Office of the Historian

740.00112 European War 1939/4798

Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs (Murray) to the Under Secretary of State (Welles)

[Washington,] February 18, 1942.

Mr. Welles: The attached memorandum67 brings forcibly to our attention the desire of the French Embassy to obtain, if possible, a clearcut expression of our policy with respect to the shipment of economic supplies to North Africa. At present, the plan of economic assistance is again suspended pending clarification of our relations with Vichy, with the result that no orders can be placed, the ships remain idle, and the impression is created throughout North Africa that we are not sincerely interested in holding up our end of the economic accord.

The French officials concerned with North Africa are making a strong plea that we pursue our plan of economic action independently of the inevitable political vicissitudes with Vichy. They believe it would be better to drop the plan entirely than carry it out in a halfhearted, desultory manner. Moreover, we are acting against our own interest in these frequent interruptions, since no ships can move from Casablanca with the cork we vitally need until the vessels are ready to sail from here.

I feel that there is a good deal in what the French say. There seems little to be lost and a great deal to be gained by sending innocuous supplies to North Africa on a regular schedule as long as it is possible to do so, regardless of what takes place in our relations with Vichy. By stopping such shipments and thereby making the position of our control officers more and more insecure, we are [Page 252] obviously playing the German game. Would it not be possible to examine the position anew along the lines mentioned above?68

Wallace Murray
  1. Supra. ↩
  2. In a memorandum dated February 19, 1942, Mr. Welles replied: “In view of the present discussion with the Vichy Government, I have informed the Ambassador that I am not in a position to take up any of these questions until an understanding has been reached on the main issue involved. I do not think we can deviate from that position.”↩