Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, The Conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943

Defense Files

The Assistant Secretary of War (McCloy) to the Ambassador to the United Kingdom (Winant)

secret

[Cairo,] 2 December 1943.

Dear Mr. Ambassador:

Subject: Agenda For European Advisory Commission.¹

For what they are worth, I am taking the liberty of sending you my thoughts on the matter of priorities for discussion by the Commission. My thought is that, based on the contemplated military operations in Europe, it seems desirable that the European Advisory Commission consider the following recommended Agenda in order of priority:

(1) Directive for Civil Administration for France.

(2) Directives for Civil Administration for Belgium, Norway, Holland and Denmark, in the light of the already executed Norwegian Agreement.²

(3) Military Armistice for Germany. (4) Military Government for Germany.

(5) Comprehensive terms of Surrender for Germany.

(6) Terms of Surrender for Lesser Enemy States.

Without wishing to circumscribe the Commission in any way, I would imagine that the Commission would make more progress if it agreed to confine its recommendations on the above listed subjects to statements of broad general political, economic and military principles upon which the Combined Chiefs of Staff may base their directive to the appropriate Military Commander.

In (5) above I think the Commission would do well to consider the wisdom of proceeding on the old outline of comprehensive terms of surrender. There is something consensual about them and I have always had the theory that something in the nature of a blank check is more appropriate than one document from which all our rights flow and have to be defined. There has been a great deal of research done on the documents following the last war, but I am not certain that they are worth the research. The comprehensive terms for Italy³ have not been too fortunate though the British are endeared to them.

I have cabled to Washington the substance of our arrangement with Eden.⁴ It has yet to be confirmed but I have little doubt that it will be. They, including Mr. Hull, have approved of it, as you know.⁵ The matter of the selection of a good officer of sufficient weight to serve as your military adviser on the Commission has also been taken up with the War Department and I am also going to get General Marshall’s ideas on this. In addition to the military adviser, I have been able to get the release of an officer who has been one of the chief planners in the Civil Affairs Division of the War Department and who has acted as Secretary of the Combined Civil Affairs Committee. I can think of no one more suited than he to keep the two sides of the water in step. He knows all that has gone on in the Washington planning. If, now, the British will send one of their best men to Washington who knows their plans and thinking, at the same time allowing their representation on the Committee some real authority, I am sure we can make the thing work expeditiously.

Sincerely,

J. J. McCloy

Assistant Secretary of War

1. See ante, p. 352.
2. An arrangement of May 19, 1943, between the British Government’s Administration of Territories Committee (Europe) and the Norwegian Government-in-Exile in London.
3. See ante, p. 417, footnote 3.
4. See McCloy’s telegram 10064 of November 27, 1943, ante, p. 442.
5. See Stimson’s telegram 1124 of November 28, 1943, ante, p. 444.