851.01/607
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Under Secretary of State (Welles)
The British Ambassador called to see me this afternoon. I discussed again with the Ambassador at some length, the situation concerning the Free French movement.
[Page 522]I told the Ambassador that it would seem to me almost incredible that highly confidential views which I had expressed to the Ambassador in recent conversations, intended solely for the secret information of the British Government, regarding the possibility of a reorganization of the Free French movement under General de Gaulle—views which were intended solely as a part of a preliminary discussion between our two Governments—should have appeared in extenso in recent news despatches in the American press from London and should undoubtedly have formed the basis for the highly unfortunate diatribe on General de Gaulle as published yesterday. I said that the situation of which I complained had reached the point where it became necessary for us here in the Department of State to question the wisdom of undertaking to discuss matters of this character informally and confidentially with the British Government. Obviously, I said, publicity of this character completely defeated the constructive and desirable purposes which we had in mind when we undertook these discussions.
The Ambassador said that he fully agreed, that he could not offer a word to the contrary and that he had already cabled his Government remonstrating emphatically against what had happened.
The Ambassador attempted to palliate to a certain extent General de Gaulle’s statements to the press51 as published yesterday and said that he could not interpret them as being so damaging and destructive as I believed them to be. He said he felt that what General de Gaulle had had to say with regard to political recognition could be satisfactorily met by giving him some kind of ostensible recognition as chief of resistance forces within France. To that I replied that I could not share the Ambassador’s views in this regard and that it seemed to me from our knowledge of the situation within France that while certain elements of resistance within occupied and unoccupied France might be responsive to General de Gaulle, other equally important, if not more important, elements of resistance were totally opposed to General de Gaulle and would certainly be more so after his demand for political recognition, and that it seemed to me unwise and inexpedient officially to acknowledge General de Gaulle as the supreme head of elements of resistance in France which had showed and were showing no inclination to accept his leadership.
We discussed some of the features of these questions along the same lines of my previous conversation with the Ambassador and I finally stated that within the next two days I would send the Ambassador in writing the precise views of this Government as to the most desirable basis for the Free French movement headed by General de Gaulle, as well as the basis for cooperation which, in [Page 523] certain contingencies, this Government would be willing to extend to General de Gaulle and his Free French movement.
- See the New York Times, May 26, 1942, p. 6.↩