Québec Conference 1943 (QUADRANT)

Memorandum by the British Chiefs of Staff

Québec, 21 August 1943.

Most secret
CCS 246/1

Movement of the QUEENS

At the 94th Meeting of the Combined Chiefs of Staff during the TRIDENT Conference, approval was given to the QUEENS running on a 28-day cycle as at that time the urgency of lifting personnel was not as great as it is now.

It is understood that a situation is developing in which it is essential to lift as many personnel as possible, and in view of the longer nights we recommend that the Combined Chiefs of Staff should now approve that the QUEENS should revert to running on a 21-day cycle.

Memorandum by the British Chiefs of Staff

Québec, 21 August 1943.

Most secret
CCS 326

Amphibians for OVERLORD

  1. In view of the proved value and necessity of the DUKW, two and one-half ton amphibious truck, it is considered essential that adequate provision of these vehicles be available for OVERLORD in order to mitigate the great problems involved in prolonged maintenance over the beaches under difficult conditions.

  2. Preliminary examination of requirements resulted in demands being placed for 1,200 DUKWs, of which 700 were destined for use by U.S. Forces and 500 for use by British Forces. It is understood that this requirement was accepted on the basis of production of 400 DUKWs per month to meet present global requirements.

  3. Subsequent to the above demand, additional requirements for OVERLORD, it is understood, have been stated bringing the total requirement to 2,400; covering 1,400 for U.S. Forces, and 1,000 for the British, of which the latter will probably be increased to 1,500. Preliminary inquiries in Washington lead us to suppose that these enhanced demands have not yet been presented to the Amphibian Subcommittee of the Munitions Assignment Committee, and there appears to be some doubt in Washington as to what is the full OVERLORD requirement. With a view to clarifying the position, a telegram has been sent to London.

  4. It is probable that the present production of DUKWs will prove too small to compete with requirements, and it is considered that every effort should be made as a matter of urgency to increase productive capacity. It is believed that a substantial increase can be achieved with existing plant but at the expense of production of two and one-half ton trucks and by a reallotment of the requisite steel for hulls.

  5. It is further understood that the U.S. Navy has, or will shortly have, a considerable requirement for DUKWs additional to any already demanded.

  6. In view of the above, agreement of the Combined Chiefs of Staff is requested for:

a. Acceptance of the principle that priority of allocation of production be given to OVERLORD.

b. The issue of instructions for the urgent examination of possible increases in production.

c. Allocations to OVERLORD be concurrent for American and British needs in a ratio to be stated by Chief of Staff to the Supreme Allied Commander (Designate).

840.48 Refugees/5137

Memorandum by the British Delegation

Québec, 21st August, 1943.


Up till now approaches to neutral countries on refugee questions have been conducted by joint efforts of Foreign Office and State Department. At Bermuda we thought that approaches of this kind would have much more chance of success if they were made not by Foreign Office or State Department but by Intergovernmental Committee as a whole. It would seem sensible therefore to arrange that Intergovernmental Committee should from now on take over approaches of this kind. This would not cut either of us out of the picture since we are both represented on the Committee and nothing would in fact be done without our consent but if we are to use Intergovernmental Committee for this purpose it is essential that there should be quicker decisions than there have been in the past[;] otherwise the Committee will become an object of ridicule and both our Governments will be open to the most serious criticism. Any announcement of a decision to proceed on these lines should make it clear that the two Governments are not in any way disinteresting themselves from these questions, but are convinced that this procedure will make for greater efficiency and expedition.

740.0011 European War 1939/30942½

Memorandum by the British Delegation

Québec, 21 August, 1943


We have long known that Guerilla bands, particularly those of the organisation known as EAM, which is Communist-run, and the Politicians in Athens, are predominantly Republican and opposed to the return of the King before a plebiscite has been held to decide the future form of the régime. This view has now been reiterated by Representatives of the EAM and the Liberal politicians recently arrived in Cairo without knowledge of Greek Government or H.M. Ambassador, and their arrival has led to strong pressure being put on the King in this sense. M. Tsouderos himself is in favour of the King giving such a pledge on the grounds that a refusal would result in the resignation of his colleagues and in antagonising opinion in Greece. The King is being told that if he agrees all parties would unite to form a coalition Government which would include representatives of the Guerillas and of the politicians in Athens. But such a coalition Government would not necessarily include representatives of the Royalist elements in Greece.

It has been pointed out to H.M. Ambassador to the Greek Government that a government reconstructed on the basis proposed would be almost entirely Republican and on returning to Greece would be more than human if they did not attempt to influence opinion in favour of a Republic. We should therefore be careful before advising the King to place himself at the mercy of an EAM Government on the assumption that it would play straight by him when established in Greece and allow a free plebiscite to be held when the time comes. In our view if the King now undertakes not to return to Greece on liberation he would be practically signing his abdication. Nor could we guarantee to protect the King’s interests during his absence, since after Greece is liberated we shall want law and order maintained and shall therefore have to work with whatever Government is in power. Meanwhile although we felt that the decision must rest with the King, it was still our policy to give him all the support we can with a view to replacing him on his throne.

M. Tsouderos now hopes that it may be possible to defer both the reconstruction of the Government and an immediate decision about the King’s position, but he may not succeed on the latter point. As a compromise he suggested some days ago that the King should agree to return after the liberation of Greece for a short visit of two or three weeks, after which he should remain outside the country until a plebiscite is held. This is what the King refers to in the last paragraph of his message to the Prime Minister. We do not regard this proposal as satisfactory, since there may well be a period of many months between the date of the Government’s return to Greece and the time when a plebiscite could be held. Apart from the short initial period of the King’s visit the Provisional Government would be free during this time to undermine his position if they chose to do so.

H.M. Ambassador reports that he is doing what he can to prevent any hasty and undignified decision.

I am not convinced that if the King stands firm he will necessarily find himself isolated particularly if we and the United States Government continue to support him and show clearly that we do so. The opinion of the British officers who have recently returned from Greece is that even the EAM which is the most powerful organisation in the country and most strongly opposed to the King, now realise that only a pro-British policy can gain popular support and that they are not strong enough to stand alone. This estimate is supported by the fact that their representatives have agreed to come to Cairo.

I would therefore suggest that in reply to the King’s message he should be told that in our view the policy outlined in his declaration of July 4th is that best calculated to serve the interests of Greece and that we therefore hope it may be possible for His Majesty to avoid any further statement at this stage about his own position when Greece is liberated. By sending his message the King is evidently trying to strengthen his own hand in dealing with his Government and the Emissaries from Greece. But I do not think this need deter us from giving him the above advice, while repeating to him the assurances that whatever his decision may be, we shall continue to give him the maximum support in our power.


The British Foreign Secretary to the British Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

QUADRANT, [undated.]

Most secret

For Sargent from Foreign Secretary. Your telegram CONCRETE 374.

Prime Minister agrees to reply as suggested to message from King of Greece.

Please therefore instruct H.M. Ambassador to the Greek Government to convey the following to His Majesty:

I have received Your Majesty’s Message.

I venture to suggest that in the view of HMG the policy outlined in Your Majesty’s declaration of July 4th is that best calculated to serve the interests of Greece and they therefore hope that it may be possible for Your Majesty to avoid any further statement at this stage about your own position when Greece is liberated.

I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to assure Your Majesty that whatever your decision may be, HMG will continue to give you the maximum support in their power.

1 Like

The Commander-in-Chief, AFHQ to the Combined Chiefs of Staff

Algiers, 21 August 1943.



The following are the minutes of the meeting held in Lisbon on August 18 [19] (to KKAD and AGWar for the Combined Chiefs of Staff and to USFor for British Chiefs of Staff signed Eisenhower cite FHCOS. Reference NAF 333. This is NAF 334.) with the following present:

  • Sir Ronald Campbell, British Ambassador;
  • Mr. George F. Kennan, American Chargé d’Affaires;
  • General Castellano, Italian Army;
  • Mr. Montanari, Interpreter;
  • Major General William [Walter] B Smith, US Army;
  • Brigadier Strong, British Army.

The following was the general discussion.

General Smith opened the discussion by stating that on the assumption that the Italian Armed Forces were ready to surrender authorization had been made to communicate the terms on which General Eisenhower was prepared to agree to a cessation of hostilities between the Allied Forces under his command and the Italian Forces. It was to be understood that these terms constituted a Military Armistice only and must be accepted unconditionally.

General Castellano explained that there had been some misinterpretation of the purpose of his visit as he had come to discuss the question of how Italy could arrange to join the United Nations in opposition to Germany with the view to expelling the Germans from Italy in collaboration with the Allies.

General Smith stated that he was prepared only to discuss the terms on which the Allied Forces would be prepared to cease hostilities against the Italian Forces. The question of the status of the Italian Army and Government’s participation in the operations against the Germans was one of high governmental policy of the United Nations and would have to be decided by the Heads of the 2 Governments concerned. The Allied Forces were prepared, however, to assist and support any Italian Forces or Italians who fought against or obstructed the German military effort, as would be brought out in amplification of the armistice conditions. He then proceeded to read aloud paragraph by paragraph the armistice conditions and the various comments which he was authorized to make with regard thereto and these documents were currently translated point by point to their representative.

The British and American representatives then left the room for a time in order to give the Emissary an opportunity to examine in detail the armistice conditions. After this examination the conference reassembled.

General Castellano stated beforehand that he had no intention of discussing the various points of the armistice conditions as he is not empowered to do so but would like to have certain explanations which he could furnish to his government.

With respect to point 3, there might be practical limitations to what the Italians could accomplish in preventing the movement of Allied Prisoners of War to Germany. The Italians would make every effort to comply fairly with this condition.

The meeting was then told that the United Nations understood the possible difficulties involved but expected the Italian Army and Government to do its best to carry out this condition.

General C requested clarification of point 4 particularly with regard to the future disposition of the Italian vessels and aircraft. He was informed that this point implied the surrender of the fleet and of the planes and that their future disposition must be a matter for decision by the Allied Commander-in-Chief.

General C added that the warships and many of the planes might be prevented by lack of fuel from complying with this condition.

Our representative observed that this would be a matter for the Italian authorities who naturally were interested in the preservation of their ships and aircraft and who should in their own interest make every effort to see that sufficient fuel was available for the assembly of the ships and planes to points designated by the Allied Commander-in-Chief.

Their Emissary with respect to the free use by the Allies of all airfields and naval ports pointed out that most of the airdromes were in German hands and that those remaining to the Italians were small and scattered. With respect to point 8 he stated that it might prove almost impossible to withdraw to Italy those Italian Forces which were now stationed at inland points in the Balkans.

Our representative replied that the Italians were not expected to accomplish the impossible but that certain Italian Divisions were located sufficiently near the coast to permit their removal to Italy by Allied shipping.

Their Emissary referring to point 10 asked for explanations as to the question of retention of Sovereignty by the Italian Government.

He was informed that our representative’s instructions referred only to the terms of a military armistice and that he was not empowered to discuss questions relating to the future Government of Italy. A military government under the Allied Commander-in-Chief would unquestionably be necessary over parts of Italian territory.

He invited the attention of their Emissary to the fact that military government in Sicily had been established and was being exercised in a fair and humane manner.

Their Emissary then mentioned the danger to the person of the King of Italy involved in the acceptance of these terms and expressed the fear that the Germans might hold the King as a hostage or that his life might be in danger. It was suggested that the King might leave Italy on an Italian Naval Vessel.

He was assured that the King would be treated with all due personal consideration.

In the general discussion which ensued their Emissary reverted again to the manner and extent of Italian military collaboration against Germany. The United Nations representatives explained carefully that the subject under discussion must be considered a military capitulation and not any arrangement for the participation of Italy in the war on our side. Our representative explained that the terms of the armistice did not visualize the active assistance of Italy in fighting the Germans. However, he was authorized to state that the extent to which these terms of armistice would be modified in favor of Italy would depend on how far the Italian Government and people did in fact aid the United Nations against Germany during the remainder of the war but that the United Nations stated without reservation that wherever Italian Forces or Italians fight the Germans, destroy German property or hamper German movements they will be given all possible support by the Forces of the United Nations.

Their Emissary then brought up the probability of immediate German retaliation against Italy in the event that the terms of the armistice were accepted and placed in effect. The possibility of minimizing these reprisals was discussed. It was brought out that it would be folly on the part of the Germans to institute reprisals against Italian cities and population which would certainly lead to reprisals on our part. In any case the effects of a few days of vindictive action by the Germans would be much less serious for Italy than a long war of attrition.

Their Emissary after expressing his understanding of the terms of armistice and the supplemental information conveyed by the Allied representatives stated that he was not authorized to accept the armistice terms and that these must be taken back to Italy for consideration by the Italian Government. He added that it would be most useful to his government to know when and where the Allied Invasion would take place particularly as German reaction would probably make it necessary for a part of the government to remove from Rome coincidental with announcement of cessation of hostilities. He pointed out that there were several thousand members of the SS Organization in Rome in civilian clothes and a Parachute Division in the immediate vicinity. The Italians have removed most of their troops from Rome upon declaring the city open and that it would arouse German suspicion if they were returned. He was informed that as a soldier he would understand why it was impossible for us at this time to give any detailed information of the plans of the Allied Commander. Arrangements would be made for a direct channel of communication and it was proposed that if Marshal Badoglio agreed to accept the terms of the armistice General Eisenhower would announce the granting of the armistice 5 or 6 hours prior to the main Allied landing in force. General Eisenhower’s announcement was to be immediately followed by Marshal Badoglio’s proclamation of cessation of hostilities.

Their Emissary pointed out that 5 hours was insufficient advance notice to permit the preparations which should be made in anticipation of an Allied landing and to permit effective collaboration. He felt that a much longer period, preferably 2 weeks, was highly desirable.

General Smith thought that this might be done and stated that he would consult the Commander-in-Chief in an effort to make the necessary arrangements.

The Italian representatives were supplied with a copy of the terms of the armistice and with an Aide Mémoire covering the supplemental matters contained in the directive from the Combined Chiefs of Staff.

The general meeting then adjourned to permit a detailed discussion of military matters by the representatives of the 2 armies and arrangements for establishing communications. Minutes end.

New Subject. With reference to your 5650 detailed breakdown of German Forces in Italy will be sent in another cable.

The Commander-in-Chief, AFHQ to the Chief of Staff, U.S. Army

Algiers, 21 August 1943.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

General statements made as follows:
a. Estimated Germany would require some 15 Divisions for occupation of Italy if Italian Troops cooperated. Possible more would be brought in. These likely be chiefly withdrawn from France. No permanent fortifications as yet on Genoa-Ravenna Line.

b. Best tactics for Allies would be to land in Leghorn area between Grosetto and Spezia. German lines of communication into Italy particularly via Brenner [Pass] extremely vulnerable and should be attacked by Allies.

c. Germans intended defend Sardinia and Corsica. Italian Forces to be withdrawn from Corsica but not Sardinia.

d. 2 Italian Divisions recently sent North Italy to offset occupation of Brenner area by Germans. Had been no actual fighting as result of this but firm attitude of Italians had caused Germans to hesitate in number of their actions. (AGWar personal for Marshall from Eisenhower repeated Combined Chiefs of Staff (KKAD) repeated TROOPERS personal for DMI USFor pass to TROOPERS. From Strong from G-2 FREEDOM signed Eisenhower cite FHGBI).

e. Strength of German Military Personnel in Italy estimated at 400,000.

f. Genoa-Ravenna Line would be extremely difficult to penetrate owing hilly nature of country and narrow roads.

g. Conference on 14 August held at Bologna at which General Roatta, Field Marshal Rommel and General Jodl present. Plans for defence of Italy discussed. These included return of Italian troops from France, Slovenia and North Croatia. Final result discussions not known.

h. Italian Army short of gasoline and entirely dependent on Germany for this. Italy would require supplies of wheat and coal if Germany ceases to provide. Italian Army short of many types of weapons especially anti-tank guns, anti-tank ammunition and boots.

i. Italian Fleet had only sufficient fuel oil for one main fleet action. Mussolini was responsible for stopping Italian Fleet putting to sea on several occasions in order to have it to counter any attack on Italian Peninsula. Germans informed Italians that submarine warfare was to be put on completely new basis which they thought would have considerable success. No details disclosed.

j. Italian Air Force very short of material but fighter element considered good. All Italian airfields except a few small ones in hands of Germans.

k. German policy towards Russia was to hold back reserves and adopt defensive policy in hope Russians would wear themselves out. Germans considered this might happen by spring 1944. German Divisions totalled 260 of which 50 to 60 in reserve. Up to December 1942 estimated German permanent casualties killed or wounded three million. Russian divisions numbered 320. Ribbentrop reckoned on Allied, especially American, war weariness increasing.

l. Ribbentrop has threatened that if Italy turned against Germany gas would be used against the country and most terrible vengeance would be exacted on Italian people as an example to remainder of Satellites. Italian people had no gas masks or protection against gas. Italian Army almost in same position. Hungary might follow Italian example but Roumania and Bulgaria less likely.

m. Allies could not look for collapse in German morale owing to Gestapo. Number of Generals desirous of getting rid of Hitler but this unlikely at present owing considerable loyalty towards him.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 Like
740.00119 EW/8–2143: Telegram

The British Consul General at Tangier to the British Foreign Office

Tangier, August 21, 1943.

Most secret

Signor Berio asked to see me last night to tell me he had received a short telegram from Rome informing him that the situation there remained the same as when he had left. The Germans were at Badoglio’s throat and the latter could not capitulate because it would not be physically possible for him to carry out terms of Armistice.

Speaking then as from himself Signer Berio again pleaded that the Allies should take some action against the Germans which would relieve Badoglio of this intense German pressure. Badoglio was only too willing to make an honourable peace if he was sure of being able to keep his word and carry out the necessary conditions. The Allies were the victors but it was for them to assist Badoglio to capitulate. As the situation was at present this was impossible for immediately he were to start to implement the Armistice terms he and his Government would be overthrown by the Germans and Farinacci or some other Italian “Quisling” put in his place.

I said that in my opinion there was no question of choice which Badoglio should make. It ought to be perfectly clear that unless he did as we wished, i.e. submit to our unconditional surrender, Italy would continue to be attacked from end to end. Even admitting German pressure which Signor Berio had spoken of, surely it was better to risk the consequences of accepting Allied terms than to continue resistance as at present for the latter course must only end in Badoglio’s ultimate downfall whereas former offered an honourable way out not only for Badoglio and his Government but also the Italian people would be spared the continued hardship of having useless war.

Signor Berio then turned to the question of surrender terms and asked me whether I could not at least give him some Anglo-American main lines and whether they were such as could be carried out by Badoglio under present “suffocating German pressure.” Could I not also give him some notion of the support which the Allies might give to Badoglio to carry out these terms in face of 100% opposition from Germany which Italian forces would be incapable of dealing with as they were “tired out and had no modern weapons.”

I replied that I could give him no information either about terms or future intentions of the Allies and I reminded him severely that there could be no sort of haggling over these questions. I had already told him by your direction that terms would provide for honourable capitulation but Allies did not intend to enter into prior negotiations or discussion regarding them.

Signor Berio then begged me with great emotion to endeavour to assist him in finding a way out of the present impasse. I told him that his own opinion of the way was perfectly clear: it lay in (a) capitulation and (b) carrying out of Allied terms whatever they might be. Badoglio should capitulate immediately; but if he continued to delay as at present what could he hope for but complete destruction in the long run not to mention the hardships which would accrue to his country in the process.

Finally Signor Berio said that although we had made no headway during our conversation and although he could see no daylight at present he hoped that our contact for which express purpose he had been sent here might be continued and he again expressed the greatest desire to be informed of main lines of the Armistice terms.

740.00119 EW/8–2143: Telegram

The British Consul General at Tangier to the British Foreign Office

Tangier, August 21, 1943.

Most secret

Summary of additional points which emerged in my conversation with Signor Berio were:
(a) Berio’s insistence on the good faith of Badoglio and also of Guariglia.

(b) Berio’s professed hatred of Fascism and the Germans and his cynical desire (though genuinely expressed) that Italy would be able to fight Germany with the Allies.

(c) Berio’s alleged terror of general European Communism. He told me that members of the local German Consulate-General with whom he said that necessarily he was passing his time were all saying that rather than surrender to the Anglo-Saxons they would throw themselves into the arms of Stalin and that Germany and Russia would then form a Communist bloc. The Balkans and France [garble] might also be expected to go the same way.

Impressions left upon me after this conversation were that Badoglio who is of course under the direct orders of Guariglia has received instructions to pump me for information regarding (a) armistice terms and (b) Allies’ plans regarding their action in Italy after capitulation. It seemed from my conversation which lasted 2½ hours that Badoglio wants peace but on his own terms.

If there is anything which I could say to Berio to end this impasse between us I should be grateful if I might be informed and I should also be grateful to learn whether the “negative” line I have taken with him as described in my immediately preceding telegram is approved and whether owing to the Lisbon negotiations you wish me to continue to contact him on his request. He stressed that he had been sent here by the direct orders of the Marshal at the bidding of my colleague Mario Badoglio but Guariglia’s unfortunate influence is presumably one which is now directly focussed on him.

1 Like
740.0011 European War 1939/31032

The Acting Secretary of State to the President

Washington, August 21, 1943.


My Dear Mr. President: I have received this morning the visit of the Apostolic Delegate who has given me the attached communication which I am sending to you for your information. The Pope requested particularly that these memoranda be brought to your attention as speedily as possible.

Believe me [etc.]



The Apostolic Delegate to the Acting Secretary of State

Washington, August 20, 1943.

No. 244/43

My Dear Mr. Welles, Inasmuch as events of the past few weeks in Sicily and in Italy at large have given great prominence to the prospects for the immediate future, the Holy See wishes to place before the United States government certain observations which have been dictated by its direct contact with these important events.

These reflections aim to evaluate recent and present happenings in the light of the future which they are molding and of the effects which they will have on the formulation of the peace towards which the Holy See continues to bend its every effort.

Trusting that these considerations will receive every attention I avail myself [etc.]

Archbishop of Laodicea Apostolic Delegate

[Subenclosure 1]
Washington, August 18, 1943.

No. 244/43


In the light of possible imminent developments in the Italian war situation, the Holy See cannot but be preoccupied with the grave consequences of such developments on the Church at large. These preoccupations “are greatly heightened by the determination, public[ly] expressed, that through wholesale bloodshed and destruction, even if this were to lead eventually to national chaos and anarchy, Italy must be forced out of the war.

Were these sad possibilities to be realized, the restricted territorial extent of Vatican City could not possibly prevent it from feeling most acutely the grave consequences of such a military campaign. Vatican City would inevitably become involved in, and perhaps even engulfed by, any serious disorders which might arise.

The noble and spiritual ideals which have assertedly been embodied in the Allied cause would appear to dictate that every precaution should be taken and every measure employed which might safeguard spiritual values and enhance their worth in the eyes of all men. On this point the Holy See recalls with satisfaction and hope the letter of the President of the United States to His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, on July 9, 1943. It cannot be denied that the religious sensibilities of millions of Catholics throughout the world would be sorely wounded by injuries, although unintended, which might be inflicted on Vatican City and, consequently, on the Holy See.

Were the Vatican to be cut off or hindered in its communication with the outside world, the nations at large would thus be deprived of one of their most potent sources of inspiration and guidance. Catholics in particular would suffer greatly from lack of contact with their Spiritual Head, and this would most assuredly make itself felt in other fields of activity.

An additional important consideration is found in the fact that at the present time the Vatican City serves as headquarters for all the resident diplomatic representatives of the Allied nations accredited to the Holy See.

For these reasons, His Eminence, the Cardinal Secretary of State has asked that every precaution be taken to avoid creating a situation of chaos in Italy, which would make it most difficult, not to say impossible, for the Holy See to continue as the center of government for the Catholic Church.

[Subenclosure 2]
Washington, August 20, 1943.

No. 244/43


The Holy See respectfully offers the following considerations with reference to the avowed intention of the Allies to make Italy feel unrestrainedly the full brunt of the war in every quarter:

  1. Slaughter and destruction, especially when carried out on a large scale, contribute little or nothing to the establishment of genuine peace. These elements of warfare irritate and embitter the civilian population, with the effect of inciting the populace to blind hate against those who punish it by depriving it of everything which it holds most dear.

  2. The destruction and damaging of churches, charitable institutions, and artistic monuments, even when this destruction is not intended, as well as the ruining of civilian homes etc., are doing much harm to the Allied cause. They are actually diminishing the prestige of the United States, which has always been regarded by the Italian people as a nation nurturing great respect for religion, art, and culture. If, unfortunately, at the present time, the passion for war beclouds the clear vision of good judgment, it cannot be denied that, years hence, the American people itself will be the first to deplore and condemn such actions.

  3. A consideration of paramount importance is to be found in the favorable reaction of such a war policy in the interests of Communism. Under the influence of the bitterness engendered by the dread results of war, the people fall an easy prey to Communism, which is ever ready to avail itself of all means afforded by any event of public importance, especially by those of a calamitous nature.

Communism is already making noteworthy progress as the result of war.

The recent demonstrations accompanying the fall of Fascism are sufficient evidence that the Communists are well organized in Italy, and that they have at their disposal both financial means and arms.

Information reaching the Holy See also shows that Communism is making continual progress also in Germany.

These facts are a clear warning of the grave peril that Europe will find itself overrun with Communism immediately on the cessation of hostilities.

1 Like
740.0011 European War 1939/31032

The Acting Secretary of State to the President

Washington, August 21, 1943.

My Dear Mr. President: I enclose for your information a copy of a memorandum of conversation which I have just had with the Apostolic Delegate.

Believe me [etc.]


Memorandum by the Acting Secretary of State

Washington, August 21, 1943.

Memorandum of Conversation

Subject: Attitude of Italian Government toward continuation of war.

Participants: The Most Reverend Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, Apostolic Delegate;
Mr. Welles, Acting Secretary.

The Apostolic Delegate called to see me this evening for the second time today. The Archbishop brought with him a copy of a telegram which he had sent to the Cardinal Secretary of State on August 19 and which he read to me. In this telegram the Delegate had informed the Holy See that in his judgment public opinion in the United States was exceedingly uncertain as to whether the policy of the present Italian Government of apparently continuing the war on the side of Germany was a spontaneous decision on the part of the Italian Government or whether it was a decision which was forced upon it by German power. He also said that American public opinion was equally uncertain as to whether the Italian Government sincerely desired to find the ways and means of bringing to an end Italian participation in the war against the United Nations.

The Archbishop then read to me the reply which he had just received from Cardinal Maglione. In this message the Cardinal Secretary of State stated that the Italian Government desired to find as promptly as possible the means of ending its war against the United Nations, and second, that its continued collaboration with Germany was not spontaneous but was forced upon it by the German Government.

I thanked the Delegate for bringing this information so promptly to my attention and I said I would of course immediately refer the message he had given me to the President for his knowledge.

1 Like

Memorandum by the Secretariat of the Combined Civil Affairs Committee

Washington, August 21, 1943.


Minutes of Meeting Held in Room 4 E 859, Office of Assistant Secretary of War, on Saturday, 21 August 1943, at 1500

Members Present
Maj. Gen. J. H. Hilldring (Acting Chairman) Col. G. A. Rickards
Mr. J. Wesley Jones (Rept’g Mr. James C. Dunn) Mr. R. E. Barclay (Rept’g Sir Ronald Campbell)
Captain H. L. Pence, USN
Others Present
Col. David Marcus Captain C. K. Lloyd
Major C. C. Hilliard Lt. Col. C. A. de Linde
Mr. William H. Taylor Sir David Waley
Lt. (jg) F. F. Fowle, USNR
Col. R. J. Laux (Acting) Major C. W. Garnett
  1. Surrender Terms for Italy (CCS 258 and 258/1)

General Hilldring stated that there were the following three documents before the Committee for their consideration and approval:
a. A comprehensive document containing all the surrender terms for Italy entitled Draft Instrument of Surrender of Italy, upon which U.S. and British authorities are in general agreement.

b. A document containing the political, economic and fiscal conditions of surrender to supplement the military terms now in General Eisenhower’s possession entitled Additional Conditions to Be Imposed Upon the Italian Government, upon which U.S. and British authorities are not entirely in agreement.

c. A document to serve as a guide to General Eisenhower in effecting and implementing the terms of surrender entitled Directive on Military Government of Continental Italy and Sardinia, upon which U.S. and British authorities are not in agreement.

The Committee proceeded to take up the Draft Instrument of Surrender of Italy.

Mr. Barclay suggested the following changes in this document:
a. That the words “And whereas the U.S. and U.K. on the basis of unconditional surrender” at the beginning of the second paragraph of the Preamble be changed to read as follows:

And whereas the U.S. and U.K. Governments on behalf of the United Nations.

b. That there be deleted from Article 22 the second sentence which reads as follows:

The Italian Government will take all such measures as may be necessary to prevent strikes and lockouts, incitements to strike, or participation in labor disputes in all cases where these acts would be detrimental to the interests of the United Nations.

Mr. Taylor called attention to the fact that the second sentence of Article 23, and in particular the words “free of cost” in this sentence, were final and unequivocal and would prohibit the possibility of negotiations between the Italian Government and the United Nations. The sentence in question reads as follows:

The Italian Government will withdraw and redeem in Italian currency within such time limits and on such terms as the United Nations may specify all holdings in Italian territory of currencies issued by the United Nations during military operations or occupation and will hand over the currencies so withdrawn free of cost to the United Nations.

After discussion concerning the suggested alterations in Draft Instrument of Surrender of Italy, the Committee: Agreed,
a. That the words “And whereas the U.S. and U.K. on the basis of unconditional surrender” at the beginning of the second paragraph of the Preamble should be amended to read:

And whereas the U.S. and U.K. Governments on behalf of the United Nations.

b. That the second sentence of Article 22 be deleted.
c. That the second sentence of Article 23 stand in its present form.
d. That the document, Draft Instrument of Surrender of Italy, as amended in paragraphs a, b, and c, above, is approved.

The Committee then proceeded to discuss the document entitled Additional Conditions to Be Imposed Upon the Italian Government.

Mr. Barclay stated that comments from London on this document had not been received and that therefore no final action could be taken by the British Members.

Captain Lloyd made the following suggestions with respect to this document:
a. That there should be a Preamble at the beginning and a place for signatures at the end of the document.
b. That the second sentence of Article 19 should be deleted. The sentence is as follows:

The Italian Government will take all such measures as may be necessary to prevent strikes and lockouts, incitements to strike, or, participation in labor disputes in all cases where these acts would be detrimental to the interests of the United Nations.

c. That Article 21b should be deleted and Article 21a should become Article 21. Article 21b reads as follows:

The Italian Government will immediately surrender all documents, specie, stocks, shares, paper money, together with the plants for the issue thereof, affecting public or private interests in all occupied countries, and all enemy countries.

d. That there appears to be some inconsistency between Article 6, which provides for suspension of powers of the Italian Government in all occupied areas, and Article 17, which provides that local administrative authorities and public services will continue to function.

Mr. Jones, referring to Articles 7 and 8a of this document and Article 8 of the draft Directive on Military Government of Continental Italy and Sardinia, stated that it seemed inconsistent that the Directive provides for the suspension of all prerogatives of the Crown, whereas the Additional Conditions to Be Imposed Upon the Italian Government contains no such provision.

Mr. Barclay stated that while it would no doubt be true that the powers of the Crown would be suspended in occupied areas, he very much doubted whether London would accept any such provision with regard to unoccupied areas. He stated further that he anticipated that the British authorities in London might ask for deletion of Article 8a.

Captain Lloyd made the following additional suggestions with respect to the Additional Conditions to Be Imposed Upon the Italian Government:
a. That Article 14 referring to Italian shipping be amended to include all Axis shipping.

b. That there be included in this document an Article similar to Article 1c of the Draft Instrument of Surrender of Italy, providing that the Italian supreme command will order all persons or authorities to refrain from destruction of or damage to any property.

After discussion with respect to the suggested changes in the Additional Conditions to Be Imposed Upon the Italian Government, the Committee: Agreed,
a. That the document include a preamble relating it to the military terms of surrender, and a place for signatures of the signatory parties.

b. That the second sentence of Article 19 should be deleted.

c. That the Article 21b should be deleted and Article 21a should become Article 21.

d. That further consideration would be given by both British and U.S. authorities to the questions raised with respect to Articles 6, 8a and 17, concerning the suspension of the powers of the Italian Government and the prerogatives of the Crown.

e. That Article 14 relating to Italian shipping should be amended to include all Axis shipping.

f. That a provision should be added similar to Article 1c of Draft Instrument of Surrender of Italy, providing that the Italian supreme command will order all persons and authorities to refrain from the destruction of or damage to property.

g. That the amendments and questions referred to above would be cleared informally by the Secretaries.

General Hilldring stated that all differences as to Additional Conditions to Be Imposed Upon the Italian Government should be settled quickly and informally in order that this document, together with the Draft of Surrender of Italy, and statements as to the advantages and disadvantages of each document, may be forwarded to the Combined Chiefs of Staff for their decision as to which of the documents should be used.

Mr. Barclay recommended that the views of the British and U.S. Members as to the advantages and disadvantages of the two documents be combined in a single memorandum to accompany the documents when they are forwarded to the Combined Chiefs of Staff.

The Committee: Agreed,
That a joint note should be prepared, setting forth the views of the British and American authorities with respect to the two documents, to be forwarded to the Combined Chiefs of Staff with the documents themselves.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 Like

Hull-Mackenzie King meeting, about 4 p.m.

United States Canada
Secretary Hull Prime Minister Mackenzie King

Hull called on Mackenzie King at the Citadel shortly after 4 o’clock and the two went for a drive, during which they discussed the question of recognition of the French Committee of National Liberation.

1 Like

Roosevelt-Churchill dinner meeting, evening

United States United Kingdom
President Roosevelt Prime Minister Churchill
Rear Admiral McIntire

The “household” and McIntire dined together. The “household” presumably included Mrs. Churchill and Subaltern Mary Churchill at least, and may have included other members of the Roosevelt and Churchill parties.

Hull-Eden meeting, 9 p.m.

United States United Kingdom
Secretary Hull Foreign Secretary Eden
Mr. Dunn Sir Alexander Cadogan
Mr. Atherton Mr. Jebb
740.0011 EW/8–2143

Department of State Minutes

August 21, 1943, 9 p.m.


Political and Civilian Aspects of Military Operations in Planning Future Military Operations on the Continent

Mr. Eden brought up the question of organizing an exchange of views and a coming to agreement between the two governments with respect to the manner of dealing with political considerations in connection with military operations to be undertaken in Allied countries on the continent of Europe now occupied by the Axis. He said that in the first place it would seem advisable to dissipate the impression which had arisen that the Allied military government system now in effect in Sicily would be carried over and put into effect in the liberated countries. He said that while the Allied military government in Sicily, and possibly in Italy and Germany, was perfectly appropriate for use in enemy countries, there was a general objection to the thought of imposing only military government on the populations of the liberated countries where we had constituted governments which had been recognized and which felt they should bear their share of maintenance of order in the civilian administration as soon as possible and in such areas as were not actually under military operations.

The Secretary agreed with this view and said that he himself had given this matter considerable thought, arriving at these same conclusions.

Mr. Eden produced a memorandum which had been drafted in the Foreign Office on this subject and which he said had been conveyed to the AT(E) Committee (Administration of Enemy Territories, Europe), and which he understood had been transmitted to the American authorities.

The Secretary stated that he had no knowledge of this memorandum and, as far as he knew, it had never been received in the State Department.

It came out further that the United States was only represented on the AT(E) by a military observer assigned for that purpose from General Devers’ staff, and that the Department had no participation in its work and functions.

There was considerable discussion then upon the best and most efficient method of thrashing out questions having to do with the civilian aspects of military operations on the Continent, resolving itself into a question of whether the best method was to have agreement between the two governments reached in the Combined Chiefs of Staff or whether some special arrangement should be made for discussions of these matters to take place in London, possibly in connection with the COSSAC organization in London.

Mr. Eden stated that in view of the fact that the British Government was so near to the Continent and that the problems of dealing with the refugee governments and the civilian populations in their countries was of such direct and close interest to the British Government, he could not conceive of dealing with these matters by the roundabout method of cabling back and forth to Washington about matters relating to countries such as France, where they had such intimate political considerations.

He pointed out how well the North African situation had worked out through Macmillan and Murphy, whereupon it was pointed out, in reply, that the President had taken a definite position he did not favor any political representative going into HUSKY, which was a clear indication of the way he was thinking at the present time.

It was decided that this was a matter which would have to be discussed with the Combined Chiefs of Staff, for eventual decision by the President and Prime Minister.

There was general agreement, however, as to the necessity of setting up some definite machinery for discussing and reaching agreement on these political and civilian aspects of future military operations on the Continent.

Four Power Declaration

The subject of an approach to Russia, with a view to general conversations on subjects of mutual interest to the Soviet, British and U.S. Governments, then came up.

The Secretary told Mr. Eden of the plan which had been discussed by him with the President for a Four Power Declaration to be entered into by Great Britain, U.S., the Soviet Government and China, and showed Mr. Eden a draft which he had prepared for that purpose.

Mr. Eden, after reading the draft, immediately said he liked it and asked for a copy which the Secretary gave him.

Mr. Eden said, without hesitation, that he thought this proposal offered a good basis for an approach to the Soviet Government and, without giving it studied consideration, he thought it would be a good idea for the United States to transmit a copy to the Soviet Government, saying at the same time that a copy had been given to the British Government for its consideration. He said the method of presenting it to the Soviet Government could very well be given further thought while both the U.S. and British officials were still here at Quebec.

It was agreed that this matter would be brought up at the next meeting of the President, the Prime Minister, Mr. Eden and the Secretary.

Conversations at Washington on Monetary Stabilization and Related Subjects, and Commercial Policy in Connection with Article VII of the U.S.-U.K. Lend-Lease Agreement

The Secretary then brought up the memorandum handed to him by Lord Halifax, suggesting that high-ranking British officials come to Washington to discuss these subjects.

Mr. Eden said he knew very little about this subject.

The Secretary said he particularly did not want to have these conversations formalized, that he preferred to have the financial subjects treated as a continuation of conversations which were already in course with the U.S. Treasury and that the other subjects he wished kept in the form of exchanges of views for the purpose of drawing up an agenda of topics to be discussed rather than the [with a] view to coming to any agreements on the matters themselves.

The Secretary continued that he did not think it was perhaps the best idea to give the impression that the United States and Great Britain were coming to previous agreement on these matters before other governments were brought in and acquainted with the progress of the discussions.

Mr. Eden said that he would see that the matter of the representatives coming to Washington was handled in a way satisfactory to the Secretary.

Dependent Peoples

The Secretary then raised the subject of dependent peoples for the third time in the Quebec discussions.

Mr. Eden said to be perfectly frank he had to say that he did not very much like the American draft on this subject. He said it was the word “independent” which troubled him. He had to think of the British Empire system, which was built on the basis of Dominion and Colonial status. He said that, according to the British thought Dominion status provided for self-government and as a matter of fact through the popular institutions now in force in the Dominions it was always possible for the Dominions, if they so desired, to take the further step of declaring their own independence, although none of them had done so nor had shown any desire to do so up to the present time.

He pointed out that under the British Empire system you had varying degrees of self-government in the units, mentioning the Dominion status, the status of Ireland, which was somewhat different but still within the Empire, and, running from those degrees of self-government down through the Colonial establishments which had in some cases, like Malta, complete self-government, to other more backward areas which, he confessed, were never likely to have their own government. He said that Australia and New Zealand – Dominions themselves – had Colonial possessions which they would be unwilling to remove from their supervisory jurisdiction.

The Secretary said that the thought behind his dealing with this problem had been to give encouragement to the peoples in dependent areas, not with any view to their being given, tomorrow or next week, complete independence as a separate entity, but to offer them, at some time when they might have proved that they were capable of independence, the possibility of so conducting their political development that they might hope for this achievement at some future time. He said that often, when you were stating a principle, it was useful to give an example which clearly represented the end in view. He cited in this respect the attitude of the United States toward the Philippines, that independence had always been held out to them as a possibility if and when they were able to carry out the responsibilities that go with such status.

Mr. Eden’s position was absolutely unchanged at the end of the discussion of this subject and it was perfectly clear that it was the word “independence” which he found could never have a satisfactory meaning which would cover what various governments might have in mind by this term.

Germany and Central Europe

The Secretary asked Mr. Eden how his thoughts were running on the question of dealing with Germany after the war, that is, whether it was to be left as an entity or an attempt was to be made to dismember it.

Mr. Eden replied that while there were some in the British Government who felt that dismemberment of Germany should be imposed on that country, he himself, and he felt that the Cabinet in general were not in favor of imposing a dismemberment on Germany largely because of the impracticability of carrying it out.

He said that he entirely agreed that it would be well, if possible, to bring about a separation of the different parts of Germany if it could be done by a voluntary act of different sections of the country, but that any decision to impose such separate divisions would result in tremendous difficulties for the Allies in its maintenance.

The Secretary said that as we went forward in discussions of this matter those who were studying the question in the State Department appeared to be arriving at this same view as to the difficulties of imposing or maintaining a separation of the different sections of Germany.

It was brought out that American thought in this connection was fearful lest an imposed dismemberment of Germany might merely create a German national slogan for union; that Germany economically must exist for the support of the people of Germany and for this such national systems as canals, railroads, post and telegraph must exist as units; but it was not impossible to consider an economic breakup of Germany whereby in her own interests the decentralization of the State would unconsciously develop. Such a means might be found in providing a Mediterranean port for Southern Germany so that those regions might look south for their access to water rather than be dependent on Northern Germany. Indeed, an area including Fiume and Trieste might be the proper solution.

Cadogan, as well as Eden, gave considerable approval of this, which was an indication that it was very much along the line of some of their post-war planning to bring about, by natural forces, a separation of the German people, and specifically use those ports as southern German access to water.

Mr. Eden went on to say that he, for one, had never been in favor of detaching Bavaria from Germany and setting it up as a separate State with Austria. His view was that it would be more advisable to restore, as a matter of fact, in general lines, the separate States of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire and form them as a Danubian group. He said that these were matters on which it would be most helpful if there were exchanges of views between the British and U.S. Governments as the thinking developed.

1 Like

Roosevelt-Churchill-Mackenzie King meeting, evening

United States United Kingdom Canada
President Roosevelt Prime Minister Churchill Prime Minister Mackenzie King
Foreign Secretary Eden

Eden and Mackenzie King joined Roosevelt and Churchill after dinner and “discussed affairs of state until a late hour.” Mackenzie King joined Roosevelt, Churchill, and Eden at about 10:45 p.m., and the discussion, which lasted until 2 a.m. on August 22, dealt with post-war world organization, the international position of China, and recognition of the French Committee of National Liberation. It is possible that the joint Roosevelt-King press release of August 22 on the establishment of the Joint War Aid Committee, United States-Canada, was approved at this time.

1 Like

The Pittsburgh Press (August 22, 1943)

Bickel: Parley plans double punch against enemy

Jab into Western Europe, smash at Japan may come together
By Karl A. Bickel, Scripps-Howard staff writer

Québec, Canada – (Aug. 21)
The Roosevelt-Churchill conference took a sudden shift to the East today.

Rumors that Lt. Gen. Joseph W. Stilwell had arrived were a dime a dozen. British Eastern military experts were said to be on the ground. Swinging from the political repercussions of the meetings the “dope” ran to soldiers and sailors, naval changes and a fiercely up stepped tempo in the military planning.

One fading functionary said, as he revived himself on a Scotch and soda:

Our boys are dead on their feet from work.

The strategists are talking about a quick one-two, a short left-arm military jab on the European west coast and a long right swing in the Far East. The Kharkov battle, it is held, has again been underestimated. It was originally regarded as a desperate drive for the capture of a great Soviet city and German strongpoint preliminary to chasing the Germans to the Dnieper.

May break back

Today, the military experts here say that Kharkov is vastly more than that. Kharkov, they assert, is proving to be the point where Stalin is literally breaking the back of the mightiest of the German armies. If the Russians capture Kharkov and secure a real breakthrough, they have either smashed or enclosed the German armies to the south, freed the Caucasus and so endangered the German hold on the Crimea as to make it impossible to hold.

The Dnieper will no longer be sufficient protection and Hitler’s armies may well have to roll back onto Polish and even East Prussian soil. This ism of course, the most optimistic viewpoint but there is no question but that the tempo of things today is vastly swifter than yesterday, that the note is all military.

Stalin’s insistence, that the Western Front is the only front, is still potent with the captains and the kings on the hill, but the war is being regarded as a one-front war now from Russia to Tokyo.

Change strategy

Some observers indeed saw indications of the development of a new strategy involving the abandonment of the theory calling for the initial crushing of Hitler and the slower process of smashing Hirohito.

Instead, they envisaged destruction of Japan on approximately the same time schedule as Berlin. This would have obvious advantages, permitting the democracies to come into the peace conferences with the tremendous asset of a conquered Japan free and clear of any Soviet liens. The United States and Great Britain would then have a stronger position than that of uneasy minority stockholders in the assets of a global war.

1 Like

U.S. State Department (August 22, 1943)

Roosevelt-Churchill luncheon meeting, about 1 p.m.

United States United Kingdom
President Roosevelt Prime Minister Churchill
Secretary of War Stimson Mrs. Churchill
Mr. Hopkins Subaltern Mary Churchill
Minister of Information Bracken
Colonel Willis-O’Connor

From Stimson’s diary:

… At the Citadel I was told the President wished to see me for a few minutes before we assembled at lunch and I was shown into a little room where he was waiting alone. He told me that Churchill had voluntarily come to him [at Hyde Park] and offered to accept Marshall for the Overlord operation. This the President said relieved him of the embarrassment of being obliged to ask for it. He also discussed with me Marshall’s successor, mentioning Eisenhower. I told him I already thought of that as a very possible solution.

After this brief talk which very greatly reassured me, we went into lunch at which there were present the President, Churchill, Mrs. Churchill, Subaltern Mary Churchill, Brendan Bracken, Harry Hopkins, and aides of the two generals. I sat between Mr. and Mrs. Churchill who were very cordial and friendly. Before we went in to luncheon, Churchill took me out on the parapet ostensibly to show me the view and then he told me that he had suggested Marshall to the President. He said he had done this in spite of the fact that he had previously promised the position to Brooke and that this would embarrass him somewhat, but he showed no evidence of retreating from his suggestion to the President. I was of course greatly cheered up to find that the whole matter was going so successfully.

1 Like

Memorandum by the Military Assistant Secretary to the British War Cabinet


Suggested Statement to Be Made to Mr. Soong

  1. The building up of the air route to China has been going on according to plan in spite of difficulties, and deliveries in August are expected to be over 7,000 tons. Expansion will continue.

  2. We are intending to carry out the largest operations in Northern Burma during the coming winter, which the physical limitations of the lines of communication, which have been aggravated by the recent floods in Bengal, will allow us to carry out. The start of these operations will be coordinated with those of the Chinese by General Stilwell. Their object is to enable us to join hands with the Chinese forces, and thus to pave the way for the eventual opening of the Ledo Road to China.

  3. An amphibious operation against the Japanese will be launched from India in 1944. The point of attack will be settled after the completion of further studies which have been set on foot.

1 Like

Roosevelt-Churchill meeting, 5:30 p.m.

The President returned to the Citadel at 5:45 p.m., at which time he had a conference with Secretary Hull and Mr. Eden until 7:30 p.m. This conference was resumed between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m.

United States United Kingdom
President Roosevelt Prime Minister Churchill
Secretary Hull Foreign Secretary Eden
Mr. Hopkins Sir Alexander Cadogan
Mr. Dunn
Mr. Atherton

Agenda Prepared by the British Delegation

August 22, 1943, 5:30 p.m.


  1. Proposed joint U.S.-U.K. declaration about German crimes in Poland. Polish Government has made request for this to U.S. and ourselves.

  2. Civil administration of liberated friendly territory in Europe. Difference between this and AMGOT. Need to make use of exiled governments.

  3. Convoys to Russia. To inform the Americans of line we have taken.

  4. Joint statement on Palestine. American proposal which we approved and want, and they have now abandoned. Can it be re-examined.

  5. Encouragement of fraternization with American troops in U.K. Matter was raised by Secretary of State for War. I should like authority to talk to Gen. Marshall about it.

  6. Policy towards Greece. The King’s appeal to President and Prime Minister.

  7. Recognition of French Committee of National Liberation. Our draft amended declaration.

  8. United Nations’ Four-power Declaration.

  9. Italian Surrender Terms.

1 Like
740.0011 EW/8–2243

Department of State Minutes

August 22, 1943, 5:30 p.m.

Strictly confidential

The Meeting followed an agenda previously prepared by the British.

Polish Statement

The first subject discussed was the text of the statement to be issued by the two Governments with respect to the atrocities against Polish citizens in the Lublin area where the population was outstandingly Polish. The discussion hinged on a text prepared by the British and which was generally agreed to as appropriate for issuance on the subject at this time even though it was not expected to have any real effect on the situation.

Liberated Areas

There was discussion of the text of a statement which had been prepared by the United States with a view to clearing up misrepresentation and apprehension as to putting military government into effect in the friendly and Allied countries which will be liberated by the military operations undertaken on the Continent against Germany.

With very minor amendments the draft text was adopted with the decision that it would first be conveyed to the Soviet Government and China and the refugee governments directly concerned, with eventual view to publication.

The Prime Minister suggested that the timing of publication would be on or about September 15, which corresponded roughly with the date fixed for the opening of Parliament. This was generally agreed to.

Convoys to Russia

This discussion turned on the text of a communication to the Soviet Government with respect to the temporary suspension of convoys to Russia in view of other military operations, the convoys to be resumed at the end of September or early in October.

Statement on Palestine Situation

The question of a statement with respect to the Palestine situation during the period of the war was discussed and views were exchanged as to the advisability of making any statement at this time and, if so, as to its form.

Both the President and Prime Minister agreed that this question should be held in abeyance and should be discussed further between the two Governments from month to month as the war situation developed, and any decision on the matter was left to the light of these further exchanges of views on the matter.

Fraternization Between U.S. and British Soldiers in the British Isles

It was agreed between the President and Prime Minister that all possible steps should be taken to promote fraternization between the U.S. and British forces in the British Isles and, with a view to accomplishing this end, Mr. Eden should speak to General Marshall, to General Devers and to Norman Davis as to methods for its accomplishment.

The King of Greece

This discussion turned on the subject of the message from the King of Greece recently received by the President and the Prime Minister, in which the King of Greece asked advice from the President and Prime Minister as to the action the King should take, in view of the request of certain Greek elements that His Majesty should not return to Greece until after a plebiscite on the subject of the Monarchy had been held.

At the request of the Prime Minister, Mr. Eden read a report on the present political situation of Greece prepared by the British Foreign Office.

At the further request of the Prime Minister, Sir Alexander Cadogan read a communication on the subject from General Smuts, who advocated, as a matter of fair play, that the King of Greece not be precluded from entering his own country and resuming his former position, subject, perhaps, to later decision by the people of Greece as to the future form of the Greek régime.

There was some discussion then on the general subject of the attitude of the British and U.S. Governments toward the constituted governments of the refugee countries. It was decided, in general, that the two Governments should continue to support the governments and régimes as now recognized by them generally through the period up to the defeat of the enemy.

Mr. Hull pointed out that this attitude was in line with the attitude adopted in the statement with respect to administration of liberated areas, decided upon under Subject 2 of the agenda above.

With specific reference to the situation of the Greek King it was agreed between the President and Prime Minister that the British Foreign Office should reply to the King’s telegram, supporting his contention that he was prepared to return to Greece as soon as possible and submit the question of the Royal House to plebiscite.

The President said the United States Government would not take any different position.

The Prime Minister further stated, on his own initiative, that the British Government would instruct the British agents who were working with the guerrilla elements in Greece to refrain from encouraging those elements to put forward political claims as to the future form of government of Greece at this time.

The French Committee of National Liberation

After some discussion The Prime Minister stated that all the liberal elements in the world, including the governments in exile and the Soviet Government, were demanding an immediate decision granting full recognition to the French Committee of National Liberation.

The President took the view that we had to think of the future of France itself, which he felt would be in no way advanced by turning over the whole control of the French people to the present group comprising the French Committee.

After a further rather lengthy discussion, the suggestion of the President was accepted that the President himself draft the form of statement which he thought should be made.

As it was getting late and it was not possible to make further advance on this subject until the two views were further reconciled it was decided to await the President’s draft to which he said he would apply himself that evening.

1 Like

Proposal by the U.S. Delegation

Québec Conference, 22 August 1943.

Statement on Liberated Areas

The Governments of the United States and United Kingdom, necessarily by reason of their military operations in enemy territory, must assume the major responsibility for the administration of enemy territories conquered by their forces in pursuance of the war against the Axis.

The Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom, while continuing to exercise supreme military authority in liberated areas pending the defeat of the enemy, will be agreeable to the policy of each government and constituted authorities of the United Nations in their respective liberated countries proceeding with its function of maintaining law and order with such assistance by the Allied authorities as may be necessary, subject always to military requirements.

Conversations and arrangements with the governments of those countries have already been in progress for some time on these aspects of the mutual interests involved.

1 Like

Report by an Ad Hoc Committee of the Combined Chiefs of Staff

Québec, 22 August 1943.

Enclosure to CCS 222/3

Future Convoy Arrangements in the Atlantic

a. CCS 222/2 indicates that convoy UGS 16, sailing 26 August, has 91 firm presenters as against a convoy limit of 80 ships.

b. The Combined Chiefs of Staff have been requested by the Combined Military Transportation Committee to give a decision on one of two alternatives:
(i) To raise the limit of UGS convoys.
(ii) To indicate the priority which should be assigned the presenters involved so that 80 ships can be selected.

a. With regard to alternative (1), the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Fleet, has established the limit on the number of ships in UGS convoys at 80 for security reasons.

b. The immediate problem in priorities has been solved in large part by the withdrawal of 6 U.S. Army vessels and 2 BMWT vessels from the list of presenters. The convoy limitation of 80 ships now is exceeded by 3.

c. It is quite possible that, of the remaining 83 vessels, at least 3 may fail to meet the convoy sailing date.


  1. It is recommended that:

a. Three vessels be nominated for withdrawal from the convoy, if necessary, in the following priority:

  • First withdrawal – 1 BMWT vessel
  • Second withdrawal – 1 WSA vessel
  • Third withdrawal – 1 BMWT vessel
  • Vessel or vessels to be selected by the agency concerned.

b. All vessels should be prepared to sail.

  1. In view of the fact that indications point to a recurrence of this problem in subsequent months, it is recommended that the U.S. Navy fix the earliest practical date when a program of four UGS convoys per month will be established.

  2. It is further recommended that the Combined Chiefs of Staff delegate to the Combined Military Transportation Committee the executive authority to act on similar problems in the future with regard to UGS convoys in accordance with the following priority:
    a. U.S. and British ships destined for forces commanded by the Allied Commander-in-Chief in Mediterranean.
    b. U.S. and British ships destined for India.
    c. U.S. and British ships destined for Allied forces in Middle East.
    d. U.S. and British ships carrying civil supplies for occupied territories in Mediterranean.
    e. Ships destined for Persian Gulf.
    f. Lend lease to Turkey.
    g. Miscellaneous.

1 Like

Note by the Secretaries of the Combined Chiefs of Staff

Québec, 22 August 1943.

CCS 317/2

Equipping Allies, Liberated Forces and Friendly Neutrals

Action on CCS 317 has been deferred pending further study of the subject by the British Chiefs of Staff.

The United States Chiefs of Staff, however, recommend that immediate decision be rendered on the recommendations contained in paragraph 10a and b of that paper. These paragraphs pertain to the equipment of French forces in North Africa. A decision at this time is necessary because of certain administrative arrangements which should be carried out at once in the event that the recommendations are to be approved.


Combined Secretariat

1 Like
740.0011 EW/8–2243

Mr. J. Wesley Jones, of the Division of European Affairs, to the Adviser on Political Relations

Washington, August 22, 1943.


PA/D – Mr. Dunn The attached message was left with me yesterday by an officer of the OSS. It is of interest as another “feeler” and channel from the Badoglio Govt.… the author of the message is Dulles. I told the OSS to make no reply to the question raised by the latter.


Bern, August 20, 1943.

A reliable cutout has transmitted to me a report from … which states that Italy, according to Foreign Minister Guariglia, remains prepared to cease resistance on condition that we can guarantee plane protection against the Nazis, and they are willing to open the airports, and so forth. It would seem that … is anxious to be in touch with me directly. It is very possible that Guariglia and Rosso are making use of him here. Until I receive instructions, I am continuing to handle … with care, as an intelligence source only, and by means of cutouts.

1 Like