the Atlantic Charter to 13 August, 1941 — neatly bisecting the two controversial claims. :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Destruction of Tyranny[edit]

Point six reads: "after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny"; the word tyranny was specifically chosen over regime, government, state or other terms. It essentially says that the Nazi regime could survive, commisurate with Point three of the charter, provided the Nazi regime withdrew from its occuppied territorries. Nowhere is there a call for the "destruction of the Nazi regime". Shouldn't some mention be made of this? That Churchill & Roosevelt essentially were willing to allow the Nazi regime to survive, provided it withdrew to within its own borders. Nobs 02:12, 22 Apr 2005

Final Solution?[edit]

I am not sure how correct it is by saying the Atlantic Charter caused the final solution, ehich is what is being implied. Indeed Hitler saw the AC as evidence of collusion between USA and Britain but did this lead to him agreeing to the Final Solution? Some even argue that Hitler knew little about the mass killings of Jews.

The mass killing of Jews had already started at the time of the Atlantic Charter, and no serious historian links it to the Atlantic Charter, so I have removed this abominable attempt at blaming the "Final Solution" on Churchill and Roosevelt.-- 13:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong! I'm watching a documentary (The Atlantic Charter - The End of Colonialism) that says the A.C. changed Hitler's mind - before, he was going to wait for the end of the war to implement the Final Solution. (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Below the image galary is the word: "hhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii" I'm assuming this is vandalism and so I tried to delete it, but I couldn't find it in the edit part for the image gallery section. I'm not wikiliterate, so its probably my fault for not seeing it. (By the way, this is computer at a high school where all the ip addresses are shared. I don't know who to contact, but someone needs to let an admin know to block the edits coming from this school. I've noticed my school is one that often vandalises Wikipedia). -- 17:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like someone fixed it while I was typing my annonyingly long message, so never mind. (But still, someone please block this IP adress. -- 17:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two proposals[edit]

That it's made explicit that the USA hadn't entered WWII at the time of the charter and that the various governments mentioned that adopted the charter were governments in exile.--Mongreilf 16:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does one MP's disagreement with Allied policy for a postwar Germany have to do with the "aftermath" of this charter? And how is this rhetorical point of view encyclopaedic? Should this article contain mention of each instance where the charter has been invoked to support or oppose a policy? Kablammo 19:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I totally agree with you. In my opinion the whole paragraph in its current form should be removed until somebody writes a neutral account of the aftermath, e.g. the connection to the creation of the United Nations or the "constitutional reality" of the charter. The anecdotal and higly selective version of this paragraph is not encyclopaedic. --Baikonur (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inter-Allied Meeting in London on September 24, 1941[edit]

There was a common declaration of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary specifying their dissents to the charter. (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion of how there never was a signed Charter[edit]

I have restored the second paragraph to the version before addition on 4 April by User:Aklogos of a long unsourced passage about how there never was a signed document. From a quick look at Churchill's History I think that may well be source-able, but it belongs in a para at the end of the article, not taking over the intro. I will come back within 2 days to amplify this para. and start a discussion. JohnCD (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Atlantic Charter (note by Aklogos moved here by JohnCD from his talk page)[edit]

To verify that FDR stated that no "Atlantic Charter" had been signed, go to the NARA Website. Do a search under FDR, oral press conferences, December 19, 1944, and read the transcript.

To verify what Churchill had to say about the drafting of the "Atlantic Charter" statement, see page 443 and 444, in volume 3 of Churchill's "The Second World War", published April 1950.

To verify who wrote the first draft of the "Atlantic Charter" see archived records of memorandums of conversations and meetings held August 9, 1941 thru August 12, 1941, at fdrlibrary, in the psf files, box1. The first draft had only five points, not eight.

To verify that there is no formal "Atlantic Charter" document in federal records, contact any reference librarian at the U.S. Library of Congress and ask if there is any such signed document in their records, apart from the famous propaganda poster (OWI Poster No. 50) that was printed up in 1943.

To verify that there is likewise no signed "Atlantic Charter" in England, contact the Churchill Society or the British Library, both in London.

To verify that the Daily Herald coined the term "Atlantic Charter" and was the originating source for the term, contact the British Library in London which has archival copies of the Daily Herald. Then research all other major British and American contemporary newspaper articles from August 14, 1941 and the subsequent week to learn how other newspapers referred to the joint statement. It was referred to as a "Joint Statement" and a "Joint Declaration", with one New York newspaper even calling it the "American Mein Kampf", a name that didn't stick.

Neither Churchill nor FDR referred to their joint statement as the "Atlantic Charter" until about a week after the Daily Herald article appeared.

You can go through all of Churchill's speeches and you won't find him using the term "Atlantic Charter" in public until August 24, 1941 during his live publicly broadcast report to Parliament.

To read what Churchill's own feelings were about the "Atlantic Charter" in 1942, read the transcript of what he stated before the House of Commons in November of 1942. He said that they (FDR and Churchill) felt that it primarily applied to nations in "Europe now under the Nazi yoke." See the National Archives of the United Kingdom, extract from speech by Prime Minister Churchill to the House of Commons, November of 1942.

What the "Atlantic Charter" was NOT is equally as important as what it was, what it was intended to be, and then what it came to represent later. It was not a "document" apart from notes, and the mimeographed press release that Stephen Early handed out. That press release written by FDR specifically said (in quotes) that it was signed, and that the press release was to say "signed". It was not signed. It was not a treaty. It had no legal standing apart from being a press release of a "joint declaration." But equally as important is the fact that for 68 years we have been teaching our students that it was a document that was signed on August 14, 1941 off the coast of Newfoundland. (Neither FDR's nor Churchill's ship was anywhere near Newfoundland by August 14, 1941. Both ships had departed the area on August 12, 1941.) See log of President's Cruise, fdrlibrary, psf file, box 1. The "Atlantic Charter" was not a "document" in exactly the same sense that the Gettysburg Address was not a "document".

To verify FDR's specific telegraphed instructions to Stephen Early, again, see fdrlibrary, psf files, box 1.

If anyone feels strongly that the "Atlantic Charter" was actually signed, then by all means, search for a copy with genuine signatures to substantiate your assertion. But before you begin your search, keep in mind that both Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill publicly said that neither one of them signed "it". FDR went even further, saying that "it" was just "scribbled" on "bits of paper" by aides. See the transcript of the December 19, 1944 press conference.

Aklogos (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)AklogosReply[reply]

  • I don't think it's disputed, certainly not by me, that there never was a signed piece of paper or that the name "Atlantic Charter" wasn't used initially; but it doesn't seem to me all that important. The important and interesting thing is that the two leaders met and agreed a form of words for a joint declaration; the mechanics of signatures and paper are a detail. However I have moved the discussion of that out of "reaction" into a section of its own and expanded it slightly, and added a section about the name. I'm not sure either of those matters now needs mention in the introductory paragraphs, but those seem to me unsatisfactory anyway, so I am leaving them for the moment, together with the {{context}} tag. If I can think of a better version, I will propose it. JohnCD (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've done my best to add sources to this article however there are still a lot more that needs to be done. One specific point I think should be raised is on 'The ideals expressed through the eight points of the Atlantic Charter were so popular that the United States Office of War Information distributed 240,000 posters of it in 1943 (OWI Poster No. 50).' in the Origins section. I think this is a case of not perhaps trusting a source wholeheartedly. The OWI is at this stage effectively a propaganda organisation for the US government. They would want to promote the AC by posters if there was a demand for them or not. It is because of this that I contest this source being used as a reference to the popularity of the AC.Nome3000 (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the media in fact embraced it. As Printer's Ink reported in 1944, "Newspapers, radio, posters, songs and pageants carried the story of the Atlantic Charter and its provisions to most every part of the nation." Rjensen (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again however, that doesn't necessarily prove popularity. During war time the press would be under closer control by the government and will print or broadcast what they are instructed to. all that shows is that someone is trying to make it popular. 'Sadly the Charter fell flat. In polls few Americans could remember its specifics' Nicholas Cull, "Selling peace: the origins, promotion and fate of the Anglo-American new order during the Second World War", Diplomacy and Statecraft, vol 3#1 1996, pp.16. Although I get the impression from the article that its lack of popularity is in the early years of its release and that it did become popular later on. This is however only looking at American public opinion, I'm sure it was very popular in the colonies but this needs to be noted in detail here.Nome3000 (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'US government's own propaganda organization, the Office of War Information (OWI)'Nicholas Cull, "Selling peace: the origins, promotion and fate of the Anglo-American new order during the Second World War", Diplomacy and Statecraft, vol 3#1 1996, pp.18. is evidence to my earlier point.Nome3000 (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the best evidence comes from Norman Rockwell's visual depiction of the Atlantic Charter in his "Four Freedoms" -- which were wildly popular at the time and are still very well known. They were not government produced. Rjensen (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But this isn't a 'visual depiction of the Atlantic Charter' its of the Four Freedoms which, although they are covered in the points of the AC, are a separate entity in themselves. FDR made a speech in January '41 where he talked about the four freedoms and that is from where they gained their notability. The AC was 7 months later and is a totally different document although it is about a broadly similar subject. People may have know about the four freedoms but not known they were in the AC or that perhaps knew the four freedoms in the AC but not the other points in it. That would be because of the fame and popularity of the FF not the AC itself which is the point that's being claimed here.Nome3000 (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussing details around the Atlantic Charter[edit]

It is written that 'militarists of the Japanese Government' were rallying. Can anyone provide a source for this information, please?

Who exactly were present to discuss the initial charter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stjohn1970 (talkcontribs) 08:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

main point about atlantic charter[edit]

main point about atlantic charter — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atlantic Charter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]