J.C.S. Files

The Deputy Director of the Office of European Affairs (Matthews) to the Secretary of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (McFarland)

top secret

My Dear General McFarland: With reference to our telephone conversation, I enclose a copy of a telegram which a member of the British Embassy handed me last evening. That telegram embodies the instructions sent by the British Foreign Office to the British Ambassador at Moscow with regard to a joint Anglo-American approach to the Russians with respect to Norway.

You will note that paragraph 5 of the enclosure suggests that the State Department might send similar instructions to Ambassador Harriman for the purpose of giving some political background to General Deane.

Since the State Department is not informed as to the nature of the instructions sent to General Deane, we are not in position to judge how much of the background and suggestions contained in the British telegram is already in Deane’s possession. I presume you have briefed General Deane on the three points contained in numbered paragraph 3. We do believe it advisable to give General Deane, either [Page 196] through Ambassador Harriman or otherwise, some indication of the importance of communicating to the Russians the fact that the planning question was conceived some time ago in order to dispel possible Russian suspicions that it is something improvised overnight, so to speak, as a counterweight to possible entry of Russian troops into northern Norway.

If you will let me know your views1 on reading the attached, I will be glad to see that immediate action, if desirable, is taken.

Sincerely yours,

H. Freeman Matthews

Deputy Director Office of European Affairs
[Enclosure—Telegram]

The British Foreign Secretary (Eden) to the British Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Clark Kerr)

top secret

2874. As you may know, the Combined Chiefs of Staff have recently instructed the American and British Military missions in Moscow to discuss with the Russians the question of our plans for the occupation of Norway.2 No conversations were to be initiated prior to the return of General Burrows with whom we had discussed the political background. Burrows does not expect to be back for ten days, however, and United States Chiefs of Staff are anxious to begin these discussions without further delay in view of development of the Finnish situation. Chiefs of Staff are agreeing that it is undesirable to postpone matters any longer and have approved our suggestion that you should explain to Brinckman political background which is as follows:

2.
S.H.A.E.F. have for some time past been under strong political pressure from the Norwegians to send troops to northern Norway in the event of German withdrawal because of their fears of a possible Russian permanent occupation of that area. Such fears are, in the Foreign Office view, exaggerated since we have no evidence to support this idea and since the Soviet Government have signed a Civil Affairs agreement with the Norwegian Government similar to the Anglo-Norwegian and American-Norwegian agreements.3 In point of fact [Page 197] it may be that the Russians will be assisting the Finns in capture and disarmament of German forces in northern Finland and the course of events may make it more natural and easy for the Russians to follow up German withdrawal from northern Norway than that an expedition should be despatched from this country. In these circumstances S.H.A.E.F.’s proposal to send such an expedition might well appear to the Russians as designed mainly to forestall their own forces. It was clearly important that this impression should be avoided.
3.
Chiefs of Staff suggested therefore to Combined Chiefs of Staff that plans should be concerted with the Russians and that it should be emphasized that S.C.A.E.F.’s proposal was purely provisional and based on:—
(1)
Military necessity of harassing the enemy during his withdrawal.
(2)
Advantage of stimulating Norwegian resistance by sending in Norwegian forces as soon as possible and,
(3)
Desirability of establishing a naval base for escorts protecting convoys to Russia.
We assume that instructions sent by Combined Chiefs of Staff to heads of military missions have been drawn up accordingly since United States Chiefs of Staff agreed. It was felt that for the matter to be handled through military channels as a purely military problem would assist in avoiding appearance of political motives.
4.
The Russians may suspect that it is the Soviet-Finnish armistice negotiations and consequent possible proximity of the Russians to northern Norway that have made us propose plan for occupation of Northern Norway by Anglo-American-Norwegian forces at this juncture. In order to dispel such a suspicion it might be well to emphasize that plans have been ready for some time and that it is (?precisely) (?the possibility)4 that owing to the capitulation of Finland the Russians may have forces in the neighbourhood of the Norwegian frontier when the Germans start to withdraw that has made it desirable to discuss plans with the Russians now.
5.
Please discuss the handling of the matter with Brinckman. His Majesty’s Ambassador in Washington is being instructed to suggest to the State Department that your United States colleague might be sent similar instructions.

  1. For McFarland’s reply, see post, p. 399.
  2. See post, p. 399.
  3. For text of the Norwegian-American agreement referred to, signed May 16, 1944, see Department of State, Treaties and Other International Acts Series No. 1514; 60 Stat. (2) 1581. Similar arrangements were signed on the same day between Norway and the United Kingdom and between Norway and the Soviet Union.
  4. These two parenthetical suggestions for correcting a garble in the message as received in Washington appear in the source text.