CONFERENCE AT CASABLANCA

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23858, 29 January 1943, Page 5

CONFERENCE AT CASABLANCA

Wider Implications Suggested BRITISHAND U.S. COMMENT (N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) (Rec. 7 p.m.) LONDON. Jan. 27. “The conviction is growing among those who were present at the press conference given by Mr Roosevelt and Mr Churchill in Morocco that the leaders dealt with more than the ‘unconditional surrender’ statement,” says the Algiers correspondent of the British United Press. “Mr Roosevelt would not have dared to risk the 6000-miles aeroplane journey merely for a heart-to-heart talk with Mr Churchill or a review of past and coming events. The British and American combined staffs could have done that without the presence of the leaders. “An air of mystery surrounded the meetings from the first. There were rumours that Italian, Spanish, and even Finnish and Turkish delegates were present. It was suggested that these representatives were not to be invited to join the Allies, but were to be shown the might of the United Nations and left to make up their minds about which side to join.” The correspondent of the “Daily Mail” (Mr G. Ward Price) says: “Close observation of the personages principally concerned revealed an air of secret satisfaction which is hardly justified by what has been given to the world. The importance of the meeting may yet be even further enhanced.” The “Star,” in a leading article, says:. “We have some regrets about the conference. The long desired United Nations permanent contact council is still lacking. In addition, something more definite than a handshake between French generals is needed before the unhappy political situation in North Africa is straightened out.” “The conference completed plans for the 1943 campaign, but has fallen short of the prophecies coming from Washington in the last week.” says the "Daily Herald.” “The decisions taken and announced are in the interests of all, yet the impression remains that a closer unification of strategy among Britain, the United States, Russia, and China is possible and urgently desirable.” The “New York Times” refers to Mr Roosevelt’s visit to Casablanca as a bold and brilliant stroke of leadership. It says: “A historian writing many years from now is certain to conclude that Mr Roosevelt’s voyage was in fact a token act that scaled the inescapable participation of the United States in world affairs. ■ “The statement by General de Gaulle and General Giraud contains an understanding that will suffice until the war is won,” says the “New York Times.’ “We have no right to ask more. We cannot expect Frenchmen to surrender their earnest convictions concerning the political needs of post-war France, but we now expect all Frenchmen to subordinate political disagreements to the immediate essential task of driving the arch-fiend Hitler from French soil.” , w Impression in London The news of the meeting between Mr Churchill and Mr Roosevelt has made an enormous impression in London. “The time and place of the meeting would have sufficed to indicate that this was a council of historic moment, says “The Times," “apart from the long list of names of the highest-ranking officers who accompanied the leaders. ’ “The Times” adds: “Mr Roosevelt crossed the ocean to make good the promise he uttered long before his country entered the war—that civilisation should not be allowed to perish. The meeting between General Giraud and General de Gaulle looks far ahead to the day when all France shall be free, while its immediate promise is a resolution of the confused politics in North Africa. Casablanca would hardly have been chosen as the place of assembly if this were not also the immediate preoccupation of the wider conference. On the swift expulsion of the enemy from his remaining strongholds in Tunisia depends every plan for the reduction of the European fortress in 1943.” “The Times” considers that the Üboat menace must also have been one of the major subjects discussed. “Provided only this deadly menace is warded off, the Allied leaders are able to go forward into the new year with the certainty that the war for survival is ended, and that the war for victory and for the creation of a new world has begun.” The "Daily Telegraph” says that the task of the conference has been to drive on the wheel of fortune, now revolving in the right direction, to the point of the enemy’s unconditional surrender. The "Daily Mail” states that for length and thoroughness there has been nothing like this meeting in military or political annals. “Events Moving” The “Daily Mail” says that the inference drawn from the determined wording of the communique is that tremendous events are moving and may break in the near future. The “Daily Mail” hopes that the French talks will result in a political clean-up in North Africa, though it says that the communique leaves the general situation as obscure as before. The “Daily Telegraph” issues a warning that, conferences or no conferences, victory will be indefinitely postponed if the effort to defeat the U-boats slackens through anticipating an early end to the'war, but it adds that Casablanca will have shown the Germans, who are already groaning about their long Eastern Front, that they will have something to groan about also during 1943 on an even longer western and southern front from Narvik to Greece, via Tunis.' “We know that the Allies have a common plan, also the means and skill to carry it out and the resolution to pursue it to victory,” it states. The comment of the British Ambassador in Washington (Lord Halifax) was: "Casablanca speaks for itself and the Axis will know the meaning of it in 1943.” NOTE HANDED TO STALIN BRITISHAMERICAN PLANS STATEMENTS BY U.S. AMBASSADOR (Rec. 10.30 p.m.) NEW YORK, Jan. 27. A joint Note from Mr Churchill and Mr Roosevelt was handed to M. Stalin at the Kremlin by the United States Ambassador (Admiral W. H. Standley) and the British Charge d’Affaires (Mr H. L. Baggallay), at the same time as the release of the communique an-, nouncing the Casablanca conference, says the Moscow correspondent of the Associated Press. Admiral Standley could not discuss the contents of the Note, but the correspondent says it is learned that the Note deaft with British and American war plans for 1943. “M. Stalin looked like a man with a lot of responsibility, but he was overjoyed about the Red Army’s success at Stalingrad." said Admiral Standley. “He was smoking his pipe.” “Peace pipe?” asked the correspondent. “No, by God. He was smoking his war pipe,” replied Admiral Standley. Asked whether progress was being m&de in the direction of appointing a Supreme Allied Command, including Russia and China, Admiral Standley said: “I know nothing about that. I do not think it would work. It is difficult to conceive of a general staff able to assimilate details and make decisions covering all phases of the war throughout the world. There is a lot of misunderstanding about the possibilities of a joint staff. I think the existing arrangement comes as near as we can go to this idea, by assigning areas of responsibility."