851.85/236
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Secretary of State
The French Ambassador called at his request. He proceeded quite fully to protest, on behalf of his Government, against the action of this Government in allegedly violating an agreement to the effect that French ships in our harbors would not be occupied without notice first being given to the French Government or to the Ambassador here.79
He then proceeded to say that he was surprised at the emotional nature of the expressions here following a recent announcement by Marshal Pétain about future “collaboration with Germany”, and in which he expressed approval of what Admiral Darlan was doing. The Ambassador said he had cabled twice to his Government for the facts relating to this announcement in order that this Government might be accurately informed.
He brought up the question as to whether the French Government could send back the two boats from France without their being occupied by the Coast Guard when they reach our harbors. He also inquired whether any French boat could come into our harbors without being placed in protective custody, and he made reference to the question of interference with shipping between France and North Africa.
The Ambassador then referred to the situation of the Syrian air bases and the recent German movements in that area. He said that the armistice terms authorized the German Government to control those air bases.
The Ambassador stated that history would show that the French have been badly treated; that they were forced to sign the armistice; that they should have received aid last year at a pivotal stage, and although they were promised such aid, there was a complete failure in the matter of supplying it. (He apparently was hinting at the failure of this Government to go into the war, or something of the sort, a year ago last spring.)
I then proceeded to say that in the light of the portentous nature of the recent announcement by Marshal Pétain, I had not even thought of the shipping matters, to which the Ambassador referred, much less had I given any consideration to them. Furthermore, there would be little done in this direction pending a thorough clarification of the full significance of the Pétain announcement and all that was behind it, with special emphasis on whether there was envisaged collaboration above and beyond the terms of the armistice between France and Germany. I said that around May fourth, Marshal Pétain had assured [Page 178] this Government that the integrity of the German-French armistice terms would be maintained by France, and that France, therefore, would not render military aid to Germany over and above the strict terms of the armistice.80 I added that he could imagine the astonishment of peoples here and everywhere when they saw the announcement of Marshal Pétain with its clear, express and implied meanings; that the definite belief was created in every nation of the world that the French Government at Vichy had gone straight into the arms of the German Government presided over by Hitler, with all the implications of such a step; that the well known pro-Hitler officials of the French Government have finally taken over control, and, having done so, their first thoughts were to deliver France body and soul to Hitler. Such would appear to be the case if the accompanying acts and utterances of French spokesmen and the implications arising therefrom signify anything. It would seem that these pro-Hitler French officials have convinced others of their hope, if not their belief, that Great Britain would lose in the war, and, therefore, the wise course was to move into the camp of Hitler and Hitlerism, when everybody knows that Hitlerism is a system and a philosophy dedicated primarily to undertaking to destroy all individual liberty and the free institutions of conquered peoples.
I emphasized at this point that French officials in an attempt to justify this new attitude were making reference to wholly minor and microscopic considerations, such as the question of food supplies, the securing of some reduction in the expenses of occupation, and the failure of somebody to aid France last year, and that these considerations are but infinitesimal phases of the situation compared with the single important question of saving the liberties of all free countries possible by successfully resisting Hitler’s march of devastation across the earth. I also said with the strongest possible emphasis that this country, profoundly believing, as it does, that Hitlerism means the utter destruction and extinction of individual liberty and civilization wherever it spreads, is determined with all of its strength and resources to devote one year or five years or ten years, if necessary, in seeing to it that Hitler does not get control of the high seas of the world; and that any tyrant operating with barbaric methods, as in the case of Hitler, who must rely on the conquered peoples whom he has placed in a state of semi-slavery, for the stability and permanency of the structure of military and tyrannical rule he has built up at Berlin, cannot long survive on land. I said that this undertaking is primarily, of course, for the preservation of the liberties of the people of my own country, but incidentally also for the liberties of the British, [Page 179] and the early restoration of the liberties of the French among other peoples, who, in the present situation, should make common cause with us in every feasible way to this end. This should be the governing consideration, therefore, of those who have any interest at all in preserving or restoring the liberties and the popular institutions of free countries and hitherto free countries; that this consideration apparently is brushed aside by the pro-Hitler French officials, who defend their course of delivering France to the mercies of Hitler for the indefinite future by referring to relatively trivial matters, such as the failure of somebody to aid France, or that ample food is not forthcoming from abroad, or that the occupational expenses were reduced, and 100,000 prisoners released. I said those who love liberty, as the French people do, would in my judgment not remotely think of such paltry considerations as these in exchange for the liberties, the wonderful institutions and the very soul of France. I added that this country is thoroughly dedicated to the success of the British, who are fighting for this great cause of popular institutions and life and liberty, and that any military aid rendered to Germany beyond the strict terms of the armistice is an attempt to slit the throat of the United States indirectly, and hence the deep feeling this country has in the reported new plan of “collaboration” between the Vichy Government and Germany; that no one has any idea of what all this plan contemplates; that constant secret conferences are going on between pro-Hitler French officials; that the pro-Hitler French officials and the press they control are almost daily threatening to fight Great Britain or even the United States about matters which have not in any sense been broached so far as the United States is concerned; that when France assumed a mandate over Syria she was bound by a pledge on the part of France in the United States-French agreement not to permit any interference with the sovereignty of Syria by a foreign nation. This obligation of France was not even raised by her at the time of the armistice, and in the next place the retention of control over French air bases in Syria by Germany would ordinarily contemplate control to prevent their undesirable or improper use to the detriment of Germany, and not complete license to Germany to transport any and all kinds of implements and supplies anywhere over Syria, which is exactly what Germany needs for the purpose of establishing a great base of operations against the British throughout the middle eastern area. On the contrary, one of the high French officials in Syria was openly expressing sympathetic interest in Germany and the French authorities in Syria, while perfectly mute and silent as to unlimited German occupation, were daily publishing violent threats against the British if they dared in the least to resist this proposed establishment of a great German base in Syria.
[Page 180]I concluded by saying that all of these circumstances, together with Marshal Pétain’s announcement, caused the world, including the United States, to believe that there were far-reaching considerations involved, and possibly a military alliance. For this reason, few things have been more painful to this Government than to get this information and feel constrained to suspend many mutually desirable relationships involving shipping, commerce, etc., with France until there is a complete clarification of this recent development. I stated that the first thing the French Government should do, if the Ambassador is at all correct in his protestations that the French Government proposes to conduct its relations with Germany strictly within the limitations of the armistice, is to find suitable ways, which can easily be done, to correct the deep-seated impression to the contrary existing in this and all other countries.
I said that this Government would be very desirous of receiving in writing a clear statement and pledge by the French Government to the effect that it will do no more than observe the terms of the armistice so far as extending any military favoritism to Germany is concerned, etc. The Ambassador said he would be glad to attend to this matter right away. He also agreed to my suggestion that the French Government should clarify its position in other countries as well.
I repeated again that I was not even thinking about these shipping and other minor matters about which the Ambassador was protesting, and could not do so pending clarification of the matters of major and urgent consideration. He did not request any different course on my part.