740.00119 European War 1939/1692: Telegram
The Vice Consul at Algiers (McBride) to the Secretary of State
[Received September 10—12:14 p.m.]
1565. From Murphy.78 Refer Agwar telegrams J. 9411. Macmillan79 and I called on Massigli80 at 5:30 p.m., September 8, to inform him of impending announcement General Eisenhower of a military armistice with Italy. Communicated to him text of General Eisenhower’s announcement.81 Massigli’s satisfaction that Italy would cease hostilities against Allies was overshadowed by his indignation and regret that French Committee of National Liberation had not been consulted and kept informed of negotiations leading up to armistice.
[Page 362]In that connection it should be said that in complying with Department’s 1583, August 28, 6 p.m.,82 instructing me to inform French of outline of complete armistice terms I carefully refrained from any statement regarding active negotiations. Macmillan however in a probably overzealous desire to quiet French apprehensions in this respect had told French at the time that no negotiations were in progress. Massigli said he could not advise us strongly enough that French be consulted a priori before conclusion of complete armistice terms with Italy. He said that after all we must recognize that France has a greater interest in Italy than some other countries such as China and Brazil. In his opinion French people would never understand or forgive us if we disregard French interests in our longer term dealings with Italians.
As General Giraud83 is absent on an inspection trip in Morocco, Macmillan and I in agreement with Chief of Staff also called on de Gaulle84 a few minutes before broadcast of General Eisenhower’s declaration and conveyed foregoing information to him. His reaction was milder than we had expected but tinged with bitterness. He congratulated Allies on having obliged Italy to take this decision but said that insofar as French were concerned their position vis-à-vis Italy was unchanged. He failed to understand why French had not been consulted because of obvious interests in it which they possess. We emphasized that present arrangement is of a military character but he was quick to point out that according to Eisenhower’s declaration the Governments of USA, Great Britain and Soviet Union had approved [?] therefore political considerations were involved and it was obvious France had been ignored and slighted. (De Gaulle was visibly impressed by the news that approval of Soviet Union had been given). De Gaulle also asserted that decision to accept Italian military cooperation involved very definite political consideration on which French authorities were entitled to have been consulted. We informed de Gaulle that as our Governments regard armistice strictly as a military instrument signed by soldiers and as French Commander-in-Chief has been kept generally informed of steps leading to the armistice we considered that his objections are not well founded. He shrugged his shoulders saying he did not understand this reference to French Commander-in-Chief.
Department might also be interested to know that when we emphasized that de Gaulle as a soldier would be the first to understand military necessities involved and appreciate that present action so advantageous [Page 363] to French people had many features of a ruse de guerre he promptly replied he was not a soldier but he represented France’s political interests. At the time he spoke he was wearing gun uniform of a Brigadier General in French Army which is his regular costume.
Thus far general sentiment on part of North African population is mixed. On the one hand there is pleasure and satisfaction over Italian capitulation and on the other a feeling that French interests have not been sufficiently stressed.
After Committee meeting today Massigli called on me to state suspicion is rife among membership that notwithstanding our declarations a political deal possibly involving Tunisia is involved and that Allies intend to exclude French from consultation regarding complete armistice terms and development of post armistice stages, work of armistice commission, etc. I reassured Massigli referring to our yesterday’s conversation when he was informed that present armistice text of which was communicated informally by AHQ85 [to] Giraud is limited to military considerations. He also indicated that his personal situation by reason of his failure to keep Committee informed of this development is adversely affected.
Massigli urges that Washington and London issue promptly a declaration to effect that the French Committee of National Liberation will be associated in stages which follow present Italian armistice on ground that Committee has responsibility of defending very important French interests which armistice must safeguard. In making that request Massigli emphasized French interest in it by its close geographic and political relationship and fact that French have been actively participating in war against Italians (I had mentioned that Greece and Yugoslavia had not been consulted for some [same?] reasons though they also had special interests in Italy).
Macmillan is telegraphing this suggestion to London. We both feel if some comforting, if innocuous, communication could be made it would calm present tempest in a tea cup. [Murphy.]
- Robert D. Murphy, Chief Civil Affairs Officer at Algiers; United States Political Adviser on the staff of the Supreme Allied Commander, Mediterranean Theater; Personal Representative of President Roosevelt in North Africa.↩
- Harold Macmillan, British Minister Resident at Allied Headquarters in North Africa.↩
- René Massigli, Commissioner for Foreign Affairs of the French Committee of National Liberation.↩
- For text of General Eisenhower’s radio announcement on September 8, 1943, of Italian military armistice, see United States and Italy, 1936–1946, p. 50.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Gen. Henri Honoré Giraud, Co-Chairman of the French Committee of National Liberation.↩
- Gen. Charles de Gaulle, Co-Chairman of the French Committee of National Liberation.↩
- Army Headquarters.↩