396 J.-A. PEMBERTON
as if that were the only opinion that mattered.^183 They were doubtless
discomforted to hear an American member insist that the gathering
needed to be reminded of ‘the important part that colonial ambition
played in the rise of Hitler and Mussolini and the Japanese menace.’^184
The same member advised the gathering that ‘however delicately we
trod in the use of words like colonial areas, dependencies and self-gov-
ernment, the fact remained that one-half to one-third of human beings
lived in a condition...of “collective slavery.”’^185 The reason why
European members especially resented attacks of this nature when they
came from members of the American group can be discerned in the fol-
lowing statement by a British member: there are ‘some...who would like
to check up on the treatment of coloured people in the United States.’^186
Holland later recalled the ‘sensitivity’ of the European councils about
American attitudes towards post-war colonial policy and that there were
‘sharp exchanges’ between the American and Europeans at Hot Springs
over what that policy should be in respect to Southeast Asia.^187 He pointed
out that the British, French, and Dutch IPR Councils viewed the American
Council of the IPR as naive when it came to colonial questions. Holland
suggested that this view of the American Council probably dated to the
time of the Mont Tremblant conference. In particular, he attributed it to
the ‘anti-colonial’ sentiments expressed there by Ralph J. Bunche, a senior
social science analyst on colonial affairs at the Office of Strategic Services
in Washington.^188 Holland remembered that Bunche ‘made a very great
impression’ on most of the gathering and that this spread alarm amongst
the British delegation particularly in relation to the question of India.^189
In explaining why the tension between the American and European
councils at Mont Tremblant and Hot Springs when discussing the future
of the European colonies was so acute, Holland pointed out that the
(^183) Ibid.
(^184) Ibid., 15.
(^185) Ibid.
(^186) Ibid., 93. ‘Especially were they irritated by such criticisms when they came from
America, where, in their view, the problem of racial minorities still awaited determined
attempts at a solution’ International Secretariat, Institute of Pacific Relations, foreword to
International Secretariat, Institute of Pacific Relations, Security in the Pacific. x.
(^187) International Secretariat, Institute of Pacific Relations, Security in the Pacific, 38, 252.
(^188) Ibid., 345.
(^189) Ibid., 345–46.