Finest Years (48 page)

British politicians and generals had thus far found little to enjoy about the Second World War. But many of those at Casablanca—with the exception of Brooke, who seldom relished anything about
the conflict—found the conference congenial. Harold Macmillan described ‘
a general atmosphere
of extraordinary goodwill'. The weather was still cool, but flowers bloomed everywhere amid the palm trees and bougainvillea. Notice boards gave details of meeting venues and timings, then, ‘when we got out of school at five o clock, you would see field marshals and admirals going down to the beach to play with the pebbles and make sand castles…The whole spirit of the camp was dominated by the knowledge that two men were there who rarely appeared in public, but whose presence behind the scenes was always felt…It was rather like a meeting of the later period of the Roman empire…There was a curious mixture of holiday and business in these extraordinarily oriental and fascinating surroundings…The whole affair was a mixture between a cruise, a summer school and a conference.'

Churchill, in the sunniest of moods in this sunny clime, wrote to Clementine on 15 January about the chiefs of staff's deliberations: ‘
At present they are
working on what is called “off the record”, and very rightly approaching the problems in an easy and non-committal fashion on both sides.' This reflected a wildly benign view. While courtesies were maintained, especially at social encounters, the first two days of conference sessions were tense and strained. Marshall asserted repeatedly that if the British were as serious as they professed about helping the Russians, they could only do this by executing
Roundup
, a landing in Europe in 1943. The British emphasised their support in principle for
Roundup
, but insisted that resources were lacking to undertake such a commitment.

There was a punishing schedule for
Symbol
, as the conference was codenamed. The combined chiefs of staff held thirty-one meetings in eleven days. Each one involved gruelling exchanges between the principals, seeking to address a vast range of strategic and logistical issues. At later conferences in Quebec and elsewhere some closed sessions took place, without the usual congregation of staff officers in attendance, to allow a degree of frankness and indeed rudeness between the principals in breaking deadlocks. Ian Jacob was always conscious of American reservations about Brooke: ‘
I think CIGS's extremely
definite views,
ultra-swift speech and, at times, impatience, made them keep wondering whether he was not putting something over on them.'

Moran wrote of Brooke ‘
throwing down his facts
in the path of understanding with a brusque gesture. In his opinion it was just common sense; he had thought it all out. Not for a moment did it occur to him that there might be another point of view.' At Casablanca Admiral King's temper, and passionate anglophobia, periodically broke out. During one meeting he asserted that American public opinion would never stand for certain courses. Brooke shrugged: ‘
Then you will have to
educate them.' King, nettled, responded: ‘I thank you [to remember that] the Americans are as well educated as the British.'

Churchill and Roosevelt attended only the conference plenary sessions, which took place in the evenings at the president's villa. Churchill wrote to Attlee about Roosevelt: ‘He is in great form and we have never been so close.' Harold Macmillan observed that the prime minister handled the plenary meetings ‘
with consummate skill
'. Away from the big table, ‘his curious regime of spending the greater part of the day in bed and all the night up made it a little trying for his staff. I have never seen him in better form. He ate and drank enormously all the time, settled huge problems, played bagatelle and bezique by the hour, and generally enjoyed himself.' Churchill was dismayed that the British chiefs intended that a descent on Sicily should take place in September. This, he said, was much too late. If he did not accept the feasibility of a 1943 landing in France, he nonetheless wanted an alternative major Allied initiative by summer.

De Gaulle arrived, sulking, to meet Giraud. Churchill marvelled at his intransigence: ‘
The PM stood in the hall
watching the Frenchman stalking down the garden path with his head in the air,' wrote his doctor, Charles Wilson. ‘Winston turned to us with a whimsical smile: “His country has given up fighting, he himself is a refugee, and if we turn him down he's finished. Well, just look at him!” he repeated. “He might be Stalin, with 200 divisions behind his words. I was pretty rough with him. I made it quite plain that if he could not be more helpful we were done with it…He hardly seemed interested.
My advances and my threats met with no response.”' Tears came to Churchill's eyes as he said: ‘England's grievous offence in de Gaulle's eyes is that she has helped France. He cannot bear to think that she needed help. He will not relax his vigilance in guarding her honour for a single instant.'

If the British were enjoying themselves at Casablanca, most of the Americans were not. Ian Jacob wrote disdainfully: ‘
Being naturally extremely gullible
, the Americans calmly repeat any hare-brained report they hear.' John Kennedy wrote of their senior officers: ‘
We feel that the Americans
have great drive and bigger ideas than ours, but that they are weak in staff work and in some of their strategic conceptions. The Americans are extremely difficult to know. Under their hearty and friendly manner one feels there is suspicion and contempt in varying degrees according to personality.' This was so. A biographer of Eisenhower has written: ‘
Many American officers
found their British opposite numbers to be insufferable not only in their arrogance but in their timidity about striking the enemy.' One of Ike's divisional commanders, Maj. Gen. Orlando Ward, wrote in disgust that Americans in North Africa found themselves reduced to the status of ‘
a pointer pup
…If someone with a red mustache, a swagger stick and a British accent speaks to us, we lie down on the ground and wiggle.'

Harriman was dismayed by the eagerness of the US chiefs of staff, when in exclusively American company, to badmouth the British. In their hearts, he thought, Marshall and his colleagues recognised the intractability of mounting a cross-Channel attack in 1943 as surely as did the prime minister and Brooke. But, in Jacob's words, ‘
They viewed the Mediterranean
as a kind of dark hole, which one entered into at one's peril. If large forces were committed…the door would suddenly and firmly be shut behind one.' They still seemed obsessed, in the eyes of the British chiefs, with fears that the Germans might intervene in North Africa through Spain. They deplored the sensation that the British, and explicitly Churchill, were exerting greater influence upon their president's decisions than themselves.

The strategic deadlock was broken, in the end, by a combination
of harsh realities and skilful diplomacy, in which Dill played a key role. In January 1943, the Americans had 150,000 troops in the Mediterranean theatre. The British in the region fielded three times as many soldiers, four times as many warships and almost as many aircraft as the US. Once the North African campaign was wound up, the forces immediately available for follow-up operations would comprise four French divisions, nine American—and twenty-seven British. Churchill's own soldiers, sailors and airmen continued to predominate in the conflict with Germany, albeit employing an increasing proportion of US tanks and equipment. Until this balance of forces shifted dramatically in 1944, British wishes were almost bound to prevail. When Brooke grew close to despair at one point in discussions, on 18 January, during a lunchtime break Dill first told him that agreement was closer than he supposed. Then he warned that if this could not be achieved between the chiefs, Churchill and Roosevelt must be invited to arbitrate, which neither British nor American commanders wanted: ‘
You know what a mess
they would make of it!'

That same afternoon, the major differences were resolved. The British formally endorsed American commitments for the Pacific, and promised to launch an offensive in Burma after the monsoon. The two nations committed themselves to a massive air programme against Germany, the Combined Bomber Offensive, to create conditions for a successful invasion of France in 1944. They agreed to invade Sicily in the summer of 1943, and left further follow-up operations against Italy to be decided in the course of events. A face-saving sop was agreed about a cross-Channel attack: if resources and landing craft proved available, there should be a major operation to seize a bridgehead in France in August 1943. It is unlikely that anyone present anticipated fulfilment of this condition, but lip-service continued to be paid to it for months ahead, not least in cables to Stalin. Churchill and Roosevelt added a few token points of their own for the combined chiefs' formal endorsement. They reasserted the importance of convoys to Russia and aid to China; the CCS were urged to try for a Sicilian landing as early as June; the need was emphasised to hasten concentration of forces in Britain for an invasion of France.

Roosevelt thanked Dill for his role in brokering an Anglo-American deal. The British officer responded: ‘
My object is to serve my country
and to serve yours. I hope and I believe that our interests are identical and in every problem that arises I try to look at it not as a British or an American problem, but as an Anglo-American problem.' Yet Dill, customarily much more temperate than Brooke in his judgements on all things American, later wrote to the CIGS about the president: ‘
The better I get to know that man
the more selfish and superficial I think him…of course, it is my job to make the most and the best of him.'

The Times
adopted a complacent view of the status of Britain's leader at the Casablanca conference, news of which was given to the public only after the principals departed: ‘
Mr Churchill…takes his place
at the President's side with equal and complementary authority. The light now beginning to break wherever allied forces are engaged shows his stature enhanced by the deep shadows through which his country has passed.' There was a deceitful assertion in the newspaper's report that De Gaulle and Giraud ‘have come together in the utmost cordiality'.

Churchill perceived Casablanca as a great success. He was charmed by Roosevelt's geniality, though Harriman claimed that he was distressed by the president's announcement to the press at the close of the conference that the Allies would insist upon the unconditional surrender of the Axis powers: ‘
He was offended
that Roosevelt should have made such a momentous announcement without prior consultation and I am sure he did not like the manner of it. I had seen him unhappy with Roosevelt more than once, but this time he was more deeply offended than before. I also had the impression that he feared it might make the Germans fight all the harder.' These remarks have bewildered historians. In reality, the president had discussed unconditional surrender with Churchill before his announcement. The prime minister, in his turn, signalled prior warning to the war cabinet in London.

If he was indeed irritated with Roosevelt, it was probably a matter of emphasis. There could be no possible negotiation with the Nazi
regime, but Churchill might have liked to leave a margin of hope in the minds of prospective German anti-Nazis that their nation could expect some mercy if Hitler was deposed. Just before Pearl Harbor, in November 1941, Churchill reminded the cabinet that when Russia was invaded, ‘
we had made a public statement
that we would not negotiate with Hitler or with the Nazi regime'. He added that he thought ‘it would be going too far to say that we should not negotiate with a Germany controlled by the Army. It was impossible to forecast what form of Government there might be in Germany at a time when their resistance weakened and they wished to negotiate.' It is likely that in January 1943 his view had not changed much about the desirability of a constructive vagueness in the Allies' public position towards non-Nazi Germans, even following the vast accession of American strength, and the transformation of the war.

At Casablanca, Harriman told the president of Churchill's apparent distress about unconditional surrender. Roosevelt seemed unmoved. Likewise at dinner with the prime minister, he mused aloud about independence for Morocco, compulsory education, fighting disease and other social crusades. Churchill displayed impatience. Harriman believed that Roosevelt talked as he did for the fun of provoking the old British Tory. ‘
He always enjoyed
other people's discomfort,' wrote the US diplomat. ‘It never bothered him very much when other people were unhappy.' As at all their encounters, Churchill strove to create opportunities for
tête-à-tête
conversations with the president, but found it increasingly difficult to catch him alone. Roosevelt had grown wary of Churchill's special pleadings, impatient of his monologues, and was probably also mindful of Marshall's resentment about any strategic discussion from which the chief of the army was absent.

In the months that followed Casablanca, such disaffected figures as Albert Wedemeyer made no secret of their anger at the manner in which a strategy had been approved by their president against the wishes of US armed forces chiefs. They believed that British enthusiasm for Mediterranean operations was driven by imperialistic rather than military considerations. This remained their view through the
ensuing two years. Such sentiments became known in Congress and the media, and were responsible for much future cross-Atlantic ill temper. But Marshall, with notable statesmanship, acknowledged the decisions graciously. He strove against the anti-British sentiment widespread among America's soldiers, writing to the army's public relations chief shortly after Casablanca, urging him to counter the ‘insidious business of stirring up ill-feeling between the British and us'.