WW2 - Wedemeyer wrecks Anglo-American Trust

[Nytram01]

In Andrew Robert's book Masters and Commanders he is quite scathing of Albert Wedemeyer's Anglophobic tendencies and Wedemeyer's habit of re-writing events to suit his ideology - in particular is a comment about how Wedemeyer attempted to accuse the British of reluctance to attack industry in the Rhur Valley because they had "invested" in it before and during WWII, which is a complete lie and very insulting.

There is a story related by Roberts that Wedemeyer bugged his own office so that he could record any meetings he had with British officers and that he did this with Marshall's full knowledge and support.

Though no Anglophobe himself, Marshall astonishingly did not reprimand Albert Wedemeyer for installing a secret tape recorder in his office, one that he could activate with his knee from behind his desk. He later played Marshall a recording in which British officers from the Joint Planning Staff had made "unreasonable demands, while using big names like Roosevelt and Hopkins to intimidate me or influence my action. Marshall was extremely interested and advised me to record all future discussions, which I gladly did." Wedemeyer claims he later also told Dill, who "was surprised, but sympathetic too". (There is no record of Dill warning any British Planners about this underhand activity.) Perhaps it was true that the British took advantage of the fact that American Planners were not always au fait with presidential intentions over grand strategy, but it was a devious thing for Wedemeyer to have done, and if the British had discovered it before the end of the war it would have wrecked Anglo-American trust, especially if it had been revealed that Marshall had not forbidden such disgraceful behaviour.

Page 223-224

So imagine now that the British discovered Wedemeyer's bug, that they found out he was recording them secretly, can they ever work with their American counter-parts in good faith again? Regardless of Dill's friendship with Marshall, regardless of however much of a buffer he formed between the different sets of planners and smoothed relations during the most difficult times, could the Anglo-American relationship survive such a blatent breach of trust?
​

 

[Some Bloke]

Might have interesting consequences come Suez.

 

[Pangur]

There would have been some short term damage. The British would have removed the officers who made the comments from any dealings with the uS. I cant see how you would get medium to long term hard to the alliance as the Soviet Union was still there and was seen as the biggest threat. Its also worth bearing in mind that the US at the time were very suspicious of MI6 and its security. They rightly as it turns out say it as leaking like a sieve

 

[Hoist40]

can they ever work with their American counter-parts in good faith again?

What were the British going to do, quit the war? The British were dependent on US supplies and troops and so if they found out about the bugging they would do nothing.

 

[Nytram01]

What were the British going to do, quit the war? The British were dependent on US supplies and troops and so if they found out about the bugging they would do nothing.

They would hardly do nothing. They would lodge an official complaint to Roosevelt, they could threaten to abandon Marshall's Combined Chief of Staff's plan and bring back their officers from America, they could threaten to recall all the scientist they had sent to take part in the manhattan project, they could refuse to share their jet engine information with the US, they could refuse to allow the American access to the information coming out of Bletchley Park, all of which would cause significant demage to America's attempt to wage war against Germany, furthermore they could abandon the Burma corridor idea that the American's wanted so they could get logistical support to the Chinese, and have the British Commonwealth troops in the area act only defensively, and could abandon the air drops to the Chinese which would be a serious threat to American interests in the Pacific.

Sure, the British needed American manpower and material but that doesn't mean there was nothing to bargin with. America would definitely have the upper hand in such things but Roosevelt is unlikely to let Wedemeyer's indefensible action wreck the Anglo-American alliance, but given how heated the debates were between the Americans and British Chiefs of Staff when there was only the suspicion that the sides didn't really trust the other then one can only imagine how impossible such things would have been with proof of that lack of trust.

The agreements reached at Casablanca or during the Trident conferance probably would not have been reached at all had Wedemeyer's actions been known.

 

[Hoist40]

Why would the British do all that just so they could complain about recording some British officers in a meeting? Especially involving a war which they had begged the USA to join. They are going to quite fighting just to make a point? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

What are the British hiding in those discussions that they would be so upset that they were recorded?

Also Roosevelt is known to have ordered the tapping of phones so he won't be that upset over recording some British officers in a meeting.

And I bet if the British would release all their records of WW2 you will find that they did plenty of bugging people, including their allies.

 

[Nytram01]

Why would the British do all that just so they could complain about recording some British officers in a meeting? Especially involving a war which they had begged the USA to join. They are going to quite fighting just to make a point? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

What are the British hiding in those discussions that they would be so upset that they were recorded?

Also Roosevelt is known to have ordered the tapping of phones so he won't be that upset over recording some British officers in a meeting.

And I bet if the British would release all their records of WW2 you will find that they did plenty of bugging people, including their allies.

Because it was a major breach of trust between two allies done in the full knowledge and support of the highest ranking officer of the US Army.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff were arranged by Marshall to be a joint mission of the British and American top brass, it was a coalition which was founded on common enemies and good faith. Roosevelt and Churchill supported it for that reason, Brooke opposed it because of the lack of automony it would create but he was not present to argue his case when the decision to form the Combined Chiefs of Staff was made.

Wedemeyer being caught - that's the important bit - secretly taping conversations he had with the British would destroy that good faith between the two nations, would render the continued existance of the Combined Chiefs of Staff impossible unless serious conscilliatory measures were taken by the US.

Sure, there was not a lot of trust between the British and American top brass anyway. The Americans were half-convinced the British only wanted their help to sure up the Empire and wouldn't commit fully to war against either the Germans of Japan so they could instead focus of regaining the terriotory they had lost and expand it while the British thought the Americans a kind of simple-minded people who knew nothing about how to wage war and only thought in straight lines with no thought to any curves. As such when the two Chiefs of Staff met at conferances - particularly after Casablanca when the American felt they had been "defeated" by the British - a lot of the time the Americans were just trying to score a victory over the British planners while the British planners were just repeating themselves because they thought the Americans didn't understand what they were saying.

If you add to this volatile concoction open mistrust cause by the revelation that the Americans were prepared to engage in and condone secret taping of conversations with British officers then its doubtful that there could be any working relationship between the two sides ever again.

Secretly taping conversations may be devious and underhanded but if nobody finds out you can get away with it, if someone finds out and takes that information to someone important who's officers have been taping then there will be a major diplomatic ramifications. The things I listed were some of the issues Britain could have taken up to force the Americans to do something to Wedemeyer and appologize for his actions.

British prestige would have been at stake just as much as anything else, and nations can do any number of things, stupid or otherwise, over matters of prestige.

 

[StevoJH]

If this was just him taping meeting he had with British Officers in his office I don't see the problem to be honest.

If anything its probably a good thing, ever come out of a meeting and think "So what did we agree about such and such at the start of the meeting again?"

No different to hand written notes.

 

[MRegent]

If this was just him taping meeting he had with British Officers in his office I don't see the problem to be honest.

If anything its probably a good thing, ever come out of a meeting and think "So what did we agree about such and such at the start of the meeting again?"

No different to hand written notes.

It is different in the sense that he did so without their knowledge or consent. This is a serious breach of trust, and the British will more wary when dealing Americans' in the immediate future.

Have a nice day.
-MRegent

 

[Hoist40]

So the British decide not to cooperate with the USA during the war over this issue.

So the US declares support for independence for all British colonies which support the USA in its war effort. India for example is already pushing for independence and support from the US would help.

The US probably can already get support from Australia and New Zealand commonwealths due to their need for US support in the war against Japan. Canada might also join in due to its close economic ties to the USA.

So there is Britain losing its empire even faster then it did in the real time line.

 

[Nytram01]

So the British decide not to cooperate with the USA during the war over this issue.

So the US declares support for independence for all British colonies which support the USA in its war effort. India for example is already pushing for independence and support from the US would help.

The US probably can already get support from Australia and New Zealand commonwealths due to their need for US support in the war against Japan. Canada might also join in due to its close economic ties to the USA.

So there is Britain losing its empire even faster then it did in the real time line.

The Alliance would not end over this issue, nor would the Americans publically undermine their chief ally during wartime. Britain would not refuse to cooperate but would make clear that future cooperation between the two nations would be extremely difficult unless some kind of action was taken against Wedemeyer and some form of apology for the incident and would use the issues I lists, and possibly others, as leverage if the American high command doesn't take action against Wedemeyer and apologize.

No matter how much stronger the American position was in regards to production and mapower, Roosevelt needed Churchill and the British to deal with the Soviets, to add power to his political position against Stalin. He wont risk losing a major ally over some lowly staff officers foolish actions.

The ramifications of Wedemeyer being caught, however, make the continued Alliance extremely difficult even if both sides still attempt to work with each other meaning that the Western Allied campaigns against the Germans and Japanese will be far more hamstrung than OTL, leaving the Soviets in a stronger position once the war ends.

 

[Snake Featherston]

How much actual trust was there IOTL? I seem to remember Anglo-American planning being dominated more by endless recriminations and *mis*trust than bonhomie.

 

[anon_user]

Wouldn't the more likely result be for the US to reassign Wedemeyer and sweep everything under the rug?

 

[Hoist40]

Nytram01 writes

Roosevelt needed Churchill and the British to deal with the Soviets, to add power to his political position against Stalin. He wont risk losing a major ally over some lowly staff officers foolish actions.

Make up your mind. First you have the British going into a snit over some British officers being taped at a meeting with American officers. No secrets were stolen, they just recorded what was said in a meeting with an American officer yet you think the British are going to stop cooperating with the Americans.

Yet at the same time you think that the Americans are not going to respond to the British refusal to cooperate when in fact the British need the Americans more then the Americans need the British.

If Roosevelt won’t risk losing a major ally over some lowly staff officers then why would Churchill risk losing a major ally that it needs even more over the same thing?

 

[Nytram01]

Make up your mind. First you have the British going into a snit over some British officers being taped at a meeting with American officers. No secrets were stolen, they just recorded what was said in a meeting with an American officer yet you think the British are going to stop cooperating with the Americans.

Yet at the same time you think that the Americans are not going to respond to the British refusal to cooperate when in fact the British need the Americans more then the Americans need the British.

If Roosevelt won’t risk losing a major ally over some lowly staff officers then why would Churchill risk losing a major ally that it needs even more over the same thing?

The British complaining legitimately about an American staff officer taping meetings with British staff officers without their concent is not mutually inclusive of a collapse of the Western Allied Coalition.

I didn't say that the British would stop cooperating, I said they could threaten to withdraw cooperation if the Americans did nothing about the situation. There's a differance. Particularly the "threat" is political posturing to defend British honour and prestige, no one would seriously suggest breaking off from America and refusing to fight alongside them but it would not be something the British could ignore or the Americans would walk all over them and they would lose face to their own people.

Your idea that the British would do nothing if Wedemeyer's actions had been discovered just isn't realistic.

You'll note in the list of things I made about the subjects Britain could use to gain some kind of leverage I only used the word "would" for one of them - complaint to the president - and the word "could" for the rest of them. "Would" means it definitely would happen, "could" means it might have happened

Additionally, I came up with that list of things to answer your question of what the British could have done in this circumstance, which you presented as if the British had no options whatsoever to have any leverage over the Americans. Given that, I feel a bit hard done by that your now trying to suggest that I claimed the British would refuse to cooperate further.

You seem to have missunderstood something along the way. At no point in time have I ever said that Wedemeyer being caught would lead to a break up of the Anglo-American alliance of WW2. The worst I have said could happen is that the Marshall, King, Arnold and the American Chiefs of Staff would lose any reasonable working relationship they had with Brooke, Portal, Pound and the British Chiefs of Staff - not that they would stop working together, just that they would make life even more difficult for each other than they did in OTL.

 

[Snake Featherston]

The British complaining legitimately about an American staff officer taping meetings with British staff officers without their concent is not mutually inclusive of a collapse of the Western Allied Coalition.

I didn't say that the British would stop cooperating, I said they could threaten to withdraw cooperation if the Americans did nothing about the situation. There's a differance. Particularly the "threat" is political posturing to defend British honour and prestige, no one would seriously suggest breaking off from America and refusing to fight alongside them but it would not be something the British could ignore or the Americans would walk all over them and they would lose face to their own people.

Your idea that the British would do nothing if Wedemeyer's actions had been discovered just isn't realistic.

You'll note in the list of things I made about the subjects Britain could use to gain some kind of leverage I only used the word "would" for one of them - complaint to the president - and the word "could" for the rest of them. "Would" means it definitely would happen, "could" means it might have happened

You seem to have missunderstood something along the way. At no point in time have I ever said that Wedemeyer being caught would lead to a break up of the Anglo-American alliance of WW2. The worst I have said could happen is that the Marshall, King, Arnold and the American Chiefs of Staff would lose any reasonable working relationship they had with Brooke, Portal, Pound and the British Chiefs of Staff - not that they would stop working together, just that they would make life even more difficult for each other than they did in OTL.

To be blunt weren't the British also spying on the USA to a greater deal than is usually done between allies at this exact same timeframe?

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

To be blunt weren't the British also spying on the USA to a greater deal than is usually done between allies at this exact same timeframe?

Well, there is the USSR

 

[Nytram01]

To be blunt weren't the British also spying on the USA to a greater deal than is usually done between allies at this exact same timeframe?

Quite probably. And in the circumstances, if a British officer had been caught spying on the Americans then I would expect a similar reaction from the US that I would expect from the British - demand for apology and threaten to withdraw support. It wouldn't go any further than the officer responsible being punished and an official apology being issued - which is exactly what I expected to take place should Wedemeyer have been caught - but the relationship between the American and British officers thereafter was the thing that I was interested in, and how an even greater level of suspicion and mistrust between them would have effected the war.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Well, there is the USSR

Given the USSR's actions in the first two years of WWII and how rapidly things shifted into the Cold War thereafter, I'm not sure the USSR was so much the friend of the West as the enemy of their enemy at any point.

Quite probably. And in the circumstances, if a British officer had been caught spying on the Americans then I would expect a similar reaction from the US that I would expect from the British - demand for apology and threaten to withdraw support. It wouldn't go any further than the officer responsible being punished and an official apology being issued - which is exactly what I expected to take place should Wedemeyer have been caught - but the relationship between the American and British officers thereafter was the thing that I was interested in, and how an even greater level of suspicion and mistrust between them would have effected the war.

Well, in a sense I can't imagine the degree getting worse than it did IOTL, when neither really trusted the other and both were working at cross-purposes from first to last, with the most minor examples of this being the perennial clashes over peripheral v. direct strategies (where the British were actually validated in terms of the Western war, as it turned out, though the USA was validated in terms of its concepts in the air war).