Québec Conference 1944 (OCTAGON)

Memorandum by the British Paymaster-General

Quebec, 14th Sept 1944

Mr. Morgenthau said he had been discussing with Lord Cherwell his proposals on the economic disarmament of Germany and would like him to give his impressions of these.

Lord Cherwell said he had, of course, not had time to read the papers or study the proposals in detail but he was definitely attracted by the possibilities set forth. So far as he understood it the intention was to hamstring Germany’s capacity for making war by taking whatever machinery was usable from the Ruhr and other areas in which industry capable of making war-like weapons was concentrated, and handing it over to the numerous countries she had devastated. The Ruhr and perhaps the other areas in question would be then placed under an international authority which should decide whether and when and to what degree industries of this type should be allowed to be re-built there. If the Germans were deprived of the possibility of making steel on a large scale as well as certain types of chemicals and electrical machinery, she would not be in a position to produce the armaments required for modern war. She would, of course, not starve. Her exports would be reduced and she might therefore go short of certain materials. But her standard of life would still undoubtedly be higher than it had been under the Nazis – when so much national effort was put into preparations for war – even if she was unable to establish the same high standard she enjoyed for some time before that. The consequence that her export markets would become available for the UK and USA did not seem a disadvantage.

The Prime Minister said that he thought there was a good deal to be said for this approach to the problem. We were entitled to make sure Germany could not commit wanton acts of aggression and the Russians would probably in any case insist on obtaining any machinery available with which to restore the factories which Germany had ruined in her advance into Russia.

Mr. Morgenthau said that he could see no other way in which we could be sure of preventing the rearming of Germany. Great productive capacity was necessary for modern war and it could not be built up secretly. The removal of all the machinery and facilities should be undertaken as soon as possible, say, within the first six months of our troops entering the Ruhr. Thereafter this region should be put under international control which would see that it was not exploited again in the way Germany had used it to prepare the wanton acts of aggression she had committed.

The President said that he did not think it would be an undue hardship to require Germany to revert towards an agricultural status such as she had enjoyed up to the latter part of the last century. She had shown she could not be trusted with all these facilities for making weapons.

The Prime Minister said he was converted to the idea that we should explore this line of approach and see whether concrete suggestions could be worked out to ensure security and which it might be hoped would secure the approval of the United Nations.


Memorandum by the British Paymaster-General

September 14, 1944, 11:30 a.m.
Top secret

Record of conversation between the President and Prime Minister at Quebec on September 14, 1944

The Prime Minister said that when Germany was overcome there would be a measure of redistribution of effort in both countries. He hoped that the President would agree that during the war with Japan we should continue to get food, shipping, etc., from the United States to cover our reasonable needs. The President indicated assent.

He hoped also that the President would agree that it would be proper for Lend/Lease munitions to continue on a proportional basis even though this would enable the United Kingdom to set free labour for rebuilding, exports, etc., e.g., if British munitions production were cut to three-fifths, U.S. assistance should also fall to three-fifths. The President indicated assent. Mr. Morgenthau however suggested that it would be better to have definite figures. He understood that munitions assistance required had been calculated by the British at about 3½ billion dollars in the first year on the basis of the strategy envisaged before the OCTAGON Conference. The exact needs would have to be recalculated in the light of decisions on military matters reached at the Conference. The non-munitions requirements had been put at 3 billion dollars gross against which a considerable amount would be set off for reverse Lend/Lease. The President agreed that it would be better to work on figures like these than on a proportional basis.

The Prime Minister emphasized that all these supplies should be on Lease/Lend. The President said this would naturally be so.

The Prime Minister pointed out that if the United Kingdom was once more to pay its way it was essential that the export trade, which had shrunk to a very small fraction, should be re-established. Naturally no articles obtained on Lend/Lease or identical thereto would be exported [FDR: or sold for profit]; but it was essential that the United States should not attach any conditions to supplies delivered to Britain on Lend/Lease which would jeopardize the recovery of her export trade. The President thought this would be proper.

To implement these decisions the Prime Minister suggested there should be a joint committee. It was held that it would be better to appoint an ad hoc committee for this purpose on an informal basis in the first instance which could be formalized in due course. Pending its report the United States departments should be instructed not to take action which would pre-judge the committee’s conclusions, e.g., production should not be closed down without reference to Lend/Lease supplies which it might be held should be supplied to Britain. The President thought that the committee should be set up and suggested that Mr. Morgenthau should head it representing him, and that Mr. Stettinius, who had taken such a large part in Lend/Lease, should also be a member.

Tripartite luncheon meeting, 1:00 p.m.

Present
United States United Kingdom Canada
President Roosevelt Prime Minister Churchill Prime Minister Mackenzie King
Mrs. Roosevelt Mrs. Churchill
Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau Mr. Law
Mr. White Commander Thompson

White-Weeks meeting, afternoon

Present
United States United Kingdom
Mr. White Mr. Weeks
Mr. MacDougall

According to White’s memorandum regarding the Morgenthau-Cherwell meeting on the morning of September 14, the three officials named above met “later” to draft a directive establishing a committee on lend-lease matters. A memorandum by White relating to the Roosevelt-Churchill meeting on the afternoon of September 14 indicates that the “memorandum on the creation of the lend-lease committee which had been drafted by Cherwell, Weeks and White” was ready by late afternoon on September 14.

At some time during the Second Quebec Conference White discussed with Weeks the desirability of making certain information available to the United States authorities in order to expedite a decision with respect to lend-lease to the United Kingdom. The only information found on this discussion is that contained in the verbatim minutes of a conference between British and United States officials held in Washington at 3 p.m., September 20, 1944, as follows:

Mr. WHITE: Mr. Secretary, at Quebec in the discussion I had with Mr. Weeks – I am not sure whether you were present – I indicated a number of items that the answers to which would be very helpful in expediting a decision. I don’t know whether Mr. Weeks remembers the items I mentioned. I would be glad to supply them in writing. He thought that he could, given a little time, supply sufficiently rough answers – because the nature of some of the questions weren’t sufficiently accurate.

Mr. WEEKS: You mean–

Mr. WHITE: The extent of your increase in peacetime goods, the extent of the increase in exports, increased employment, and things of that character.

Mr. TAFT: The net transfer of employable persons from war production to civilian production.

Mr. WHITE: There are about a dozen of those key questions.

The Pittsburgh Press (September 14, 1944)

Roosevelt and Churchill extend conferences

Political problems to be discussed

Québec, Canada (UP) –
British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden will join the Roosevelt-Churchill conference shortly “to discuss a broad range” of political problems which are accumulating in Europe and Asia in the wake of Allied military successes.

The announcement was made at a special news conference by a British spokesman, who said he did not know whether Secretary of State Cordell Hull would join President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill in their discussions at the Québec Citadel.

Problem faced

High on the political agenda were certain to be three of the most difficult problems before the Allies.

  • The plans for occupation of Germany, the peace terms to be imposed on her and the extent to which France shall be given a share and voice in the enforcement of these terms.

  • The long-standing Polish-Russian dispute, which includes territorial matters. Eden has just completed a series of London talks with the Polish Prime Minister and Foreign Minister.

  • Delicate questions involving the British attitude in the Far East. The United States in the past has urged greater independence for India to remedy the somewhat lethargic role of that country in the war against Japan. running through the entire political situation in the Far East was the basic problem of how far self determination will be extended to British, French and Dutch territories now held by Japan.

Adjourn this weekend

Mr. Eden’s presence here was not expected to prolong the conference, which probably will wind up the coming weekend.

Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau JR. arrived here yesterday and dined at the Citadel last night. He is here as a member of a special cabinet committee to study worldwide economic problems.

The announcement of Mr. Eden’s trip brought the official version of the conference into agreement with what observers had felt all along – that it is by no means confined to military problems, but covers a worldwide political field, too.

Many questions tackled

With U.S. troops already in Germany, Russian troops on the East Prussian border and the end of the European war deemed a virtual certainty this year, the plans for Germany were the most important of the European problems tackled by the President and Prime Minister. And they included such questions as these:

  • What zones of occupation in Germany will be assigned to the Americans, British and Russians?
  • Will the French participate in the occupation?
  • How many troops will each nation assign to this task?
  • How long will the occupation endure?
  • What changes will be made in Germany’s borders?
  • How much economic revival is Germany to be permitted?

The imminent arrival of Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr. was further indication that economic matters figure in the discussions. Mr. Morgenthau is a member of a Cabinet committee in Washington specifically assigned to study economic problems stemming from the war.

Screenshot 2022-06-20 213810

Simms: ‘Big Four’ session may be held soon

By William Philip Simms, Scripps-Howard foreign editor

Québec, Canada –
Unless President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill have inside information covering Marshal Stalin’s plans after Hitler’s fall, it seems almost certain that their meeting here will be followed by another – a Big Four conference.

I understand that the present conference is already nearing its end.

If that is the case, it not only indicates swift and excellent progress is being made, but that it is largely exploratory, rather than decisive.

Russia’s policy needed

The impression is growing here that without some definite word from Russia, regarding her policy in Asia after the collapse of Germany, no definite, overall blueprint for the Pacific and Far East can be completed.

From an authoritative source, I have the latest figures showing the disposition of Jap strength in the Oriental theater of operations. According to these, Japan now has 113 divisions of 20,000 men each, about twice the usual strength. This would make a total of 2,260,000 men.

Twenty-two divisions are in the Southwest Pacific; 15 are in Thailand-Burma; 37½ are in China; 21½ in Manchuria and 17 in Japan proper.

Japs concentrate forces

The main Jap fleet, composed of 10 battleships and subsidiaries, seems to be based on the Jap east coast, Yokohama, Formosa and the Philippines. Thirteen divisions make up the air force which, since the Americans took Saipan last July, appears to have been pulled in toward the Philippines and Formosa.

From these figures, two things stick out, first, Japan seems to be concentrating her forces nearer home on land, sea and in the air. Second, it will be a difficult job to close in on Japan proper until we obtain a good foothold on the Asiatic mainland, with an adequate harbor through which to pour in reserves and supplies.

Manchuria supplies troops

But some 59 divisions, or more than half the entire Jap Army, appear to be concentrated in China and Manchuria. These units are almost self-contained, thanks to Japan’s war industries in Manchuria. To get at, and destroy, these divisions will be no easy matter.

Traditionally, Japan has counted on tiring America out, in case of war, by barricading herself, if necessary, and forcing us to come and get her. As for Europe, Russia is the only country she ever has feared, because only Russia could get at her by land.

Everything, therefore, indicates the importance of Russia living up to the spirit of the commitments she and the Allies are now supposed to be making at Dumbarton Oaks, in Washington.

Meanwhile, pending the Allied victory over the Reich and the clarification of Soviet policy in the Far East, it is difficult to see how the decisions at Québec can be more than tentative.

U.S. State Department (September 14, 1944)

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

Present
United States United Kingdom
President Roosevelt Prime Minister Churchill
Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau Lord Cherwell
Foreign Secretary Eden
Sir Alexander Cadogan

The following diary entry relating to this meeting is reprinted from Eden:

Alec [Cadogan] turned up and we went round together to see Winston. He was with FDR and [Mr. Henry] Morgenthau [United States Secretary of the Treasury] and Prof. [Lord Cherwell, Paymaster-General] in conference about Lend Lease. They seemed glad of interruption and we talked of many things, Russians, Poles, Dumbarton Oaks, etc. until time to dress for dinner.

White, who was not present at the meeting, recorded in an undated memorandum that Morgenthau had mentioned to him on September 15, 1944, “the following bits of conversation which had taken place at a brief meeting with the President” on the afternoon of September 14:

In the afternoon the President delayed initialing the memorandum on the creation of the lend-lease committee which had been drafted by Cherwell, Weeks and White by interrupting with stories. Churchill was nervous and eager to have the memorandum initialed and finally he burst out: “What do you want me to do? Get on my hind legs and beg like Fala?”

Roosevelt-Mackenzie King conversation, early evening

Present
United States Canada
President Roosevelt Prime Minister Mackenzie King

From notes of the conversation by Mackenzie King:

I told him [Roosevelt] something of the meeting we had had this afternoon and that Churchill would be speaking to him about our desire to have our Chiefs of Staff confer with his Chiefs of Staff. He said: By all means. We were allies. That would be expected. I then said to him that as he knew we were prepared to participate in the war in the Pacific against Japan but that we felt it must be in the Northern or Central regions. The President said he thought we should have a token representation but indicated that nothing might be needed for some time. He spoke of some extremely Northern region and indicated that toward the end, the Japanese might have to be driven out of the northern end of China. There was a hint that our men might be useful there. The President said I think Canada should have a token force to march into Berlin. I said I thought they would appreciate that and that it would be expected; that part of our army would be associated with the American and British armies. It was in this connection that the President referred to token forces in the other connection. The President made some reference to Russia and I asked him direct what part Russia would likely play. He repeated to me what had been said the other night and added that he could only say that Stalin had given that word himself.

Tripartite dinner meeting, 8:00 p.m.

Present
United States United Kingdom Canada
President Roosevelt Prime Minister Churchill Prime Minister Mackenzie King
Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau Foreign Secretary Eden
Lord Cherwell
Mr. Law
Sir Alexander Cadogan

The only information found on the discussion at this dinner meeting is that contained in an undated memorandum by White (who was not present) recording what Morgenthau had told him on September 15, 1944, about “bits of conversation” which had taken place on September 14. At least part of the material in the following three paragraphs of this memorandum relates to the Roosevelt-Churchill dinner on September 14, but since Leahy is not known to have been present, part of it may also relate to other conversations or meetings.

Churchill and Eden were afraid that Russia would go into Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Greece and never get out so the British are planning to land troops in Greece. Secretary Morgenthau had commented: “You have got a million troops in the Middle East.” And Eden said: “Oh, no, we have got only a couple of brigades there.”

Admiral Leahy reported to the President that they couldn’t move American troops across the part of the English troops in Germany and the President replied, “Nonsense. It could be done.”

England and Canada were eager to get into the war with Japan. The President said to the Secretary that he knew now why the British wanted to join in the war in the Pacific. All they want is Singapore back.

Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State

Twenty-Second Day, Thursday, September 14, 1944
Restricted

Conversations With Sir Alexander Cadogan
Cadogan called me right after midnight to say that while the Prime Minister had given him twenty-four hours of grace yesterday, in view of Eden’s arrival he now felt obligated to go to Quebec immediately and assumed that under the circumstances Mr. Hull could now have no objections. I told him that I felt that any decision he made now should be entirely his own. He said he did not think it would interfere too much with the Conversations inasmuch as little could probably be done in the next day or so in any event pending an evaluation by our respective Governments on the informal compromise formula on voting.

Cadogan called me again at 10 o’clock in the morning saying he had just received a further telegram asking him to go there, and he was planning to leave later in the morning by special plane and that he would return tomorrow. …

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

Conversation With Mr. Hull
I called Mr. Hull early in the morning and told him of Cadogan’s midnight call about going to Quebec. Mr. Hull again said that he thought it was a mistake for Cadogan to go and for that conference to get into political matters but that he agreed that we would not make a further point of the matter.

… [Mr. Hull] said he had not heard from the President about going to Quebec and did not feel in any event that he should go. This comment was made after I had reminded him of the President’s promise to send for him or someone else in the Department if the conference went into political matters.

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

Conversation With Harry Hopkins
Harry Hopkins called me just before 11:00 in the morning and I reported to him the recent development, particularly on the voting question. I also told him that Cadogan was going to Quebec this morning and that Eden was arriving there late this afternoon. I told him about our proposed press statement.

He then told me it was expected that the Quebec conference would break up Monday [Friday?] night and that probably the Prime Minister and the President would go to Hyde Park Sunday night and that if Eden went probably Hull would be invited up. He told me he was not going to Quebec but would go to Hyde Park. …

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

Log of the President’s Visit to Canada

Thursday, September 14

The President’s personal flag was hoisted at the Citadel this morning. It had been intended to hoist his flag when that of the Governor-General was hauled down yesterday morning following his departure from Quebec but it was found that we had no President’s flag on hand and that one would have to send up from Washington.

The President attended two separate conferences this forenoon. The first one, at 11:00 a.m., was with Prime Minister Churchill and Mr. Richard Law, the British Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. The second, at 11:30 a.m., was with the Prime Minister, Secretary Morgenthau and Mr. H. D. White, an Assistant [to the] Secretary of the Treasury.

The President lunched at the Citadel at 1:00 p.m. with the Prime Minister, Mrs. Roosevelt, Mrs. Churchill, Secretary Morgenthau, Mr. White, Mr. Law and Commander Thompson.

During the afternoon Mrs. Roosevelt and Mrs. Churchill visited the Canadian Women’s Army Corps barracks at Quebec.

The Right Honorable Sir Anthony Eden, British Minister for Foreign Affairs, arrived in Quebec from London this afternoon. The Honorable Sir Alexander Cadogan, British Permanent Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs and British Representative at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, arrived in Quebec from Washington this afternoon. Both Mr. Eden and Mr. [Sir Alexander] Cadogan came for conference discussions.

The President, Mrs. Roosevelt, Miss Tully, Mrs. Brady and Miss Thompson had tea in his quarters at 4:45 p.m. Mrs. Roosevelt and Miss Thompson left Quebec, by train, for Hyde Park after the tea.

At 5:30 p.m., the President met with Prime Minister Churchill, Secretary Morgenthau and Lord Cherwell for discussions.

Dinner at the Citadel was at 8:00 p.m., with the President, Prime Minister Churchill, Secretary Morgenthau, Mr. Law, Lord Cherwell, Mr. Eden, and Mr. Cadogan attending. After dinner a motion picture, Hail the Conquering Hero, was shown at the Citadel for the party.

The President retired immediately after the movies.

U.S. State Department (September 15, 1944)

King-Cunningham meeting

Present
United States United Kingdom
Admiral King Admiral of the Fleet Cunningham
Rear Admiral Cooke Admiral Noble
Rear Admiral McCormick Captain Grantham
Rear Admiral Duncan Captain Hughes Hallett
Captain Fife
Captain Stroop

Minutes

September 15, 1944
Top secret

Naval facilities in Australia and forward areas

Admiral Cunningham asked if the U.S. Navy planned on evacuating their facilities at Brisbane and Sydney. If the United States Navy has moved out, he would like to make arrangements directly with the Australian Government to use evacuated facilities. It was particularly desirable to get repair facilities for fleet units and aviation facilities ashore for a fleet air arm. He pointed out that Australia would be used chiefly as a rear base and that the British Naval units would operate from more advanced bases depending upon the situation.

Admiral King stated that in general the U.S. Navy was moving out of Australia but that no “roll-up” plan had been received either from the Commander of the Seventh Fleet or the Commander in Chief, Southwest Pacific Area. Admiral King directed that Commander, Seventh Fleet, be ordered by dispatch to prepare a “roll-up” plan and forward it to the Navy Department. He wished, particularly, to know about the plans to roll up Sydney and Brisbane. Admiral King also said that he thought the Joint Chiefs of Staff should inform the Commander, Southwest Pacific Area with regard to the situation and the tentative requirements for basing British Naval units in Australia.

The First Sea Lord requested that the U.S. Navy act as the Royal Navy’s “agent” with the U.S. Army Air Force to have certain aviation facilities no longer required by them made available to the Naval Air Arm of the Royal Navy, where such facilities could be usefully employed.

Admiral King pointed out that Espíritu Santo was highly developed as a U.S. base and was probably the most forward location for the British Fleet to use as a rear base. He outlined the future Pacific plans and said that no other forward base could be made readily available.

The First Sea Lord said he wanted a good rear base (probably Sydney) and that all the British Navy would require in the forward area was a suitable anchorage. The Fleet would exist on their train and supply ships.

Admiral King suggested that Majuro, which had a large anchorage, might also be useful to the British Fleet.

The First Sea Lord asked if any U.S. naval landing craft bases were available in Australia.

Captain Fife pointed out that Milne Bay and Buna Roads had been used as our chief bases for landing craft until after the Manus landing. He stated that Brisbane had also been used as a rear base for landing craft during the early part of the New Guinea campaign.

Admiral King said that steps were being taken to clear a deep draft channel through Torres Strait. A new survey was being made and it was expected that a better and shorter channel which could accommodate a battleship would soon be available.

The First Sea Lord said that he thought the discussion up to this point would serve as a basis for detailed plans to be agreed upon by the Washington Planners.

Use of Avenger aircraft on British carriers

The First Sea Lord stated that the British Navy had found the Barracuda inadequate for carrier operations and that it was highly desirable to have additional Avengers allocated for use on British carriers.

Admiral King said that the production of Avengers was short of requirements and would continue to be so, that the details of the allocation of U.S. Navy-produced aircraft were arranged by the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Air), and that he, Admiral King, would make sure that the question of additional Avengers for the British Navy would be taken under the most careful consideration, particularly, in view of the British Fleet participation in Pacific operations. He was not, however, optimistic with regard to availability of additional Avengers for at least another six months.

Release of LSTs from “OVERLORD

The First Sea Lord said that they were having difficulty getting SHAEF to release landing craft for transfer to other theaters and it was desirable to have some released soon for use in the Burma operations.

Admiral King said that this was a matter he wanted settled too, and directed that the situation be followed up with regard to release of landing craft and that Admiral Stark should be informed of the requirements of other theaters so that he can obtain releases as quickly as feasible.

Admiral Cooke said that he believed SHAEF had a certain amount of “velvet” and suggested that it would be well for the Combined Chiefs of Staff to put pressure upon SHAEF to get landing craft released.

Admiral King suggested that Admiral Ramsay might also be responsible for holding landing craft in OVERLORD, but The First Sea Lord did not concur in this.

Admiral King and The First Sea Lord then directed the Combined Planning Staff to prepare a draft dispatch for consideration by the Combined Chiefs of Staff to SHAEF on release of landing craft for transfer to other theaters.

Captain Hughes Hallett pointed out that landing craft were originally made available in the theater for combatant operations only and were not to be kept as a convenience for incidental shipment of supplies after the assault and combatant phases were over.

Escort carriers

The First Sea Lord said that the British Navy had received the U.S. Navy’s request for transfer of excess escort carriers for use in connection with ferrying aircraft. He said that all of the British escort carriers would be in use constantly until at least the summer of 1945.

Admiral King said that the U.S. Navy would be glad to get CVEs whenever they could get them.

The First Sea Lord said that he would definitely try to get some released but held out small hopes. However, he would make a particular note of this point.

Mosquito aircraft on carriers – highball

This matter was discussed previously by The First Sea Lord and Admiral King. Motion pictures of this are to be sent from London to be available to the Chiefs of Staff in Washington.

Bonaventure and “X” Craft

The First Sea Lord described in general the use of Bonaventure and “X” Craft. He said that they were available and had been offered for use in the Pacific Theater if it was thought they could be used.

Admiral King said that he thought Bonaventure and the “X” Craft might be of some use and suggested that they be moved to the Pacific Theater with the balanced British Fleet.

The First Sea Lord said that Bonaventure and the “X” Craft would be moved out to the Eastern Fleet, probably to an Australian port first, where they would await an opportunity to be used from a forward base.

Zones of occupation

It was pointed out that this matter required settlement on a higher level and it was probable that a decision might be reached soon.

The First Sea Lord said he had taken exception to the scheme which proposed a German Disarmament Commission which consisted of three generals. He said he believed there should be a committee of nine: 3 generals, 3 admirals, and 3 air officers, each responsible in his own zone for disarmament but who would act as a central committee to decide general questions.

Admiral King said that the U.S. Navy would take over such ports as they were using, providing a Port Director and staff. However, he did not want any elaborate organization set up.

With regard to minesweeping, The First Sea Lord said that he expected the Germans would be required to sweep their own mines. He considered this a part of the disarmament of Germany.

Both Admiral King and The First Sea Lord agreed that further investigation is needed of the desirability of having separate organizations for naval disarmament and control of bases and ports but that this may be a logical solution. Both agreed that if the British are to control northwest Germany, the British will invite the U.S. Navy to participate in naval disarmament in this zone.

Combined Chiefs of Staff minutes

September 15, 1944, 10 a.m.
Top secret

Approval of the minutes of the 174th Meeting of the Combined Chiefs of Staff

Admiral Leahy said that the United States Chiefs of Staff recommend an alteration to the conclusion of Item 5 of the minutes. It was suggested that this should read:

Agreed to recommend that for planning production and for allocation of manpower the date for the end of the war against Japan…

Sir Alan Brooke said that this proposal was entirely acceptable.

Continuing, Admiral Leahy said there was one other alteration which should be made in the final sentence to General Arnold’s statement in Item 6. The number of B-29s which had been diverted to tankers should read 20 and not 40.

Sir Charles Portal said that on page 7 of the minutes his statement, as to the date on which the ground echelons for the aircraft from Europe for use in the war against Japan would have to be taken out, should read “by” December and not “in” December.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff:
a. Agreed to amend the conclusion to Item 5 of CCS 174th Meeting to read as follows:

Agreed to recommend that the date for the end of the war against Japan, for planning production and for allocation of manpower should be set at 18 months after the defeat of Germany; this date to be adjusted periodically to conform to the course of the war.

b. Approved the conclusions of the 174th Meeting as amended above. The detailed record of the meeting was approved subject to the amendments agreed during discussion and to later minor amendments.

Final report to the President and Prime Minister (CCS 680)

The Combined Chiefs of Staff discussed and accepted certain amendments to the report.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff: Approved the final report to the President and Prime Minister, as amended in discussion (Subsequently circulated as CCS 680/1).

Communication of the results of “OCTAGON” (CCS 681; 681/1)

Admiral Leahy suggested the insertion in the draft letter to Marshal Stalin in CCS 681 of a final paragraph (paragraph 6) to read: “Plans for the prompt transfer of power to the Pacific Theater after the collapse of Germany were agreed upon.”

Sir Alan Brooke accepted this amendment.

With reference to the two draft messages to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek in CCS 681/1, Sir Alan Brooke said that on balance he preferred the shorter draft in Enclosure “B.”

Admiral Leahy said that the United States Chiefs of Staff had certain deletions to suggest to the longer draft in Enclosure “A” which he would like to put forward.

Admiral Leahy read out these suggestions.

Sir Alan Brooke said that these amendments were acceptable.

Continuing, Admiral Leahy proposed that a new sentence should be added to the draft in Enclosure “A” to read as follows: “We have agreed on future operations to intensify the offensive against the Japanese in the Pacific Theater, including the opening of a seaway into China.”

Sir Alan Brooke said that this amendment was acceptable.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff: Subject to the amendments agreed in discussion, approved draft messages to Marshal Stalin and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek reporting the results of the OCTAGON Conference. (Subsequently circulated as CCS 681/2.)

Redeployment of forces after the end of the war in Europe (CCS 679)

Sir Alan Brooke said that the recommendation of the United States Chiefs of Staff contained in CCS 679 was acceptable. He would like the words “the combined shipping authorities” inserted after the words “Combined Military Transportation Committee” in paragraph 3.

Admiral Leahy accepted this amendment.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff: Approved CCS 679 subject to insertion in the third line of paragraph 3 of the words “combined shipping authorities” after the word “Committee.”

Combined personnel movement problem arising the first year after the defeat of Germany (CCS 675/2)

The Combined Chiefs of Staff had before them a memorandum by Lord Leathers and General Somervell indicating the magnitude of the combined shipping movements which might be required during the first year after the defeat of Germany.

Sir Alan Brooke said that Lord Leathers had explained to him that the paper was designed merely to show the magnitude of the problem rather than to give entirely accurate figures.

General Somervell confirmed that this was the case.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff: Took note of CCS 675/2.

Operation “HIGHBALL” (CCS 682)

Sir Charles Portal and Sir Andrew Cunningham gave a description of Operation HIGHBALL. They undertook to send the United States a film on this operation.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff: Took note:
a. That Operation HIGHBALL would be available in the Eastern Theater at the end of November 1944.

b. That the British Chiefs of Staff would send an informational film and technical data to the United States Chiefs of Staff.

Release to the press of information on “MULBERRY” (Scaf 79)

Sir Alan Brooke said that it had been suggested that information with regard to MULBERRY should be released to the press. General Eisenhower was not, however, prepared to make such a release unless he was instructed to do so by the Combined Chiefs of Staff.

Admiral King said that base facilities in the Pacific were limited and it might well be that MULBERRY would be required in that theater, in which case it would be obviously disadvantageous if the Japanese were informed as to their potentialities.

Sir Andrew Cunningham agreed with Admiral King that if there was any chance of using them in the Pacific it was far wiser to release nothing to the press on MULBERRY for the present.

Sir Alan Brooke said that in view of the potentialities of MULBERRY for the war against Japan he agreed that security on these should be retained.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff: Agreed that security implications affecting other theaters precluded the release of information on MULBERRY.

Possible statement to be made to the press by the President and Prime Minister

General Marshall suggested that there might be advantages in a statement being made, possibly by the President and Prime Minister, to the effect that the only difficulty encountered at the Conference was the problem of providing employment for all the Allied forces who were eager to participate in the war against Japan. The difficulty had arisen as a result of the keenness of the competition to employ the maximum possible forces for the defeat of Japan. This was a fact and issued to the press should help to undermine Japanese morale.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff: Took note that General Ismay would prepare a suitable statement for consideration.

Progress of the campaign in the Pacific

Admiral King outlined the extremely successful operations recently undertaken by Admiral Halsey’s Task Force 38 and the Fifth Air Force against the Japanese in the Leyte area, where some 500 Japanese aircraft had been destroyed. In view of the success of these operations it had been decided, after consultation with Admiral Nimitz and General MacArthur, to advance the date of subsequently planned operations by about two months.

General Marshall said that he felt that the success of recent operations, particularly against the Japanese air, and the decision to advance the dates for future operations would have a decisive effect on what the Japanese could do in Burma.

General Arnold pointed out that the Japanese Air Force was no longer fighting with the will to win. The pilots lacked determination and even in the Philippines it seemed that the Japanese Air Force had neither the will nor the wherewithal to act offensively.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff: Took note with interest of Admiral King’s remarks on the progress of the campaign in the Pacific.

Hour of next meeting

The Combined Chiefs of Staff: Agreed tentatively to meet at 1000 on Saturday, 16 September.

Memorandum by the British CS

Quebec, 15 September 1944
Top secret
CCS 684

“RANKIN” planning in the Mediterranean Theater

We have noted the request from General Wilson in his telegram (Medcos 181) for a firm directive on his responsibilities for RANKIN in the Mediterranean.

We ask that the Combined Chiefs of Staff should agree to the immediate dispatch of the enclosed message to General Wilson.

Enclosure

CCS to SACMED

Top secret

Following for General Wilson from Chiefs of Staff.
Reference Medcos 153 and 181.

Your planning for RANKIN in the Mediterranean Theatre of Operations should proceed on the following basis.

Areas of occupation
You should plan to seize immediate control of countries in the Mediterranean Theatre of Operations as follows:

a) Austria with four divisions and small tactical air force. Instructions have already been issued in Fan 410 and Fan 411.

b) Greece with approximately a division of British troops and small air forces. Instructions have already been issued in Fan 409.

c) The Dodecanese with approximately 2,400 men.

d) Venezia Giulia with approximately one division.

It is not intended that you should station forces in Yugoslavia or Albania beyond guards which may be required in connection with distribution of supplies. No immediate action by you will be required in Hungary or Romania.

It is not the present intention to send any British troops to Bulgaria.

It is intended in due course to offer British naval assistance in the administration of the Danube and in particular in the clearance of mines. On no account however will any British naval forces enter the Danube except after prior agreement with the Russians.

Availability of forces
In estimating what forces are available for the above operations, you should bear the following considerations in mind:
a) As stated in Cosmed 127, United States forces will be withdrawn as soon as practicable after the cessation of hostilities.

b) It will probably be the policy to withdraw Dominion forces as early as possible after the defeat of Germany for repatriation at an early date. Pending repatriation they should not be employed on occupational duties in Austria, Greece or Dodecanese or for internal security duties in Middle East until after discussion with Dominion Governments, which is being initiated forthwith.

c) The four British Indian divisions in your command will be withdrawn as early as possible and should not be used for RANKIN operations.

d) French and Italian divisions will not be used.

e) The internal security commitment in the Middle East after the defeat of Germany will require three divisions from forces at present in the Mediterranean and Middle East.

After making allowance for the above considerations, we calculate that you should have sufficient forces to meet the commitments in paragraph 2 above and still retain a small reserve for contingencies.

All the above applies to RANKIN only, i.e., the immediate seizure of control in enemy and enemy occupied territories. Direction upon the final occupation of Europe after the establishment of control will be issued later.

The Chief of the Military Mission in the Soviet Union to the Commanding General, Strategic Air Forces in Europe

Moscow, 15 September 1944
Top secret
Priority

MX 20970. To USSTAF for General Spaatz information copies to AGWar for General Arnold and Escom for General Walsh from Deane. Copy sent direct to Walsh.

Soviet Government informed British Government that they were prepared to cooperate with British and Americans in organizing aid to Warsaw provided this aid is rendered in accordance with a prearranged plan.

General Marshall has directed me and the President has directed Mr. Harriman to assist in working out a plan with the Russians and British. Burrows and I informed the Red Army General Staff that we wish to meet with them at once to work out a plan in which all three countries participate. So far there has been no Soviet reply. With the Red Army in Praga, the battle for Warsaw is reaching its critical and conclusive stages. In all probability American participation in relief of Polish insurgents will be limited to Frantic 7; however, both the Ambassador and I feel that it would be a great mistake to start reduction of Escom bases until the Warsaw situation has been clarified. It may develop that an additional American dropping mission will be a critical necessity and if so the facilities in Russia should remain available. The Ambassador feels that politically we would be in a most disadvantageous position if we had made additional missions impossible before the battle for Warsaw is decided or if we even gave the Russians the impression that we had abandoned the insurgents in Warsaw by initiating preparations to reduce Escom such as ordering trains.

In view of the above recommend that no firm date be set at this time for Escom reduction.

Prime Minister Churchill’s Chief of Staff to President Roosevelt’s Chief of Staff

Quebec, 15 September, 1944

Admiral Leahy, I send you herewith a draft which I suggest we might send to the President and Prime Minister on the idea that General Marshall put forward at the Combined Chiefs of Staff Meeting this morning.

Will you let me know if you approve and I will send a copy to the Prime Minister at once: but naturally I should be grateful for any amendments or improvements that you think necessary.

H. L. ISMAY

[Enclosure]

Draft minute to the President and Prime Minister

Quebec, 15.9.44

The Combined Chiefs of Staff desire to place on record that the main difficulty with which the Quebec Conference has been confronted has been to find room and opportunity for the deployment against Japan of the massive forces which each and all of the nations concerned are ardent to engage against the enemy. In colloquial language, it was a case of “standing room only,” even before the curtain rang up on the Conference.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff have not included any recommendation on this subject in their Final Report, but they submit that it would have an excellent effect on world opinion in general, and a correspondingly depressing effect on Japan, if the above ideas, clothed in your own language, were included in a communiqué about the Conference (if one is issued), and, also, at the Press Conference which will be held on its conclusion.

Memorandum by the Commanding General, Army Service Forces and the British Minister of War Transport

Quebec, 15 September 1944
Top secret
Enclosure to CCS 675/2

Memorandum by the U.S. transportation, British movement, and combined shipping authorities

The attached Appendix “A” indicates the magnitude of the combined personnel movements which may be required during the first year after the defeat of Germany (assumed at 1 Oct. 1944) on the basis of tentative redeployment plans.

The attached Appendix “B” indicates the probable combined resources estimated to be available during the period under consideration.

Owing to changes in plans under way and in prospect a precise analysis of this problem cannot be made until the entire matter has been studied by combined agencies based on decisions by the Combined Chiefs of Staff on strategy and priorities.

It is therefore recommended that the Combined Administrative Committee, in collaboration with the Combined Staff Planners, the Combined Military Transportation Committee, and the combined shipping authorities, study and report on this problem in the light of decisions to be made by the Combined Chiefs of Staff.

Appendix “A”

Analysis of the combined personnel movement problem
Subsequent to a 1 October defeat of Germany and for 1 year thereafter

British U.S.
1. Operational Requirements
a. Replacements (reinforcements) for forces already engaged in the war against Japan on 1 October. 693,000
b. Buildup from U.S. for war against Japan. 826,000
c. Redeployment for war against Japan. 1,052,000 804,000
d. Additional replacements (reinforcements) to support increased strength due to b and/or c. 385,000 213,000
e. Replacements or readjustments in garrisons, of non-operational areas. 265,000 10,000
f. Rotational programs for forces engaged in the war against Japan. 150,000 280,000
g. Intra-Area movement accomplished by retained ships. 250,000 768,000
Subtotal 2,102,000 3,594,000
2. Demobilization and Repatriation Without Replacement
a. British and U.S. Forces. 678,000 1,720,000
b. Dominion, Colonial and other personnel. 251,000 28,000
Subtotal 929,000 1,748,000
3. Prisoners of War
a. Allied prisoners of war. 53,000 102,000
b. Enemy prisoners of war. 466,000 243,000
Subtotal 519,000 345,000
4. TOTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SERVICES 3,550,000 5,687,000
Appendix “B”

Total availability of personnel shipping by categories (as of 1 Oct 1944)

British U.S.
Categories No. of Ships Capacity No. of Ships Capacity
1. Ocean Going 84 302,000 220 492,000
2. Limited Capability
(a) Indian Ocean type 31 48,000
(b) Miscellaneous 6 6,000 45 35,000
Subtotal 37 54,000 45 35,000
TOTAL TROOPSHIP LIFT 121 356,000 265 527,000
NOTES: British U.S.
1. Estimated lift on 1 October 1945, after allowing for additions and losses based on current CCS rates 376,000 708,000
2. Additional trooplift may be realized by use of cargo ships temporarily fitted to carry a few hundred troops each.
3. An indeterminable lift may be obtained from captured enemy vessels.
4. Lift of LSIs and APAs is not included in above inventories but advantage will be taken of their lift whenever operational schedules permit.
5. Lift in U.S. Navy vessels as estimated and included in the above table for normal troop movement is subject to wide variation dependent upon possible utilization of Navy troopships for operational requirements.
6. No British cross-Channel type of shipping is included nor has any allowance been made for possible conversions for the naval fleet train or hospital ships.

Note by the Secretaries of CCS

Quebec, 15 September 1944
Top secret
CCS 681/1 (OCTAGON)

Message to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek on the results of “OCTAGON”

The two enclosed draft messages, differing in the degree of detail included, are circulated for consideration by the Combined Chiefs of Staff.

A. J. McFARLAND
A. T. CORNWALL-JONES

Combined Secretariat

Enclosure “A”
Top secret

Draft message from the President and the Prime Minister to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek

From Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to the President.
My immediately following message is top secret and should be seen only by General Stilwell, a decoder appointed by him, and the Ambassador who is then to deliver it to the British Ambassador upon receipt. If possible, it should be delivered by the two Ambassadors at the same time to the Generalissimo. Message should be carefully but closely paraphrased before delivery. Acknowledge receipt and delivery.

Top secret and personal to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek from President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill.
We have just concluded our conference in Quebec during which we discussed ways and means to bring about the earliest possible defeat of Germany so that we can reorient the entire weight of our forces and resources against Japan. We hasten to inform you of plans for our mutual effort, particularly in Southeast Asia.

  • First: We are determined fully to employ all available resources toward the earliest practicable invasion of the Japanese homeland. To this end we have devised courses of action and are taking vigorous steps to expedite the redeployment of forces to the war against Japan following the defeat of Germany.

  • Second: To continue and extend present operations under Admiral Mountbatten in North Burma to provide additional security for intermediate air ferry bases in the Myitkyina area, and at the beginning of favorable weather to launch a determined campaign to open overland communications between India and China. These operations will require continued effective cooperation of the Chinese troops who have already so distinguished themselves in Burma, as well as of your armies that are now engaged west of the Salween. The detailed operations will involve overland and airborne advances by the British from Imphal to seize Kalewa, thence the Yeu-Monywa area with exploitation toward Mandalay. At the same time, the Chinese, British and American forces now in the Myitkyina area will push on to Indaw-Katha-Bhamo, thence toward Mongmit-Mogok. Concurrently, your Chinese armies now engaged west of the Salween should drive vigorously toward Hsenwi and Lashio. All these operations will be fully supported by our preponderant air strength, and by adequate air supply. Small-scale amphibious operations on the Arakan coast, and activities by long range penetration groups will contribute to our success. We feel that the vigorous prosecution of these operations should result in securing an area by next spring which will permit the extension of the Ledo Road with accompanying pipelines in order to support the heroic effort of your forces.

  • Third: Without prejudice to the North Burma operations to protect the air ferry line and establish overland communications, Admiral Mountbatten has been further directed to continue planning and preparations for a large scale amphibious and airborne operation in South Burma to be undertaken as soon as developments in the European Theater will allow the necessary resources to be made available.

Enclosure “B”

Draft message from President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill to Generalissimo Chiang

September 1944
Top secret

From Naval Aide to the President.
My immediately following message is top secret and should be seen only by Aettsna, a decoder appointed by him and the Ambassador who is then to deliver it to the British Ambassador upon receipt. If possible, it should be delivered by the two Ambassadors at the same time to the Generalissimo. Message should be carefully paraphrased before delivery. Acknowledge receipt and delivery.

Top Secret and Personal to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek from President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill.
We have just concluded a short conference at Quebec and hasten to inform you of the broad conclusions we have reached.

We have agreed that operations must be devised to accomplish the defeat of Japan at the earliest possible moment, and that to achieve this ultimately we may well have to invade Japan itself.

We have agreed that in the west our object should be the recapture of Burma at the earliest date. We attach the greatest importance to the vigorous prosecution of operations in Upper Burma in order to secure the air supply route, including the air staging posts at Myitkyina, and to open overland communications with you. It is therefore intended to pursue with the utmost vigor the present operations in Upper Burma. Reinforcements, including airborne forces, are being dispatched.

In addition, we are planning a major amphibious operation to take place in the Bay of Bengal next year. The date when it can be carried out will depend on the time when we find it possible to release the necessary resources from the European Theater.

Memorandum by the British Chiefs of Staff

Quebec, 15 September 1944
Top secret
CCS 682

Operation “HIGHBALL”

The American Chiefs of Staff are asked to take note that Operation HIGHBALL will be available in the Eastern Theatre at the end of November 1944.

Morgenthau-Cherwell meeting, 11:00 a.m.

Present
United States United Kingdom
Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau Lord Cherwell
Mr. White

Memorandum by the Secretary of the Treasury’s Assistant

[Undated]

Cherwell had a draft of a memorandum summarizing a conversation of the previous day with Churchill and the President on the subject of a policy toward Germany. This was the memorandum which they were to give to Churchill. The Secretary felt that the memorandum went too far in the wrong direction. He said he thought it represented “two steps backwards.” The Secretary said they ought to begin where Churchill left off and go forward. In the first conversation Churchill had been shocked by the proposal but on the following day he seemed to accept the program designed to weaken German economy. The memorandum ought to take that for granted. Churchill had already spoken of diverting Germany to an agricultural state as she was in the last quarter of the 19th century. The Secretary thought that rather than present too inadequate a memorandum they ought to go back that afternoon and raise the question again with Churchill and the President and write the memorandum on the conversation that will have taken place that afternoon rather than on the previous day.

The Secretary then spoke to Cherwell about Brand. He told him that he hadn’t wanted him to come to Washington to represent the British Treasury in the first place but that when he did come he gave him a chance, and that he was not helping England by his behavior. The Secretary mentioned Playfair and White suggested Opie or Keynes as possible Treasury representatives.

H. D. WHITE

The Under Secretary of State to the President

Washington, September 15, 1944
Top secret

Supplementing yesterday’s wire on voting procedure, it may be helpful for you to have before you the exact text of the formula which is now being studied by the three governments as a possible solution. You will note the size of the majority vote is left blank. The Russians want 51 percent and the British want two-thirds.

C. Voting
Each member of the Security Council should have one vote.

Decisions with, respect to the following matters should be taken by blank majority vote including the concurring votes of the permanent members of the Security Council:

a. All decisions coming under section VIII-B, entitled “Determination of Threats to the Peace, Acts of Aggression, or any Breaches of the Peace, and Action with Respect Thereto,” and under Section VIII-C, entitled “Regional Arrangements.”

b. All matters relating to [disarmament] and regulation of armaments.

c. Recommendations to the General Assembly with regard to admission of new members, suspension and restoration of rights of membership, and expulsion of members.

d. Establishment by the Security Council of its subsidiary bodies or agencies.

Decisions under Section VIII-A, entitled “Pacific Settlement of Disputes,” should be taken by blank majority including the concurring votes of the permanent members of the council, but excluding the votes of such member or members of the council as are parties to the dispute.

All other decisions should be taken by blank majority vote.

The result of adopting this procedure would be that consideration and recommendations with regard to pacific settlement of disputes referred to in numbered paragraph three above would be taken without the vote of the party to the dispute even if that party happens to be a permanent member of the council and that consideration and decisions as to enforcement action of any kind would require the unanimous consent of all the permanent members of the council, whether or not one of them is involved.

In view of the fact that this, if accepted, would represent a substantial concession to the Soviet point of view, we feel that we would be justified in trying to obtain their consent to the two-thirds majority vote.

Could we have your views as soon as convenient, both as regards the formula in the text and the size of majority vote?

ES
Under Secretary of State