gle point through which the British could gain access to U.S. intelligence. Ascould be expected, Godfrey’s helpful suggestions were perceived quite differentlyby the services, who were, uncharacteristically, in complete agreement that theydid not desire or need a central intelligence organization in America. COL RaymondLee, the U.S. military attaché in London, received the official Army G-2rejection of Godfrey’s proposal for a U.S. JIC on 26 June 1941. Attached to thiswas a personal letter from the G-2, Colonel Hayes Knone, which made it clearthat the Army’s attitude toward the proposal was “we are not going to copy Britishorganization and procedure[,]...[w]e are not convinced that such a centralclearing house and assimilating center are needed [, and]...[t]he British have notbeen successful, so far, in this war; why should they advise us?” 325This reaction, predicated on both the desire to be treated as an equal of GreatBritain and on inter-service rivalry, was not limited to the Army. In addition topitching his idea for a JIC, Godfrey and his protégé, Commander Ian Fleming, 326also worked closely with William Donovan and William Stephenson to developthe ideas that would form Donovan’s famous memorandum to Roosevelt recommendingthe creation of a central intelligence organization for America. Godfreyeven met with Roosevelt and discussed the idea of a central intelligence authoritywith him. 327 Kirk was aware of this meeting and, most likely through his personalrelationship with Donovan, was also aware of Godfrey’s role in advocating a centralintelligence organization. Kirk, displaying the attitude of his Service atattempts by the British to meddle in U.S. affairs, made no attempt to hide his displeasurewith Godfrey when the British DNI paid Kirk a courtesy call prior to hisreturn to England. 328 While the depth and breadth of the intelligence exchangesbetween the two countries would continue to grow after Godfrey’s visit, the U.S.position, at least at the higher levels of the military services, was that advice fromGreat Britain on how to conduct their affairs was not desired and would be metwith resentment.325Leutze, London Journal, journal entry for 26 June 1941. Godfrey must have been receivedquite cordially by the two Services, however, who probably politely told him they would considerhis suggestions. In his official report, Godfrey optimistically predicted that “the U.S. authorities arewilling to gain, if not be guided by, our experience over the past two years.” For additional informationsee Smith, “ADM Godfrey’s Mission,” 449.326Commander Ian Fleming would later gain great notoriety as the author of the James Bondnovels.327Beesly, Very Special <strong>Intelligence</strong>, 113; Smith, “ADM Godfrey’s Mission,” 443, 447-448;Beesly, Very Special Admiral, 181-183; Dorwart, Conflict of Duty, 231.328MacLachlan, 231.89
Operational <strong>Intelligence</strong> Cooperation—April 1941—November 1941From April 1941 to November 1941, events in the Atlantic clearly indicate thatthe U.S. had abandoned its neutral stance in favor of alliance with Great Britain.As military preparations for this alliance were ongoing, U.S. security interestsprompted Roosevelt to take actions that were decidedly pro-British and, whilesome of these actions met with popular outcry, public opinion was movingtoward Roosevelt’s view. In April 1941, the U.S. began basing forces in Greenland,to aid in the maintenance of security patrols. By this time all U.S. shipsightings of U-boats were passed back to the Admiralty through ALUSNA London.Although this information was not timely, it still assisted the British indeveloping their operational intelligence (OPINTEL) picture and was just the sortof intelligence cooperation they had hoped to obtain from the Americans whenthey first began to press for a closer relationship. 329 In June 1941, Churchillpressed Sir Stewart Menzies to ease the restrictions on the dissemination of U-boat Enigma decrypts and, while the British would be slow to act on this, the U.S.did begin receiving intelligence derived from this source. 330 Additionally, by July1941, the U.S. and the UK routinely shared intelligence derived from HF/DFsites. 331 As the summer progressed, the relationship would become closer still. InJuly 1941, the U.S. would take over the defense of Iceland, relieving Britishforces of the need to perform that duty. During the Atlantic Conference betweenRoosevelt and Churchill in August, one of the substantive agreements reachedwas a policy for the conduct of convoy operations and areas of responsibility forthe two countries, giving further incentive to share intelligence on German navalmovements. U.S. Navy encounters with German U-boats, such as the Greer Incident,inflamed public opinion against the Germans enough that Roosevelt wasable to advise Germany and Italy to keep their warships out of waters under U.S.protection. By the time the Reuben James was torpedoed by a U-boat in lateOctober 1941, Congress was prepared to amend the neutrality laws in ways thatmade the alliance with the British a reality in fact, if not on paper. 332Against this backdrop, two additional visits were made in an effort to furtherincrease intelligence collaboration between the two countries. To reciprocate theSinkov Mission, Commander Alistair Denniston, the Director of GC&CS, visitedthe United States to discuss ways to enhance SIGINT cooperation. Although hisefforts to establish new, official frameworks for collaboration met with no success,the Denniston visit did have a positive outcome. He completely impressed329Smith, Ultra-Magic Deals, 75-76.330Hinsley, British Intel, vol. 2, 55.331Bray, xxi.332Morison, The Battle of the Atlantic, 69-71, 75-76, 78-81.90
- Page 1 and 2:
COURTING A RELUCTANT ALLYAn Evaluat
- Page 4:
The Joint Military Intelligence Col
- Page 8 and 9:
FOREWORDTo most Americans alive tod
- Page 10 and 11:
PROLOGUESince World War II, the Uni
- Page 12 and 13:
Chapter 1THE STATUS OF INTELLIGENCE
- Page 14 and 15:
action, a propaganda unit, or an ec
- Page 16 and 17:
officers assisted by 20 civilian cl
- Page 18 and 19:
ships in violation of treaty limits
- Page 20 and 21:
assessments. By 1941, ONI was releg
- Page 22 and 23:
might bear on their work.” 39 As
- Page 24 and 25:
ility over time, its operational in
- Page 26 and 27:
Chapter 2U.S.-UK RELATIONS, 1914-19
- Page 28 and 29:
told by the Chief of Naval Operatio
- Page 30 and 31:
ups of the early 20th century. 65 T
- Page 32 and 33:
firmly believed that British polici
- Page 34:
ecame one of the primary sources of
- Page 37 and 38:
of shoring up their strategic weakn
- Page 39 and 40:
mon framework for negotiation with
- Page 43 and 44:
assuaged British concerns about the
- Page 45 and 46:
In the area of intelligence exchang
- Page 47 and 48:
clear to the Americans that if they
- Page 49 and 50: in his mind worked against closer c
- Page 51 and 52: praised the fighting spirit of the
- Page 53 and 54: through November of 1940 persuaded
- Page 55 and 56: and Great Britain. His principalcon
- Page 57 and 58: eceived by the British and from the
- Page 59 and 60: gear designed by the British. Altho
- Page 61 and 62: American Attitudes On Intelligence
- Page 63 and 64: information did have an impact on K
- Page 65 and 66: the affair. 183 This lack of resent
- Page 67 and 68: tion exchanges. Even more significa
- Page 69 and 70: nation (BSC) mission, is now availa
- Page 71 and 72: good will and encouraged greater co
- Page 73 and 74: would merely show Donovan “the be
- Page 75 and 76: Lothian passed Hill’s proposal to
- Page 77 and 78: still a powerful influence. While Z
- Page 79 and 80: Since the Tizard Mission had only a
- Page 81 and 82: appropriating large increases to th
- Page 83 and 84: the French, a point which would not
- Page 85 and 86: equested that RADM Ghormley remain
- Page 87 and 88: when he [Pott] comes to O.N.I. he i
- Page 89 and 90: it was not official U.S. policy. St
- Page 91 and 92: efforts that had begun with the Sta
- Page 93 and 94: high-level ABC-1 staff talks which
- Page 95 and 96: to successfully interpret the instr
- Page 97 and 98: to little more than a nebulous stat
- Page 99: to offer.” 319 Others in the Brit
- Page 103 and 104: Godfrey’s main concern was most l
- Page 105 and 106: possesses complementary capabilitie
- Page 107 and 108: 2. Be prepared to give something of
- Page 109 and 110: had in forming its own Joint Intell
- Page 112 and 113: GLOSSARYABC-1ALUSNALondonBGENBSCCAP
- Page 114 and 115: APPENDIX AA NOTE ON SOURCESArchival
- Page 116: APPENDIX BMAJOR EVENTS IN U.S.-UK I
- Page 119 and 120: ________. Foreign Relations of the
- Page 121 and 122: ________. “The Secret of the Chur
- Page 123 and 124: Zacharias, Ellis M., CAPT, USN. Sec
- Page 126 and 127: INDEXAABC-1 Talks 41, 57, 74-75, 78
- Page 128 and 129: IImagery Intelligence (IMINT) 12, 8
- Page 130 and 131: Signals Intelligence(SIGINT) 2-3, 7
- Page 132: PCN 53512ISBN 0-9656195-9-1