Québec Conference 1944 (OCTAGON)

Memorandum by the British CS

Quebec, 13 September 1944
Top secret
CCS 452/28 (OCTAGON)

Directive to SACSEA

We recommend that the Combined Chiefs of Staff should now despatch the following directive to Admiral Mountbatten.

Directive to Supreme Allied Commander, South East Asia Command

Your primary object is the recapture of all Burma at the earliest date. Operations to achieve this object must not, however, prejudice the security of the existing air supply route to China, including the air staging post at Myitkyina, adequate protection of which is essential throughout.

The following are approved operations:
a) The stages of Operation CAPITAL necessary to the security of the air route;
b) Operation DRACULA.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff attach the greatest importance to the vigorous prosecution of Operation CAPITAL and to the execution of Operation DRACULA before the monsoon in 1945, with a target date of 15 March.

If DRACULA has to be postponed until after the monsoon of 1945, you will continue to exploit Operation CAPITAL as far as may be possible without prejudice to preparations for the execution of Operation DRACULA in November 1945.

Note by the Secretaries of CCS

Quebec, 13 September 1944
Top secret
CCS 675/1

A combined memorandum on troop movements, covering the period October 1944 to March 1945

The Representatives of United States and British military services in conjunction with appropriate shipping authorities submit the attached report of the examination of troop shipping requirements suggested by the Combined Chiefs of Staff in their 172nd Meeting of 12 September.

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

Combined Secretariat

[Enclosure]
Top secret

Combined memorandum on troop movements covering the period October 1944 to March 1945

Assumptions
The state of war in Europe is such that the Combined Chiefs of Staff agree:
a. That it is feasible to release British troops from Europe for Operation DRACULA.
b. No further U.S. troops need be transported to European theaters.

If the decision with regard to the two conditions in 1 above is not made by 1 October the necessary transfer of British forces to India cannot be accomplished in time to execute the operation before the monsoon.

Statement of the problem
The problem therefore is to determine the effect of employment of troop shipping for DRACULA on U.S. and British deployments subsequent to the defeat of Germany.

Facts bearing on the problem
The buildup of a British task force in India for DRACULA involves the movement of six British divisions or 370,000 personnel from Europe to India prior to 1 March 1945.

It is estimated that this movement will during its peak period involve virtually the entire British trooping lift.

This requirement will limit British assistance to the United States in the Atlantic to a trooplift of about 25,000 per month from November 1944 to April 1945 by leaving only the two Queens on this run. However, in the event of any unforeseen difficulties in meeting the DRACULA program it might prove necessary to withdraw one or both of the Queens from the Atlantic service.

A further effect will be the withdrawal of all British ocean-going troopships now employed in cross-Channel movements. This amounts to a capacity of 25-30,000 troop spaces for combined cross-Channel troop movements. It is estimated that British cross-Channel troop movements can be accomplished in other type vessels. The scale of U.S. cross-Channel troop movements cannot be determined but should be relatively light in proportion to total U.S. withdrawals from the Continent. To the extent required such movement must be accomplished in U.S. shipping.

The DRACULA movement of British troops absorbs the full capacity of Indian ports with the exception of such U.S. troops as can be received through the port of Calcutta. India has stated that they can disembark two “General” class ships off Calcutta simultaneously by the use of Indian Ocean shipping.

Discussion

  1. Effect on British movement up to approximately mid-March

a. After 30 September it will not be possible to carry out any normal trooping from the United Kingdom to theaters abroad other than any replacements included in the DRACULA program. Allowance has been made for 4,500 a month between Canada and the United Kingdom.

b. No non-operational movement can take place except those which might be capable of being effected in ships returning empty from operational voyages.

c. No troop ships could be spared for conversion to other tasks, viz: fleet train, hospital ships, etc.

d. It will only be possible to carry out movement already planned between theaters abroad, mainly reinforcements from West and East Africa to India and New Zealanders to Italy which are small in relation to the total fleet and for which shipping is being positioned. Internal movement in the Mediterranean will be reduced to a local lift of some 15,000.

  1. Effect on U.S. movements up to approximately end of March

a. U.S. shipping schedules for redeployment have included the movement of 70,000 U.S. troops per month from Europe to the United States in British ships. Under this assumption the strength of U.S. forces in Europe will be:

1 Oct 44 2,760,000
1 Apr 45 1,535,000
6 months withdrawals from Europe 1,225,000

b. The reduction of British assistance in the Atlantic to 25,000 troops monthly would result in the following European position:

1 Oct 44 2,760,000
1 Apr 45 1,805,000
6 months withdrawals from Europe 955,000

In other words a reduction in the rate of return of U.S. troops from the European Theater will be required amounting to 270,000 in six months.

c. Troop movements to Pacific theaters in accordance with redeployment plans tentatively set up, but now under review, would be possible.

Conclusion
Until the strategic requirements for the furtherance of the war against Japan subsequent to the defeat of Germany have been determined and until shipping priorities have been established as between operational and non-operational moves, it is not possible to present more detailed shipping implications during and after the period 1 October 1944 to 1 April 1945.

Memorandum by the British CS

Quebec, 13 September 1944
Top secret
CCS 678

Planning date for the end of the war against Japan

The British Chiefs of Staff feel that it is important that the Combined Chiefs of Staff should agree and promulgate a planning date for the end of the war against Japan. The following planning must be related to an estimated date for the end of the war against Japan:
a. The redeployment of forces against Japan.
b. The planning of production.
c. The allocation of manpower.

The British Chiefs of Staff recommend that, in order to make due allowance for contingencies, the Combined Chiefs of Staff should accept as a planning date two years after the defeat of Germany.

The Pittsburgh Press (September 13, 1944)

He knew about the invasion –
Super-secret of the war kept by a sergeant major!

Canadian finds vital paper in Citadel after last Roosevelt-Churchill conference

Québec, Canada (UP) –
Military authorities admitted today that a mere sergeant major of the Canadian Army shared with the Allied High Command what was for months the super-secret of the war – the plans for the invasion of Normandy.

The hero of this drama was Sgt. Maj. Émile Couture, a French-Canadian, whose job it was to issue stationery at last year’s Québec Conference of Prime Minister Churchill and President Roosevelt.

Imbued with the French sense of economy, he was making an inspection of the conference quarters at the conclusion of the meeting to collect unused paper. In one of the rooms of the Chateau Frontenac, then as now the working and residential headquarters for the Anglo-American military staffs, Couture found an interesting memorandum.

The moment he read it, he was transported from his prosaic role of a garrison wheelhorse into the inner councils of the high and mighty. Couture gasped. It was in black and white – the alternative dates for the invasion of Normandy, the number of troops to be employed, how they would be transported in so many ships and how they would be supported from the air and sea.

The operational outline for the boldest, most difficult campaign of the war, was in HIS hands – a sergeant major!

Couture jammed the paper into an envelope and made with all haste to Canadian Army District Headquarters at the Citadel. There, an officer examined them. He uttered the French equivalent of “Wow!”

Given British medals

Couture and an officer were taken secretly to Washington. There in the inner sanctum of the top strategists – perhaps the Allied Combined Chiefs of Staff – they turned over the paper and took a solemn oath of secrecy.

Couture discovered the memorandum in the conference room of the chiefs of staff. It was said to have belonged to an American general. There was a report that the general had been relieved of his duties but there was no one in authority here who knew anything about it.

For his scrupulous observance of the oath, Sgt. Maj. Couture received the Medal of the British Empire. The officer, Maj. C. E. Gerney, was also decorated.

‘Better not talk!’

L’Action Catholique, one of Canada’s most influential newspapers, first revealed the story of Couture’s secret. The public relations officers of the local military district confirmed it.

Today Sgt. Maj. Couture was not available for interviews. Explained an officer:

If he talks, he’ll be tossed in the guardhouse and the key will be thrown away.

Roosevelt reports –
Québec plans tied in with Russia, China

Pacific commander is being debated

Québec, Canada (UP) –
President Roosevelt stressed today that the war plans being worked out in conferences here with Prime Minister Winston Churchill are being coordinated with those of all the Allies, “particularly the Chinese and the Russians.”

From the Citadel, where the President, the Prime Minister and their combined chiefs of staff are in “Victory Conference,” Mr. Roosevelt authorized Stephen T. Early, his secretary, to say in the President’s name:

This is a conference to get the best we can out of the combined British and United States war efforts in the Pacific and in Europe. We are working in consonance with the situation in China, the Pacific and in Europe, coordinating our efforts and those of our Allies, particularly the Chinese and the Russians.

Super-command studied

The statement tied in with the basic Pacific theme of the meeting and discussions on establishment of a new super-command to direct the final assaults on the Jap homeland.

Mr. Roosevelt was believed to be urging the selection of a U.S. naval officer – probably either Adm. Ernest J. King (commander of the U.S. Fleet) or Adm. Chester W. Nimitz (now the top commander in the Central Pacific) to head such a new command.

Mr. Early at a news conference said he had no information on the command situation.

Land is on hand

Also fitting in with the Pacific theme of this meeting was the announcement that RAdm. Emory S. Land, head of the U.S. Maritime Commission and War Shipping Administration, would join the meeting in a day or so. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr. is also coming here from Washington.

The manner in which the President described the overall purposes of the conference here opened new fields of speculation on the question of whether the Pacific allies expect Russian help in finishing off Japan.

Mr. Roosevelt’s mention of Europe made clear that the talks here are not confined to the Pacific, but involve a broader view of the war. There was, however, no way of telling whether the coordination with Russia to which he referred involved only the climactic phase of the war in Europe, or extended also to the war in the Pacific.

End this weekend

Mr. Early said he expected the Anglo-American war talks to conclude this weekend, but he was not specific as to a day. The “Victory Conference” probably will end with a joint statement by the President and the Prime Minister.

Mr. Roosevelt and Churchill were together until a late hour last night and started their conferences again at 11:30 this morning, sitting down in the broad-windowed “map room” of the President’s overlooking the St. Lawrence and examining the war plans submitted by their staff chiefs.

The question of top command was the leading issue of the conference.

British favor MacArthur

Officials said the British were inclined to favor Gen. Douglas MacArthur for the post of Supreme Commander and there was some support for him in the American staff, too. But the President was understood to want a Navy man.

The top post is certain to go to an American because most of the power brought against Japan will be American – although Britain will send more ships, men and planes to the Far East when Germany is whipped, and China’s manpower will be armed increasingly.

Underlying the command question is that of whether the main drive against Japan is to be keyed to naval or to land operations. And there again Mr. Roosevelt was believed to side with the Navy view.

Stilwell to be prominent

Obviously, the ultimate destruction of Japanese power at home and in Asia will require great use of land and air as well as naval and amphibious forces. MacArthur is assured of a continuing prominent place. Mr. Roosevelt will be able to fulfill his promise to return to the Philippines. That may occur soon, and MacArthur probably will go on from there.

Gen. Joseph W. Stilwell’s forces in China will play an increasingly important role when more supplies can be delivered to them. And the British, with their special interests in recapturing Singapore, Malaya and Hong Kong, will be in there.

But the prospect now is that these operations will be keyed to a massive seaborne assault – probably to the China coast and then northward.

Perhaps bearing significantly on the decisions being made here was the announcement in Washington that Mr. Roosevelt had nominated Adm. Nimitz to be a full admiral in his own right. Adm. Nimitz now holds the rank only by virtue of his command of the Pacific Fleet. Such nominations usually presage a change in command for the man involved.

Screenshot 2022-06-20 213810

Simms: Stalin absence complicates Québec talks

Our war with Japs hinges on Russia
By William Philip Simms, Scripps-Howard foreign editor

Québec, Canada –
The absence of the Soviet Union from the Roosevelt-Churchill conference here complicates the job tremendously. It is like planning the invasion of France without knowing whether or not we could use Britain as a base of operations.

Of course, this is not Russia’s fault. On the contrary, it would have been folly for her to attack Japan while fighting for her life 5,000 miles away against Germany. and to have permitted us to use her Siberian bases would have been tantamount to a declaration of war against Nippon.

But the war in Europe is now drawing to a close. Russia therefore may soon regain her freedom of action in Asia before the Pacific and Far Eastern plans now being made here can be put into practice.

What bases to use?

In any plan of campaign against Japan, the first problem is how to get at her. We have to decide whether to attack her from aircraft carriers or from land bases. If land bases, the question is, what bases? Outside Siberia, Japan holds all the nearby bases and before we can use them, we must capture them.

Thus, the planning of our invasion of Europe was comparatively simple Britain was at hand as an ideal base.

If we could use the maritime provinces of Siberia similarly in our war against the other end of the Axis, the calculations here at Québec would be immensely simplified. Vladivostok is only 600 miles from Tokyo. Siberia envelops Manchuria, which is vital to the Japanese war efforts, on three sides. With Russia in – if only because we could use Siberian bases – the war in the Pacific would be shortened by months at least and innumerable lives saved.

Situation is anomalous

Another irony of the situation here is that today at Dumbarton Oaks, in Washington, Russia, Britain and America are putting the finishing touches on a tentative plan for world security against post-war aggression. The Big Four, including China, have agreed to the use of force, if necessary, to check outlaw states. For Russia to refuse to help stop the Japanese aggression now, once Nazi Germany is knocked out, would just about rob the Dumbarton Oaks formula of its validity.

Thus, while Marshal Stalin is absent from the Roosevelt-Churchill meeting here, Russia cannot be left out of the picture. She will remain the big question mark hovering over the conference.

It is hardly too much to say that were Germany to surrender soon, and allow Russia to change her policy in Asia, most of the military planning here would at once become obsolete. That is, unless two alternate sets of plans are drawn up.

U.S. State Department (September 13, 1944)

Roosevelt-Morgenthau conversation, 4:00 p.m.

Present
President Roosevelt
Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau
Miss Tully

The memorandum below was prepared by Harry Dexter White, who accompanied Morgenthau to Quebec. Since this memorandum does not indicate that White himself was present, it seems probable that White was summarizing what Morgenthau had told him, or told others in his presence, between September 13 and the date on which White’s memorandum was prepared. Following is the text of the memorandum, which bears the date “9/25/44” at the end (presumably the date of typing):

Mrs. Roosevelt asked the Secretary to tea. As soon as he arrived he was ushered in to the President. Miss Tully was also present. (When he came in, the President turned to Fala, his dog, and said, “Say hello to your Uncle Henry.”)

The President said that in his conversation with Churchill, Churchill had been very glum. The President said that he had asked Churchill: “How would you like to have the steel business of Europe for 20 or 30 years?” The President said that Churchill seemed much excited over the possibility.

The President said to the Secretary: “I have asked you to come up here so that you could talk to the Prof. [Lord Cher well].” He said that they were doing shipping that night and therefore were to have Admiral Land but added, “You might as well come too.” The Secretary asked how freely he could talk with the Professor and the President replied, “You can talk about anything you want.” The Secretary inquired: “Anything?,” and the President said, “Well, let me look at that book.” [The book he referred to was the collection of memoranda on Germany prepared in the Treasury which the Secretary had given to him in Washington.] The President went over the whole section and said, “I wouldn’t discuss with him the question of the zones to be occupied by our armies. That’s a military question. Nor would I discuss the question of partitioning as that’s a political question. But you can talk about the fact that we are thinking of internationalizing the Ruhr and the Saar, including the Kiel Canal. If Holland has a lot of land inundated by Germany we can give her a piece of Western Germany as compensation.”

The President went over the whole of the first section of the book, item by item, and then said: “I have sent for Eden. Churchill, Eden, yourself and I will sit down to discuss the matter.” (The Secretary expressed the view that the President gave him the impression that he was bringing Eden to Quebec largely because of the report he (the Secretary) gave him upon his return from England about Eden being tough on the question of a policy toward Germany.)

The President said, “Don’t worry about Churchill. He is going to be tough too.” As the Secretary was leaving, the President said to Miss Tully, “Put that book right next to my bed. I want to read it tonight.” [The book he referred to was the book I described above.]

740.0011 PW/9-1344: Telegram

The Chargé near the Dutch Government-in-Exile to the Secretary of State

London, September 13, 1944
Confidential
US urgent
niact

Neter 17. From Schoenfeld.

Foreign Minister van Kleffens requests following message be sent to the President. He has asked this mission to serve as channel of transmission since Netherlands Government has no direct code communication with Quebec.

On learning that Pacific strategy will be discussed at Quebec conference Netherlands Government request in view of their vital interest in that question that following statement with regard to operations in Japanese occupied territory be transmitted to the President. Same statement is being sent to Mr. Churchill through British Foreign Office. Minister for Colonies van Mook and Vice Admiral Helfrich are proceeding [to] America. Netherlands Government trust President and Prime Minister will find it possible to give them an opportunity to elucidate Netherlands point of view. (Statement begins)

Success of main strategy against Japan in severing communications between Japan and occupied area covering Burma, Malaya, Philippines, British Borneo and NEI will cut off Japanese forces in that area from arms and munitions but will not compel them to surrender or to withdraw supposing this to be possible. Area as a whole has sufficient food and other materials and facilities for maintenance and it may be assumed that Japanese forces have sufficient stocks of arms and munitions. Experience points to probability that Japanese stay on for irregular warfare even after defeat or surrender Japan. Facts in recovered territory in the area show that isolated Japanese forces become more ferocious and destructive as isolation becomes more irremediable. If liberation occupied areas is delayed suffering and destruction of large populations will increase beyond all measure and prisoners of war and internees can be considered lost. Since voluntary evacuation of the area by Japanese forces cannot be expected active liberation as soon as possible seems urgent both from this point of view and with regard to future rehabilitation. This action should primarily be directed towards most important territories with most civilized and numerous population and greatest economic value. Among these Java seems to offer best base for further operations because of central situation, sufficient food production and accommodation, ample skilled and unskilled labour, well developed system of roads and harbours, good airbases and healthy mountain regions for rehabilitation. Even in case of widespread destruction repairs for Allied operational purposes are easiest to effect in Java. The occupation of Java would deprive the Japanese of their main regional source of supplies and labour.

Roosevelt-Churchill dinner meeting, 8:00 p.m.

Present
United States United Kingdom
President Roosevelt Prime Minister Churchill
Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau Lord Cherwell
Admiral Leahy Minister of War Transport Leathers
Vice Admiral Land Lord Moran
Vice Admiral McIntire

Leahy noted in his diary:

The subjects discussed at dinner were generally international politics, economics and shipping; and the peace terms that should be imposed upon Germany when that country surrenders to the Allies.

Moran’s diary account is considerably fuller:

… How to prevent another war with Germany was the only subject of conversation. The Americans were all for drastic action, maintaining that Germany should not be allowed ships or the yards in which to build them; what they needed could be carried in our ships. Morgenthau wanted to close down the Ruhr to help British exports, especially steel. The P.M. was against this. He did not seem happy about all this toughness.

“I’m all for disarming Germany,” he said, “but we ought not to prevent her living decently. There are bonds between the working classes of all countries, and the English people will not stand for the policy you are advocating.”

I thought he had done when he growled: “I agree with Burke. You cannot indict a whole nation.”

If the P.M. was vague about what ought to be done with Germany, he was at least quite clear what should not be done. He kept saying: “At any rate, what is to be done should be done quickly. Kill the criminals, but don’t carry on the business for years.”

Morgenthau asked the P.M. how he could prevent Britain starving when her exports had fallen so low that she would be unable to pay for imports. The P.M. had no satisfactory answer. His thoughts seemed to go back to the House of Commons and what he knew of the English people. In five years’ time, when passions would have died down, people, he said, would not stand for repressive measures. He harped on the necessity for disarmament. At that point one of the Americans intervened: he thought that Germany should be made to return to a pastoral state, she ought to have a lower standard of living. During all this wild talk only the P.M. seemed to have his feet on the ground. The President mostly listened; once he remarked that a factory which made steel furniture could be turned overnight to war production.

After three hours’ discussion there seemed to be an absolute cleavage between the American point of view and that of the Prime Minister. The Prof., however, sided with the Americans. At last Roosevelt said: “Let the Prof, go into our plans with Morgenthau.”

On September 20, 1944, Morgenthau told Hull and Stimson that at this dinner meeting Churchill was violently opposed to the policy on Germany which was presented to him. He quoted Churchill as inquiring with annoyance whether he had been brought to Quebec to discuss such a scheme and as stating that it would mean that England would be chained to a dead body, i.e., Germany.

Morgenthau, writing of the September 13 dinner meeting three years later, recalled that Churchill had been irascible and vitriolic when, at Roosevelt’s request, Morgenthau had explained the Treasury proposal. Churchill, he said, turned loose “the full flood of his rhetoric, sarcasm and violence”, stating that he looked on the Treasury plan “as he would on chaining himself to a dead German.” Roosevelt, Morgenthau recalled, sat by, saying very little.

The most detailed description of the dinner conversation which has been found was written by Harry Dexter White, who accompanied Morgenthau to Quebec. No source on the meeting (including White’s memorandum itself) states that White was present, and it seems probable that White was summarizing what Morgenthau had told him, or told others in his presence, in the period between September 13 and the date on which White’s memorandum was prepared. Following is the text of the memorandum, which bears the date “9/25/44” at the end (presumably the date of typing):

Though shipping was supposed to have been the subject for discussion the subject of shipping was not mentioned the entire evening except briefly when the question was raised as to the advisability of taking away all of Germany’s shipping.

The discussion quickly turned to Germany. Churchill (apparently without reference to anything said previously) said something along the line of “What are my Cabinet members doing discussing plans for Germany without first discussing them with me? I intend to get into the matter myself.”

The President said he had asked Secretary Morgenthau to come up for the purpose of discussing Germany and that he (Morgenthau) was to talk to Cherwell the following day.

Churchill asked: “Why don’t we discuss Germany now?” The President then asked the Secretary to explain the program he had in mind for Germany. The Secretary described that part of the Treasury proposal dealing with the Ruhr, Churchill indicated that he was strongly opposed to such a program. He said that all that was necessary was to eliminate the production of armament. To do what the Treasury suggested was “unnatural, unchristian and unnecessary.” Churchill didn’t believe that it would be very much of an aid to the United Kingdom even if the United Kingdom did get the steel business that formerly went to Germany.

Admiral Land, on the other hand, wholly supported Secretary Morgenthau’s proposal, thumping vigorously on the table to emphasize his remark. Admiral Land told the Secretary after the dinner that the President had been talking with him more or less along those lines for a long time but this was the first time that he (Admiral Land) had a chance to say what he felt. He had long been waiting for the opportunity and, encouraged by the Secretary’s statement, he had vigorously expressed himself.

When the question arose about taking away German ships, Churchill was opposed. Admiral Land said, “Why not? It is no more cruel to take away ships than their steel plants.”

Churchill said at one point: “If you [the United States] do not do something for Britain then the British simply will have to destroy gold and do business largely within the Empire.” Lord Cherwell pooh poohed this idea of the Prime Minister’s.

Admiral Leahy seemed on the whole to be unsympathetic to the Treasury’s program and to side with Churchill. Admiral Leahy thought the only way to assure peace in the future was for the United States, the United Kingdom and possibly Russia if she behaves herself to “crack down” on any country which stepped over the boundary line of any other country.

The President said very little in reply to Churchill’s views. Secretary Morgenthau several times interjected into Churchill’s comments that his program did not recommend that Germany be permitted to starve as seemed to be the implication in Churchill’s remark.

At another point when discussing the need for an international police air force Churchill said that the United States, United Kingdom and Russia would have to rotate the job “as our air people get dirty when they associate with the Russians.”

At one point in the discussion Churchill said to the President: “Is this what you asked me to come all the way over here to discuss?”

The conversation then got on to India and stayed on India for about an hour. Churchill talked rather angrily at length about the difficulties the British were confronted with in administering India and on the lack of understanding in the United States about the Indian problem. He spoke of the high birth rate, the high death rate, the ignorance and the carelessness of the Indian people to poverty, disease, etc. Churchill said, “I will give the United States half of India to administer and we will take the other half and we will see who does better with each other’s half.”

However, the President came back to the German problem several times very nicely and did not recede from his position. He reminded Churchill that Stalin at Tehran had said: “Are you going to let Germany produce modern metal furniture? The manufacture of metal furniture can be quickly turned into the manufacture of armament.”

Lord Cherwell seemed to be in sympathy with the Secretary’s point of view. Later when talking it over with him he said that he didn’t think that Churchill at all got the major point the Secretary was trying to make. The Secretary asked him if he didn’t think the real difficulty with Churchill was that he wanted a strong Germany to stand between “the white cliffs of Dover” and Communist Russia. Cherwell agreed that that was it. Lord Leathers of the Shipping Board apparently disagreed with the Secretary’s point of view.

On leaving, Lord Cherwell said that he expected to talk with the Secretary about lend-lease assistance for the period between the defeat of Germany and the defeat of Japan. The Secretary told him that he had been asked by the President to come to talk about Germany but after [that?] he would be glad to discuss lend-lease aid the following morning after they had had their conversation about Germany.

The Secretary had an opportunity to tell the President that he believed the Russians were holding back on their cooperation with the United States because they were suspicious of the American and British attitude toward Germany. Russia feared we and the British were going to try to make a soft peace with Germany and build her up as a possible future counterweight against Russia. The President replied, You are right, and I want you to read a telegram I just received from Harriman.” Admiral Leahy later gave the Secretary the telegram which Harriman sent to Harry Hopkins urging the President to call him (Harriman) home to report on the trend in Russia on non-cooperation with the United States.

Log of the President’s Visit to Canada

Wednesday, September 13

At 11:45 a.m., the Combined British and American Chiefs of Staff (Admiral Leahy, General Marshall, Admiral King, General Arnold, Brigadier General A. J. McFarland, Captain E. D. Graves, Field Marshal Brooke, Marshal of the Royal Air Force Portal, Admiral of the Fleet Cunningham, Field Marshal Dill, General Ismay, Major General Hollis, Major General Lay cock) came to the Citadel for a plenary meeting with the President and Prime Minister Churchill. The President’s Naval Aide, Rear Admiral Wilson Brown, was also in attendance. The Combined Chiefs of Staff reported the results of their conferences to date and their schedule for further meetings. The President and the Prime Minister made informal comments about some of the decisions reached by the Combined Chiefs and outlined various measures that they wished to have studied and made the subject of further reports.

The President and Prime Minister Churchill lunched together at the Citadel at 1:00 p.m. Mrs. Roosevelt and Mrs. Churchill had lunch at Spencerwood as guests of Lady Fiset.

Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr. and Vice Admiral Emory S. Land, Construction Corps, USN (Retired), Chairman of the War Shipping Administration, arrived in Quebec during the afternoon. Admiral Land was accompanied by Rear Admiral W. W. Smith, Mr. John Maclay, Mr. Granville Conway and Mr. Richard Bissen [Bissell?]. Secretary Morgenthau was accompanied by Mr. Harry D. White. The President conferred with Secretary Morgenthau at length after his arrival.

The President, Mrs. Roosevelt, Miss Tully and Miss Thompson had tea together in the President’s quarters at 5:00 p.m.

At 7:00 p.m., speaking from the Chateau Frontenac, Mrs. Roosevelt and Mrs. Churchill made a broadcast to the people of Canada.

8:00 p.m.: Dinner at the Citadel – The President, Prime Minister Churchill, Lord Cherwell, Lord Moran, Lord Leathers, Admiral Land, Admiral Leahy, Secretary Morgenthau and Admiral Mclntire. Conference discussions followed dinner and lasted until 11:15 p.m. The President retired shortly afterwards.

Prime Minister Mackenzie King held a reception at the Chateau Frontenac this evening for members of the Conference delegations. Mrs. Roosevelt, Mrs. Churchill, the Lieutenant-Governor and Lady Fiset were also in the receiving line.

Völkischer Beobachter (September 14, 1944)

USA muss den Gürtel enger schnallen

Von unserem Berichterstatter in Portugal

b. Lissabon, 13. September –
In einem Kommentar zu den vielfachen Problemen, womit sich Roosevelt und Churchill erneut in Quebec befassen müssen, meint der Korrespondent Lewis Sebring von der New York Herald Tribune, große Teile des nordamerikanischen Volkes lebten in der Vorstellung, daß der Krieg weit eher zu Ende gehe, als es wirklich der Fall sein werde.

Aber nur militärische Schein Autoritäten wagten ein Kriegsende in Europa noch in diesem Jahr Voraussagen. (Churchill wollte bekanntlich nach seiner im Juni auf der amerikanischen Gesandtschaft in London gemachten Prophezeiung schon Mitte Oktober als Sieger in Berlin einziehen. Schriftleitung.) Er, Sebring, sei kein militärischer Fachmann, aber er habe persönlich das Urteil eines hohen nordamerikanischen Generalstabsoffiziers gehört. Es lautete: Wenn die Alliierten den Krieg in Europa 1944 nicht siegreich beenden können, wird eine neue Lage entstehen, deren Entwicklung und Ende nicht vorauszusagen ist.

In diesem Urteil spiegelt sich die Überlegung wider, daß der nordamerikanisch-englische Angriff auf die normannische Küste und die nachfolgende Frankreichoffensive mit einem Materialvorrat unternommen wurden, der das Ergebnis einer mehr als zweijährigen Produktion der anglo-amerikanischen Rüstungsindustrie darstellt. Wenn trotz dieser zeitweiligen Überlegenheit an Waffen die Entscheidung gegen Deutschland nicht erzwungen werden kann, so entsteht logischerweise eine neue Situation für die Alliierten, weil nach dem Verbrauch ihrer angesammelten Mengen an Panzern, Flugzeugen, Kanonen, Tanks, Waffen, Treibstoff und dem Ausfall ihrer besten Kampfdivisionen die Initiative automatisch an Deutschland fallen muß, das in der Zeit der feindlichen Offensive seinerseits alles für einen eigenen Angriff vorbereitet.

Damit ist eines der Konferenzprobleme von Quebec gegeben.

Wie wir zuverlässig erfahren, ist sowohl Roosevelt als auch Churchill von dem Ergebnis der Frankreichoffensive weder militärisch noch politisch befriedigt. Die deutsche Absetzstrategie verhinderte die vorgesehene Vernichtung der im Westen kämpfenden deutschen Divisionen, wodurch die Zeittafel von Teheran mit ihrem Schlussstück in Zeitnot gerät. Wenn sich im Oktober herausstellt, daß das Teheran-Schema nicht aufgeht, muß ein neuer Plan an seine Stelle gesetzt werden. Deshalb ist auch vorgesehen, die Beschlüsse Roosevelts und Churchills über den europäischen Krieg im Anschluss an Quebec genau wie 1943 auf einer neuen Konferenz mit Stalin zu besprechen.

Daraus geht hervor, daß gewisse Informationen aus London und Washington nicht zutreffen können, daß in Quebec lediglich die Zukunft des Pazifikkrieges erörtert werden soll. Es läge keine Veranlassung vor, darüber mit Stalin zu konferieren, weil die Sowjetunion theoretisch in diesem Kriege lediglich interessierter Zuschauer ist. In Bezug auf den Pazifikkrieg erinnert Sebring, der dort zweieinhalb Jahre als Kriegskorrespondent für die New York Herald Tribune tätig war, an folgende Zeitspannen:

Nach dem japanischen Angriff auf Pearl Harbour brauchten die Nordamerikaner acht Monate, um ihrerseits mit ihrer ersten Marinedivision Guadalcanal angreifen zu können. Seitdem sind mehr als zwei Jahre vergangen, während denen weitere Vorstöße der Nordamerikaner stattfanden. Trotzdem, so meint der nordamerikanische Journalist weiter, ständen die US-Truppen immer noch an den äußersten Rändern des japanischen Reichs. Eine Entscheidung im pazifischen Krieg könne nur nach Rückeroberung von Niederländisch-Indien und nach dem Eindringen in das japanische Mutterland selbst errungen werden. Der Aufbau einer Streitmacht für diese ungeheure Aufgabe bedinge Zeit. Die offizielle Meinung im Hauptquartier des Admirals Leahy Und des Generals MacArthur gehe dahin, daß dafür mindestens ein Jahr notwendig ist.

Sebring, der Einblick in die Planungen der beiden genannten US-Kommandeure hat, schreibt: „Niemand, der nicht persönlich mit den Plänen für eine pazifische Offensive vertraut ist, kann sich eine Vorstellung von den hinter der Bühne vorgehenden Dingen machen. Die Vorbereitungen für den europäischen Feldzug dauerten zwei Jahre, und der Pazifik ist ein noch schwierigeres Gebiet, weil größere Entfernungen in Rechnung gestellt werden müssen. Wir werden weiter japanische Außenposten angreifen und dabei kleine Erfolge erzielen die von schreienden Schlagzeilen in den Zeitungen, begeisterten Radiokommentaren und einem gefährlichen Überoptimismus begleitet werden. Aber ich selbst habe strategische Pläne gesehen, an deren Spitze das Jahr 1946 stand, und ich zweifle keinen Augenblick daran, daß es weitere Pläne gibt, die mit der Jahreszahl 1947 beginnen.

Die Nachschübe, die für eine große Offensive im Pazifik nötig sind, gehen über alles hinaus, was sich die Amerikaner zu Hause vorstellen. Der Aufbau einer solchen Offensive wird das ganze Jahr 1945 beanspruchen. Vielleicht können wir Ende 1945 oder Anfang 1946 einige ernsthafte Angriffe beginnen. Aber niemand, der die Tatsachen kennt und sich die Mühe macht, über sie nachzudenken, kann optimistisch in Bezug auf das Kriegsende sein. Amerika muß seinen Gürtel noch beträchtlich enger schnallen, ehe dieses Ende in Sicht ist.

Begleitmusik zur Quebec-Konferenz –
Getarnter Vernichtungswille

Lissabon, 13. September –
Angesichts der wachsenden Erkenntnis in England und den USA, daß Deutschland nicht zu überrennen ist, mehren sich die Zeichen eines großangelegten Versuchs, sich ähnlich wie 1918 den Sieg auf betrügerische Weise zu erschleichen. Einzelne Publizisten, wie jetzt der britische Wirtschaftler Sir Walter Leyton im News Chronicle, entfernen sich deshalb von den Hasstiraden eines Vansittart, um mit sanfteren Tönen das deutsche Volk ins Verderben zu locken. Aber nur der Ton ist milder, in der Sache bleibt das Ziel Deutschlands Vernichtung.

Nach den Erfahrungen mit dem Wilson-Betrug von 1918 gibt es allerdings wohl kaum einen Menschen in Deutschland, der nicht sogleich sieht, welches Spiel in Wirklichkeit von unseren Feinden auch dann getrieben wird, wenn man sich befleißigt, den Ton zu mäßigen. Begleitmusik zur Quebec-Konferenz!

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

The Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars of the Soviet Union to President Roosevelt

Moscow, September 14, 1944
[Translation]

I have received your message regarding the discussions at Dumbarton Oaks.

I also hope that these important discussions may end successfully. This may be of serious significance for the further strengthening of cooperation of our countries and for the whole cause of future peace and security.

I must say that for the success of the activities of the International Security Organization, of great significance will be the order of voting in the Council, having in mind the importance that the Council work on the basis of the principle of coordination and unanimity of the four leading powers on all questions, including those which directly relate to one of these nations. The initial American proposal that there should be established a special procedure of voting in case of a dispute in which one or several members of the Council, who have the statute [status?] of permanent members, are directly involved, seems to me correct. Otherwise, will be brought to naught the agreement achieved among us at the Tehran Conference which is proceeding from the principle of provision, first of all, the unanimity of agreement of four powers necessary for the struggle against aggression in the future.

Such a unanimity proposes [presupposes?], of course, that among these powers there is no room for mutual suspicions. As to the Soviet Union, it cannot also ignore the presence of certain absurd prejudices which often hinder an actually objective attitude toward the USSR And the other nations also should weigh the consequences which the lack of unanimity among the leading powers may bring about.

I hope that you will understand the seriousness of the considerations expressed here and that we shall find a harmonious solution of this question as well.

Morgenthau-Cherwell meeting, 10:00 a.m.

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

Memorandum by the Secretary of the Treasury’s Assistant

[Undated]

This was the meeting which the President had suggested the Secretary have with Lord Cherwell. Lord Cherwell had asked to bring along Mr. MacDougall.

The Secretary asked Cherwell which of the two subjects before them for discussion would he like to take up first. Cherwell replied that he would like to take up the lend-lease program first since he thought that would be simpler to dispose of than the question of policy toward Germany. Cherwell went into some detail on the need for getting to work quickly on a lend-lease program for England during the period after the defeat of Germany and before the defeat of Japan. He outlined British views of what would be appropriate for England to receive in the way of lend-lease aid. He described England’s need for increasing her exports and relaxing on the home working front. He expressed the view that a cut of 27 percent in our lend-lease to the British Empire would appear reasonable to the British. In general, he repeated the gist of what was in the memorandum of the State Department to the President.

When he got through, the Secretary said that he had heard all that before from the Exchequer and others when he was in England. He then told Cherwell about his conversation with the Exchequer and with the President and said that it was now up to Churchill. If Churchill thought that the idea of forming a committee to handle the whole problem was a good one, it was up to Churchill to suggest it to the President.

The Secretary also said that he didn’t like the approach of determining the amount of lend-lease aid that Britain was to get that Cherwell presented. In his (the Secretary’s) opinion, the question should be approached from the point of view of just how much munitions the British need in the role that they are to play in the Pacific. The Secretary thought that food shipments could be handled all right but he felt that commercial goods could not appropriately go into exports.

In any case, the Secretary stressed the need for its being handled by a joint committee of British and Americans. Cherwell liked the idea of the committee and asked whether the Secretary would head it up. The Secretary replied that he didn’t know; that that was up to the President. The Secretary told Cherwell that the President had given him (Morgenthau) for his comment a memorandum prepared by the State Department and that the President might want somebody from State Department or possibly the Treasury to head up the committee. Cherwell suggested that White and MacDougall attempt to draft a directive setting up such a committee so that if the Prime Minister and the President did agree on the idea, they might get it out then and there. The Secretary agreed.

The Secretary then took up the question of Germany. He handed Cherwell the book on Germany to read and explained that it was compiled on a day’s notice. Cherwell read hurriedly through the first part and expressed skepticism as to whether Organized Labor in the United States would approve a program so drastic in character. Secretary Morgenthau thought that it would. Cherwell commented that he didn’t understand why Churchill had taken so contrary a position on the program the evening before. He (Cherwell) was surprised at Churchill’s attitude and thought possibly that it was due to the fact that Churchill did not wholly understand what the Secretary was driving at.

The Secretary told Cherwell that Secretary Hull was in general agreement with the views expressed by the Treasury and that he was of the opinion that Eden would be likewise. He said that the question came down to a choice of: “Do you want a strong Germany and a weak England or a weak Germany and a strong England?” The Secretary said that he preferred to rely on a strong England and a weak Germany.

Cherwell thought that the proposal could be dressed up in a way to be more attractive to the Prime Minister and the Secretary said that he would be very glad to have Cherwell try it.

After the Secretary and Cherwell left to see the President and Churchill to report on the morning’s conversation, I talked at length with MacDougall on the merits of the Treasury’s proposed program and MacDougall appeared to be in agreement. Later MacDougall, a Mr. Weeks of the British Government, and I met to draft the directive suggested by Cherwell.

When the Secretary returned with Cherwell from the President and the Prime Minister, he reported that both Churchill and the President had liked the idea of creating a committee. They wanted to set up one on an informal and ad hoc basis, to formalize it after the election.

The Secretary told me after the others had gone that when it came to the question of who should be the chairman of the joint committee that Churchill had said, “Plow about Harry Hopkins?” But the President had replied, “No, I want Morgenthau to be chairman.”

H. D. WHITE

The Under Secretary of State to the President

Washington, September 14, 1944
Top secret

For immediate personal attention of the President.

Yesterday Ambassador Gromyko notified me and Cadogan that he had received his instructions on the question of voting in the council. He said that his Government maintained its insistence upon the inviolability of the principle of the unanimity of the four great powers. He said that he had made a number of other concessions but that there was no possibility of his being authorized to give in on this point.

Yesterday afternoon and evening we worked hard with the British and Russians devising a compromise formula which would provide that in all procedures concerning pacific settlement of disputes, the votes of all members of the council parties to such disputes should not be counted but that in procedures concerned with enforcement action decisions by the council must be on the basis of the concurrence of members having permanent seats on the council, including parties to the dispute.

Gromyko is tentatively sounding out his government on this new formula. Mr. Hull is considering the matter carefully. May we have your views as promptly as possible?

All other developments have been reported to you in my daily progress reports.

ES
Under Secretary of State

The Acting Secretary of the Treasury to the Secretary of the Treasury

Washington, 14 September 1944

Status of French lend lease negotiations on September 14.

The French have been told that the basic question of the scope and time limit of the Lend Lease Agreement has been placed before the President for decision.

The State Department and FEA have agreed on a draft (6th draft, dated September 11) of a lend lease agreement which permits:

a) Long life industrial reconstruction goods to go to the French under long term credits (Section 3c of the Lend Lease Act). This provision permits requisitions to be accepted by FEA until at least the end of the war with Japan and provides that the requisitions once accepted would be filled regardless of the end of the war with Japan. This would obviously enable a large scale program of reconstruction for France. (Monnet has a program ready of $2 billion for which he proposes to have requisitions placed immediately.)

b) The agreement permits giving the French on a straight Lend Lease basis, short-lived industrial goods and materials purportedly for French war production until at least the end of the war with Japan.

Secretary Hull has sent a memorandum to the President through Harry Hopkins pointing out:

a) This draft lend lease agreement goes beyond the July 15 memorandum which the President approved.

b) This memorandum proposes that the possibility of excessive leniency in the administration be controlled by requiring FEA to submit to someone in the White House all programs and proposals for lend lease assistance before requisitions are accepted by FEA.

This memorandum to the President is now before the President at Quebec for his approval. State Department has not given us a copy of this memorandum although the State Department promised to clear this memorandum with us before it went to the President.

As you know the original memorandum which went to the President during the French negotiations on July 15 was designed to limit lend lease to France to the end of hostilities in Europe. Mr. McCloy and General Hilldring of the War Department have definitely stated that French industrial production will be of no help in fighting the war in Europe and that the help which a reconstructed French industry will give to us in fighting the war with Japan can be “put in your right eye.”

The importance of the phrase which will limit the scope of the program to the end of the war is that the immediate set of requisitions for aid will be much greater in volume under the prospect of a long war against Japan than it would be under the certainty of a short war in Europe.

The argument used to justify broadening the scope of the Lend Lease Agreement is that we should give the fullest discretion possible to the President. This argument has no basis in fact. The President already has all the discretion he needs under the Lend Lease Act. If after the war in Europe comes to an end, the President feels that France is making a contribution to the war in the Pacific or should for other reasons be entitled to reconstruction under Lend Lease, he can enter into a new agreement at that time. The only additional “discretion” gained by signing the agreement, as recommended by State and FEA, and immediately making large supply commitments thereunder, is to present Congress and the public with a fait accompli when the war in Europe is over. If the Congress should cut off Lend Lease following the end of hostilities in Europe, any attempt to rely on large requisitions placed under a previously existing agreement with the French (having no relation to the war in Europe) as permitting the reconstruction of France would be politically impossible and highly undesirable.

As we see it, the broadened scope of the memorandum will have the following effects:

a) Since the French have already been presented with a memorandum limiting the scope of lend lease to hostilities in Europe, the change to permit lend lease at least until the end of the war with Japan will obviously lead the French to believe that the President has agreed to a reconstruction program for France. This is particularly true in the light of informal commitments which have been made to the French by various people in FEA and State to this effect. It follows that this will be construed by the French as being a major political victory arising from their strategy of playing one department of the United States Government against another on financial questions.

b) Although the program being presented to the President provides for approval by the White House of the implementation of this agreement, it is obvious that the White House is not and should not be placed in a position to police detailed supply programs. The door will be wide open for reconstructing France under the Lend Lease Act without understandings as to the role of France in the future of Europe and of the world, and particularly of French participation in the war against Japan.

In conclusion, quite contrary to the avowed purpose of the proposal to give discretion to the President, its practical effect will be to tie his hands with respect to our dealings with the French at the termination of the war in Europe much more than would otherwise be the case.

DAN BELL

Prime Minister Churchill to President Roosevelt

Quebec, September 14, 1944

My Dear Friend, I understand that we are meeting at 11:30 about Stage 2. Dick Law arrived here late last night, and I wonder whether I might bring him at 11 o’clock with or without Anthony, to discuss the application of UNRRA to Italy. He tells me that a compromise proposal would get through whereby 50 million dollars of UNRRA would be available for Italy. I consider this should be an essential part of our friendly gesture to Italy.

If agreeable then, I will turn up at 11.

Yours always,
W

740.0011 EW/9–1444: Telegram

The Ambassador in the United Kingdom to the Secretary of State

London, September 14, 1944
Secret
US urgent
niact
7558

Personal for the Secretary.

Eden left last night for Quebec Conference by air. I understand he is going more in his capacity as unofficial Deputy Defense Minister than as Foreign Secretary.

WINANT

Meeting of the Combined Chiefs of Staff, 10:00 a.m.

Present
United States United Kingdom
Admiral Leahy Field Marshal Brooke
General Marshall Marshal of the Royal Air Force Portal
Admiral King Admiral of the Fleet Cunningham
General Arnold Field Marshal Dill
Lieutenant General Somervell General Ismay
Vice Admiral Willson Admiral Noble
Rear Admiral Cooke Lieutenant General Macready
Rear Admiral McCormick Air Marshal Welsh
Major General Handy Major General Laycock
Major General Fairchild
Major General Kuter
Secretariat
Brigadier General McFarland Major General Hollis
Captain Graves Brigadier Cornwall-Jones
Commander Coleridge

Combined Chiefs of Staff minutes

September 14, 1944, 10 a.m.
Top secret

Approval of the minutes of the 173rd Meeting of the Combined Chiefs of Staff

The Combined Chiefs of Staff: Approved the conclusions of the 173rd Meeting. The detailed record of the meeting was approved, subject to later minor amendments.

Control of the strategic bomber forces in Europe (CCS 520/4)

The Combined Chiefs of Staff:** Approved the directive in CCS 520/4 as amended in CCS 520/5 (Amended directive circulated as CCS 520/6).

British participation in the Pacific (CCS 452/26 and 452/27)

Sir Alan Brooke said that the British Chiefs of Staff were disturbed by the statement of the United States Chiefs of Staff in CCS 452/27 with regard to British participation in the war against Japan. He realized that this paper had been written before the Plenary session on the previous day. He felt that it did not entirely coincide with the proposal put forward at that conference and accepted by the President. For political reasons it was essential that the British Fleet should take part in the main operations against Japan.

Admiral Leahy asked if Sir Alan Brooke’s point would be met by the elimination of the words, “They consider that the initial use of such a force should be on the western flank of the advance in the Southwest Pacific.” It might be that the British Fleet would be used initially in the Bay of Bengal and thereafter as required by the existing situation.

Sir Andrew Cunningham said that the main fleet would not be required in the Bay of Bengal since there were already more British forces there than required. He agreed to the deletion proposed by Admiral Leahy.

Admiral King also agreed to the deletion of these words which he felt were not relevant to the general case.

Continuing, Sir Andrew Cunningham asked the U.S. views as to the meaning of the term “balanced forces” in the final sentence of paragraph 1 of CCS 452/27. He said that the British Chiefs of Staff had in mind a force of some 4 battleships, 5 to 6 large carriers, 20 light fleet carriers and CVEs and the appropriate number of cruisers and destroyers. This he would regard as a balanced force.

Admiral King stressed that it was essential for these forces to be self-supporting.

Sir Andrew Cunningham said that if these forces had their fleet train, they could operate unassisted for several months provided they had the necessary rear bases – probably in Australia. The provision of bases would be a matter for agreement.

Admiral King said that the practicability of employing these forces would be a matter for discussion from time to time.

Admiral Leahy said that he did not feel that the question for discussion was the practicability of employment but rather the matter of where they should be employed from time to time.

Sir Andrew Cunningham referred to the Prime Minister’s statement that he wished the British Fleet to take part in the main operations in the Pacific. Decision with regard to this was necessary since many preliminary preparations had to be made.

Admiral King suggested that the British Chiefs of Staff should put forward proposals with regard to the employment of the British Fleet.

Sir Andrew Cunningham said that the British wish was that they should be employed in the Central Pacific.

Admiral King said that at the Plenary meeting no specific reference to the Central Pacific had been made.

Sir Alan Brooke said that the emphasis had been laid on the use of the British Fleet in the main effort against Japan.

Admiral Leahy said that as he saw it the main effort was at present from New Guinea to the Philippines and it would later move to the northward.

Admiral King said that he was in no position now to commit himself as to where the British Fleet could be employed.

Sir Charles Portal reminded the Combined Chiefs of Staff of the original offer made by the British Chiefs of Staff in CCS 452/18, paragraph 9, which read:

It is our desire in accordance with His Majesty’s Government’s policy, that this fleet should, play its full part at the earliest possible moment in the main operations against Japan wherever the greatest naval strength is required.

When the British Chiefs of Staff spoke of the main operations against Japan they did not intend to confine this meaning to Japan itself geographically but meant rather that the fleet should take part in the main operations within the theater of war wherever they might be taking place.

Sir Andrew Cunningham stressed that the British Chiefs of Staff did not wish the British Fleet merely to take part in mopping up operations in areas falling into our hands.

Admiral Leahy said that he felt that the actual operations in which the British Fleet would take part would have to be decided in the future. It might well be that the fleet would be required for the conquest of Singapore, which he would regard as a major operation.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff then considered paragraph 2 of CCS 452/27 referring to the use of a British Empire task force in the Southwest Pacific.

Sir Charles Portal said that the Prime Minister had offered the British Fleet for use in the main operations against Japan. By implication this paragraph accepted a naval task force for the Southwest Pacific, and was therefore contrary to the intention he had expressed.

Admiral King said that it was of course essential to have sufficient forces for the war against Japan. He was not, however, prepared to accept a British Fleet which he could not employ or support. In principle he wished to accept the British Fleet in the Pacific but it would be entirely unacceptable for the British main fleet to be employed for political reasons in the Pacific and thus necessitate withdrawal of some of the United States Fleet.

Sir Charles Portal reminded Admiral King that the Prime Minister had suggested that certain of the newer British capital ships should be substituted for certain of the older U.S. ships.

Sir Andrew Cunningham said that as he understood it the Prime Minister and President were in agreement that it was essential for British forces to take a leading part in the main operations against Japan.

Admiral King said that it was not his recollection that the President had agreed to this. He could not accept that a view expressed by the Prime Minister should be regarded as a directive to the Combined Chiefs of Staff.

Sir Charles Portal said that the Prime Minister felt it essential that it should be placed on record that he wished the British Fleet to play a major role in the operations against Japan.

Sir Alan Brooke said that, as he remembered it, the offer was no sooner made than accepted by the President.

Admiral King asked for specific British proposals.

Sir Charles Portal referred once more to the offer made in CCS 452/18 which he had had previously quoted.

Admiral Leahy said that he could see no objection whatever to this proposal. He could not say exactly where the fleet could be employed at this moment but there would be ample opportunity for its use provided it was self-supporting.

Admiral King said that the question of the British proposal for the use [of] the main fleet would have to be referred to the President before it could be accepted.

Admiral Leahy said that if Admiral King saw any objections to this proposal he should take the matter up himself with the President. It might not be wise to use the term “main fleet.”

Sir Andrew Cunningham said that the British Fleet had been offered by the Prime Minister and the President had accepted it. He was prepared to agree to the deletion of the word “main” from paragraph 1 of CCS 452/27.

Admiral King said that the Prime Minister had also referred to the use of British airpower in the Pacific.

General Arnold said that a definite answer with regard to British air help in the war against Japan could not be given now. The amount which could be absorbed would depend on the development of suitable facilities.

Sir Charles Portal said that it was, of course, impossible to be definite at the moment since the forces available would depend on the length of the war with Germany. What he would ask for was air facilities available in the bases in the Pacific so that the British could play their part. He would put forward a proposal for consideration.

General Marshall said that the best method would be a statement of numbers of aircraft and dates at which they would be available.

General Arnold agreed that this would be preferable.

Referring to paragraph 2 of CCS 452/27, Sir Alan Brooke pointed out that this paragraph dealt with the formation of a British Empire task force which was the second alternative put forward by the British Chiefs of Staff if for any reason the support of the British Fleet in the main operations could not be accepted. Since this support had been accepted there would be no British naval forces available for the task force and British land forces could only arrive at a later date. He suggested therefore that this paragraph should be deleted.

Admiral King asked if it was intended to use the British Fleet only in the main operations and to make no contribution to a task force in the Southwest Pacific.

General Marshall said there were certain objections to forming a British Empire task force under General MacArthur’s command at the present time. This had been proposed by General Blarney but if it were carried out between now and February of next year it would cause considerable difficulties from the point of view of land forces since the grouping of formations and the sequence of their movement had already been scheduled in accordance with future operations. The position would be different after March.

Sir Alan Brooke agreed that since British land forces would not be available until after Operation Dracula it would be of no particular value to form a British task force now. The British Fleet could of course play a part in operations in the Southwest Pacific if they were required.

Sir Andrew Cunningham confirmed that there would be no objection to the British Fleet working from time to time under General MacArthur’s command.

General Marshall requested that, in order to safeguard his position with regard to the immediate formation of a task force, paragraph 2 of CCS 452/27 be deleted.

Sir Alan Brooke agreed. General MacArthur’s plans had already been made and since no British land contribution could at present be made there was no object in retaining this paragraph.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff:
a. Agreed that the British Fleet should participate in the main operations against Japan in the Pacific.

b. Took note of the assurance of the British Chiefs of Staff that this fleet would be balanced and self-supporting.

c. Agreed that the method of the employment of the British Fleet in these main operations in the Pacific would be decided from time to time in accordance with the prevailing circumstances.

d. Took note that in the light of a above, the British Chiefs of Staff withdraw their alternative proposal to form a British Empire task force in the Southwest Pacific.

e. Invited the Chief of the Air Staff to put forward, for planning purposes, a paper containing an estimate in general terms of the contribution the Royal Air Force would be prepared to make in the main operations against Japan.

Future operations in Southeast Asia (CCS 452/28 and 452/29) (OCTAGON–in–9)

Sir Alan Brooke suggested that the situation report of the Supreme Allied Commander, Southeast Asia (OCTAGON–in–9 of 8 September) should be noted.

Admiral Leahy agreed.

Sir Alan Brooke then suggested that before considering the draft directive to Admiral Mountbatten contained in CCS 452/28, he should briefly outline the British views with regard to future operations in Burma. It was the British intention to endeavor to carry out operations aimed at liquidating the Burma commitment as soon as possible. This commitment was a heavy one, particularly with regard to casualties from sickness and the large numbers of men required in view of the long and tenuous lines of communication. For instance, an ordinary division amounted to some 40,000 men, whereas one particular division in Southeast Asia required approximately 90,000. The reconquest of Burma would also eliminate the commitments for the protection of the northeast frontier of India and the air route to China.

With these objects in view, operations against Rangoon had been examined. A seaborne amphibious operation was extremely difficult due to the fact that Rangoon lay some way up a river and the surrounding terrain was extremely marshy. An airborne assault had therefore been considered. By the use of airborne forces it was thought that the airfields to the north of Rangoon could be seized and that formations could then be flown in. These formations would seize the area to the north of Rangoon, then open up the river communications through Rangoon, block the Pegu route and then eliminate the Japanese in Burma by operations both from the south and from the north. If this could be achieved we should be in far better position. Forces could be released from the theater and the protection of India would be simplified.

To sum up, we should eliminate the Burma commitment, secure the air route to China, and possibly at a later date a land route, and obtain jumping-off places for further operations against Bangkok or to the Kra Peninsula and from there to Singapore.

Admiral Mountbatten had prepared a plan. This, however, had entailed removing forces from north Burma, which was felt to be unacceptable. The possibility therefore of obtaining forces from Europe had been examined. It was estimated that a decision to remove these forces would have to be taken by the first of October and that they would include the 6th Airborne Division, the 52nd Division, and the 3rd Division, from northwest Europe and three Indian divisions from Italy. There were certain difficulties with regard to this plan. The Indian troops who had been fighting for five years would have to be taken home and given three weeks’ leave. This would take some time since many of them lived in extremely inaccessible parts of India, entailing in some cases a journey of a month each way to their homes. Further, India’s capacity to absorb personnel was limited and had been estimated at 50,000 a month, though it was believed that this could, in certain instances, be raised to 80,000 a month. If forces were brought to India, it was estimated that two months must elapse between their arrival and the period when they would be ready to start. Every effort was being made to try and cut the time factor in this jigsaw puzzle, but there was no doubt that the moves ought to begin in October if the 15th of March was taken as the date for Operation DRACULA. It might be possible to postpone this date until the 1st of April, the limiting factor being the weather conditions in April rendering the airdromes north of Rangoon unserviceable.

Another possibility might be to undertake the operation with fewer forces. However, if the operation was launched and Japanese resistance was extremely strong, we should find ourselves in a difficult position since the nearest reserves would be in northwest Europe or Italy. It was felt therefore that if the operation was to be undertaken it must be undertaken with an adequate margin of strength. Operations in Europe did not permit of reaching a decision at the present time with regard to the removal of the necessary forces, i.e., three divisions from Italy and three divisions from northwest Europe. Further, there was the question of the administrative troops which would be required, particularly signal and movement personnel. These were of the utmost importance to the 21st Army Group and to General Alexander if his army advanced towards the Po. The situation was such therefore that we could not at present gamble by removing these troops. Every effort was being made to reduce the estimated time from the removal of the troops from Europe till the launching of the operation in order that a decision could be postponed and yet the operation be undertaken in the spring. Such a decision with regard to withdrawal of troops from Europe might be possible in a month’s time. There were also the complications of the regulations now being instituted with regard to conditions of service for the war against Japan, the giving of leave before troops who had been fighting for many years were sent to a new theater, and the question of the release of men who had over five years of war service. Every conceivable effort was being made to find the necessary forces to carry out DRACULA in the spring. If it were carried out, then Admiral Mountbatten’s advance in the north would be limited, whereas if the operation was postponed till November, he could fight his way much further south.

Sir Charles Portal said that the air transport side of the problem was all-important. At present Admiral Mountbatten had 448 transport aircraft, and required 1200 for the Rangoon operation. Only 190 of the additional 752 required could be found from British sources, and these only from operations in Europe. The remainder would have to be provided by the United States either from Europe or from elsewhere if they were available.

At present Admiral Mountbatten had two combat cargo groups and wished to obtain the third combat cargo group by the 15th of October in order to undertake Operation CAPITAL. Further, he also required the ground echelon of the second group by that date. If Operation DRACULA were undertaken, he would require the fourth combat cargo group by mid-January and the ground echelon of the third at the same time.

General Arnold said that even if the fourth combat cargo group were made available to Admiral Mountbatten, he would not have enough aircraft for Operation DRACULA, and it would be necessary to divert further air forces to assist him.

Sir Charles Portal said that he noticed in CCS 452/29 that the United States Chiefs of Staff were allocating the fourth combat cargo group to the Southwest Pacific. He asked that if Operation DRACULA was approved, the effect of this proposal should be examined.

General Marshall pointed out that this fourth combat cargo group was required for the Philippine operations, but it might be possible to send it back for the peak period of the DRACULA operation if the timings fitted. B-24 aircraft might also be used.

Sir Charles Portal said it was hoped by then to have a suitable staging point.

There was general agreement that the provision of the necessary aircraft would depend on the conclusion of hostilities in Europe.

General Arnold said that if hostilities in Europe had terminated, there would be 2200 U.S. transport aircraft which would become available.

Sir Charles Portal said he felt that the ground echelons for these aircraft would probably have to be taken out of Europe by December.

General Arnold felt that the date might be postponed since a large part of the ground echelons could be flown out in the aircraft. The ground echelon for the second combat cargo group was already on its way to Southeast Asia, and the ground echelon for the third combat cargo group could sail as soon as shipping was available.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff then examined the draft directive to the Supreme Allied Commander, Southeast Asia contained in CCS 452/28.

Admiral Leahy put forward certain amendments proposed by the United States Chiefs of Staff. These included provision in paragraph 1 and paragraph 2a for the opening of land communications with China.

General Marshall said that this was an important factor, and was necessary in order to introduce wheeled transport into China. It might be possible to take the short northern route though this was tortuous and difficult.

General Arnold said that in the last month 23,000 tons of stores had been flown into China but in view of the lack of motor transport certain of these were lying on the airfields and could not be distributed.

Referring to CCS 452/29, Sir Charles Portal asked that the Combined Chiefs of Staff should take note that the whole feasibility of Operation DRACULA was dependent upon the provision of the necessary aircraft and, further, of the possibility of the transfer of the fourth combat cargo group from operations against the Philippines for a short period at the peak load of Operation DRACULA.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff:
a. Took note of the progress report on operations in the Southeast Asia Command contained in OCTAGON–in–9.

b. Approved the directive in CCS 452/28 as amended during discussion (Amended directive circulated as CCS 452/30).

c. Took note that the British Chiefs of Staff were making every effort to overcome the problems involved in moving the necessary resources from Europe for DRACULA so that the operation can be carried out before the 1945 monsoon.

d. Recognized that the ability to carry out Operation DRACULA would depend very largely on the provision of transport aircraft, and took note:

  1. That the ground echelon of the second combat cargo group was already on its way to the Southeast Asia Command.

  2. That the United States Chiefs of Staff had already assigned the third, combat cargo group to Southeast Asia and that it would go out as soon as shipping was available.

  3. That the possibility of assigning to Southeast Asia Command the fourth combat cargo group and the remaining transport aircraft required would depend on the progress of operations in Europe and in the Pacific, and that, on the whole, the prospects of making the necessary provision seemed good.

Planning date for the end of the war against Japan (CCS 678)

Admiral Leahy said that the memorandum by the British Chiefs of Staff dealing with the proposed date for the end of the war against Japan was acceptable to the United States Chiefs of Staff with certain amendments. It was felt that paragraph 1a should be eliminated, since it was hoped that the redeployment of forces against Japan would not take two years. The United States Chiefs of Staff also felt that 18 months was a more appropriate time factor than two years. A further sentence should be added to paragraph 2, to read: “This date will be adjusted periodically to conform to the course of the war.”

General Marshall said that for demobilization purposes the United States Army were using a time factor of one year. This, of course, would not affect the decision with regard to the date of 18 months after the termination of hostilities with Germany for planning for production.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff: 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.

Operations of the Twentieth Air Force

General Arnold made the following statement with regard to operations of the Twentieth Air Force:

The Twentieth Air Force is designed around and includes all B-29 airplanes.

The B-29 airplane, which is the basis of the Twentieth Air Force, is a very long range, fast, heavily armed precision day bomber. At maximum combat loading its gross weight is 140,000 pounds at which weight it operates up to 30,000-feet altitudes at a top speed of 370 miles per hour and cruises at 220 miles per hour. During a normal combat mission it burns 450 gallons per hour and at high speed consumes up to 700 gallons per hour. The airplane is operated by a crew of 11 men. A notable feature is the airplane pressurization which results in providing inside pressure equivalent to altitudes of about 8,000 feet when the airplane is actually at 30,000 feet. The most notable feature, however, is probably the central fire control features whereby three centrally located gunners handle, with precision, twelve 50-caliber machine guns and one 20 mm. cannon, all remotely controlled. In spite of its weight, this airplane can be operated from 8500-foot runways at maximum gross loadings and from 7500-foot runways when loaded to 135,000 pounds.

The Twentieth Air Force operates directly under the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is commanded by the Commanding General, Army Air Forces, who acts as the executive agent of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff in implementing their directive for the employment of very long range bomber forces.

Theater commanders in which elements of the Twentieth Air Force are based are responsible for logistic support and defense of Twentieth Air Force bases.

At this time the major units of the Twentieth Air Force are the XX, XXI and XXII Bomber Commands. Each of these Bomber Commands, as a matter of fact, is a complete self-sustaining very long-range air force.

The XX Bomber Command is now based in the Southeast Asia Command in the area just west of Calcutta and operates principally from bases in the vicinity of Chengtu, China, against targets in Japan and Manchuria. It comprises four groups and had in the theater on September 11, 155 B-29s, of which 120 are unit equipment aircraft.

The XXI Bomber Command consists of three wings of four groups each with a total unit equipment strength of 360 B-29 aircraft. Its headquarters, ground echelons and service units, are now moving to the Marianas. All 12 groups will complete their training and move to bases in the Marianas as bases become available.

The XXII Bomber Command, consisting of two 4-group wings, was activated on August 15 and ground echelons will be available for movement to bases in Formosa or Luzon as quickly as they can be made available. The first air echelons of the XXII Bomber Command will be ready to move in March 1945.

The logistic requirements of the XX Bomber Command operating out of China were extremely heavy, and provision of the necessary gasoline had presented a major problem. It had, in fact, been necessary to divert some 20 B-29s to use in the role of tankers; these were now being relieved by B-24 tankers which were now en route.

General Arnold then outlined with the aid of a map the targets that were being brought within range of B-29s operating from the various bases either now available or which it was hoped would shortly be available.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff: Took note with interest of General Arnold’s statement with respect to the Twentieth Air Force.

Communications to Marshal Stalin and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek

Admiral King suggested that the Combined Chiefs of Staff should prepare for submission to the President and Prime Minister draft communications to Marshal Stalin and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek dealing with the broad results of the Conference. This had been done on previous occasions.

It was generally agreed that, with regard to the communication to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, details of Operation DRACULA should not be entered into and that some broad statement should be used to the effect that amphibious operations against Lower Burma would be undertaken at the earliest possible date.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff: Directed the Secretaries to draft suitable messages to Marshal Stalin and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek on the results of OCTAGON.

Next meeting, Combined Chiefs of Staff

The Combined Chiefs of Staff: Agreed to meet at 1030 Friday, 15 September.

Note by the Secretaries of CCS

Quebec, 14 September 1944
Top secret
CCS 520/6

Control of strategic bomber forces in Europe following the establishment of Allied forces on the continent

References: CCS 172nd Meeting, Item 10
CCS 173rd Meeting Item 2
CCS 174th Meeting Item 2
CCS 680/2, Paragraph 7

The Combined Chiefs of Staff in their 174th Meeting approved the directive in CCS 520/4 as amended by CCS 520/5, and the directive as approved (Enclosure) was dispatched to the Deputy Chief of the Air Staff, RAF, and the Commanding General, United States Strategic Air Forces in Europe, by the Chief of the Air Staff, RAF, and the Commanding General, United States Army Air Forces, for action and furnished to the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force, and the Supreme Allied Commander, Mediterranean, for information.

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

Combined Secretariat

Enclosure
Top secret

Control of strategic bomber forces in EuropeDirective

Subject: CONTROL OF THE STRATEGIC BOMBER FORCES IN EUROPE

The Combined Chiefs of Staff have decided that executive responsibility for the control of the strategic bomber forces in Europe shall be vested in the Chief of the Air Staff, RAF and the Commanding General, United States Army Air Forces, jointly.

The Deputy Chief of the Air Staff, RAF and the Commanding General, United States Strategic Air Forces in Europe, are designated as representatives of the Chief of the Air Staff, RAF and the Commanding General, United States Army Air Forces, respectively, for the purpose of providing control and local coordination through consultation.

The overall mission of the strategic air forces is the progressive destruction and dislocation of the German military, industrial and economic systems and the direct support of land and naval forces.

Under this general mission you are to direct your attacks, subject to the exigencies of weather and tactical feasibility, against the systems of objectives and in the order of priority now established by the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force. When you decide that changes in objectives or priorities are necessary, you will issue the necessary directives and inform the Chief of the Air Staff, RAF and the Commanding General, United States Army Air Forces.

Objectives other than those covered in paragraph 4 above will be attacked in accordance with the following:

a. Counter air force action. As the result of air action against the production, maintenance and operation facilities of the German Air Forces (GAF), its fighting effectiveness has now been substantially reduced. At the same time our combined air strength has been vastly increased. In these circumstances we are no longer justified in regarding the GAF and its supporting industry as a primary objective for attack. Our major effort must now be focused directly upon the vital sources of Germany’s war economy. To this end policing attacks against the GAF are to be adjusted so as to maintain tactical conditions which will permit of the maximum impact upon the primary objectives. No fixed priority is, therefore, assigned to policing attacks against the GAF. The intensity of such attacks will be regulated by the tactical situation existing.

b. Direct support. The direct support of land and naval operations remains a continuing commitment upon your forces. Upon call from the supreme commanders concerned either for assistance in the battle or to take advantage of related opportunities, you will meet their requirements promptly.

c. Important industrial areas. When weather or tactical conditions are unsuitable for operations against specific primary objectives attacks should be delivered upon important industrial areas by both Bomber Command RAF and USSTAF (using blind bombing technique as necessary).

d. SOE operations. All SOE/OSS operations undertaken by units of RAF Bomber Command and United States Strategic Air Forces in Europe will be in accordance with the requirements of the Supreme Allied Commanders, who will issue the requisite orders from time to time, under existing procedure.

e. Attacks in support of the Russian armies. Attacks in support of operations by the Russian armies should be delivered as prescribed from time to time by the Combined Chiefs of Staff.

f. Fleeting targets. There may be certain other targets of great but fleeting importance for the attack of which all necessary plans and preparations should be made. Of these an example would be the important units of the German Fleet in harbor or at sea.

You are responsible that the operations of the strategic air forces are coordinated with the operations of the tactical air forces in the theaters.