851.01/7–2243
The British Prime Minister (Churchill) to President Roosevelt 94
373. Please see my No. 348 of the 8th instant. It seems to me that something has got to be done about this. I am under considerable pressure from the Foreign Office, from my Cabinet colleagues and also from force of circumstances to “recognize” the National Committee of Liberation in Algiers. What does recognition mean? One can recognize a man as an Emperor or as a Grocer. Recognition is meaningless without a defining formula. We submitted to you our formula which would meet our daily practical needs. These cannot be overlooked. Until de Gaulle went to North West Africa and the new Committee was formed all our relations were with him and his Committee. I stated to Parliament on 8/695 that “the formation of this Committee with its collective responsibility supersedes the situation [Page 174] created by the correspondence between General de Gaulle and myself in 1940. Our dealings financial and otherwise will henceforth be with the Committee as a whole”. I was glad to do this because I would rather deal with the Committee collectively than with de Gaulle alone. I had in fact for many months been working to induce or compel de Gaulle to “put himself in commission”. This seemed to be largely achieved by the new arrangement.
Since then we have been dealing with the new Committee on a de facto basis. We are now discussing the problems of Syria (where there is much friction) with Massigli and are getting a good deal of help from him. Minister of State (Casey) and General Spears are stopping off at Algiers on their way back to the Middle East in order to carry these discussions further. General Catroux has returned from Syria to Algiers and also shows a disposition to be helpful. He is a level-headed man and by no means in the pocket of de Gaulle. Neither I am sure is Massigli. I am certain that we shall have a smoother course in Syria which is full of dangerous possibilities by dealing with the Committee collectively than with de Gaulle personally. Yet that is the only alternative.
Very soon will come here Monsieur Couve de Murville to wind up our financial arrangements with de Gaulle and transfer them insofar as transference is required to the new Committee. What other choice have I but to do this?
A third instance is supplied by the fact that there are a number of Free French troops and establishments here and about 50 Free French vessels which are doing very useful work and all of which have to be kept under military discipline. For this purpose an Act of Parliament was passed in 1940 vesting powers of discipline for such forces in General de Gaulle. I wish to transfer this to the Committee and I shall have presently to submit an amending bill to Parliament.
Beside all this there are numerous Colonies of the French Empire which came over to us or were brought over forcibly including Madagascar, Jibuti and French West Africa and Central African Colonies. With all of these we have a varying flow of business and trade to do and at present all this is formally focused on the personality of de Gaulle. I would much prefer it to be transacted with the Committee and with the particular member of the Committee charged with administration of Colonial affairs. In fact from day to day we have been inevitably drawn to recognise the Committee in the sense of doing business with it.
Macmillan tells us repeatedly that the Committee is acquiring a collective authority and that de Gaulle is by no means its master. He tells us further that if the Committee breaks down as it may do if [Page 175] left utterly without support, de Gaulle will become once again the sole personality in control of everything except the powers exercised by Giraud under armed force of the United States in North West Africa and Dakar. He strongly recommends a measure of recognition. He reports that Eisenhower and Murphy both agree with this.
I am therefore reaching the point where it may be necessary for me to take this step so far as Great Britain and Anglo-French interests set out above are concerned. If I do, Russia will certainly recognise, and I fear lest this might be embarrassing to you.
I do hope therefore that you will let me know (a) whether you could subscribe to our formula or something like it or (b) whether you would mind if His Majesty’s Government took that step separately themselves. There is no doubt whatever in my mind that the former would be far the better. There are a lot of good men on the Committee, Catroux, Massigli, Monnet, Georges and of course Giraud who arrived here yesterday. He will certainly raise all this and bring it to a head.
As you know I have always taken the view that de Gaulle should be made to settle down to honest team-work. I am no more enamoured of him than you are but I would rather have him on the Committee than strutting about as combination Joan of Arc and Clemenceau. Pray therefore let me know your wishes for I try above all things to walk in step with you and the advantages of our joint action in this affair are especially obvious.