851.01/2302: Telegram
The Consul General at Algiers (Wiley) to the Secretary of State
[Received June 19—3:02 a.m.]
1119. For the Secretary and Under Secretary from Murphy. Your 1147, June 17 and my 1108, June 16, 6 p.m. Massigli informs me that he is in receipt of a message from Hoppenot regarding the latter’s conversation with Dunn61 concerning the subject matter of my 1108, June 16, 6 p.m., relative to the composition of the enlarged French Committee. Massigli asserts that the information conveyed to the Department by me regarding the apparent domination of the Committee by de Gaulle is inaccurate. Like Monnet he says that he was unaware that we were ignorant of the changes in the formation of the Committee made on June 7 and about which we learned on June 15. He admits that he should have informed us.
According to Massigli we should consider that of the 14 members, he, Catroux, Monnet, Abadie, Couve de Murville, Mayer and Bonnet are independents and opposed to the domination of either de Gaulle or Giraud. He says that de Gaulle can count on the total support only of Pleven, Tixier, Diethelm and Philip, leaving Giraud with [Page 158] Georges. He said that all of the independents will insist on the retention of Giraud as Commander-in-Chief, although they all stand for a reform and improvements in the military establishment.
Massigli also denies that the Committee intends to change the necessity of joint signatures to validate its acts, stating that if, of course, either one of the co-Presidents deliberately block the work of the Committee such action would result in a crisis looking to a change in the system.
Massigli said that he would make every effort to promote friendly understanding between the Committee and the Allied authorities and is particularly concerned that we have confidence in his determination to prevent domination of the Committee by de Gaulle.
I believe that the concern which our Government has brought home to the members of the Committee as a result of their unpublished action changing the constitution of the Committee, and the effect that it might have on the French military establishment, is salutary and will make for a better understanding on the part of the recent arrivals, of the American position in this area.
General Georges also indicated this afternoon that the discussions in the Committee yesterday demonstrated that de Gaulle could only count on the unqualified support of the 5 members listed by Massigli. He said that the other 8 were demonstrating an independence of judgment which led him and Giraud to feel that on the question at least of CinC, their support would be forthcoming. He stated, nevertheless, that the Committee as constituted did not correspond to the original agreement which had called for a small executive committee. He felt, however, that it might be possible to retrieve the error through the establishment of a small war committee, which would in fact direct the war effort, leaving other questions to the larger body. Even in the larger body Giraud, however, still maintained the veto power through the necessity of obtaining joint signatures upon all decrees.
Georges was confident that General Eisenhower’s decision to discuss the question of military command with both Generals de Gaulle and Giraud would solve this problem. He said the decision had been welcomed by the reasonable elements on the Committee. Georges is also fully aware of necessity for the rejuvenation of the army and gave us his personal guarantee that he would see that this was accomplished in an orderly but prompt fashion.
He had just had a long talk with a newly arrived leader of one of the resistance organizations in France which had greatly impressed him as to the necessity of grouping the resistance organizations under a committee of resistance which would represent both de Gaulle and Giraud since his informant did not feel that Philip alone was competent to deal with this important matter. [Murphy.]
- James C. Dunn, Adviser on Political Relations.↩