4. Engagement attempts should be multilevel and multifariousThe number and types of engagement attempts will depend largely on what isat stake in securing a closer relationship with the target country. For the British,the stakes were national survival; consequently their engagement attempts tookplace on as many levels as possible, using a variety of forums. The military-tomilitaryintelligence exchanges characterized here were just one element of amultilevel effort to secure U.S. cooperation in the war. Even within this limitedarena, the British sought to engage at any level they could. From the low-levelobserver missions, through the ALUSNA London office, and on to the office ofthe CNO and the Secretary of the Navy, the British sent a relatively consistentmessage that they wanted U.S. support and they were willing to openly sharetheir secrets to obtain it. The types of exchanges they were willing to engage inare also significant. They demonstrated a willingness to share many differenttypes of information—technical, operational, and political, for example—reasoningthat the more varied the forums of exchange, the more likely they were topositively influence a key decisionmaker. In less desperate circumstances thanthose faced by the British, it is doubtful that any country would engage in such awide-ranging exchange of secret information.5. Openness and candor are essential for building trustGranted, this is an obvious point, but one which was vital to establishing thecooperative relationship between the U.S. and the UK. Kirk, Ghormley, Donovan,and numerous others marveled at the openness and frankness of the Britishin discussing their war situation and in the provision of secret information. Manywere looking for any sign that the British were once again poised to treat theAmericans as junior partners, which had aggravated many during the Great War,as they felt the British had often been less than candid on many issues. Even Kirk,who has been seen by some as very pro-British, due to his advocacy of greatercooperation with them, was extremely wary of the information he received fromthe British. Repeated instances of British openness and candor, though, overcameU.S. distrust sufficiently to enable the cooperative relationship between the twocountries.6. Be mindful of the target’s concerns about the relationshipDespite all their efforts, the British were still prone to miscalculation abouthow some of their overtures would be perceived by the Americans. A case inpoint was Godfrey’s visit, during which he attempted to get the U.S. to adoptsome of the same interdepartmental intelligence organizations that the Britishpossessed. Godfrey’s efforts demonstrated a lack of understanding of the U.S.political landscape and American sensitivities about being told by the British howto run their affairs. Godfrey should have borne in mind the experience the British97
had in forming its own Joint <strong>Intelligence</strong> Committee. Despite their greater traditionof interdepartmental intelligence coordination and the pressures of actualconflict, they still had problems making the JIC function effectively even a yearinto the war. Either naiveté or hubris on their part had led them to expect theAmerican intelligence system to adopt a similar system on their recommendation.Had the British been more sensitive to U.S. perceptions of them and the Americanconcerns about the relationship, they would have realized that recommendationson how to organize the U.S. war effort were bound to generate significantresentment. Waiting until the relationship was more mature and on surer footingwould have been more appropriate and effective, given the level of U.S. concernover British attempts to dominate their partnership.Remaining QuestionsAlthough numerous studies address this period, as documented in the bibliographyattached to this work, some questions remain to be explored.1. Why did BGEN Strong make the offer to share SIGINT information withthe British during the Standardization of Arms Talks? At what level was this decisionauthorized? Why was the Navy not informed of the offer before it wasmade?2. How influential were Kirk’s attaché reports? While it is obvious that theDNI, RADM Anderson, and the CNO, ADM Stark, read Kirk’s reports, there areindications that the Secretary of the Navy and the President read them as well.Although we do know that Kirk’s reputation was overwhelmingly positive, howmuch credibility was given to his attaché reporting concerning Great Britain’schances for survival after the fall of France?3. What was the exact nature of the relationship between William Stephenson’sBSC and the U.S. Navy? Did ONI realize that information it was receiving fromthe FBI originated with the BSC? When did ONI begin cooperating with the BSCand what were their impressions of the organization? Other than Stephenson’sconnections with Donovan and Knox and the cooperation between ONI and theBSC in counterintelligence efforts, did the BSC attempt to influence NavyDepartment policies through any other overt or covert mechanisms?4. What was the full extent of information exchanged through the Joint BaileyCommittee mechanism? Which side benefited more from the exchange of informationthrough that mechanism—the British or the Americans?98
- 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 and 100: to offer.” 319 Others in the Brit
- Page 101 and 102: Operational Intelligence Cooperatio
- Page 103 and 104: Godfrey’s main concern was most l
- Page 105 and 106: possesses complementary capabilitie
- Page 107: 2. Be prepared to give something of
- 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