- Chapter XIII:
-
- THE INTERPRETATION OF CCS 94
- August 1942
-
- The disagreement during August over the time and place of the landings
in North Africa was at the center of a vast confusion and uncertainty.
The President, by serenely ignoring the
terms of the agreement (CCS 94) reached in July, ended in the quickest possible way the
attempt of General Marshall, with the acquiescence of his American
colleagues and the British Chiefs, to delay the "decision" on
TORCH. But General Marshall and his staff did not intend
that CCS 94 should lapse, and the President's action did not stop
thorn from applying their interpretation of CCS 94 to questions at
issue with the British and the Navy.
-
-
- As late as 22 August it was evident, in the recommendations that General
Handy sent back from London, that the War Department staff had not entirely
given up the idea that the forth African operation might not be launched after
all. This disposition had the sanction of General Marshall's own example.
On 19 August, in connection with the question when to separate responsibility
for TORCH from responsibility for SLEDGEHAMMER and
ROUNDUP, he declared to the staff that
as he understood CCS 94, the responsibilities would not be separated "until
the positive ardor for the Torch operation was given," that is,
until the moment came "when the troops were actually committed to movements
to base ports, etc." That moment, he went on, had not yet arrived. General
Eisenhower and the British Chiefs apparently believed that "a final decision"
on TORCH had been made. General Marshall disagreed:
-
- The decision to mount the observation has been made, but it still
subject to the vicissitudes of war. Whether or not we should discuss this phase of
the matter with General Eisenhower I
do not know.1
-
- General Marshall's position was an expression
of his determination to treat the decision to invade North Africa as a
momentous change in grand strategy. He
and his advisers feared that to launch TORCH would lead to adopting the
British aim of acquiring and exploiting control of the Mediterranean
basin. Some bitterness entered into their dissatisfaction, for it appeared
that in urging the concentration of American forces in the British Isles
they had
- [294]
- merely facilitated the execution of the strategy they had hoped to
supersede.2
-
- Sir John Dill, whose chief duty was to understand General Marshall and
keep on good terms with him, was sufficiently perturbed
to write a note of gentle protest to him about the attitude displayed by
members of his planning staff. Dill began
-
- I am just a little disturbed about TORCH.. For good or for ill it
has been accepted and therefore I feel that we should go at it with all
possible enthusiasm and give it absolute priority. If we don't, it won't
succeed.
- From what our Planners tell me, there are some of your people who feel
that TORCH is not a good operation. That, of course, must be a matter of
opinion but those who are playing a part in mounting the operation must
be entirely whole-hearted about it, or they cannot give it all the help
it should have and overcome all the difficulties that will arise.
-
- Sir John closed by declaring: "All I aim at is to ensure that we
all think alike-and enthusiastically. 3
-
- General Marshall replied that he agreed that the officer- charged with
executing the TORCH operation must lend their "complete
support" and their "most energetic cooperation."
But he went on to say that there must be "absolute candor"
among the planners, whose business it was
to plan and prepare for several operations
at the same time and to try to foresee and provide against all
contingencies. Marshall was not impressed with Dill's final plea that they should "all think
alike--and enthusiastically." The answer ended with the statement:
"You may feel sure that U. S. Planners will enthusiastically and
effectively support decisions made by the Commander-in chief."4
-
-
- How closely the attitude of the War Department
was connected with War Department views on
grand strategy was shown in the main part of Sir John Dill's letter to
Marshall. He drew attention to the fact that the American planners in
Washington in their discussion of grand strategy were appealing to CCS
94, while the British planners appealed to the statement that the
British Chiefs of Staff had proposed, and the American Chiefs had
accepted, in December 1941 at the beginning
of the ARCADIA Conference. This statement
(in ABC-4/CS-1) prescribed for 1942, and perhaps 1943, a strategy of
"tightening and closing the ring round Germany," by blockade,
bombardment, and peripheral operations,
specifically in the Mediterranean. Sir John's remarks were as follows:
-
- Another point which I think will require clearing up, and that is to
what extent, if at all, does C. C. S. 94 alter ABC-4/CS.1. I have just
re-read ABC-4/CS.1. It certainly covers TORCH and I should have said
that it still holds the field as a guide to our major strategical
policy. At any rate everyone
- [295]
- should be quite clear on this matter. At present
our Chiefs of Staff quote ABC-4 /CS.1 as the Bible whereas some of your
people, I think, look upon C. C. S. 94 your the revised version! 5
-
- It was expecting a great deal to ask General Marshall to disavow CCS 94.
He had silently concurred in the version of strategy presented by the British
Chiefs during the ARCADIA Conference, and he could not but concede that it
covered the TORCH operation. But he had long since made quite plain his belief
that the course of action propounded in the ARCADIA paper, beginning with
"closing and tightening the ring" around Germany, would not bring
about the defeat of Germany, and would not, therefore, justify leasing the
Japanese to hold the strategic initiative in the Pacific. CCS 94 came close
to meeting his views, in providing that a decision to undertake the TORCH
operation would amount to accepting a "defensive" strategy of encirclement
(so far as ground operations were concerned) and would justify a diversion
of large air forces to the Pacific. The mere fact that the British Chiefs
had agreed to CCS 94, if only for the sake of avoiding dispute, gave him an
advantage in negotiations, and he was not likely to relinquish it and to restore
to the British the advantage they had gained by his acquiescence in the ARCADIA
paper.
-
- In answering Sir John, General Marshall acknowledged that the ARCADIA
paper included "many of the premises
involved in the TORCH operation in its general concept." He took
his stand on the "inconsistencies" between ABC-4/CS-1 and CCS
94. His first reference was to strategic bombing:
-
- To illustrate, ABC-4/CS-1, which provides
for "the wearing down of Germany's resistance by ever-increasing air bombardment by British and American forces", is of
necessity modified by the provisions in CCS 94, one of which by the withdrawal of 17 groups of aircraft
projected for
the United Kingdom for the furtherance of offensive operations in the Pacific: the other
makes available for transfer from the United Kingdom to the African Theater such
heavy and medium bomber units as may be required.
-
- To this contention the British could properly
have replied that the principle of bombarding
the Continent at the expense of other strategic aims was not a principle
they had advanced at ARCADIA but a principle
the War Department itself had advanced
subsequently, and that CCS 94 modified the subsequent proposal (BOLERO )
and not the ARCADIA agreement.
-
- General Marshall also read into the ARCADIA agreement the peculiarly American
idea that operations in the Mediterranean were not operations against Germany,
and that offensive operations in the Mediterranean were not, for purposes
of grand strategy, offensive at all:
-
- Paragraph 3 of ABC-4/CS-1, under the subject "Grand Strategy'',
states that it should be a cardinal principle of our strategy that only
the minimum of forces necessary for the safeguarding of vital interests
in other theaters should ho diverted from operations against Germany.
Paragraph c (4) of CCS 94 indicates we have accepted the fact that a
commitment to the TORCH operation renders ROUNDUP (operations directly
against Germany` in all probability
impracticable of successful execution in
1943 and that we have definitely accepted a defensive, encircling line
of action for Continental Europe except as to air operations and
blockade. The requirements for the
effective implementation of TORCH as now envisaged, and agreed upon
would, in my opinion, definitely preclude the offensive operations
against Germany that were contemplated in ABC-4/CS-1.
- [296]
- After pointing to these two "inconsistencies,"
General Marshall shifted his ground to make the more telling point that
it was after all in the common interest to take into account events that
had happened and undertakings that had been made since the ARCADIA
Conference:
-
- ABC-4/CS-1 contemplates also such action in the Pacific as will deny to
Japan access to raw materials. If we were to implement that provision rigidly,
you can readily appreciate the full implications with reference to other projected
operations. Therefore, while constituting a guide for our overall strategy,
ABC-4/CS-1, it seems to me, must be considered in the light of subsequent
agreements, particularly if those agreements serve to modify our concept of
strategy as required by developments in the situation.6
-
- Marshall thus confirmed Sir John's observation
that the British planners and the War Department planners approached the
problem of future plans with quite different views. Their disagreement
was merely a sign of the real difficulty TORCH, even the cautious
American version, fitted easily into British strategy; American strategy
had to be fitted to TORCH, and the American planners
were loath to make the adjustment.7
-
-
- One indication of the reluctance of the Army planners to reconcile themselves to the President's decision was
their view of the still undecided battle for control of Egypt and Libya.
On 30 July, at the very moment of deciding to go ahead with TORCH, the President granted an interview
to Colonel Fellers. Fellers' outspoken criticism of the British command
in Egypt and his recommendation for full
American intervention had led to his being recalled from Cairo to
Washington.8
In presenting his case to the President, Fellers again
recommended an intense effort to reinforce the British, urging that
during the next few weeks American bombers be sent to Egypt at the rate
of ten a day. His views had not changed since his return. The
substance of them, according to the President's brief summary, was as
follows:
-
- Colonel Fellers was very pessimistic as to the ability of the British
to hold the Nile Delta and the Suez Canal. He had estimated
that General Rommel would penetrate the
British positions by the last of August.9
-
- Whatever may have been the President's reasons for seeing Colonel Fellers
in person, there was no question but that the President was unready to accept
the restrictive effects of TORCH on other projects, the effects in the near
future as well as the long-range effects to which General Marshall had unsuccessfully
tried to draw his atten-
- [297]
- tion. Characteristically, the President combined the announcement of his
decision on TORCH with the question whether the United States might not be
able to send more planes to the Middle East (and perhaps a convoy to the Soviet
arctic ports as well).10
In reply Marshall submitted a report telling what was being done, with
only the remark that additional reinforcements for the Middle East would be
at the expense of TORCH or BOLERO.11
-
- Marshall's policy had been to co-operate with the British Chiefs of
Staff in the Middle East in the hope of
"preserving the BOLERO plan."12
His staff, vexed by the
disappointment of this hope, went so far as to urge on General Marshall
the view that
-
- The Middle Fast should be held if possible, but its loss might prow to
be a blessing in disguise. The British, once free of the tremendous
drain upon their resources represented by Middle Easy requirements, might
then be in a position to launch an effective offensive based on the
British Isles, and directed against the
enemy's citadel on the Continent.13
This last protest was a measure of how far the War Department planners
were from meeting the British planners on the basis of thinking
"alike" and "enthusiastically" about the problems of
combined strategy in the Mediterranean. Even after reconciling
themselves to the decision to mount TORCH, they were sure to disagree
with the British over the exploitation of TORCH and the complementary
offensive (LIGHTFOOT) that the British were planning to launch westward
from El Alamein.14
-
-
- The reluctance of the War Department planners to adjust their aims to
the prospect of a North African operation appeared likewise
in their unwillingness to increase Army commitments in the Pacific. The
only notable concessions that the Army had
made since the Battle of Midway on the allocation
of forces to the Pacific were the provision
of two infantry regiments (from the 40th Division) and a few supporting
units to Hawaii, and the assignment of a few more bombers to General
MacArthur.15
The most urgent question was what additional
means, if any, the Army should provide to
carve out operations in the South
- [298]
- and Southwest Pacific. The consideration of this question, raised on 8 July
by General MacArthur and Admiral Ghormley, had been suspended during the brief
interlude of rapprochement between King and Marshall over the "Pacific
alternative" (10-14 July). It was opened on 14 July by Admiral King,
who then passed on to General Marshall with his concurrence the recommendation
of Admiral Nimitz that the Army should send three additional antiaircraft
regiments to the South Pacific's.16
On 15 July Admiral King urged General Marshall to act on the proposal.17
Marshall, on the recommendation of his staff, gave way to the extent
of agreeing to send one regiment-the 76th Coast Artillery ( AA)--from the
west coast as a partial replacement for the regiments due to be moved into
the Solomons from Borabora and Tongatabu.18
Admiral King was willing to accept this solution, on the assumption
that in the near future the Army would send additional units to complete the
replacement of units moved forward from these bases. 19
Admiral Ghormley protested that the antiaircraft defense of Borabora and Tongatabu
were already at an "irreducible minimum," and notified Washington
that he planned to use Marine antiaircraft until more Army units arrived.
Thereupon, the Navy Department again requested that three regiments should
be sent at once, and the War Department again refused to do so.20
-
- The Navy pressed its objections not only to the provision for antiaircraft
defense but also to the Army's approach in general. Admiral Nimitz urged the
provision of an adequate, continuous flow of land and air replacements and
reinforcements to consolidate the forward positions to be seized. The Navy
Department agreed that the Army should provide them, calling attention to
Japanese capabilities and recent reports of increased Japanese activity in
the southwestern Pacific.21
The War Department reiterated that forces to garrison forward positions should
be brought up from the rear. They would come from New Caledonia, and would
be replaced in New Caledonia from Tongatabu and Borabora. The forces taken
from Borabora and Tongatabu world not be replaced; nor would replacements
be sent to Hawaii and Australia for the mobile bomber forces assigned to the
operation.22
-
- The negotiations in London at the end of July placed the argument
over Pacific deployment on a new basis.
Under the terms of CCS 94, one of the conditions of abandoning
ROUNDUP, launching TORCH, and adopting a "defensive
encircling" strategy
- [299]
- against the Continent was the withdrawal of forces from BOLERO for use
in the Pacific. In that contingency, the
CCS agreed that
- . . .over and above the U. S. forces required from BOLERO for operations
in North and North West Africa, the following readjustments of present U.
S. commitments to BOLERO will be made for the purpose of furthering offensive
operations in the Pacific:
- (1) Withdrawal of the following air forces:
- 3 groups heavy bombers
- 2 groups medium bombers 2 groups light bombers
- 2 groups fighter planes
- 2 groups observation planes 4 groups transport planes
- (2) Probably shipping to move one infantry
or Marine division from U. S. West Coast to South West Pacific.23
-
- Admiral King took this provision to mean that he could expect the Army
to commit at least the additional bombers to the line Hawaii-Australia
for which he and the Pacific commanders had
so long been asking. On 1 August he sent to General Marshall a request
he had just received from Admiral Nimitz for two more heavy bombardment
groups for Hawaii, to be used to meet a Japanese attempt to take
advantage of the diversion of American forces to the Solomons
operation. Admiral Nimitz held that existing air strength in Hawaii was
not enough to furnish a reserve or even to "constitute
a reasonable defense" when most of the Pacific Fleet was operating
to the southwest. Admiral King at the same
time repeated to General Marshall his own
opinion that the land and air forces available in the South Pacific were
inadequate. He requested that Marshall
should review, " in the light of the recent decisions reached in London to re-enforce with
air the Pacific Ocean Areas," the Army's decision of 27 July not to
reinforce the South Pacific. 24
-
- The operations staff was not ready to make concessions, as it
indicated in a message to General Emmons,
who ( as on previous occasions) had sent
word of his hearty agreement with Admiral Nimitz' recommendations.25
The staff ( with General McNarney's
concurrence) advised Marshall to answer Admiral King to the same effect.
The staff advised standing pat on the decision
to commit no additional ground forces and making no specific commitment
of additional air forces, since there were
none available for immediate deployment and since the result of the
London conferences was as yet uncertain.26
General Marshall withheld
action, and explained himself to General Handy with the question:
"In view of the present So. Pacific situation is this the time (or
the manner) for replying to the Navy's paper"' 27
-
- The uncertainty of the situation in the South Pacific at that
moment-the marines were landing on Guadalcanal-was all the more reason
why Admiral King should press his case.28
- [300]
- On 8 August (the first landings in the Solomons were on the 7th)
Admiral King again wrote, in connection with recommendations
he had just received from Admiral Ghormley and General Harmon, that although
shortages of shipping would prevent the immediate dispatch of the
additional forces requested, plans should be made "for first, the
Air reinforcements and second, Ground reinforcements.29
-
- The War Department staff remained unmoved.
In a message for Harmon, the War Department repeated what it had told
him before his departure for Noumea and again more recently-that no
additional air units were available and garrisons for newly acquired
forward bases would have to be drawn from forces available in the rear
areas in the South Pacific.30
Once again the staff advised General
Marshall to stick to the position that there were already enough ground
forces in the Pacific to launch the operations then planned (including
Tasks Two and Three) and to garrison the Solomons, and to notify Admiral
King that the availability for the Pacific of the fifteen air groups
listed in CCS 94 depended on what happened across the Atlantic.
31
Again,
Marshall withheld action.32
-
- The War Department made one concession.
On the recommendation of Admiral Nimitz, the War Department told General
Harmon that if he thought best he could for the time being hold in the
South Pacific bombers en route to Australia and warned General MacArthur
that it might become necessary for him to shift pursuit planes (
initially a squadron) to Guadalcanal.33
-
- The unwillingness of the staff to commit additional forces to the
Pacific was in keeping with its
interpretation of CCS 94. The withdrawal of forces from BOLERO for the
Pacific was contingent on the decision to abandon ROUNDUP and launch TORCH,
and General Marshall held that the "final" decision
to do so was vet to be made. What he had apparently not told the
staff-or Admiral King-was that he intended to use the provision to
regain some of the freedom of action as between the Navy and the British
that he had given up in April. He had already explained this in a letter
he had sent to General Eisenhower soon after returning
from London:
-
- I regarded the list of withdrawals for the Pacific as one which gave
us liberty of action though not necessarily to be carried out in full,
and no dates were mentioned . . . . I am quite certain that an
additional heavy
- [301]
- bomber group must go into the Pacific in August. Additional
withdrawals will depend on the development of the situation
there.34
-
- On 13 August Admiral King called General
Marshall's attention to the two appeals, as yet unanswered, for
reinforcements and again stressed the need for additional air units in
Hawaii and the South Pacific.35
The situation in the South Pacific had meanwhile
become extremely precarious, as a result of naval losses ( four
cruisers) incurred in a surprise engagement on 8 and 9 August off Savo
Island and the withdrawal of American naval support from the Solomons
area. Marshall finally authorized the commitment
of one heavy bomber group to Hawaii, which was to be used to replace the
mobile air force in Hawaii and not to be used in the South Pacific.
General Arnold designated for this purpose the 90th Bombardment
Group (H).36
-
- In submitting an answer for Admiral King, to inform him of the
commitment of the 90th Group to Hawaii and the authorization
given to divert planes to the South Pacific from the Southwest Pacific, the staff once again proposed that
'.Marshall should hold fast to the policy of sending no additional
ground forces. Once again Marshall withheld action.37
-
- Meanwhile, during the two weeks of Marshall's silence on the policy to
be adopted with reference to deployment in the Pacific, the War
Department had opened negotiations on the second phase (Task Two) of the
projected offensive in the South and Southwest Pacific, the phase of
operations against the east coast of New Guinea, under the command of
General MacArthur. Following the Japanese landings
in late July in the Buna-Gona region, Admiral King had asked the War
Department to find out what MacArthur
planned to do in response.38
MacArthur replied to the War Department in a
long message describing the disposition of
Japanese forces, assessing Japanese capabilities, and giving a detailed
plan for countermoves and an ultimate offensive against Rabaul. He
recommended the opening of this phase of operations as soon as the first
phase in the Solomons was complete. The principal defensive measures he
was taking were the development of air bases in northeastern Australia
and the strengthening of the Port Moresby garrison with two Australian brigades, antiaircraft units, and fighter squadrons. In preparation for
Tasks Two
- [302]
- and Three he was building air bases on New Guinea. One at Milne Bay
was already occupied by fighter planes and defended by a garrison by
fighter about 5,000 men. He was concentrating two American divisions
(the 41st and 32d) at Rockhampton and Brisbane
to be trained and prepared for action. As a step toward initiating
offensive operations, he was sending the
7th Australian Division to New Guinea; a few troops were to be sent as
reinforcements to secure the crest of the Owen Stanley Range. The
factor's limiting operations in New Guinea would be shipping and naval
support to keep open the lines of communication.39
-
- On 14 August General Marshall reminded
Admiral King of the original agreement to
execute the three-phase plan of operations "without
interruption" if the means were available, and suggested, on the
basis of MacArthur's message, that there appeared to be means for
beginning operations against Lae, Salamaua,
and the northeast coast of New Guinea. Marshall took note of the fact that
Admiral Nimitz appeared to favor such a course. Finally, he proposed
asking MacArthur and Admiral Ghormley whether it were feasible to launch a "limited Task
Two," how soon it could be done, and at what point command should
pass to MacArthur.40
A request for answers to these questions, and
for additional detailed information
desired by King, went to MacArthur and Ghormley the following
day.41
-
- On 20 August Admiral King informed General Marshall that the development
of the Solomons campaign would prevent Admiral Ghormley from releasing any
forces to participate in Task Two in the near future, and he inclosed a request
from Ghormley for reinforcements in the South Pacific and a list of the forces
that Harmon, with Ghormley's approval, had recommended. He stated that it
would be necessary to send both air and ground forces, as provided in CCS
94.42
-
- By that time it was no longer the uncertainty
of future plans across the Atlantic but the urgency of providing for the
invasion of North Africa that limited the commitment
of additional Army forces to the Pacific. On 21 August General Arnold
struck the new note by urging the needs of TORCH as a reason for
refusing to commit any more air forces to the Pacific.43
Admiral
Leahy concurred, advising Marshall:
-
- It seems to me that General Arnold is exactly correct in principle. Why not plan to saw all possible planes for "Torch" and
meet the requests of Ghorm-
- [303]
- ly [sic] and MacArthur for additional ground troops, partially trained
if none better are available.44
-
- General Marshall acted on this advice. He answered the request for
more planes, as the staff had earlier advised him to do, simply by
transmitting to Admiral King a statement of the steps already taken-the
commitment of one additional group to Hawaii and the authorization given
for redistributing planes in the South and
Southwest Pacific.45
-
- General Marshall at the same time asked General Somervell to tell him
what troopships would be leaving for the
Pacific in the near future, and the operations staff to see what changes
might be made in shipments in order to meet the requests of the Pacific
commanders.46
In the light of Somervell's findings and consultation with
Army Ground Forces, the operations staff concluded
that about 20,000 men-an antiaircraft regiment, the 43d Division, and supporting troops-could be
sent to the South Pacific in the latter part of September
and early October, on two conditions: ( a ) that the Navy would release
ships with a troop lift of about 13,000 (of a total troop lift for the
period of about 20,000), and ( b ) that the War Department would postpone
scheduled shipments to MacArthur during the period, except for
headquarters troops for I Corps, which the staff thought to be
essential. Pending the arrival of the reinforcements, General Harmon
would have to go ahead on the presently prescribed
basis of moving forward garrison forces from the rear areas to
consolidate newly acquired positions and relieve Marine units for
future landing operations.47
During the next week the War Department
went ahead on this basis to prepare for the shipment of the antiaircraft
regiment, the 43d Division, and supporting units.48
-
- Even the value of this concession, as Admiral
Leahy had anticipated, was limited by the prior claim of TORCH for the
best trained divisions. The division that had been training for service
in the Pacific the 3d Division-had already
been trans-
- [304]
- ferred to the east coast for use in the North African landings.49
There was nothing to
do but send a division that had not been fully trained, leaving the
South Pacific commanders-and the division
itself-to make the best of the situation.50
-
- The Navy Department quickly fell in with the proposed changes,
accepting the concession for what it was worth.51
The War Department
then informed General MacArthur of the postponement of scheduled
shipments to his command.52
At the end of August the Navy indicated
that the overseas destination of the reinforcements would be Auckland.53
Early in September,
on receiving confirmation from General Harmon, the War Department issued
the movement orders.54
-
- The concessions made by the War Department
in August did not end the disagreement with
the Navy Department and the Pacific commands over the demands they
advanced under CCS 94. Instead, the- disagreement became more intense.
The landings in the Solomons, as Admiral Kind had from the first
expected, produced a strong Japanese reaction and a correspondingly
urgent need for more American forces, particularly air forces. The reaction
had already begun. By 21 August the marines had eliminated the first
echelon of a Japanese combat force (about
900 men ) that had landed on 18 August. A few days later (23-25 August)
a naval task force had turned back a second Japanese
convoy (Battle of the Eastern Solo-
- [305]
- mons) at the cost of damaging the Enterprise,
the one American carrier then in operation in the Pacific.55
Further
and stronger Japanese action was a virtual certainty in the near future, posing demands that were sure to conflict
with the demands of TORCH, which had been enlarged by the final
agreement of the President and the Prime Minister on 5 September to land
forces in North Africa simultaneously at Casablanca, Oran, and Algiers.
- [306]
- Page created 10 January 2002
Endnotes
Previous Chapter
Next Chapter
Return to the Table of Contents